Is Chris Webber an HOF'er?

[D.J.]

-20.7 PPG
-9.8 RPG
-4.2 APG
-1.4 SPG
-1.4 BPG

-1994 ROY
-1x All-NBA 1st team
-3x All-NBA 2nd team
-1x All-NBA 3rd team
-1998-99 rebounding title

-1 of only 6 players to average 20+/9+/4+ for career
-6 seasons of 20+/10+

-Also take into consideration he had to compete against Garnett, Duncan, and Dirk at his position. Also had to compete against 3s such as Pierce, Hill, and Pippen.

[GIF REACTION]

Yes.

[Fire Colangelo]

Definitely.

[Cold soul]

Yes, without a doubt.

[imdaman99]

Yes. He played in an era with some of the greatest PFs.

Duncan
KG

Those 2 almost always got 1st team during his prime, they are all time greats. Rasheed was also around.

Injuries limited his career too. He coulda/shoulda been better.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Pau >>> Webber

He'll almost certainly get in though I think.

[GIF REACTION]

If the Kings didn't get rigged out of that 2002 WCF, they would have won the chip. Imagine, Webber has 1 ring, doesn't blow his knee out, extends his prime to atleast 2005ish, he'd have career averages even better, he'd be ranked with the Dirk/Garnett/Duncan tier of PFs

[SouBeachTalents]

Pau >>> Webber

He'll almost certainly get in though I think.

Peak Webber was definitely better than peak Gasol. He had a five year stretch of 24/11/5 on 48% and made more All-NBA teams in that span than Gasol has made in his career

[GrapeApe]

Without question. One of the most skilled big men ever.

The funny thing about Webber is as great as he was, the thing he'll be most remembered for is his infamous timeout call in the NCAA title game.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Peak Webber was definitely better than peak Gasol.

Not really.
Pau was a better scorer, rebounder, a comparable passer and a far, far better defender.
Just a much more fundamentally sound, consistent and impactful player.

Webber was flashy and inefficient.

Pau's best playoff run = 20 / 11.1 / 3.5 / 2.1-bpg on 60%TS (24.0 PER)
Webber's best run = 24 / 10.8 / 4.6 / 1.6-bpg on 52%TS (22.1 PER)

Pau also got his stats in 2 less mpg.

________________________________________


Best 5 years (playoffs)
----------
Webber : 22 / 9.8 / 4.1 / 1.3-bpg on 49%TS --- (48 games)
Gasol : 19 / 10.5 / 3.3 / 2.0-bpg on 58%TS--- (75 games)

Webber was generally highly inefficient & inconsistent plus unlike Gasol he was a rather unimpressive defender.

I wouldn't think twice in taking Gasol before him as a key piece for building around.
He was a better player, period.

Webber was more flash then substance.

[Collie]

He'll get in. Was a top 5 player for a couple of years (KG, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe --- then Webber over Kidd).

Sad thing is that, great as he was, he never really fulfilled his potential. We always talk about guys like Sheed and Coleman who could have been greater than they were. I think Webber could have been the GOAT PF if he stayed healthy and had a better mindset. He had everything: scoring ability, rebounding, passing, athleticism, ballhandling, even became a decent defender during the Kings runs. In Sacramento, he became enamored with being a point forward, so much that he abandoned his devastating low post game (as seen during his GS and early WSH days) and shot too many midrange jumpers, hurting his efficiency and the Kings in the process.

[GIF REACTION]

Not really.
Pau was a better scorer, rebounder, a comparable passer and a far, far better defender.
Just a much more fundamentally sound, consistent and impactful player.

Webber was flashy and inefficient.

Pau's best playoff run = 20 / 11.1 / 3.5 / 2.1-bpg on 60%TS (24.0 PER)
Webber's best run = 24 / 10.8 / 4.6 / 1.6-bpg on 52%TS (22.1 PER)

Pau also got his stats in 2 less mpg.

________________________________________


Best 5 years (playoffs)
----------
Webber : 22 / 9.8 / 4.1 / 1.3-bpg on 49%TS --- (48 games)
Gasol : 19 / 10.5 / 3.3 / 2.0-bpg on 58%TS--- (75 games)

Webber was generally highly inefficient & inconsistent plus unlike Gasol he was a rather unimpressive defender.

