Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[Kobe=MVP07`]

The argument can be made that KG has a ring to Cwebs 0

that can be defended that if cwebb had kgs cast of pierce ray ect.. he too would of won it
and would of won it with his old cast if the refs didnt **** him

Kg or cwebb prime who do u take to start a team?

[west]

i love C-Webb but KG for me please

[nbastatus]

i love C-Webb but KG for me please
same with me brother.

[jaydacris]

kg because of his defense

[Mikaiel]

kg because of his defense

Same here.

[Showtime]

I think this is about even. If CW didn't go down in 2003, I honestly think he would have had a title. Think about it: the Blazers were in decline by that time. The Lakers were stopped by the Spurs, and after 2004 would break up. The Suns were emerging at that time, but I don't think they were better than the Kings. And we all saw what Dallas did in the weaker West in the next few years. The major powers were in decline, and the only teams at the top were the Spurs (legit), Suns (IMO not as good), and Dallas (who Sac owned up to that point). I honestly think if not for the injury to Webber (which prompted the breakup of the team with several trades), that the Kings would have had a title, and the ring discussion would be moot. But I can't rewrite history. All I know is at their respective peaks, they were the only PF's who could consistently be 20-25 PPG, 10+ rebounds, 5+ assists on any given night. CW, KG, and Timmy were the top forwards.

Also, I haven't seen a player take less credit for winning than Webber.

[AznTacoLover]

Definatly KG.

[plowking]

C-Webb.

He's a better player then KG.

[CasterL]

tough call, kgs had a better career. but c weeb in his prime was right up there with kg and duncan.

i would prefer to have cwebb though, probs cos i hate kg

[Allstar24]

C-Webb.

He's a better player then KG.
+1

[Kobe=MVP07`]

um i made this thread b/c people said it would be better to compare cwebb to gasol...

[1987_Lakers]

KG

[bokes15]

um i made this thread b/c people said it would be better to compare cwebb to gasol...
Here's the thing though, the fact that KG has a ring now kind of skews the results.

[Celts34]

C-Webb.

He's a better player then KG.


There was never any time after KG 2nd season in the league that C-webb was better then him. Period. Point blank. Never. He played with much better players in his prime. But he was never, I repeat never, ever better then Kevin Garnett. He probably may've been a more explosive scorer, and they were equals as passers. But rebounding, and defense>>>>>KG all the way. KG could switch out on pick and rolls and cover 1's,2's, and 3's. Sorry but C-webb couldn't guard 4's very well.

Case in point I remember early 00's Antoine lighting up C-webb on the reg, and struggling mightily against KG unless he was crazy hot from behind the arc.

[MMM]

KG-because he was always the better player

[Showtime]

There was never any time after KG 2nd season in the league that C-webb was better then him. Period. Point blank. Never.

99-03 they were pretty even, but Webber's teams weren't getting sent home after round 1.


He played with much better players in his prime. But he was never, I repeat never, ever better then Kevin Garnett.

Webber turned a franchise around with a not-so-talented squad in 98. Sure, at their best, the kings were more talented, but Webber was still the best player, the franchise player, and despite a more talented cast, he was beasting as far as production. He made them what they were, because they weren't stacked when he arrived. Think about that.


He probably may've been a more explosive scorer, and they were equals as passers. But rebounding, and defense>>>>>KG all the way. KG could switch out on pick and rolls and cover 1's,2's, and 3's. Sorry but C-webb couldn't guard 4's very well.
KG is a better defender, no doubt. I just don't think the difference in KG's play and Webber's play so so great to say Webber was never as good or better.

[plowking]

There was never any time after KG 2nd season in the league that C-webb was better then him. Period. Point blank. Never. He played with much better players in his prime. But he was never, I repeat never, ever better then Kevin Garnett. He probably may've been a more explosive scorer, and they were equals as passers. But rebounding, and defense>>>>>KG all the way. KG could switch out on pick and rolls and cover 1's,2's, and 3's. Sorry but C-webb couldn't guard 4's very well.

Case in point I remember early 00's Antoine lighting up C-webb on the reg, and struggling mightily against KG unless he was crazy hot from behind the arc.

You are a Celts fan and probably very young. Webber was a very good player on both sides of the court. Very underrated defender. He was good both on offense and defense.

After KG's second season? KG only became the better player after the 02-03 season in my opinion.

[RoseCity07]

Webber in his prime was a beast but the guy choked a lot. Bibby seemed more valuable in the clutch than Webber. KG wasn't exactly clutch, but his affect on the game was bigger because of his defense.

KG over Webber.

[1987_Lakers]

Webber in his prime was a beast but the guy choked a lot. Bibby seemed more valuable in the clutch than Webber. KG wasn't exactly clutch, but his affect on the game was bigger because of his defense.

KG over Webber.

Yea, people have seem to forgotten how many times Webber choked during his career. I remember when that Game 7 of the 2002 WCF went to OT...Webber couldn't hit a single shot. If my memory serves me correctly, Bibby scored all of the Sacramento points during that overtime.

[Celts34]

You are a Celts fan and probably very young. Webber was a very good player on both sides of the court. Very underrated defender. He was good both on offense and defense.

After KG's second season? KG only became the better player after the 02-03 season in my opinion.

First off I'm 28. Now thats not ancient, but I'm not like most of the teeny-boppers banging this place out. 2nd off I followed C-webb whole career from Ann Arbor, to GS, to the Bullets, to the Kings, and we'll just leave his scrub years with the Sixers and Pistons out the discussion.

C-Webb was a good, not great rebounder. When he had good knees, he was an explosive scorer, who was a bear for other PF's to guard because of his ball-handling, quickness, and althleticism. He basically did everything really well, he had range out to 18-20 ft, (occasionally a 3 pter), he ran the floor well, and was a great passer out the double team. However he was really about 6-9(and struggled mightily guarding the other big time forwards in the early 00's Sheed, TD, and KG) didn't have much of a post game outside of a little baby hook, and once said knees left him never really ventured into the paint anymore. His "defense" even in his prime years was never the strong point of his game, and even if we want to call it good. KG has always been a game-changer on defense.

I'm not knocking C-webb, he was one of my favorite players in HS back in the mid-late 90's. But IMO you can't say he was a better player than KG in his prime. If you stack their games up side by side in totality. I just don't see it. You could go the whole consecutive 1st round playoff exit rout, if you want. But if you really look at each one of those exits how many times was KG's team better than the one his lost too? People act like he was consistently losing to lower seeds or something? I seem to remember alot 4/5 matchups.

[gts]

Here's the thing though, the fact that KG has a ring now kind of skews the results.how does it skew the results... what does a ring have to do with who can play basketball better...

so tired of the "he's got a ring" argument.. this isn't a who has played for better teams thread nor is it a who makes those around them better thread it's a who is the better ball player thread...
people need to stop clouding the water with arguments based on the other 14 players on the guys team contributions

as for who's better i'll give the nod to webber, garnett is a better defender, but webbers all around game was more polished

[Celts34]

^^ He's right. As far as a better basketball player, it goes to Webber.

When we have questions about who was the better winner, then maybe, but Webber was never surrounded by 2 other previous superstars. And Ray Allen and Paul Pierce WERE superstars in their own respective teams.


How do you figure that??? When C-webb had at one time. A prime Bibby who made AS teams. Peja who people during this time(here I might add) was trumpeted as a top 10, and even by some a top 5 player. Divac who was the best passing Center in the game. B-Jax was a perennial 6th man candidate. Not to mention they also had young guys like Turkoglu and Wallace coming in off the bench.

And most importantly lets not forget that C-Webb' playoff history is rife with hideous choke jobs in big games, lets slow down with the better winner stuff Its really not warranted. Sheed' blazers and his Pistons were perennial 50+, and ventured on quite a few playoff runs, so he's a better winner then either of them??

[Stacey King]

How do you figure that??? When C-webb had at one time. A prime Bibby who made AS teams. Peja who people during this time(here I might add) was trumpeted as a top 10, and even by some a top 5 player. Divac who was the best passing Center in the game. B-Jax was a perennial 6th man candidate. Not to mention they also had young guys like Turkoglu and Wallace coming in off the bench.

And most importantly lets not forget that C-Webb' playoff history is rife with hideous choke jobs in big games, lets slow down with the better winner stuff Its really not warranted. Sheed' blazers and his Pistons were perennial 50+, and ventured on quite a few playoff runs, so he's a better winner then either of them??

Bibby never made an all-star team. And his best statistical years (04-05 and 05-06), Webber was injured, on the decline, and ultimately traded.

[dhenk]

Garnett

KG is a top 25 player of all-time, anything less is ridiculous.

Webber doesn`t make the top 50, imo.

[Celts34]

Bibby never made an all-star team. And his best statistical years (04-05 and 05-06), Webber was injured, on the decline, and ultimately traded.


I could've swore he made one.

[Biddy77]

chris webber, jalen rose, juwan howard, jimmy king, and ray jackson (the Fab 5!) were my favorite college squad ever. after that, webber landed with golden state, where tim hardaway was already my favorite NBA player. then, when portland fired geoff petrie and rick adelman, and those two landed in sacramento, the kings were kind of my "other team".

it would be very hard to find a bigger fan of chris webber than i am.

and i'd still take KG.

[Celts34]

Bibby was only in his third and fourth seasons when they made those successful runs. He was never on the AS team, but he did deserve to be on there at least once in his career. B-Jax was a good sixth man, yeah. Peja was never considered top 10 or top 5. Just a one-dimensional SF. He did average 25 ppg once, but that was when Webber wasn't around, and they didn't do anything anyway. Divac was already on his last set of knees.

Turkoglu was too young and inexperienced. Wallace barely got 10 min off the bench.


Peja was most definetly argued as being top 10 in 01-02, and 02-03. There were people who argued he was a better player then Dirk. People at one time were comparing Peja to larry Bird. Don't you remember that special that with Melo, Bron, Magic, and Bird. The one that got Bird in all that trouble when he said the NBA was hurting because there were no white stars. It was because Bron or melo(I forget who)asked magic what he thought about people saying Peja was better than Larry Bird. And Magic laughed, then got all serious said hell no(basically), and that there would never be another Larry bird. Which is what got the Legend started on his no stars speech.

