Where do we put Chris Webber if they go on to win the 02 ring?

[feyki]

Yeah and DeMarcus Cousins put up 27/11/5 in his prime.

Thank goodness the Kings didn't win the title. Webber would have been so ridiculously overrated if they had won.

This is totally false. Cousins was playing with more turnovers than assists. On the other hand, Webber had almost 2,0 ast/to rate in his prime. Huge playmaking efficiency gap between the two. It's like comparing Dirk and Embiid regarding of playmaking. You can't evaluate scoring rate without shot efficiency and same goes for assists without turnovers.

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing Cousins and Webber. I was using Cousins as an example of how a 27/11/4 statline does not mean a player was MVP level. As you pointed out, there is more to it than just point/rebound/assist. Webber is better than Cousins but he still not MVP level.

How do you define the mvp level? This is important point. Any player who was top 5 in the league was on the mvp level, to me.

[70sFan]

Webber was never top 5 player in the league...

[feyki]

Webber was never top 5 player in the league...

Could you list top 5 players for between 00/02 years?

[70sFan]

Webber was never top 5 player in the league...

Could you list top 5 players for between 00/02 years?

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

[sansterre]

Questions like this always bake my mind a little bit.

If the question is asking "If Chris Webber played the exact same, but his team happened to win, where would he be ranked?" the answer *ought* to be pretty damned close to identical. Because he played the same, and if he played the same but you're changing the ranking he is either underrated right now, or overrated at the end of the scenario.

And if the question is asking "What if Chris Webber played better by enough to win a ring?" then the question is really "How good would he be if he were better?" and . . . I don't really know what to do with that.

[pillwenney]

Questions like this always bake my mind a little bit.

If the question is asking "If Chris Webber played the exact same, but his team happened to win, where would he be ranked?" the answer *ought* to be pretty damned close to identical. Because he played the same, and if he played the same but you're changing the ranking he is either underrated right now, or overrated at the end of the scenario.

And if the question is asking "What if Chris Webber played better by enough to win a ring?" then the question is really "How good would he be if he were better?" and . . . I don't really know what to do with that.

I understand your point, but I don't know if this is really what this means--unless a guy was really playing at the peak of his powers during said playoff runs. Webber wasn't as bad as his detractors try to say during that run, but he was certainly capable of playing better. So IMO, the question is more about if he had risen to the moment during that run.

[feyki]

Webber was never top 5 player in the league...

Could you list top 5 players for between 00/02 years?

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

Payton and Robinson not even in the same tier with Webber those years. I also rank him over Kidd and Carter. He finished the mvp voting at 7th spot twice and 4th once. And also, had first team all-nba and it was even twice if they pick T-Mac on the guard spots.

As I said I'd evaluate Webber's game same with before 03 KG. KG was bit better defensively and Webber was bit better offensively. 03/05 KG on the ATG level, but before that KG's match was Webber, not Duncan. Duncan was on the "Peak" Shaq level(which was not peak no longer after the 2001 Finals).

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/2001/0129/1048973.html , it does not mean anything but word of Webber or Garnett defining the perception of the early 00's era.

[Owly]

Could you list top 5 players for between 00/02 years?

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

Payton and Robinson not even in the same tier with Webber those years. I also rank him over Kidd and Carter. He finished the mvp voting at 7th spot twice and 4th once. And also, had first team all-nba and it was even twice if they pick T-Mac on the guard spots.

As I said I'd evaluate Webber's game same with before 03 KG. KG was bit better defensively and Webber was bit better offensively. 03/05 KG on the ATG level, but before that KG's match was Webber, not Duncan. Duncan was on the "Peak" Shaq level(which was not peak no longer after the 2001 Finals).

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/2001/0129/1048973.html , it does not mean anything but word of Webber or Garnett defining the perception of the early 00's era.

Box composite wise that's not true: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2000_advanced.html (unless you feel the Robinson WS/48 puts him in a higher tier.