I wouldn't think twice in taking Gasol before him as a key piece for building around.
He was a better player, period.

Webber was more flash then substance.
It's close, clearly Gasol has better longevity, but Webber is the better talent and stronger peak

[GIF REACTION]

He'll get in. Was a top 5 player for a couple of years (KG, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe --- then Webber over Kidd).

Sad thing is that, great as he was, he never really fulfilled his potential. We always talk about guys like Sheed and Coleman who could have been greater than they were. I think Webber could have been the GOAT PF if he stayed healthy and had a better mindset. He had everything: scoring ability, rebounding, passing, athleticism, ballhandling, even became a decent defender during the Kings runs. In Sacramento, he became enamored with being a point forward, so much that he abandoned his devastating low post game (as seen during his GS and early WSH days) and shot too many midrange jumpers, hurting his efficiency and the Kings in the process.
Too true. If he played like Tim Duncan he could have been legendary.

[PsychoBe]

Not really.
Pau was a better scorer, rebounder, a comparable passer and a far, far better defender.
Just a much more fundamentally sound, consistent and impactful player.

Webber was flashy and inefficient.

Pau's best playoff run = 20 / 11.1 / 3.5 / 2.1-bpg on 60%TS (24.0 PER)
Webber's best run = 24 / 10.8 / 4.6 / 1.6-bpg on 52%TS (22.1 PER)

Pau also got his stats in 2 less mpg.

________________________________________


Best 5 years (playoffs)
----------
Webber : 22 / 9.8 / 4.1 / 1.3-bpg on 49%TS --- (48 games)
Gasol : 19 / 10.5 / 3.3 / 2.0-bpg on 58%TS--- (75 games)

Webber was generally highly inefficient & inconsistent plus unlike Gasol he was a rather unimpressive defender.

I wouldn't think twice in taking Gasol before him as a key piece for building around.
He was a better player, period.

Webber was more flash then substance.

one guy was the main man and one wasn't :facepalm

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

He doesn't have the longevity, and doesn't have a lot of other accolades. And the whole Michigan scandal. Who knows how they will vote.....

Other players joining O'Neal and Iverson among North American nominees include Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, Chris Webber, Kevin Johnson, Marques Johnson, Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings, A.C. Green, Sidney Moncrief, Swen Nater, Mark Price, Jack Sikma, Reggie Theus and Paul Westphal.

I'm not sure if any of those guys get in.... definitely not for awhile considering guys like Nash/Dirk/Manu/Duncan/Pierce/Garnett/Kobe/Ray Allen/etc will be getting in a few years.....

[ShaqTwizzle]

one guy was the main man and one wasn't :facepalm

That is a weak excuse.
Webber played on deep ensemble type casts (think 04 Pistons/08 Boston).

Pau's years that I posted include Memphis years where he was the obvious man and even from 09/10 he was the co-anchor of the LAL offense that was a more traditional two man core team so he was relied on heavily to run the offense and create for himself & others.

I don't think Webber had a considerably larger role on average nor that he received more attention from opposing defenses.

:confusedshrug:

Gasol's back to the basket game was just much more effective/efficient/consistent then Webber's mostly faceup game and he was a much better defender and much more fundamentally sound player in general.

Anyone who understands basketball knows that Pau was the better player by a fair margin.
Career wise they aren't even remotely close due to the massive longevity chasm.

Single year Peak might be closer but again I would go with Gasol.

[GIF REACTION]

Pau was not better by a wide margin

Webber was a much better well rounded player

[PsychoBe]

That is a weak excuse.
Webber played on deep ensemble type casts (think 04 Pistons/08 Boston).

Pau's years that I posted include Memphis years where he was the obvious man and even from 09/10 he was the co-anchor of the LAL offense that was a more traditional two man core team so he was relied on heavily to run the offense and create for himself & others.

I don't think Webber had a considerably larger role on average nor that he received more attention from opposing defenses.

:confusedshrug:

Gasol's back to the basket game was just much more effective/efficient/consistent then Webber's mostly faceup game and he was a much better defender and much more fundamentally sound.