And Turkoglu got regular pt off the bench, now he wasn't nearly as good as he is now. But he wasn't Lawrence Funderburke either.

[plowking]

Garnett

KG is a top 25 player of all-time, anything less is ridiculous.

Webber doesn`t make the top 50, imo.

Haha.

Webber only doesn't make the top 50 due to rings. Greatness is different to who the better ball player is.

Webber was/is the better player, though KG is simply rated higher due to longevity and his ring. Webber was the better player in terms of basketball.

[plowking]

How do you figure that??? When C-webb had at one time. A prime Bibby who made AS teams. Peja who people during this time(here I might add) was trumpeted as a top 10, and even by some a top 5 player. Divac who was the best passing Center in the game. B-Jax was a perennial 6th man candidate. Not to mention they also had young guys like Turkoglu and Wallace coming in off the bench.

And most importantly lets not forget that C-Webb' playoff history is rife with hideous choke jobs in big games, lets slow down with the better winner stuff Its really not warranted. Sheed' blazers and his Pistons were perennial 50+, and ventured on quite a few playoff runs, so he's a better winner then either of them??

When was C-Webb ever on a team as good as last years Celtics?

[bokes15]

how does it skew the results... what does a ring have to do with who can play basketball better...

so tired of the "he's got a ring" argument.. this isn't a who has played for better teams thread nor is it a who makes those around them better thread it's a who is the better ball player thread...
people need to stop clouding the water with arguments based on the other 14 players on the guys team contributions

as for who's better i'll give the nod to webber, garnett is a better defender, but webbers all around game was more polished
Have you ever taken a statistics course? To "skew" the results means that an outside variable affects the desired outcome from the question propsed. In laymans terms for those who aren't so bright, people probably won't give C-Webb a fair player vs. player comparison given the fact that KG now has a ring. :hammerhead:

[Showtime]

Peja was most definetly argued as being top 10 in 01-02, and 02-03. There were people who argued he was a better player then Dirk.

By who? As a shooter? Definitely. Not as a top player. He was a MVP candidate during Webber's injury in 2004, when he was battling for the scoring championship, but that was it.


People at one time were comparing Peja to larry Bird. Don't you remember that special that with Melo, Bron, Magic, and Bird. The one that got Bird in all that trouble when he said the NBA was hurting because there were no white stars. It was because Bron or melo(I forget who)asked magic what he thought about people saying Peja was better than Larry Bird. And Magic laughed, then got all serious said hell no(basically), and that there would never be another Larry bird. Which is what got the Legend started on his no stars speech.

I don't know what world you lived in where Peja was a top 5 all around player and was compared to Bird.

[Celts34]

When was C-Webb ever on a team as good as last years Celtics?


I would argue the 00-01, and 01-02 Kings were probably very close.

[Stacey King]

I would argue the 00-01, and 01-02 Kings were probably very close.

Very good teams, but they don't compare to last years Celtics. Not even close. A team that topped out at 61 wins and never made the championship doesn't compare to a team with three stars winning 66 games and the championship

[ILballa]

kg

[Celts34]

By who? As a shooter? Definitely. Not as a top player. He was a MVP candidate during Webber's injury in 2004, when he was battling for the scoring championship, but that was it.



I don't know what world you lived in where Peja was a top 5 all around player and was compared to Bird.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11

Yea cuz I jus make this stuff up.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm

Yea Peja being compared to Bird never happened though right.

http://fantasybbcoach.blogspot.com/2006/01/pacers-must-adjust-with-peja.html
Yea this was a comparison noone ever tried to make stick

[plowking]

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11

Yea cuz I jus make this stuff up.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm

Yea Peja being compared to Bird never happened though right.

Adam Morrison was compared to Bird as well.

Wait, so was every tall white guy who could shoot...

[plowking]

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11

Yea cuz I jus make this stuff up.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm

Yea Peja being compared to Bird never happened though right.

http://fantasybbcoach.blogspot.com/2006/01/pacers-must-adjust-with-peja.html
Yea this was a comparison noone ever tried to make stick


LOL. Doug Christie comparing him to Bird and that is what you call "he was being compared to Bird".

I guess you can say that Marion and Wade = Pippen and Jordan due to I believe Riley saying so.

[Kevin_Garnett_5]

I'll take KG without thinking twice.

[Celts34]

Adam Morrison was compared to Bird as well.

Wait, so was every tall white guy who could shoot...

Whether or not it has proved to be accurate is irrelevant. A few people have tried to make it sound like I'm rewriting history here. People used to speak highly of Peja, and his perceived rank by some was an upper echelon player. thats the only point I'm trying to make.

[Celts34]

LOL. Doug Christie comparing him to Bird and that is what you call "he was being compared to Bird".

I guess you can say that Marion and Wade = Pippen and Jordan due to I believe Riley saying so.


I don't feel like scouring the internet for stuff from 5 years ago, I'm just saying it was a debate people frequently brought up. After Peja' drop into specialist territory, Dirk was given that mantle. But whatever I know I'm not making this up.

[Showtime]

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/11/sports/sp-dogsackings11

Yea cuz I jus make this stuff up.



That article is from when Peja was leading the Kings during Webber's injury, where as I already pointed out he was top 5 MVP candidate and battling for a scoring championship. At no point with a healthy C-Webb was Peja considered a top 5 player in the league. At no point before that was Peja considered a top player, and at no point after that was Peja considered a top 5 player. In fact, even during that season, he may have been in the running for the MVP award, but he wasn't on anybody's list of top 5 players.


http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1031108/index.htm

Yea Peja being compared to Bird never happened though right.

Can you even read? "best pure marksman since Larry Bird" This article is about his status AS A SHOOTER. There's a difference between comparing them as players and comparing them in ONE skill area.


http://fantasybbcoach.blogspot.com/2006/01/pacers-must-adjust-with-peja.html
Yea this was a comparison noone ever tried to make stick

OOOOOh a blog entry. Blogs = reality. At NO TIME WHATSOEVER was there a wide spread discussion around the league or consensus opinion that Peja compared to Bird as a player, in careers, accomplishments, or status. It was purely about shooting ability.

[Day La Ghetto]

peja was an mvp candiate that season. man did he set the bar high for himself after that but that was the season webber went down in right? so that dosent count towards webber having a superstar wingman. webber played with a bunch of borderline all stars, not superstars like garnett but the amount of borderline ones and the depth of that roster probably would equal out or be better

[Celts34]

That article is from when Peja was leading the Kings during Webber's injury, where as I already pointed out he was top 5 MVP candidate and battling for a scoring championship. At no point with a healthy C-Webb was Peja considered a top 5 player in the league. At no point before that was Peja considered a top player, and at no point after that was Peja considered a top 5 player. In fact, even during that season, he may have been in the running for the MVP award, but he wasn't on anybody's list of top 5 players.



Can you even read? "best pure marksman since Larry Bird" This article is about his status AS A SHOOTER. There's a difference between comparing them as players and comparing them in ONE skill area.



OOOOOh a blog entry. Blogs = reality. At NO TIME WHATSOEVER was there a wide spread discussion around the league or consensus opinion that Peja compared to Bird as a player, in careers, accomplishments, or status. It was purely about shooting ability.

If thats your opinion. Fine. No problem. We just gotta agree to disagree. Thats cool with me.

[gigantes]

rationally i choose KG, but in terms of likeability and the "fun to watch" factor, i'd go with cwebb. they are very different kinds of players of course, but cwebb's awesome passing ability was more fun for me to watch than KG's antics and defensive prowess.

also, cwebb and the kings were robbed one year in the playoffs against the lakers otherwise they probably win the championship that year. i don't normally complain about the refs but it was the worst officiated game i've ever seen and is still infamous in the memories of many sports fans.

[Showtime]

If thats your opinion. Fine. No problem. We just gotta agree to disagree. Thats cool with me.
It's not opinion. AT NO POINT WAS THERE A COMPARISON OF LARRY BIRD AND PEJA BEYOND SHOOTING. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT SHOOTING ABILITY. There's no disagreeing.

And as I said, Peja being in the discussion of MVP voting in 2004 does NOT make him a top 5 player in the league. At no point prior to that was he even considered in the top 10, and at no point after that season was he even near top 10. PEJA WAS NOT CONSIDERED A TOP 5 PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE EVER. Even more proof is the FACT that he made the all-NBA second team that year, and that was his best season. A top 5 player should make first team, wouldn't you agree? At his very best, he was a top MVP candidate and second team player, and that was for most of one single season.

He was a top MVP candidate until Webber returned. He was the first option on a top team for the majority of ONE season. That was his best, but that doesn't make him a top 5 player in the game. You are incorrect. Period.

[Celts34]

It's not opinion. AT NO POINT WAS THERE A COMPARISON OF LARRY BIRD AND PEJA BEYOND SHOOTING. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT SHOOTING ABILITY. There's no disagreeing.

And as I said, Peja being in the discussion of MVP voting in 2004 does NOT make him a top 5 player in the league. At no point prior to that was he even considered in the top 10, and at no point after that season was he even near top 10. PEJA WAS NOT CONSIDERED A TOP 5 PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE EVER. Even more proof is the FACT that he made the all-NBA second team that year, and that was his best season. A top 5 player should make first team, wouldn't you agree? At his very best, he was a top MVP candidate and second team player, and that was for most of one single season.

He was a top MVP candidate until Webber returned. He was the first option on a top team for the majority of ONE season. That was his best, but that doesn't make him a top 5 player in the game. You are incorrect. Period.

I guess I have to dumb myself down so you'll understand me better.

I don't agree with you.
You don't agree with me.
So there isn't anything left to say.

[gigantes]

I'll take KG without thinking twice.
wow, what a shocker.
i thought by your user name and avatar that you were a chris webber fan for sure.