Impact wise it might well be ... but not as you mean it (https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html).

[70sFan]

Could you list top 5 players for between 00/02 years?

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

Payton and Robinson not even in the same tier with Webber those years. I also rank him over Kidd and Carter. He finished the mvp voting at 7th spot twice and 4th once. And also, had first team all-nba and it was even twice if they pick T-Mac on the guard spots.

As I said I'd evaluate Webber's game same with before 03 KG. KG was bit better defensively and Webber was bit better offensively. 03/05 KG on the ATG level, but before that KG's match was Webber, not Duncan. Duncan was on the "Peak" Shaq level(which was not peak no longer after the 2001 Finals).

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/2001/0129/1048973.html , it does not mean anything but word of Webber or Garnett defining the perception of the early 00's era.

Show me one reason to believe that Webber was even close to Garnett at any point in the 2000s. Just one reasonable point that would put him in the same light.

[cupcakesnake]

If Webber won a ring in 2002, casual fans would overrate him. I don't think too many people here would think about him that differently.

Loved Webber's game, specifically the stylish passing. But if anything, his reputation gets a major bump from circumstance and not the other way around. Webber got to be the clear "the star" on an incredible offensive team with a huge depth advantage over most of their opponents. Bibby, Peja, Vlade, Christie were all nowhere near Webber in terms of status or counting stats, so Webber got the spotlight to himself. Sometimes we give too much credit to the star of a team that is special for team reasons. This was a higher profile Julius Randle on a higher profile version of the 2021 Knicks. During the Kings big 2002 run, Webber was a slight negative on-off. I don't care that much about that stat but it does fit the narrative of Webber benefitting from the Kings much more so than him being the driver of success.

[Cavsfansince84]

If Webber won a ring in 2002, casual fans would overrate him. I don't think too many people here would think about him that differently.

Loved Webber's game, specifically the stylish passing. But if anything, his reputation gets a major bump from circumstance and not the other way around. Webber got to be the clear "the star" on an incredible offensive team with a huge depth advantage over most of their opponents. Bibby, Peja, Vlade, Christie were all nowhere near Webber in terms of status or counting stats, so Webber got the spotlight to himself. Sometimes we give too much credit to the star of a team that is special for team reasons. This was a higher profile Julius Randle on a higher profile version of the 2021 Knicks. During the Kings big 2002 run, Webber was a slight negative on-off. I don't care that much about that stat but it does fit the narrative of Webber benefitting from the Kings much more so than him being the driver of success.

I personally don't put too much into playoff on/off. It's such small sample sizes and it often can include garbage time. The 2002 Kings did have 8 players above 5 win shares during the rs which might be a record so it does show how deep they were though you have to give Webber some credit for being their best player on a team that won almost 60 games I think. His two best playoff runs were definitely 02 and 03 so if they had won it all in 02 and say Webber gets fmvp I think he without a doubt gets remembered much differently. Not only for winning one but for knocking off the Shaq/Kobe Laker dynasty which went through the league like a buzzsaw a year earlier. The issue with Webber's career is largely that he only had two good playoff runs and was pretty bad in the rest and only playing in 70 or more games 6 times in his whole career and having lost much of his athleticism by the age of 30/31.

[feyki]

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

Payton and Robinson not even in the same tier with Webber those years. I also rank him over Kidd and Carter. He finished the mvp voting at 7th spot twice and 4th once. And also, had first team all-nba and it was even twice if they pick T-Mac on the guard spots.

As I said I'd evaluate Webber's game same with before 03 KG. KG was bit better defensively and Webber was bit better offensively. 03/05 KG on the ATG level, but before that KG's match was Webber, not Duncan. Duncan was on the "Peak" Shaq level(which was not peak no longer after the 2001 Finals).

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/2001/0129/1048973.html , it does not mean anything but word of Webber or Garnett defining the perception of the early 00's era.

Box composite wise that's not true: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2000_advanced.html (unless you feel the Robinson WS/48 puts him in a higher tier.