Anyone who understands basketball knows that Pau was the better player by a fair margin.
Career wise they aren't even in the same arena as eachother.

Single year Peak might be closer but again I would go with Gasol.

first off you're inflating pau's stats with his first-round exit performances. anthony davis virtually averaged over 30 points in his playoff debut in a sweep.

and gasol's game was entirely dependent on the triangle and being bird-fed the ball by kobe.

pau wasn't better than anyone. he couldn't create like webber could, he couldn't score like webber could, and he couldn't lead a team past the first round like webber could.

face it, pau's career took off the moment he stepped inside kobe's shadow.

[WadeStan]

Mentally weak and cut short by injuries but one of my favorite players ever to watch. Exceptional passer and his mid range was money back in the day. Bagged Tyra back in the day too. That alone makes him a HOF lol

[ShaqTwizzle]

first off you're inflating pau's stats with his first-round exit performances.

Don't even waste time posting if you're so uneducated.
I posted the sample.

Pau's 5 year playoff Prime = 75 game sample
Webber's 5 year playoff Prime = 48 game sample

So the only one benefiting from a smaller sample here is actually Webber.
Even Peak for Peak Pau has a 7 game edge (16/23).

The rest of your post was just low level troll tier bait so I won't waste time with it.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

If the Kings didn't get rigged out of that 2002 WCF, they would have won the chip.

Still makes my blood boil.

:mad:

Kobe should have 2 chips right now (1 FMVP), not 5.

[PsychoBe]

Don't even waste time posting if you're so uneducated.
I posted the sample.

Pau's 5 year playoff Prime = 75 game sample
Webber's 5 year playoff Prime = 48 game sample

So the only one benefiting from a smaller sample here is actually Webber.
Even Peak for Peak Pau has a 7 game edge (16/23).

The rest of your post was just low level troll tier bait so I won't waste time with it.

fact: your numbers are more inflated if you play for 4 games and get swept vs if you play 10+. that was my point but you missed it completely.

and you put the years that gasol hid in kobe's shadow vs when webber was the man? :facepalm

i don't get you or your agenda but you're just flat-out wrong and i'm glad to know that you are in the absolute minority.

webber lead his team to the wcf - gasol never lead a team past the first round.

webber was the best offensive creator for his team - kobe was when gasol played for the lakers.

webber has the accolades, has a better peak, has better career stats, etc.

gasol has absolutely nothing on him aside from international play.

[tpols]

Don't even waste time posting if you're so uneducated.
I posted the sample.

Pau's 5 year playoff Prime = 75 game sample
Webber's 5 year playoff Prime = 48 game sample

So the only one benefiting from a smaller sample here is actually Webber.
Even Peak for Peak Pau has a 7 game edge (16/23).

The rest of your post was just low level troll tier bait so I won't waste time with it.

you're comparing a clear No. 2's numbers to a No. 1's and acting like its a valid comparison.

[GrapeApe]

That is a weak excuse.
Webber played on deep ensemble type casts (think 04 Pistons/08 Boston).

Pau's years that I posted include Memphis years where he was the obvious man and even from 09/10 he was the co-anchor of the LAL offense that was a more traditional two man core team so he was relied on heavily to run the offense and create for himself & others.

I don't think Webber had a considerably larger role on average nor that he received more attention from opposing defenses.

:confusedshrug:

Gasol's back to the basket game was just much more effective/efficient/consistent then Webber's mostly faceup game and he was a much better defender and much more fundamentally sound player in general.

Anyone who understands basketball knows that Pau was the better player by a fair margin.
Career wise they aren't even remotely close due to the massive longevity chasm.

Single year Peak might be closer but again I would go with Gasol.

I agree with most of that, but peak Webber was a monster. 27/11/4/1.3/1.7 and a 25 PER. There is some validity to the other poster's point about Webber and Gasol having different roles. Gasol was more suited as a #2 guy. I know some people consider Gasol a 1b on those championship teams (in terms of impact, not scoring), but I'm not sure he could have done what Webber did as a clear #1 guy. Webber was a controversially officiated series from winning a title as "the man".