[drza44]

I would argue the 00-01, and 01-02 Kings were probably very close.Very good teams, but they don't compare to last years Celtics. Not even close. A team that topped out at 61 wins and never made the championship doesn't compare to a team with three stars winning 66 games and the championship

You're mixing up results and caliber. The question could be rephrased as: was Webber ever on a team with teammates as good as KG's teammates on the Celtics last season. And the answer is pretty clearly yes, IMO.

Those early 2000s Kings were stupidly talented. It's revisionist history to make it seem like Peja was considered basically a role player shooter, when he made 3 straight All Star teams starting in the '01 season and received MVP votes in 2 of those seasons. Bibby was a clutch-shooting former #2 overall pick who was a 16/8 PG as a young player before getting to Sac, then only saw his assist numbers drop because the Princeton offense ran so much through the big men. Speaking of that, Vlade Divac and later Brad Miller were two of the better passing/shooting centers in the NBA next to Webber. Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA (4 straight All Defense teams starting in 00-01) while BoJax was another big-shot maker and a 6th man of the year. Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.

Last year's Celtics didn't have nearly that much top-to-bottom quality. Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's. And after that, the rest of the Kings' rotation was some combination of more talented, more experienced, more accomplished, or all 3 when compared to their Celtics counterparts.

The fact that those Kings teams topped out at 61 wins while the Celtics won 66 and a title doesn't prove that the Celtics had the better supporting cast. It could also be argued that perhaps the Celtics' greater success with a similar or possibly inferior supporting cast is further evidence that Garnett was better than Webber.

[Showtime]

I guess I have to dumb myself down so you'll understand me better.

I don't agree with you.
You don't agree with me.
So there isn't anything left to say.
Here's what you aren't grasping: THE ISSUE ISN'T ONE OF SUBJECTIVITY. IT'S NOT ABOUT OPINION. Ok, do I have your attention?

Why this isn't an issue up for debate, subject to each person's opinion:

You made a claim about what the general consensus of the league at the time was, not about your own personal opinion of Peja.
Peja who people during this time(here I might add) was trumpeted as a top 10, and even by some a top 5 player. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF PEJA, I'M ARGUING WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE PERCEPTION OF PEJA AT THE TIME.

You made a claim that he was considered a top 5 player. That was false.

You made a claim he was compared to Bird as a player. That was false. They were only compared in relation to shooting, nothing more.

You made a claim Peja was considered a superstar. This is false. If you want to believe he was that good, then fine, that's your opinion. But you can't make false claims about what the consensus around the league at that time was when you are clearly WRONG in that regard. He wasn't even considered the best at his position, let alone top 5 in the game. VC, T-Mac, Pierce, all were players that Peja wasn't considered superior to, let alone guys like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, etc.

Once again, so there's no misunderstanding:

You made comments about what OTHERS thought about Peja, which were false. Period. If you want to believe Peja was a top 5 player, that is your prerogative. But you can't say it's a matter of opinion ABOUT WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT AS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AROUND THE LEAGUE. That's not up for debate. That's not a matter of opinion.

You can't disagree the Earth revolves around the sun. You can't disagree that the Earth is a sphere. It's not a matter of opinion. Neither is this issue. You can't go back and rewrite history and tell others what the majority of people around the league thought, when that was never true.

Now, if you were strictly speaking about this very messageboard (which I suspect you weren't based upon your posted articles), then it's a different story.

[Stacey King]

[QUOTE=drza44]

Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA

Same exact thing could be said for James Posey, a member of last years Celtics.

Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.

Wallace really didn't contribute much at all. He hardly even played- wasn't more than the 9th man on the roster.

Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's.

Disagree here. While Peja and Bibby were solid players who had some very good years together, I'd take Pierce and Allen's contributions last year in a heartbeat. Pierce was the Finals MVP and locked down Kobe a number of times during the series. And even though Pierce won the MVP, I think Allen had the best series. He bounced back tremendously from a poor start in the Playoffs. His ability to play long stretches (such as all 48 in Game 4) and contribute both offensively and defensively during the Finals cannot be overlooked.

And while Bibby flourished in that series vs. the Lakers in '02, Peja struggled, particularly when the series was on the line in Game 7. Pierce and Allen both had great clutch moments during the C's title run. As it is, I'll take three probable hall of famers hungry for a championship over a team with lots of young talent any day of the week.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Garnett has an MVP, a DPoY, and a Championship. 2 of those 3 are individual awards, and even the Championship has much to do with Garnett's superiority. Som e people (that haven't been paying attention) think that Garnett isn't any good in the clutch. He's not a great clutch player, but he's hit a number of big shots and really doesn't play any worse. Pierce is normally the guy down the stretch and Ray Allen hits the most game winners but Garnett gets baskets in the fourth quarter. He might not have taken Webbers' Kings past LA, but when I think about that Game 7...that was bad. Every King but Mike Bibby got "Choke Artist" tattooed on his forehead, and in the fourth quarter they were playing hot potato with the basketball. The worst chokes were by Stojakovic and Christie but Webber not even trying to take over when he's seeing single coverage while LA throws the entire team at Bibby, that was pathetic. If a team does try to double Pierce (doesn't happen often these days) Garnett will make a play. He was, in fact, the Cs top scorer last postseason. That is an edge that may be subjective, Webber might be able to lead the Cs to the Championship too (although the key was Garnett's DPoY season, which Webber was never close to), but what edge, subjective or otherwise, does Webber have? He wasn't a better scorer or rebounder, and was a vastly inferior defender. So how can he be better?

[wang4three]

KG cause of durabilty and longetivity of dominance.. but when Chris was healthy and on, no one could stop him and I liked him more. His defense was always suspect--sometimes good, most of the time average, but he made it up by being just a complete player with a knack of playing big. I'm sure someone is going to bring up "the time out" but to his credit, even UM's assistant coach thuoght they had a TO and told Webber to take it.

[drza44]

Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA

Same exact thing could be said for James Posey, a member of last years Celtics.

Not the same. Christie was a 4-time member of the NBA All Defensive team next to Webber (including one 1st team nod) that started and played about 35 minutes/game. Posey has never made the All Defense team and was playing fewer minutes off the bench. Posey was a solid defender, but not on Christie's level.


[ Turkoglu and Wallace were nowhere near what they became, but they were still promising youngsters with upside that contributed in the rotation.

Wallace really didn't contribute much at all. He hardly even played- wasn't more than the 9th man on the roster.

He was also about the 8th or 9th person that I listed, which makes sense.


[quote]Pierce and Allen have better resumes than Peja/Bibby, but on that particular team their impact as 2nd/3rd options wasn't noticably larger than Peja/Bibby's.

Disagree here. While Peja and Bibby were solid players who had some very good years together, I'd take Pierce and Allen's contributions last year in a heartbeat. Pierce was the Finals MVP and locked down Kobe a number of times during the series. And even though Pierce won the MVP, I think Allen had the best series. He bounced back tremendously from a poor start in the Playoffs. His ability to play long stretches (such as all 48 in Game 4) and contribute both offensively and defensively during the Finals cannot be overlooked.

And while Bibby flourished in that series vs. the Lakers in '02, Peja struggled, particularly when the series was on the line in Game 7. Pierce and Allen both had great clutch moments during the C's title run. As it is, I'll take three probable hall of famers hungry for a championship over a team with lots of young talent any day of the week.

The initial post that I was disputing said that those Kings were not as talented as the Celtics because the Kings topped out at 61 regular season wins while the Celtics won 66 games. In the regular season, Peja/Bibby's roles and production were very similar to Pierce/Allen (I can pull out the numbers if you like). On the other hand, Vlade/Christie were more accomplished veterans whereas Rondo and Perk were entirely untested. BoJax was a more accomplished 6th man than Posey, Turk/Wallace were better young talent than Powe/Baby, etc.

As for the playoffs, I submit that Peja (for all of his struggles) was better up through the WCF than Ray was in the early rounds last year (he was terrible). Likewise, Bibby compared very favorably with Pierce (who had moments, but was woefully inconsistent, especially up through the Conference Finals). And it's dubius to bring crunch time of the Lakers game 7 into it, as that's when Webber's crunch time prowess was most brough tinto doubt.

[dhenk]

Haha.

Webber only doesn't make the top 50 due to rings. Greatness is different to who the better ball player is.

Webber was/is the better player, though KG is simply rated higher due to longevity and his ring. Webber was the better player in terms of basketball.

Yeah, KG is overrated because he won a ring with a strong team. Whatever...

There

[bokes15]

[QUOTE=dhenk]Yeah, KG is overrated because he won a ring with a strong team. Whatever...

There

[C-Webb4]

rationally i choose KG, but in terms of likeability and the "fun to watch" factor, i'd go with cwebb. they are very different kinds of players of course, but cwebb's awesome passing ability was more fun for me to watch than KG's antics and defensive prowess.

also, cwebb and the kings were robbed one year in the playoffs against the lakers otherwise they probably win the championship that year. i don't normally complain about the refs but it was the worst officiated game i've ever seen and is still infamous in the memories of many sports fans.
I agree and I disagree. You are right that they are two very different players with different types of games. It's unfortunate that C-Webb's microfracture surgery robbed him of a chance to play out his career the way he really wanted to, but the C-Webb of his prime was a phenomenal player. A flashy passer for a big, a terrific ball handler, a dynamic offensive player, a solid rebounder/shot blocker. And I mean, he had some really high IQ basketball players on his team (Divac, Christie, Bobby Jackson, Turkoglu, etc) but he never played with a Paul Pierce or a Ray Allen.. That's not to take away from KG but I think that prime C-Webb was honestly the better player. However, I'd give the nod to KG based on the longevity of his career.

[drza44]

I don't think anyone who actually watched a prime C-Webb would make that statement. Prime C-Webb led his Kings to a 61-21 record while averaging 27/11 and being a strong MVP candidate... It took the powerhouse Lakers (and perhaps some questionable calls) to take him out that year in 7 games. Replace KG with prime C-Webb on that C's team and not only would they have still won the title, but the first two series might not have even gone 7.

Highly questionable. Last year's Celtics won first and foremost with their defense. It was their dominant unit all season, and was their main weapon in the playoffs as well. Garnett was the centerpiece of their defense and was DPoY, which Webber really couldn't replicate. That's a more-than-minor point here.