Impact wise it might well be ... but not as you mean it (https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html).

Robinson was one of the best impact player based on per 100 in the league till 2001. But he was playing 60-65 poss a game compared to KG's,Webber's 80 poss a game. If he was able to play 80 poss a game, I would put him in the top 3. But top 10 at the best, with that kind of possesions he played for.

2000:

Shaq
Mourning
Duncan
Garnett
Payton

HM: Malone, Robinson, Hill

2001:

Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk

HM: Carter, Kidd

2002:

Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
Dirk
Kidd

HM: Kobe, Tracy

Payton and Robinson not even in the same tier with Webber those years. I also rank him over Kidd and Carter. He finished the mvp voting at 7th spot twice and 4th once. And also, had first team all-nba and it was even twice if they pick T-Mac on the guard spots.

As I said I'd evaluate Webber's game same with before 03 KG. KG was bit better defensively and Webber was bit better offensively. 03/05 KG on the ATG level, but before that KG's match was Webber, not Duncan. Duncan was on the "Peak" Shaq level(which was not peak no longer after the 2001 Finals).

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/2001/0129/1048973.html , it does not mean anything but word of Webber or Garnett defining the perception of the early 00's era.

Show me one reason to believe that Webber was even close to Garnett at any point in the 2000s. Just one reasonable point that would put him in the same light.

All-Nba selections, mvp votings and his impact for sure. Why do you seperate KG and Webber for between 99/02? Could you explain it. I said that both were close defensively and offensively. Webber had higher about the half SRS offensive impact and Garnett had higher around the half SRS defensive impact than each other.

00/02 Webber :

32,3 PP100, %59 Ast'd Rate, 13,5(3,3) RP100, 5,7 AP100, 3,6 TP100, 107 Ortg, 98 Drtg

00/02 Garnett :

29,2 PP100, %66 Ast'd Rate, 15,6(3,7) RP100, 6,7 AP100, 4,0 TP100, 109 Ortg, 100 Drtg

. Seems KG had slight edge on the playmaking and the offensive rebounding but Webber had big gap on combined scoring volume and creation. Defensively, Garnett was a bit better defensive player despite the Webber's having better Drtg, because it's due to Webber's having better defensive talent alongside him compared to KG's teammates.

[70sFan]

All-Nba selections, mvp votings

Sorry, but these are more related to popularity than actual level. Garnett played with terrible and unpopular Minny teams while Webber played on exciting and talented Kings. Do you really think that Webber would get any MVP recognition in Minnesota?

and his impact for sure. Why do you seperate KG and Webber for between 99/02? Could you explain it.

Well, impact is the first reason why I struggle to see Webber on that level. Garnett looks comfortably better on all available metrics I can think of - RAPM, PI RAPM, on/off, AuPM, WOWY... What do you mean by impact? Webber wasn't very high level impact player compared to someone like Garnett.

I said that both were close defensively and offensively. Webber had higher about the half SRS offensive impact and Garnett had higher around the half SRS defensive impact than each other.

Based on what? To be honest, I don't see them even close defensively. Webber wasn't bad defender, but he was never all-defensive level.

His offense is also extremely overrated. He's the kind of guy a lot of people accuse Garnett of being - inefficient volume scorer who took way too many jumpshots for his skillset and had inefficient post game. Webber was overall good offensively because of his passing, but he didn't use his skills to his advantage.

00/02 Webber :

32,3 PP100, %59 Ast'd Rate, 13,5(3,3) RP100, 5,7 AP100, 3,6 TP100, 107 Ortg, 98 Drtg

00/02 Garnett :

29,2 PP100, %66 Ast'd Rate, 15,6(3,7) RP100, 6,7 AP100, 4,0 TP100, 109 Ortg, 100 Drtg

I like how you missed scoring efficiency numbers here:

2000-02 Webber: 52.7 TS%
2000-02 Garnett: 53.7 TS%

All while Garnett providing better spacing (43% on midrange shots vs 42%, not a huge gap but Webber was significantly more inconsistent year-by-year), better offensive rebounding and higher foul rate. Creating his own shot isn't always a good thing - especially when you are inefficient while doing so and you play with good offensive teammates.

