Chris Webber vs Larry Johnson

MisterRogers · Post #1 » by **MisterRogers** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:10 pm

I was watching the Hate Christian Laetner thing on ESPN and they mentioned two of the best PF coming out of college which was Webber and LJ. Who do you consider to be the more talented player coming into the NBA. Granted Webber was more successful in the NBA.

Post #2 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:25 pm

Webber was definitely the more promising, mainly because of his length. Larry Johnson was a bit short for his game though he made up for it with athleticism and attitude. Great big men have always been at a premium.

Hornet Mania · Post #3 » by **Hornet Mania** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:35 pm

It was close before LJ got injured. He was never really the same player afterward. I think Webber had more potential and in the end he was a better player in Sacto than LJ ever was in Charlotte, but in their early NBA careers LJ certainly seemed better. Given what we know I would say Webber was more talented whereas LJ's game translated pretty much immediately. It would be interesting to see peak LJ without injuries, but of course it will always be a mystery.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #4 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:39 pm

Webber was more talented, indeed one of the most talented PFs to ever enter the game. But LJ was more meat and potatoes solid pre-injury while Webber spent his early years finessing around flashing the talent but not being dependable.

BasketballFan7 · Post #5 » by **BasketballFan7** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:16 pm

I think if they were to be drafted today with no injury history I would have to go with Johnson. More efficient scorer, better foul drawer, better fast break player, better offensive rebounder eventually gets a decent 3P shot (which would likely be even better in today's NBA) which is better for spacing and fits today's game. Positional versatility.

Webber just wasn't a very efficient scorer. Good passer, but I think if you run the offense through him that you end up with him taking a large volume of shots and potentially dragging your offense down.

Webster between ages 23-27: 52.5% TS% / .262 FTR / 7.9% ORB% / 19.6 FGA / 22.9 PPG / 30.8% 3P% / 10.7 TRB / 4.3 APG / 3.0 TOPG
Johnson between ages 22-26: 55.9% TS% / .341 FTR / 9.2% ORB% / 15.3 FGA / 19.6 PPG / 34.7% 3P% / 9.2 TRB / 4.1 APG / 2.4 TOPG

I just think LJ is a better piece for a winning team, as Webber is likely to demand too high of a usage for his iffy efficiency. Furthermore, the numbers for LJ are from his rookie year on (came into the league at age 22), whereas Webber's are after a few years in the league (came in at age 20, didn't include his age 22 season because he only played 15 games).

Of course, Webber had the better career.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #6 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:30 pm

BasketballFan7 wrote:I think if they were to be drafted today with no injury history I would have to go with Johnson. More efficient scorer, better foul drawer, better fast break player, better offensive rebounder eventually gets a decent 3P shot (which would likely be even better in today's NBA) which is better for spacing and fits today's game. Positional versatility.

Webber just wasn't a very efficient scorer. Good passer, but I think if you run the offense through him that you end up with him taking a large volume of shots and potentially dragging your offense down.

Webster between ages 23-27: 52.5% TS% / .262 FTR / 7.9% ORB% / 19.6 FGA / 22.9 PPG / 30.8% 3P% / 10.7 TRB / 4.3 APG / 3.0 TOPG
Johnson between ages 22-26: 55.9% TS% / .341 FTR / 9.2% ORB% / 15.3 FGA / 19.6 PPG / 34.7% 3P% / 9.2 TRB / 4.1 APG / 2.4 TOPG

I just think LJ is a better piece for a winning team, as Webber is likely to demand too high of a usage for his iffy efficiency. Furthermore, the numbers for LJ are from his rookie year on (came into the league at age 22), whereas Webber's are after a few years in the league (came in at age 20, didn't include his age 22 season because he only played 15 games).

Of course, Webber had the better career.

Psst...one of the best offenses of the modern era ran through Chris Webber. :wink:

And early Webber wasn't an inefficent jumpshooter per se. He was a 50%+ field goal shooter. His big problem was foul shooting. Didn't get enough (although Grandmama shot less than 1 more per game) and just could not hit them at all, which was always strange. But his first 4 years in the league he shot .552, .495. .543 .518 from the field, which is pretty damn spiffy.

BasketballFan7 · Post #7 » by **BasketballFan7** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:48 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
BasketballFan7 wrote:I think if they were to be drafted today with no injury history I would have to go with Johnson. More efficient scorer, better foul drawer, better fast break player, better offensive rebounder eventually gets a decent 3P shot (which would likely be even better in today's NBA) which is better for spacing and fits today's game. Positional versatility.

Webber just wasn't a very efficient scorer. Good passer, but I think if you run the offense through him that you end up with him taking a large volume of shots and potentially dragging your offense down.

Webster between ages 23-27: 52.5% TS% / .262 FTR / 7.9% ORB% / 19.6 FGA / 22.9 PPG / 30.8% 3P% / 10.7 TRB / 4.3 APG / 3.0 TOPG
Johnson between ages 22-26: 55.9% TS% / .341 FTR / 9.2% ORB% / 15.3 FGA / 19.6 PPG / 34.7% 3P% / 9.2 TRB / 4.1 APG / 2.4 TOPG

I just think LJ is a better piece for a winning team, as Webber is likely to demand too high of a usage for his iffy efficiency. Furthermore, the numbers for LJ are from his rookie year on (came into the league at age 22), whereas Webber's are after a few years in the league (came in at age 20, didn't include his age 22 season because he only played 15 games).

Of course, Webber had the better career.

Psst...one of the best offenses of the modern era ran through Chris Webber.

And early Webber wasn't an inefficent jumpshooter per se. He was a 50%+ field goal shooter. His big problem was foul shooting. Didn't get enough (although Grandmama shot less than 1 more per game) and just could not hit them at all, which was always strange. But his first 4 years in the league he shot .552, .495. .543 .518 from the field, which is pretty damn spiffy.

Well, of course SAC was absolutely fun to watch and a nasty team. That said:

2000: 11th ORTG (Webber: 75 games)
2001: 9th ORTG (Webber: 70 games)
2002: 3rd ORTG (Webber: 54 games)
2003: 6th ORTG (Webber: 67 games)
2004: 2nd ORTG (Webber: 23 games)

See what I see? The Kings had an above average league offense for the entirety of their run, but they were truly upper echelon in 2002 and 2004. In fact, the offensive rating of the team correlates with how many games Webber played. Their best offensive season came when he played the fewest games, 2nd best season with his 2nd fewest games, and so on. 2004 stands out the most, with Webber playing only 23 games and the Kings having their most offensive success.

This just lends credibility to the argument that the Kings were one of the truly great 'teams.' Excellent play, and especially passing, all across the floor.

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:39 pm

Hornet Mania wrote:It was close before LJ got injured. He was never really the same player afterward. I think Webber had more potential and in the end he was a better player in Sacto than LJ ever was in Charlotte, but in their early NBA careers LJ certainly seemed better. Given what we know I would say Webber was more talented whereas LJ's game translated pretty much immediately. It would be interesting to see peak LJ without injuries, but of course it will always be a mystery.

OP asks "coming into the NBA."