Meanwhile, on offense, the things that the Celtics needed from KG were timely shot-making, some post offense, and lots of playing off the ball/ball movement so that Pierce and Rondo could have the ball in their hands while Ray still got his shots. Webber, I believe, could have filled most of KG's role on offense since in their primes their offensive skill sets were similar. But that role didn't allow for 27 ppg scoring...there's a reason why all of the Big 3's scoring numbers went through the floor, as they all had to sacrifice on offense for the team to work. If Webber tried to score anywhere near like he did in Sac it would have disrupted the offensive flow. I don't believe that he would have, I believe that he'd have been smart enough to see the benefit of sacrificing his numbers so that Pierce, Allen and the rest of the offense ran smoothly.

So that said, if Webber looked like KG on offense but couldn't replicate the defense...I doubt that the Celtics are a championship team last year with Webber in there instead of Garnett.

[bokes15]

Highly questionable. Last year's Celtics won first and foremost with their defense. It was their dominant unit all season, and was their main weapon in the playoffs as well. Garnett was the centerpiece of their defense and was DPoY, which Webber really couldn't replicate. That's a more-than-minor point here.

Meanwhile, on offense, the things that the Celtics needed from KG were timely shot-making, some post offense, and lots of playing off the ball/ball movement so that Pierce and Rondo could have the ball in their hands while Ray still got his shots. Webber, I believe, could have filled most of KG's role on offense since in their primes their offensive skill sets were similar. But that role didn't allow for 27 ppg scoring...there's a reason why all of the Big 3's scoring numbers went through the floor, as they all had to sacrifice on offense for the team to work. If Webber tried to score anywhere near like he did in Sac it would have disrupted the offensive flow. I don't believe that he would have, I believe that he'd have been smart enough to see the benefit of sacrificing his numbers so that Pierce, Allen and the rest of the offense ran smoothly.

So that said, if Webber looked like KG on offense but couldn't replicate the defense...I doubt that the Celtics are a championship team last year with Webber in there instead of Garnett.
If you're just looking at the guy on paper, his scoring numbers are misleading. Webber was a very unselfish player and would have no problem adjusting to a smaller scoring role, I strongly believe that.

C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett, and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG.

[Odomize]

Twice the player with half the results.
This is true, until he moved to Celts of course.

[Real Men Wear Green]

C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett,There are no stats to prove that.


and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG."not exactly on par?" Try "Not even close." Was Webber ever All-D? Webber was not an individual liability but he wasn't a shutdown man defender/great help defender like Garnett is. And why would the Cs change the offense? Skillwise Garnett and webber actually were alike, both being Pfs with 20-foot range (although Garnett's jumper is better, which is part of why he has a higher FG %age), some dribble skill, good court vision, and some post-up game. Webber was stronger but liked to hang out on the perimeter and high post anyway.

[drza44]

If you're just looking at the guy on paper, his scoring numbers are misleading. Webber was a very unselfish player and would have no problem adjusting to a smaller scoring role, I strongly believe that.

C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett, and while his defense was not exactly on par with KG's, it wasn't bad either. I agree that there would be a dropoff but he's not exactly a guy who got exposed on the defensive end of the floor. I think he would fit seemlessly into the offensive schemes and defensively he wouldn't be a liability. I guess I can't make a definitive argument that they would still have won, but I think there would be a strong possibility. And who says they'd have to implement the exact same system? CW is a completely different player from KG.

I think you misundersood me. Like you, I think that Webber would have fit into Boston's offensive schemes in a similar way to Garnett (I believe I said as much in my last post). But in order to fit that offensive scheme, Webber could not have produced anywhere near the 27 ppg that you reference from that one season in his prime, as in order to do so he would have required way too many possessions that would have weakened the offense.

And actually, the stance that Webber was a "better offensive player" than KG is extremely questionable. KG has a higher true shooting percentage, a higher EFG%, a higher assist percentage, a lower turnover percentage, and a higher offensive rating than Webber both peak and over career. Webber has a higher usage. The upshot of all of these stats is that Garnett has been the more efficient offensive player than Webber (both peak and career), but Webber tended to take more shots and use more possessions. Now, all of these numbers were relatively close one way or the other, but the trend is clear.

So all of that said, it goes back to my original point: on offense, Webber would likely have fit into the Celtics' scheme similarly to KG with similar offensive results. But in this situation, KG's better efficiency and shooting was probably a more valuable skill than Webber's ability to volume score (which, if anything, would have been a negative to the Big Three scheme).

Then, we get to defense, which was really the more important side of the ball anyway for the Celtics' championship. Webber was an underrated defensive player IMO, but KG is a defensive game-changer, one of the best defenders in this generation. The Celtics needed more than just "not a defensive liability" from their power forward...they needed a defensive lynchpin, one that could anchor the most important unit on the team. They needed a gamechanger, one that they could use as the foundation of the #1 defense in the NBA. Webber just wasn't that.

Thus my conclusion is that if Webber was similar to (or even slightly less efficient/higher volume than) KG on offense but lesser on defense, and even WITH KG the Celtics went 7 games and down to the wire against the Cavs...it is not likely IMO that they make it through with Webber in there instead. It would have been just another chapter in Webber's legacy of leading extremely talented teams right to the brink, but not quite making it over.

[browntown]

KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.

[FinishHim!]

KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.
The fact that people are legitimately comparing Peja Stojakovic (at any point in his career) to Paul Pierce is laughable.
Pierce>>>>>> Peja
Perkins >>>>> out of prime Divac that C-Webb played with
Rondo >>>Bobby Jackson
Ray Allen >>>> Hedo Turkoglu
And lastly, the Kings ran into prime Shaq and Kobe repeatedly during these great chances of which everyone speaks about.

[wang4three]

Rondo >>>Bobby Jackson

Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter. I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him.


Perkins >>>>> out of prime Divac that C-Webb played with

No. Get out of here.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter. I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him.
Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.

[wang4three]

Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.

I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.

[drza44]

Rondo's getting underrated here. He's a better passer and closer to being a "pure" pg than Jackson. Jackson was a lot better scorer but Rondo beats him as a passer and penetrator. Jackson was still a better overall player, but he doesn't blow Rondo away.

I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.

Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:

You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.

[wang4three]

Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:

You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.

I was aware, but I found Rondo over Bobby and Perkins over Vlade just egregious.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Actually, I wasn't in the mood to argue with a bunch of ">."

I don't see how Rondo's underrated still. I never understood that claim. He's a solid point guard. No better than Chris Duhon or TJ Ford. I also think that Bobby was a lot better penetrator than Bobby. When he was the 6th man of the year he was blowing by anyone and everyone put in front of him. People were saying he was better than a prime Bibby. Passer? Probably, but as far as making plays are concerned, I think Bobby has him beat.
I don't see how anyone that has watched Rondo could doubt him as a penetrator. There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him. And it's funny that you bring up Bibby...Bibby started over Jackson and yet Rondo has destroyed Bibby, who is the same player now that he was in Sac (he's still only 30 and the stats are on par with career averages).

[RidonKs]

There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him.
An even greater testament to his slashing ability is the fact that almost every defender he goes up against sags off him, trying to bait him into taking an uncomfortable jumper. And he still gets by them.

[DieHardBullsFan]

The argument can be made that KG has a ring to Cwebs 0

that can be defended that if cwebb had kgs cast of pierce ray ect.. he too would of won it
and would of won it with his old cast if the refs didnt **** him

Kg or cwebb prime who do u take to start a team?

Garnett

end thread!

[Showtime]

KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities.

Apparently not that often in the first round, and not when he made the WCF.


Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

He lost in what many view as the worst officiated playoff series ever. Kings played poorly, no doubt, and I'm not hanging the loss entirely on the stripes, but that has to count for something. Again, he was injured the VERY NEXT YEAR in the PLAYOFFS. How unlucky is that? KG has a TIME advantage that Webber didn't get. I don't see how KG not having a career killing injury means he's better.

If KG wasn't dealt and won in Boston, is this even a point that is brought up?

[wang4three]

Actually, I wasn't in the mood to argue with a bunch of ">."

I don't see how anyone that has watched Rondo could doubt him as a penetrator. There isn't a player in the game that can stay in front of him. And it's funny that you bring up Bibby...Bibby started over Jackson and yet Rondo has destroyed Bibby, who is the same player now that he was in Sac (he's still only 30 and the stats are on par with career averages).

He can penetrate, but his finishing ability is very iffy to me. I've seen him blow the simplest of layups. Bibby didn't start over Bobby for defensive reasons. You know that. Mike is a horrible defensive player so telling me that someone "destroyed" him is not really saying much. It's like telling me Rondo destroyed Nash. Well, yeah of course. Mike's upside came from his ability to play off Webber and Vlade so well.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He can penetrate, but his finishing ability is very iffy to me. I've seen him blow the simplest of layups. Bibby didn't start over Bobby for defensive reasons. You know that. Mike is a horrible defensive player so telling me that someone "destroyed" him is not really saying much. It's like telling me Rondo destroyed Nash. Well, yeah of course. Mike's upside came from his ability to play off Webber and Vlade so well.
Rondo not only lit Bibby up, he also defended him well on the other end. In fact, Rondo has outplayed a lot of good pgs head-to-head. As for the lay-ups, Rondo has improved in that area greatly and it's certainly not an issue to make a big deal over, because if he can't finish, how is a 6'1 pg with a weak jumper shooting 50%?

[MMM]

Don't want to stray out of topic too much but no, no, no. In his day, there was nothing Rondo was better than BJax in. Outside of rebounding or some other inconsequential stat when comparing the two. Not as a play maker, not as a scorer, and not even as a defender. Bobby checked Kobe at times and did a decent job when they played each other. In fact, I think Bobby did a better job d'ing up Kobe than Doug did. Rondo is nothing more to me than a slightly better Anthony Carter. I can name you 15 PGs I'd take over him.



No. Get out of here.

I don't ant this thread going off line but i doubt you can name 15 pg's ahead of Rondo. Rondo is probably a 2nd tier/3rd tier PG but to name 15 you would have to be picky and name 5-7 PG's within those same tier ahead of them. Many of those PG's you can make a solid argument that Rondo has the advantage however slight it is.