On top of that, Webber was also a poor postseason performer.

[feyki]

All-Nba selections, mvp votings

Sorry, but these are more related to popularity than actual level. Garnett played with terrible and unpopular Minny teams while Webber played on exciting and talented Kings. Do you really think that Webber would get any MVP recognition in Minnesota?

and his impact for sure. Why do you seperate KG and Webber for between 99/02? Could you explain it.

Well, impact is the first reason why I struggle to see Webber on that level. Garnett looks comfortably better on all available metrics I can think of - RAPM, PI RAPM, on/off, AuPM, WOWY... What do you mean by impact? Webber wasn't very high level impact player compared to someone like Garnett.

I said that both were close defensively and offensively. Webber had higher about the half SRS offensive impact and Garnett had higher around the half SRS defensive impact than each other.

Based on what? To be honest, I don't see them even close defensively. Webber wasn't bad defender, but he was never all-defensive level.

His offense is also extremely overrated. He's the kind of guy a lot of people accuse Garnett of being - inefficient volume scorer who took way too many jumpshots for his skillset and had inefficient post game. Webber was overall good offensively because of his passing, but he didn't use his skills to his advantage.

00/02 Webber :

32,3 PP100, %59 Ast'd Rate, 13,5(3,3) RP100, 5,7 AP100, 3,6 TP100, 107 Ortg, 98 Drtg

00/02 Garnett :

29,2 PP100, %66 Ast'd Rate, 15,6(3,7) RP100, 6,7 AP100, 4,0 TP100, 109 Ortg, 100 Drtg

I like how you missed scoring efficiency numbers here:

2000-02 Webber: 52.7 TS%
2000-02 Garnett: 53.7 TS%

All while Garnett providing better spacing (43% on midrange shots vs 42%, not a huge gap but Webber was significantly more inconsistent year-by-year), better offensive rebounding and higher foul rate. Creating his own shot isn't always a good thing - especially when you are inefficient while doing so and you play with good offensive teammates.

On top of that, Webber was also a poor postseason performer.

No, all-nba selections more related to the impact than random metrics like RAPM,on/off; at least I trust in NBA experts than meaningless metrics.

As you have seen, Webber had great individual defensive stats and led good defensive teams.

Last part sounds execuses, some. Their TS is really close, I shared Ortg, which including TS and show the total efficiency of the offence. Assisted rate means KG had %6 of his points by his teammates assists more than Webber, which hurts his creation volume. Webber simply much better scorer and creator combined compared to Garnett and rest of offensive aspects looks really close. There's a significant gap between their offence.


Defensively, I would say KG was better. But besides 04, KG was never on the dpoy level. He was on the all defensive level and Webber was some worse than him.

[70sFan]

No, all-nba selections more related to the impact than random metrics like RAPM,on/off; at least I trust in NBA experts than meaningless metrics.

Let's just say that we strongly disagree on that part

As you have seen, Webber had great individual defensive stats and led good defensive teams.

Kings were better defensively without Webber on the floor in three of four seasons during 2000-03 period. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he "led" these teams - he was simply a part of strong defensive units.

Last part sounds execuses, some. Their TS is really close, I shared Ortg, which including TS and show the total efficiency of the offence. Assisted rate means KG had %6 of his points by his teammates assists more than Webber, which hurts his creation volume. Webber simply much better scorer and creator combined compared to Garnett and rest of offensive aspects looks really close. There's a significant gap between their offence.

What gap? He takes more unassitsed shots on worse efficiency. It gets even worse in playoffs. Webber tried to play iso ball like he was Charles Barkley or something, but he wasn't capable of doing that.

I understand the value of shot creation, but Webber wasn't good at creating his own shots - he simply took them more on mediocre efficiency.