It's always tough to compare players who have different roles. Does being a #1 guy make a player better than a #2 guy by default? Of course not, and in fact there's a handful of #3 guys who are better than #1's. Regarding Webber and Gasol, I think Webber at his best was a legit superstar. I don't think Gasol ever quite reached that level. I might take Gasol over Webber as a #2 guy, but Webber has to get credit for being able to lead a team deep into the playoffs as a #1.

[ShaqTwizzle]

I agree with most of that, but peak Webber was a monster. 27/11/4/1.3/1.7 and a 25 PER.

Eh... that one outliersh reg-season doesn't really sway me.

I am a playoffs guy and in the playoffs that year he dropped back down to 23 / 11.5 / 3.1 on 43%TS.


There is some validity to the other poster's point about Webber and Gasol having different roles.

I don't agree with that.
Webber was not a "carry the team" #1 guy like say 2000 Shaq or 2003 Duncan.
Not in terms of role or leadership.

He was the most productive guy on some very, very deep Sacramento teams that were known for their unselfish/sharing type strategies.

Did Webber in that sort of role carry a bigger statistical load then Gasol did?
Not really. I posted the stats earlier.
Webber was slightly more productive offensively but was nearly 10% less efficient Prime for Prime and 8% less Peak for Peak.

Did he have more team-wide responsibility then Gasol who was the #2 on a more typical 2 man core Championship team (that wasn't deep at all)?
I really, really don't think so.

Did he face more defensive attention?
No.

So I see no reason to devalue his stats in this comparison.

[PsychoBe]

Eh... that one outliersh reg-season doesn't really sway me.

I am a playoffs guy and in the playoffs that year he dropped back down to 23 / 11.5 / 3.1 on 43%TS.



I don't agree with that.
Webber was not a "carry the team" #1 guy like say 2000 Shaq or 2003 Duncan.
Not in terms of role or leadership.

He was the most productive guy on some very, very deep Sacramento teams that were known for their unselfish/sharing type strategies.

Did Webber in that sort of role carry a bigger statistical load then Gasol did?
yes he did, easily. kobe carried the load, not gasol.
Webber was slightly more productive offensively but was nearly 10% less efficient Prime for Prime and 8% less Peak for Peak.

Did he have more team-wide responsibility then Gasol who was the #2 on a more typical 2 man core Championship team (that wasn't deep at all)?

he was their primary scorer are you high? who else was gonna get the job done? bibby? vlade divacs? bird-fed peja?


Did he face more defensive attention?
No. lol. yes he did, easily. just stop it.

So I see no reason to devalue his stats in this comparison.

you know nothing about those sacremento kings's teams at all. i was an avid fan of those teams and watched most of their games at a young age. you just don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple.

[masonanddixon]

No. He was a little bitch.

[Fallen Angel]

Anything that happened in 1998-1999 shouldn't count

[Fallen Angel]

He'll get in, but I wouldn't put him ahead Shaq, Iverson, or Yao. He probably won't make it next year.

[ShaqTwizzle]

i was an avid fan of those teams and watched most of their games at a young age.

I respect that but I was a big NBA fan in the early 00's and also watched plenty of their games and almost all their playoff games.

Webber was a talented guy but I think you're overrating him.

What made those Sacramento teams so good was their unselfish/team style and their deep rosters that often had multiple guys in double figures and multiple guys with unique talents/specialties.
They were in the mold of 04 Pistons or 08 Boston... there wasn't one clear lead guy not in terms of production or leadership and regarding leadership I think Vlade and others took a much bigger role on those teams then Chris did.

Look at a year like 02 which was their only deep playoff run together.
points/assists

Webber : 24 / 5
Peja : 21 / 3

Christie : 12 / 4
Bobby J : 11 / 2
Bibby : 14 / 5
Vlade : 11 / 4
Hedo : 10 / 2

See the balance with scoring & passing?
Sacramento had another guy putting up basically the same volume as Webber and another 5 guys in double digits.

Webber was a good but underwhelming rebounder and he was never a great defender.
He was kinda soft and wasn't good in pressure situations.
Offensively his faceup, often jumper oriented game was pretty inefficient and inconsistent.
He was a great passer which nicely complimented those free flowing offenses the King's ran.

Also they didn't fall off much when they traded him at the start of the 2004 season.