[drza44]

Apparently not that often in the first round, and not when he made the WCF.

Garnett's teams were always seriously outgunned in personnel by the teams he lost to. So he did maximize his opportunities in carrying very undertalented teams that far, and he proved that by leading his first truly talented supporting cast to a championship.


He lost in what many view as the worst officiated playoff series ever. Kings played poorly, no doubt, and I'm not hanging the loss entirely on the stripes, but that has to count for something. Again, he was injured the VERY NEXT YEAR in the PLAYOFFS. How unlucky is that? KG has a TIME advantage that Webber didn't get. I don't see how KG not having a career killing injury means he's better.

If KG wasn't dealt and won in Boston, is this even a point that is brought up?

Actually, you touch on a good point. Before Garnett was dealt to Boston, championships themselves obviously never would have come into the conversation because neither KG nor Webber had ever won one at that point. But both Garnett and Webber shared some sentiment among some fans that they just couldn't win the big one. Last season KG proved definitively that such criticism didn't fit him. Webber was never able to do that. And despite the injury that cut Webber's career short, he had a full 10-year run before it (including several extremely talented squads) with which to go for it.

Webber's had at least a 4-year stretch with teams more talented than any KG was on before Boston, and at least a couple of those years the Sac supporting cast was IMO same level or better than the Celtics crew. So another way to look at it is that Webber was the one with the time advantage, as he got to play on very talented teams for several years in his physical prime whereas KG never got to such a team until he was 32 years old...and he still was able to deliver and bring home a title in year 1, while Webber couldn't in several such opportunities...

[wang4three]

Rondo not only lit Bibby up, he also defended him well on the other end. In fact, Rondo has outplayed a lot of good pgs head-to-head. As for the lay-ups, Rondo has improved in that area greatly and it's certainly not an issue to make a big deal over, because if he can't finish, how is a 6'1 pg with a weak jumper shooting 50%?

This says to me one of two things:

1. Bibby is clearly not the same player he once was (most probable)
2. Bobby was brought off the bench for reasons like scoring and defensive shifts rather than because he wasn't as good, if not better than Bibby.

It wasn't uncommon for people to think that Bobby was better than Mike back in the Kings era. During his 6th man campaign, many though he should've started over Mike because he had been so efficient.

As far as Rondo shooting 50%, sure he makes more than he misses, but nothing really indicated to me that he's better at finishing than Bobby was.

[wang4three]

I don't ant this thread going off line but i doubt you can name 15 pg's ahead of Rondo. Rondo is probably a 2nd tier/3rd tier PG but to name 15 you would have to be picky and name 5-7 PG's within those same tier ahead of them. Many of those PG's you can make a solid argument that Rondo has the advantage however slight it is.

In no order and as far as this season goes:

Deron
Paul
Nash
Kidd
Devin
Parker
Rose
Chauncey
Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
Andre Miller
Chris Duhon
Jameer Nelson
TJ Ford
Jose Calderon

And like I said, I can name 15 ahead of him as in I would take over him without looking at what the rest of the team make up is like. This doesn't include injured players like Baron and Gilbert. Felton I might consider taking over him. Then there's a bunch of guys where I like better, but know Rondo is better currently like DJ Augustin, Jarret Jack, Rafer, and Stuckey.

[Showtime]

Garnett's teams were always seriously outgunned in personnel by the teams he lost to. So he did maximize his opportunities in carrying very undertalented teams that far, and he proved that by leading his first truly talented supporting cast to a championship.

If they were good enough to win 50 games, they should have been good enough to win best of 5.

[drza44]

If they were good enough to win 50 games, they should have been good enough to win best of 5.

Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.

[artest 93]

Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.

This is laughable :lol

[FinishHim!]

Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:

You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.

It was a response to this:


KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.

which I don't see how you could've missed since it was one post above mine... But whatever, it's clear people on this website don't read, they just respond.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.

[dhenk]

I don't think anyone who actually watched a prime C-Webb would make that statement. Prime C-Webb led his Kings to a 61-21 record while averaging 27/11 and being a strong MVP candidate... It took the powerhouse Lakers (and perhaps some questionable calls) to take him out that year in 7 games. Replace KG with prime C-Webb on that C's team and not only would they have still won the title, but the first two series might not have even gone 7.


Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn

[FinishHim!]

and oh by the way, Bibby, Jackson, C-Webb, Divac, and Peja happened to be their 5 best players... I forgot to include Bibby in my post. Sue me.

[FinishHim!]

[QUOTE=dhenk]Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn

[wang4three]

Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.
You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.

[FinishHim!]

You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.
Chris Duhon? TJ Ford? Kirk Hinrich?

http://www.chillyoislamyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hater1.jpg

[Real Men Wear Green]

This says to me one of two things:

1. Bibby is clearly not the same player he once was (most probable)
2. Bobby was brought off the bench for reasons like scoring and defensive shifts rather than because he wasn't as good, if not better than Bibby.

It wasn't uncommon for people to think that Bobby was better than Mike back in the Kings era. During his 6th man campaign, many though he should've started over Mike because he had been so efficient.

As far as Rondo shooting 50%, sure he makes more than he misses, but nothing really indicated to me that he's better at finishing than Bobby was.
What has Bibby's game lost? This makes no sense. He's at his career scoring average, shooting better than his norm, 1 assist per game under, big deal. With better stats than in his first season as a King, by the way. Some people thought Jackson was better but who started the game and had the ball in the clutch? And how is Rondo not a good finisher when he's shooting 50% overall? Where are the makes coming from? Threes? This is ridiculous.

[XxNeXuSxX]

but know Rondo is better currently like DJ Augustin, Jarret Jack, Rafer, and Stuckey.
:roll: DJ Augustin is equal to Rondo?

[Showtime]

Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.
2000 - 50 wins (6th best) in a stacked west. Lost 3-1 against the 59 win Blazers. That team may not have been as good as Portland, but it wasn't a crappy team. Brandon, healthy Wally, Sealy, Smith, and Peeler were good role players.

2001 - 47 wins (8th best). Lost 3-1 to 58 win Spurs. Aside from Robinson, that team Duncan had wasn't stacked. They had similar players to what KG had, and that was solid role players. Derek Andersen, Daniels, Rose, Elliot, etc weren't far superior to Brandon, Wally, Peeler, Ellis, etc. Most of them were solid defenders and shooters. Rasho can win with Duncan, but isn't good enough for KG? If you switched those players to the opposite teams, I can't say the result would be different.

2002 - 50 wins (5th best). Lost 3-0 to the 57 win Mavs (Same mavs who were owned by Webber and the Kings in the playoffs). That team was all offense. They didn't even try to defend. The wolves were a good defensive team that had firepower themselves, as they had the 3rd best offense that year. Billups was playing then too.

The next two years they got stopped by LA, once in the first round, another in the WCF.

2005 - 44 wins. Failed to make the playoffs, despite having many of the key players from the previous WCF season. Flip was fired. It just gets worse from there.

So the point about KG only being stonewalled against LA isn't there, because he did lose against other teams. Superior? Yes, but some of them not that much better. I didn't even include some earlier playoff losses with Marbury. Your point about KG making the most of what he had and Webber not doesn't hold up IMO. He had many of the same players that left and became stars or role players for other contenders. I think he had enough talent to win a first round series, if he was so superhuman he could carry a team to the playoffs in a stacked Western conference. Aside from his 58 win WCF season, I just didn't see it, and I watched that era too.

[drza44]

It was a response to this:



KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.

So I would choose KG.

which I don't see how you could've missed since it was one post above mine... But whatever, it's clear people on this website don't read, they just respond.

I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?

[wang4three]

:roll: DJ Augustin is equal to Rondo?
Must have missed the part where I said that Rondo was better.

[FinishHim!]

I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?
Can you name me one player on that Kings team that was better than Paul Pierce?

[wang4three]

What has Bibby's game lost? This makes no sense. He's at his career scoring average, shooting better than his norm, 1 assist per game under, big deal. With better stats than in his first season as a King, by the way. Some people thought Jackson was better but who started the game and had the ball in the clutch? And how is Rondo not a good finisher when he's shooting 50% overall? Where are the makes coming from? Threes? This is ridiculous.

Bibby looks visibly slower than he did as a King. He doesn't look nearly as sharp. Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version). No one is putting him in that rank right now. His points are most likely resultive of not having guys like Webber and Peja around who were both putting 20-25 a night. Bibby is probably the 2nd best scorer on that team versus being the outside 3rd.

I never said Rondo was not a good finisher. I just said that nothing he has done has proved to me he was a better finisher than a prime Bobby Jackson. Don't make conclusions I didn't explicitely say. It's not a knock on Rondo, but Bobby Jackson in his Kings day was a prolific scorer.

[Showtime]

Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version).

Funny, since Nash was making all star teams over him.

2002 - Nash 3rd team (Bibby nowhere to be found), and All Star

Mavs = 57 wins, Kings 61 wins.

2003 - Nash 3rd team (again, no nod for Bibby), and All Star

Mavs = 60 wins, Kings 59 wins.

I agree that Bibby was better, but it wasn't a general consensus at that time around the league.

[wang4three]

Funny, since Nash was making all star teams over him.

2002 - Nash 3rd team (Bibby nowhere to be found), and All Star

Mavs = 57 wins, Kings 61 wins.

2003 - Nash 3rd team (again, no nod for Bibby), and All Star

Mavs = 60 wins, Kings 59 wins.

I agree that Bibby was better, but it wasn't a general consensus at that time around the league.

Enough for me to make that statement. Season after season when the Kings eliminated the Mavs, Bibby would beat Nash in the head to head.

[Showtime]

Enough for me to make that statement. Season after season when the Kings eliminated the Mavs, Bibby would beat Nash in the head to head.
Listen, I already said that I agreed with your point about Bibby being better than Nash in Dallas. My point is people around the league obviously didn't think that, which is what you said.

[drza44]

2000 - 50 wins (6th best) in a stacked west. Lost 3-1 against the 59 win Blazers. That team may not have been as good as Portland, but it wasn't a crappy team. Brandon, healthy Wally, Sealy, Smith, and Peeler were good role players.