It seems that you overrate volume stats a lot. Webber shouldn't have taken as many shots as he did. It's clear when you see him in playoffs or when he had to play on worse teams in Washington - his efficiency suffered by massive amount.

Defensively, I would say KG was better. But besides 04, KG was never on the dpoy level. He was on the all defensive level and Webber was some worse than him.

Garnett is one of the best defenders ever... If you really think that he wasn't on DPOY level in 2008 then I can't help you.

[HeartBreakKid]

All-Nba selections, mvp votings

Sorry, but these are more related to popularity than actual level. Garnett played with terrible and unpopular Minny teams while Webber played on exciting and talented Kings. Do you really think that Webber would get any MVP recognition in Minnesota?

and his impact for sure. Why do you seperate KG and Webber for between 99/02? Could you explain it.

Well, impact is the first reason why I struggle to see Webber on that level. Garnett looks comfortably better on all available metrics I can think of - RAPM, PI RAPM, on/off, AuPM, WOWY... What do you mean by impact? Webber wasn't very high level impact player compared to someone like Garnett.

I said that both were close defensively and offensively. Webber had higher about the half SRS offensive impact and Garnett had higher around the half SRS defensive impact than each other.

Based on what? To be honest, I don't see them even close defensively. Webber wasn't bad defender, but he was never all-defensive level.

His offense is also extremely overrated. He's the kind of guy a lot of people accuse Garnett of being - inefficient volume scorer who took way too many jumpshots for his skillset and had inefficient post game. Webber was overall good offensively because of his passing, but he didn't use his skills to his advantage.

00/02 Webber :

32,3 PP100, %59 Ast'd Rate, 13,5(3,3) RP100, 5,7 AP100, 3,6 TP100, 107 Ortg, 98 Drtg

00/02 Garnett :

29,2 PP100, %66 Ast'd Rate, 15,6(3,7) RP100, 6,7 AP100, 4,0 TP100, 109 Ortg, 100 Drtg

I like how you missed scoring efficiency numbers here:

2000-02 Webber: 52.7 TS%
2000-02 Garnett: 53.7 TS%

All while Garnett providing better spacing (43% on midrange shots vs 42%, not a huge gap but Webber was significantly more inconsistent year-by-year), better offensive rebounding and higher foul rate. Creating his own shot isn't always a good thing - especially when you are inefficient while doing so and you play with good offensive teammates.

On top of that, Webber was also a poor postseason performer.

No, all-nba selections more related to the impact than random metrics like RAPM,on/off; at least I trust in NBA experts than meaningless metrics.
.

Okay then. Which experts do you trust? I doubt you even knew who voted for Webber without looking it up.

[feyki]

Sorry, but these are more related to popularity than actual level. Garnett played with terrible and unpopular Minny teams while Webber played on exciting and talented Kings. Do you really think that Webber would get any MVP recognition in Minnesota?


Well, impact is the first reason why I struggle to see Webber on that level. Garnett looks comfortably better on all available metrics I can think of - RAPM, PI RAPM, on/off, AuPM, WOWY... What do you mean by impact? Webber wasn't very high level impact player compared to someone like Garnett.


Based on what? To be honest, I don't see them even close defensively. Webber wasn't bad defender, but he was never all-defensive level.

His offense is also extremely overrated. He's the kind of guy a lot of people accuse Garnett of being - inefficient volume scorer who took way too many jumpshots for his skillset and had inefficient post game. Webber was overall good offensively because of his passing, but he didn't use his skills to his advantage.


I like how you missed scoring efficiency numbers here:

2000-02 Webber: 52.7 TS%
2000-02 Garnett: 53.7 TS%

All while Garnett providing better spacing (43% on midrange shots vs 42%, not a huge gap but Webber was significantly more inconsistent year-by-year), better offensive rebounding and higher foul rate. Creating his own shot isn't always a good thing - especially when you are inefficient while doing so and you play with good offensive teammates.