03 Kings : 6.68 SRS (59 wins)
04 Kings : 5.54 SRS (54 wins) (Webber traded 12 games in)

07 Lakers : 0.24 SRS (42 wins)
09 Lakers : 7.11 SRS (65 wins) (first full season with Gasol)

[Kblaze8855]

Anyone who understands basketball knows that Pau was the better player by a fair margin.

Thats just flat out crazy. Even if Pau was better(he wasnt) there is too much evidence of people with long ties to the game considering Webber an elite player to say that. I have a tape of a game the Kings played vs the 76ers and during it they showed a clip of Doc Rivers listing Webber with Duncan, AI, Tmac, and Kobe as the only players in discussion for second best in the league(Shaq was the obvious #1 at the time) There is absolutely no question who the more highly regarded player would be if they shared a league in their primes. None.

You could rail against it all you like....Chris Webber was and would be considered better and if both are free agents 100% of the teams in the league call Webber before Pau.

I like Pau...but hes the backup plan 100% of the time if teams have both of them to pitch to. People who have been in and around the game 30-40 years were repping Webber hard and still are.

You can disagree...but he had people on his side far too involved in real playing and operating to say anyone who put him over Pau doesnt know the game.

Webber in his prime was seen as maybe a notch behind the top tier. Pau was never seen that way.

You might not agree....but too many people would to just say only know nothings believe it.

Hall of famers were talking him up as the MVP.

[GIF REACTION]

Thats just flat out crazy. Even if Pau was better(he wasnt) there is too much evidence of people with long ties to the game considering Webber an elite player to say that. I have a tape of a game the Kings played vs the 76ers and during it they showed a clip of Doc Rivers listing Webber with Duncan, AI, Tmac, and Kobe as the only players in discussion for second best in the league(Shaq was the obvious #1 at the time) There is absolutely no question who the more highly regarded player would be if they shared a league in their primes. None.

You could rail against it all you like....Chris Webber was would would be considered better and if both are free agents 100% of the teams in the league call Webber before Pau.

I like Pau...but hes the backup plan 100% of the time if teams have both of them to pitch to. People who have been in and around the game 30-40 years were repping Webber hard and still are.

You can disagree...but he had people on his side far too involved in real playing and operating to say anyone who put him over Pau doesnt know the game.

Webber in his prime was seen as maybe a notch behind the top tier. Pau was never seen that way.

You might not agree....but too many people would to just say only know nothings believe it.

Hall of famers were talking him up as the MVP.
:applause:

I'm pretty sure Webber came 4th in the MVP in a year of prime Shaq, 2001 Kobe, TMAC, Iverson, Garnett, Vince Carter Duncan, Nowitzki, etc

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

No, one of the most overrated players of the past 20 years. Didnt have the most impact on those Kings team and was sht scared of contact which is why he constantly dipped in playoffs

[GIF REACTION]

No, one of the most overrated players of the past 20 years. Didnt have the most impact on those Kings team and was sht scared of contact which is why he constantly dipped in playoffs
That's ridiculous

You are obviously referring to the 2004 season where he returned from the knee injury

He clearly wasn't the same and was hurting the team

But it was clear how good he was and how he made the team so much better

They were very talented teams, but look at 2002-2003 playoffs. They were cruising to the conference finals then Webber did his knee and they lost in 7 to Dallas. He was a +11 during that playoffs run. In the playoffs two years before he was a +31 through 8 playoff games. He was extremely good, but he was also on a good team. He revived the Detroit Pistons almost like Rasheed did. It took a Lebron god performance to beat them in the ECF.

[masonanddixon]

Thats just flat out crazy. Even if Pau was better(he wasnt) there is too much evidence of people with long ties to the game considering Webber an elite player to say that. I have a tape of a game the Kings played vs the 76ers and during it they showed a clip of Doc Rivers listing Webber with Duncan, AI, Tmac, and Kobe as the only players in discussion for second best in the league(Shaq was the obvious #1 at the time) There is absolutely no question who the more highly regarded player would be if they shared a league in their primes. None.

You could rail against it all you like....Chris Webber was and would be considered better and if both are free agents 100% of the teams in the league call Webber before Pau.