That Blazers team was ridiculously stacked. Are you serious? I remember at the time that they were put together to be almost a super team, with about 8 talented players who had produced at other places brought together to try to win a title. And they were a historic 4th quarter collapse from beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and winning a title. Brandon and a bunch of role players was not nearly equivalent to that.


2001 - 47 wins (8th best). Lost 3-1 to 58 win Spurs. Aside from Robinson, that team Duncan had wasn't stacked. They had similar players to what KG had, and that was solid role players. Derek Andersen, Daniels, Rose, Elliot, etc weren't far superior to Brandon, Wally, Peeler, Ellis, etc. Most of them were solid defenders and shooters. Rasho can win with Duncan, but isn't good enough for KG? If you switched those players to the opposite teams, I can't say the result would be different.

Wait, what? "Aside from Robinson"? Robinson was one of the best big men ever, and was still playing at an extremely high level then. Saying "aside from 35-year old Robinson" on that team wouldn't be hugely different from saying "aside from 33-year old Duncan" once the current Spurs hit the playoffs. So yeah, if you just pretend that DRob didn't exist then KG's cast had some similarities to Duncan's. And on your last sentence, I guess we'll just agree to disagree because I think there were exactly 3 impact players in that series, 2 young studs and one older vet that was still bringing it. Whichever team had any 2 of those 3 would get my vote for winning that series.


2002 - 50 wins (5th best). Lost 3-0 to the 57 win Mavs (Same mavs who were owned by Webber and the Kings in the playoffs). That team was all offense. They didn't even try to defend. The wolves were a good defensive team that had firepower themselves, as they had the 3rd best offense that year. Billups was playing then too.

Those Mavs were a lot more talented than the Wolves. Nash and Van Exel blew Billups (who, by the way, was a career back-up/journeyman with poor defense at that point in his career) and Anthony Peeler away in the backcourt (Brandon had gone down for the season injured halfway through that year, ending his career). Finley toyed with Wally Z, and even Lafrentz pulled Rasho away from the rim and unloaded on him. That Wolves squad literally had no players outside of KG that could defend their counterpart on the Mavs one-on-one. The Mavs would spread the floor and let either Nash or Van Exel break down Billups/Peeler off the dribble, then when the defense inevitably collapsed to help the burnt guard they would either score or set up a teammate for an open shot. KG ended up trying to be the help defender on everyone which left Dirk often wide open from the perimeter (obviously a losing formula as Dirk averaged well into the 30s in points as a finisher mainly off basically open shots).

Seriously, go back and re-watch that series if anyone has it on video. KG did all that was humanly possible that series (he averaged something like 24/19/5/2/2) but the Wolves were just flat out-gunned. Dirk did his thing too, don't get me wrong, but if anything he and KG played each other to a draw in that series. The rest of the Mavs beat the snot out of the rest of the Wolves


The next two years they got stopped by LA, once in the first round, another in the WCF.

Another 2 talent mismatches.


2005 - 44 wins. Failed to make the playoffs, despite having many of the key players from the previous WCF season. Flip was fired. It just gets worse from there.

You forgot to mention that Cassell was still hobbled all season from the hip injury (and possibly pouting over a contract), Spree was on literally his last legs and playing poorly, and the rest of the team reverted to the hot garbage that was their usual norm. Because KG and Cassell carried them to such heights in '04, people seemed to forget that Olowokandi really stinks, Hassell and Hoiberg had been cut by the terrible Bulls in '03, Troy Hudson was a glorified CBA player, and Eddie Griffin was certifiably insane with chemical dependency issues.


So the point about KG only being stonewalled against LA isn't there, because he did lose against other teams. Superior? Yes, but some of them not that much better. I didn't even include some earlier playoff losses with Marbury. Your point about KG making the most of what he had and Webber not doesn't hold up IMO. He had many of the same players that left and became stars or role players for other contenders. I think he had enough talent to win a first round series, if he was so superhuman he could carry a team to the playoffs in a stacked Western conference. Aside from his 58 win WCF season, I just didn't see it, and I watched that era too.

Ultimately, here is where we disagree. Because of the loss of 1st round picks and lack of other ways to bring in talent, the Wolves used to scrape the bottom of the barrell every off-season to come up with players to fill out the roster. Before he got to Boston, KG never lost in the playoffs with a single team as good as any of the ones that surrounded Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Webber, or Sheed in any of the seasons from that time period.

So while I think that Garnett was as good as (or better than most of) those guys, he wasn't enough on his own to beat out combos of historic players (i.e. Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/DRob) or star ensembles (Portland, Sac, Dallas) with essentially Wally Szczerbiak as his best lieutenant. Considering that he's undefeated in any playoff series this millenium where his 2nd best player was clearly better than Wally (a situation that all of the above great big men had every year), I think my line of thinking can be well supported. Obviously you disagree, and that's fine. But I think the tragedy for Garnett (and the NBA as a whole) is that there have only been 1.5 seasons over his first 13 years where that (seemingly impossibly low) bar has been cleared.

[FindingTim]

the answer is clear... how are there 7 pages of debate???:confusedshrug:

At his peak, there are very few players I would rather have than Chris Webber.
Sure, Garnett is more intense and plays better defense, but Webber was far superior on the offensive end. He had a silky mid range J, great post moves, and the passing ability of a top point guard (but you didnt need me to tell you that)

Garnett was a statistical monster in Minnesota, and his fierce play was unmatched, but Chris Webber could straight up ball.

i realize my reasoning is vague but it is an overall thing, rather than pinpointing certain areas of each players' game.

it's like going on a date and getting rejected. People try to analyze the precise thing they did wrong to get rejected, but it is the 'overall' that played into the decision.

I don't care what the stats say, I saw prime Webber and prime Garnett, and prime Webber was better. end of story.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bibby looks visibly slower than he did as a King. He doesn't look nearly as sharp. Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version). No one is putting him in that rank right now. His points are most likely resultive of not having guys like Webber and Peja around who were both putting 20-25 a night. Bibby is probably the 2nd best scorer on that team versus being the outside 3rd.
Some thought Bibby was better, but they weren't the ones making Nash an All-Star. That's a lame "point." Bibby outplayed Nash in one or two playoff series but he never had that rep overall. And the present difference in their rep has a bit to do with Nash winning two MVPs..."IMO," of course. Bibby might be a little slower, that's natural, but he's just as effective if not moreso. You really have no case for him being worse now. He's 30 years old, which is still a player's prime, and getting normal numbers by his standards.

I never said Rondo was not a good finisher. I just said that nothing he has done has proved to me he was a better finisher than a prime Bobby Jackson. Don't make conclusions I didn't explicitely say. It's not a knock on Rondo, but Bobby Jackson in his Kings day was a prolific scorer.
And I'm not saying Rondo is the scorer Jackson is but he can definitely finish. He's averaging 11 with no jumper. If he could shoot he'd be a big scorer as well.

[veilside23]

KG won the mvp with an aging spreewell and casell. how can people argue that webber is better when kg just displayed that he can beat the kings who in that time think that the kings have one of the best starting 5's ever built up.

I am a big webber fan as well but no way in hell id pick him over kg.

also some people pick webber because they simply hate kg.. just like spudjay's hate over ray allen :D

[FindingTim]

KG. How can someone think otherwise? If you do, you're just not being objective. MVP, DPOY, ring - three very notable things that KG has but Webber doesn't. KG is a slam dunk first ballot HOFer, whereas people will fight over Webber's HOF status if you create a thread whether he's a HOFer.

Webber was a better scorer, especially in the low post, but no doubt that KG's ppg average would be a couple of points higher had he played for those explosive Kings teams.



am I missing something? C-Webb is a definite HOFer. and considering that the hall counts college ball too... shoe in.

[drza44]

Can you name me one player on that Kings team that was better than Paul Pierce?

One player, definitely better? I tell you what, let's play a game:

Player A: 25.0 ppg, 44% FG, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 TOs, 21.7 PER, 110 offense rtg, 107 defense rtg
Player B: 24.2 ppg, 48% FG, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.9 TOs, 21.8 PER, 120 offense rtg, 106 defense rtg

Player A: 19.6 ppg, 46% FG, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 TOs, 19.6 PER, 115 offense rtg, 100 defense rtg
Player B: 19.2 ppg, 48% FG, 5.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 1.4 TOs, 19.6 PER, 117 offense rtg, 101 defense rtg

This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.

And again, outside of Pierce/Peja, Bibby compares very favorably as a King to Allen last season, Vlade was much more accomplished than Perk, Christie more reliable than Rondo, BoJax a better 6th man than Posey, etc. etc. on down the line. Those Kings were really, really talented.

[Showtime]

I will sum up again, my point about KG without addressing every playoff matchup: I don't believe KG ever had teams that were as talented as his opponents that I listed. I believe every team he faced was better. I don't need a rundown of that, because I didn't say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that they were so superior that a victory was beyond reach, and that the Wolves didn't have enough talent to be competitive. Upsets happen EVERY year. My point is that if KG was so "superhuman" as to take a team in a very stacked west all the way to the playoffs and win 50 games, then trying to say it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO WIN against those same teams is BS IMO.


Ultimately, here is where we disagree. Because of the loss of 1st round picks and lack of other ways to bring in talent, the Wolves used to scrape the bottom of the barrell every off-season to come up with players to fill out the roster.

I'm not putting McHale's failure on KG's back. I'm not looking on "what could have been", I'm only looking at how much KG did with what he had. If he was good enough to take his teams to the playoffs and win, he certainly COULD have won a first round series in those matchups. It's not like he played his best ball in those series.


Before he got to Boston, KG never lost in the playoffs with a single team as good as any of the ones that surrounded Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Webber, or Sheed in any of the seasons from that time period.

He lost to LA in 2004, so yeah, he lost with a good team.


So while I think that Garnett was as good as (or better than most of) those guys, he wasn't enough on his own to beat out combos of historic players (i.e. Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/DRob) or star ensembles (Portland, Sac, Dallas) with essentially Wally Szczerbiak as his best lieutenant.