On top of that, Webber was also a poor postseason performer.

No, all-nba selections more related to the impact than random metrics like RAPM,on/off; at least I trust in NBA experts than meaningless metrics.
.

Okay then. Which experts do you trust? I doubt you even knew who voted for Webber without looking it up.

Nba coaches and not without, sure.

No, all-nba selections more related to the impact than random metrics like RAPM,on/off; at least I trust in NBA experts than meaningless metrics.

Let's just say that we strongly disagree on that part

As you have seen, Webber had great individual defensive stats and led good defensive teams.

Kings were better defensively without Webber on the floor in three of four seasons during 2000-03 period. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he "led" these teams - he was simply a part of strong defensive units.

Last part sounds execuses, some. Their TS is really close, I shared Ortg, which including TS and show the total efficiency of the offence. Assisted rate means KG had %6 of his points by his teammates assists more than Webber, which hurts his creation volume. Webber simply much better scorer and creator combined compared to Garnett and rest of offensive aspects looks really close. There's a significant gap between their offence.

What gap? He takes more unassitsed shots on worse efficiency. It gets even worse in playoffs. Webber tried to play iso ball like he was Charles Barkley or something, but he wasn't capable of doing that.

I understand the value of shot creation, but Webber wasn't good at creating his own shots - he simply took them more on mediocre efficiency.

It seems that you overrate volume stats a lot. Webber shouldn't have taken as many shots as he did. It's clear when you see him in playoffs or when he had to play on worse teams in Washington - his efficiency suffered by massive amount.

Defensively, I would say KG was better. But besides 04, KG was never on the dpoy level. He was on the all defensive level and Webber was some worse than him.

Garnett is one of the best defenders ever... If you really think that he wasn't on DPOY level in 2008 then I can't help you.

I said led because he was the best defensive player of the team, till Doug Christie arrived.

You're talking about the %2 shot efficiency difference, but ignoring the %10 scoring volume and %7 creation differences. Is it fair?

KG has one of the best defensive careers ever, because of his defensive longevity. He has 15 years with all defensive first team level of defensive impact years. Not about his prime defence. He was simply much worse defensive impact player than Duncan till the 2004.

If I would take 08 as the dpoy level, I also would say Webber was better defensive player than KG in the early 00's. Defensive ratings,stats needs to context as every tool does. 2009 Celtics were almost on the top 5 defence without KG.

[70sFan]

I recommend you to check 2008 and 2009 Celtics defensive stats with and without Garnett again, because you probably forgot how massive difference it was.

[feyki]

I recommend you to check 2008 and 2009 Celtics defensive stats with and without Garnett again, because you probably forgot how massive difference it was.

They were still the 6th best defence in the league, without Garnett. Even with the negative impact replacement of sophomore Glen Davis. With an average defensive SRS player replacement, they were almost in the top 3 defences.


Edit: Also a few numbers about it(numbers are approximately):

2008 Celt in the season - +8,5 defensive SRS

2008 Celt in playoffs(post 1round) - +5,0 defensive SRS

2009 Celt in the first 57 games with KG - +8,0 defensive SRS

2009 Celt in the last 25 games without KG(a few games with less than 20 mins) - +3,0 defensive SRS

2009 Celt in the playoffs - +2,0 defensive SRS



. Even tanking 07 Celtics team were 16th best defence in the league. And They were in the top 10 defence, in the 46 games when Pierce healthy.

[Owly]

As you have seen, Webber had great individual defensive stats and led good defensive teams.

Kings were better defensively without Webber on the floor in three of four seasons during 2000-03 period. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he "led" these teams - he was simply a part of strong defensive units.

I said led because he was the best defensive player of the team, till Doug Christie arrived.

Leaving aside your positioning of Divac 2.43 NPI DRAPM (per AScreaming...) behind Webber -1.43 (both from 2000).

The use of plural in concert with reference to the Kings seems to suggest you regard the 1999 Kings also as a "good defensive team". This seems quite a low bar.