But he was good enough to carry them through 82 games in a conference with all of that talent, even beating some of those teams in the regular season, but when it comes to the first round, suddenly he's no match. I guess the playoffs are his kryptonite to his superpowers. You only bring up his winning when it suits you. When he carries a team to the playoffs and 50 win seasons, it's because he's so great. When he loses in the first round of those seasons, it's because he doesn't have the talent around him.


Considering that he's undefeated in any playoff series where his 2nd best player was clearly better than Wally (a situation that all of the above great big men had every year), I think my line of thinking can be well supported.

He didn't win a championship in 2004. He, like Webber, lost to LA in the conference finals. You keep saying he's undefeated, but he only got past the first round in Minny ONCE, where he reached the same level as Webber.


Obviously you disagree, and that's fine. But I think the tragedy for Garnett (and the NBA as a whole) is that there have only been 1.5 seasons over his first 13 years where that (seemingly impossibly low) bar has been cleared.

I think it's a tragedy to blame everything on his supporting casts. Yes, he had the worst GM in the league, but he chose to remain in that situation, and he had enough talent to consistently make the playoffs. If he was good enough to win in the regular season, it's my opinion that he could have won a first round series. He didn't play flawless basketball, and he often times didn't take over games late. KG against Sac in 2004 was the best I've seen KG play in a clutch game. Other than that, he wasn't a great clutch player IMO. I don't think losing is all on his shoulders, but I also don't think it's all on his team's shoulders.

[Showtime]

This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.

You are forgetting styles and clutch play. Peja didn't perform in the playoffs, and Pierce did. Pierce was more versatile of a scorer who could penetrate and make plays for others. Peja mainly got his points as a shooter. Pierce can create way more than Peja could. Production was similar in those examples you cited, but it was night and day in what each brought to the table.

[drza44]

I will sum up again, my point about KG without addressing every playoff matchup: I don't believe KG ever had teams that were as talented as his opponents that I listed. I believe every team he faced was better. I don't need a rundown of that, because I didn't say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that they were so superior that a victory was beyond reach, and that the Wolves didn't have enough talent to be competitive. Upsets happen EVERY year. My point is that if KG was so "superhuman" as to take a team in a very stacked west all the way to the playoffs and win 50 games, then trying to say it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO WIN against those same teams is BS IMO.

I'm not putting McHale's failure on KG's back. I'm not looking on "what could have been", I'm only looking at how much KG did with what he had. If he was good enough to take his teams to the playoffs and win, he certainly COULD have won a first round series in those matchups. It's not like he played his best ball in those series.

Stats aren't a be-all/end-all by any stretch, but they at least can be part of an interesting story. The Wins Produced guys (love them or hate them) generally do an adequate job of using their statistical model to predict how many wins a team should have had, based on each player's individual stats. They did a chart for the Timberwolves during the KG era, and their model indicated that replacing KG with an average NBA player would have resulted in Wolves teams that averaged around 27 wins per year. Even the famed 03-04 team would have projected to about 32 wins with an average player in place of KG. http://www.wagesofwins.com/WhatIfNoKG.html His teams just really, really were not that talented during his Minnesota years. Especially compared to the rash of historically stacked teams that the Wolves tended to face in the playoffs.

Was it IMPOSSIBLE that KG lead that poor supporting cast to upset a much more talented one? Of course not. ANNNNNNNNNYYYYYTTTTTHHIIIINNNGGGG's POSSSSSSSIIIIBBBBBLLEE!!!" :D On the other hand, the fact that he wasn't able to do it isn't an indictment to me, especially in a comparison against Webber.


He lost to LA in 2004, so yeah, he lost with a good team.

Ah ah, that's not what I said. I said he's undefeated this millenium when his 2nd best player was clearly better than a Wally Szczerbiak. In '04 KG was undefeated with a healthy Cassell. It wasn't until both Cassell and Hudson were injured, leaving Garnett to have to play some point guard himself with Wally-caliber production as a 2nd option that they lost to the Lakers.


But he was good enough to carry them through 82 games in a conference with all of that talent, even beating some of those teams in the regular season, but when it comes to the first round, suddenly he's no match. I guess the playoffs are his kryptonite to his superpowers. You only bring up his winning when it suits you. When he carries a team to the playoffs and 50 win seasons, it's because he's so great. When he loses in the first round of those seasons, it's because he doesn't have the talent around him.

In the postseason, you face the same team for a series and it allows teams to focus on weaknesses. KG still did his thing in the playoffs...his post-season numbers were almost always as good as or better than his regular season ones, especially in his last 3 playoffs trips in Minny when he averaged 25 and 16 in the playoffs. But the playoffs shined a light on the weakness of his teammates. For instance, Wally was so 1-dimensional that it was easy to scheme him out in the playoffs, which is why his offensive numbers turned to hot garbage in the postseason and/or he tended to get torched by his opponent (like Finley in '02). He averaged 12 ppg on poor shooting in the postseason, pretty terrible for a "2nd option" whose claim to fame in the regular season were scoring/high-percentage shooting.


He didn't win a championship in 2004. He, like Webber, lost to LA in the conference finals. You keep saying he's undefeated, but he only got past the first round in Minny ONCE, where he reached the same level as Webber.

Again, he was undefeated until both the starting and back-up point guards (including the 2nd best player) were injured, leaving KG running the PG with Szczerbiak-caliber help.


I think it's a tragedy to blame everything on his supporting casts. Yes, he had the worst GM in the league, but he chose to remain in that situation, and he had enough talent to consistently make the playoffs. If he was good enough to win in the regular season, it's my opinion that he could have won a first round series. He didn't play flawless basketball, and he often times didn't take over games late. KG against Sac in 2004 was the best I've seen KG play in a clutch game. Other than that, he wasn't a great clutch player IMO. I don't think losing is all on his shoulders, but I also don't think it's all on his team's shoulders.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "blame everything". Those Wolves were IMO teams that over-achieved their talent level, which to me is commendable more-so than blame-worthy. I don't blame his supporting cast for this, as to me they did great with what they had. But if you're asking why they weren't title contenders or making playoff runs in a historically stacked Western Conference then yes, it is largely because the teams as assembled weren't talented enough.

[FinishHim!]

One player, definitely better? I tell you what, let's play a game:

Player A: 25.0 ppg, 44% FG, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 TOs, 21.7 PER, 110 offense rtg, 107 defense rtg
Player B: 24.2 ppg, 48% FG, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.9 TOs, 21.8 PER, 120 offense rtg, 106 defense rtg

Player A: 19.6 ppg, 46% FG, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 TOs, 19.6 PER, 115 offense rtg, 100 defense rtg
Player B: 19.2 ppg, 48% FG, 5.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 1.4 TOs, 19.6 PER, 117 offense rtg, 101 defense rtg

This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.

And again, outside of Pierce/Peja, Bibby compares very favorably as a King to Allen last season, Vlade was much more accomplished than Perk, Christie more reliable than Rondo, BoJax a better 6th man than Posey, etc. etc. on down the line. Those Kings were really, really talented.
Wow is all I can say...... If you can really say that prime Peja Stojakovic was anywhere near the level of Paul Pierce, then there is absolutely no point in arguing with you.

Player A: 32.1 ppg, 45% FG, 6.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.6 TOs, 30.3 PER, 116 offense rtg, 104 defense rtg
Player B: 30.0 ppg, 45% FG, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 3.5 TOs, 26.2 PER, 111 offense rtg, 103 defense rtg

Any guesses? No? Well player A = Tracy Mcgrady and player B = Kobe Bryant. So we can conclude that prime T-mac was better than prime Kobe. See how easy that was John Hollinger?

[browntown]

I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?

Lol I wasn't even responding to your message. I just opened the topic link and clicked reply. It's just a coincident's that you where taking about Webber being with the Kings lol. Also I did mention Bibby.

[johndough]

One point that I don't think has been mentioned here is the extenuating circumstances concerning Webber's career ( and others ).

It's fact that at least one pivotal game in Webber's career had a pre-determined outcome. With the stock people in basketball circles put on playoff accomplishments this is an EXTREMELY valid point.

[johndough]

ttt

[ruslan]

threadstarter, your name is ****ing retarded.

[Chrono90]

anyways, what did cwebb accomplish???

KG for me. not a question

[C-Webb4]

anyways, what did cwebb accomplish???

KG for me. not a question
And what did KG accomplish? Up until being paired with two future HOF players, next to nothing. Aside from one successful playoff run he was on that T-mac status.

[browntown]

And what did KG accomplish? Up until being paired with two future HOF players, next to nothing. Aside from one successful playoff run he was on that T-mac status.

One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.

[C-Webb4]

One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.
I don't... AI has an MVP and 2 ASG MVP's. Does that make him better than Lebron James?

[Showtime]

One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.
Not to get off on a MVP rant, but if it's "best player on best team" for the regular season, then why didn't Webber get respect in voting? The kings lead the league with 61 wins (better than LA's 58 in the same divison) in 2002, and Webber was 7th in MVP voting. Everybody makes a big deal about guys like Nash having the best year on a top team, Dirk having the best year on a top team, but when the best player on the best team has an outstanding season, he can't even make the All-NBA first team. I don't consider Nash twice the player KG was, nor do I think Dirk is on the same level as Shaq. Shaq has one MVP. Awards don't mean much without context. KG deserved that award, but that doesn't mean Webber wasn't MVP caliber if he didn't get one.

[browntown]

Alright its your opinion. But all I have to say is that Kevin Garnett had alot of success when he had a solid core around him. Example 2004 Timberwolves ( Cassell, Spreewell, Olawakandi or how ever you spell his name, Hasell.) and the 2008 Boston Celts ( Pierce, Allen, Perkins, Rondo.)

[FindingTim]

why do supporting casts and the strength of other contenders come into this argument?? If it is simply a player comparison, Doug Christie and Latrell Sprewell should not matter. If you've watched each player extensively, that is all you need.

almost every player comparison thread is made too complicated..

simplify.

forget supporting casts, forget opposing teams, forget the era, and hell, forget the stats. watch them play, and decide who is better. I watched both prime C-Webb and prime Garnett play. Prime C-Webb was better. Not by a lot, but better.

that is my argument.

[DonDadda59]

CWebb had all the talent in the world, one of the most versatile big men ever. But that special something was always missing. He always seemed to shrink or downright disappear when the moment to be great came along (the phantom time-out being exhibit 1A). I loved watching that Kings team from earlier in the decade and thought they were more talented than the Lakers, but LA had finishers like Horry and the Diesel and mental midgets like Webber, Floppy Divac, etc usually show their true colors at times like that.

[wang4three]

Some thought Bibby was better, but they weren't the ones making Nash an All-Star. That's a lame "point." Bibby outplayed Nash in one or two playoff series but he never had that rep overall. And the present difference in their rep has a bit to do with Nash winning two MVPs..."IMO," of course. Bibby might be a little slower, that's natural, but he's just as effective if not moreso. You really have no case for him being worse now. He's 30 years old, which is still a player's prime, and getting normal numbers by his standards.

Well I don't have knowledge to qualify entirely that Bibby's not the same as he was. But to me, he's had health issues, looks slower, and he's averaging 42% shooting since joining the Hawks while he was a 44% shooter with the Kings. He also is taking a lot more 3s these days which usually signifies that he's slowing down. I don't think I have "no case," but certainly enough to say otherwise.

But maybe you're right lets say. Looking at the stats right now for this season, Bibby's averaging 15 ppg on 44% shooting 40% from 3 against Boston. So I don't know how you're saying he's being "destroyed by Rondo".


And I'm not saying Rondo is the scorer Jackson is but he can definitely finish. He's averaging 11 with no jumper. If he could shoot he'd be a big scorer as well.

Yeah so could've Jason Kidd. But to my point, Jackson was a better finisher. I'm not saying Rondo is Chester Fraizer in finishing out there, but he isn't a Bobby Jackson level.

[BA_God]

prime : Duncan >> Garnett >= Dirk >= Webber
career: Duncan >> Garnett > Dirk > Webber

[C-Webb4]

Horrible comparison. Iverson played, what 6-7 more seasons than LeBron to assemble more accomplishments. Webber and Garnett played the same amount of seasons. Plus LeBron's still put up better statlines than Iverson. And LeBron pretty much has an MVP already, barring serious injury.
1. Webber had microfracture knee surgery in 03, so his career even though he was able to somewhat re-invent his game after that was cut short. KG hasn't had a major injury in his entire NBA career, wihich is great for him but shouldn't factor into a prime vs. prime discussion.

2. If MVP = best player on best team, then C-Webb deserved it just as much as KG did when he finished first in the west. Dirk got one on those grounds, KG did, and C-Webb finished 7th when he was the best player on the best team (record). So an MVP trophy isn't a be all end all.

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.

[Kevin_Garnett_5]

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.It's not debatable, KG beats him in every category except points.

[C-Webb4]

It's not debatable, KG beats him in every category except points.
The difference is that C-Webb had such a balanced team that his stats weren't overinflated like KG's were... It's just like how Al Jefferson is putting up 22.6/10.6/1.6 in Minnesota. He's a good player, but he's not as good as his numbers would indicate...

[drza44]

2. If MVP = best player on best team, then C-Webb deserved it just as much as KG did when he finished first in the west. Dirk got one on those grounds, KG did, and C-Webb finished 7th when he was the best player on the best team (record). So an MVP trophy isn't a be all end all.

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.

Some counterpoints:

1) KG's MVP wasn't (just) because he was the best player on the best team, like Dirk's was. KG in '04 had one of the better individual seasons in NBA history. Just a few of the highlights:

*KG led the NBA in points scored and rebounds (the only one to do it since Wilt in 1966).

*KG led the league in PER with a mark topped over a full season by only 6 players in history

*KG put up the 7th best defensive win shares mark in history

*KG led the league in on-court/off-court +/- by a huge margin.

Translation: KG dominated the box score stats, he dominated on defense, and he carried a weak supporting cast to the best record in the NBA. By every measure he was by far the best individual player that season. And on top of that, he ALSO led his team to the best record in the strongest conference. He was a slam-dunk choice for MVP, which is why he won in a landslide.

2) KG's 04 and Webber's '01 seasons weren't really close, no matter how you look at it.

*Traditional stats: Webber scored a few more points (27 vs. 24). KG swept everything else: he had more rebounds (both offensive and defensive), more assists, fewer turnovers, more blocks, more steals, shot better from the field, and shot better from the line. KG's '04 was both more productive AND more efficient than Webber's '01, across the board.

*Advanced stats: KG had a much higher PER, a higher true shooting percentage, a much higher offensive rating, a much lower defense rating, many more win shares (both offensive and defensive), many more Wins Produced (wages of wins). The only reason I don't have more stats listed here is because they aren't convenient to find, but KG essentially swept every advanced stat that exists in this comp...by like a LOT.

* Team success: Webber's '01 Kings finished 3rd in the West, KG's '04 Wolves were the #1 seed in the West.

* Competition: Webber finished 4th in the MVP vote in '01, but all 3 that finished ahead of him had (at least) comparable stats on teams with better records. KG's stats were well beyond the competition, and he also led the best team in the West.

I really don't see much comparison between the 2 "peak" seasons, as you define them. Webber's was outstanding, but not really better than his contemporaries. KG's was by far the best in the league that year, and stacks up well historically.

[Showtime]

^ 2002 Kings won 61 games, the most in the league with a 25/10/5 season. So, I don't know why you are talking about 01 in regards to MVP, unless you are talking about that specific year of stats. I think what he was trying to prove was that those guys were the only ones putting up those numbers, and Webber was doing it with more wins.

CW also brought up the point that it's easier to dominate the numbers on a team that doesn't have top talent. Your argument about Webber's talent around him actually works against you, because if he had a stacked team, he was still putting up those numbers and was the best player among those guys.

[drza44]

^ 2002 Kings won 61 games, the most in the league with a 25/10/5 season. So, I don't know why you are talking about 01 in regards to MVP, unless you are talking about that specific year of stats. I think what he was trying to prove was that those guys were the only ones putting up those numbers, and Webber was doing it with more wins.

I talked about '01 because I was responding to the guy that listed in his post the stats for Webber in '01 and KG in '04 as their best seasons. Also, that was the year that Webber had his best MVP finish (4th). But if C-Webb4 would have put down the stats for '02, I'd have used Webber's stats for '02 instead. The main gist of everything that I typed out would have fit for comparing KG's 04 and Webber's '02, though, except the best record part. So to address that:

Webber finished 7th in the MVP vote in '02, the year the Kings won 61 games. I'm not going to go through all 6 that finished ahead of him, but I know that year that Duncan, Kidd, and Shaq went 1 - 3. Now, if the ONLY criterion was best player on best team then yeah, Webber had a case. But there are other things voters look at too: individual stats, perceived impact, doing more with less, and buzz. Duncan and Shaq both had better stats than Webber that year and they were generally considered the 2 best players in the league. Kidd had come in to a terrible Nets team and led them to the top of their conference, which generated a lot of buzz. I don't remember any national buzz at all that Webber should win...it was pretty much a 2-horse race between Duncan and Kidd. So I don't see why 7 years later it would be considered an injustice that Webber didn't win it.


CW also brought up the point that it's easier to dominate the numbers on a team that doesn't have top talent. Your argument about Webber's talent around him actually works against you, because if he had a stacked team, he was still putting up those numbers and was the best player among those guys.

Not really in this case, though, because generally a "best-player-on-bad-team" situation comes out in the advanced stats (one of the reason I like them so much). Players in those situations tend to be less efficient (facing more double teams, trying to force it = worse FG% and more TOs). Net +/- often shows empty stats as well, because empty stats rarely lead to team success (i.e. the Al Jefferson example you gave, last season he was among the worst in the league at +/- for that very reason). So even if the traditional counting stats might be helped by being best player on a bad team, using advanced stats and looking at the team's success generally helps to point that out.

That's part of what made KG's 03-04 so amazing. He didn't play on a stacked team, so without him putting up such huge numbers they aren't contenders. He was also more efficient (better shooting and fewer turnovers) in '04 than Webber in '01 or '02, despite not having as much help. And KG led the league in net +/-, showing that he was having a huge positive impact on the court instead of just empty numbers like the Big Al example. Again, almost no matter how you choose to measure it, KG's '04 season was pretty easily better than any season that Webber ever had.

[artest 93]

Look at all these Celtic "fans"

They've become pretty annoying, mostly because they are bandwagoners and love to homer in their players. First Rajon and now it's KG

Of course, I'd pick KG to build a franchise around, too, mostly because of his longevity and consistent career, whereas Cwebb had troubles off the court and went through injuries. But in terms of talent, it's very close. It's been repeated: KG beats Cwebb on the defensive, but Cwebb had much more of a polished offensive game. If C-Webb was on a horrible team, I'm sure he could post 30 ppg. He was close in 2002, with 27~ And C-Webb is/was much more entertaining.

[veilside23]

people who pick webber over kg cant even bring a valid arguement... like where is webber better.. rebounding scoring defense ?? titles aside.... kg's accomplishment alone is clearly better than webber's accomplishment whatever that is.

[Showtime]

people who pick webber over kg cant even bring a valid arguement... like where is webber better.. rebounding scoring defense ?? titles aside.... kg's accomplishment alone is clearly better than webber's accomplishment whatever that is.
Most of the Webber supporters bring up his offense. You can look at all the stats you want, but Webber was more versatile of a scorer and playmaker. And then, of course, is winning. It seems a lot of players get credit for turning a franchise around, except Webber. With the exception of KG's late spurt in Boston, they had reached the same peak, but Webber had consistently won more before his injury.

And for the record, I'm not picking Webber over KG, because I feel they were on the same level at their peaks.

[veilside23]

what has webber won ? i mean i am a big fan of webber. but lets be honest here... kg took a team of scrubs exception to casell and an aging spree to the WCF. and lost to the kobe/shaq tandem...

webber is the more consistent scorer alright.. but thats it nothing else..