I like Pau...but hes the backup plan 100% of the time if teams have both of them to pitch to. People who have been in and around the game 30-40 years were repping Webber hard and still are.

You can disagree...but he had people on his side far too involved in real playing and operating to say anyone who put him over Pau doesnt know the game.

Webber in his prime was seen as maybe a notch behind the top tier. Pau was never seen that way.

You might not agree....but too many people would to just say only know nothings believe it.

Hall of famers were talking him up as the MVP.

Thats not true at all. Back in 05-06 Pau was at an absolutely elite level, the 3rd best power forward after Dirk and Duncan and carried his team to the 5th seed.

Webber has always been flawed in crunch time and was always a below average player.

I would say at their peaks Webber and Gasol were roughly equal, and edge going to Gasol because of defense and reliability.

[Norcaliblunt]

Straight up choke artist.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats not true at all. Back in 05-06 Pau was at an absolutely elite level, the 3rd best power forward after Dirk and Duncan and carried his team to the 5th seed.

Webber has always been flawed in crunch time and was always a below average player.

I would say at their peaks Webber and Gasol were roughly equal, and edge going to Gasol because of defense and reliability.

You could say it all you like. GMs, coaches, players, media or fans....Webber would get taken first.

In 06 Pau wasnt even all nba third team. And he didnt have the most votes among forwards who didnt make an all nba team either.

There is a lot of "...well I think" to this argument. Which is all well and good. Thats why we are here. But there is too much evidence that perfectly reasonable and experienced basketball people thought Webber was amazing and had him above where similar people later had Pau.

Doesnt make it a fact that he was better...id say it makes it hard to say people who disagree simply dont know basketball.

Pau was never that highly regarded. At times I felt he deserved it....I was on ISH talking up a Bulls trade for Gasol instead of Kobe in 07...because Kobe would have cost more. I wanted Pau then. Hes one of my favorite players now.

Love his game. Love his high post passing.

I have clips of him stored for a project ive long had planned. Coincidentally one of them is Pau going behind the back on the break and throwing a no look as Webber calls the game and lost his mind....

I like the guy. Always have.

But you put them in one league....Webber is gonna be considered better.

[dazzer87]

IF Pau is HOF why not Webber.....

[ShaqTwizzle]

Thats just flat out crazy.

I don't think its crazy at all. I think its flat out true.
I think Webber is historically overrated and when you look at all the information that becomes more and more apparent.

Appealing to authority which in your case (in my opinion) is basically an appeal to the sentiment of casual fans doesn't mean much to me.

Why did he get overrated?

#1. Webber in the early 00's was a popular flashy player on a flashy successful team.
#2. People overrate volume stats and often ignore or underrate things like efficiency/consistency/defense or the ability to maintain stats against better playoff level defenses.
Theres a reason why Iverson won an MVP back then.

Webber in 01 was very inefficient (.516%TS) and in the playoffs dropped down too 23 on 43%TS.
But yeah... he was up there with Shaq & Duncan.

Webber was never in the same galaxy as Shaq, Duncan, KG or even very close to Kobe once he developed.
He was a good player on some deep teams.

The fact that Doc Rivers even said he was in the discussion as guys like Peak Shaq or Prime Duncan just shows how biased and poor most former players or others involved with the game are at objectively rating guys.


There is absolutely no question who the more highly regarded player would be if they shared a league in their primes.

Lot of people thought Iverson >>> Kobe in 2001 & 2002.


But you put them in one league....Webber is gonna be considered better.

And yet...

5 year playoff Prime...

Webber : 22 / 9.8 / 4.1 / 1.3-bpg on 49%TS --- (48 games)
Gasol : 19 / 10.5 / 3.3 / 2.0-bpg on 58%TS--- (75 games)

People today have a better understanding of the game.
They aren't going to ignore the massive chasm in efficiency between the two especially in the playoffs where Webber's faceup game got exposed more deeply.

They aren't going to ignore that Gasol is a somewhat better rebounder and a far better rim-protector/overall defender.

I watched Webber during his best years and I watched Pau during his best years.
There is no doubt in my mind that Pau was the more skilled, fundamentally sound and just better overall two way player.

I think you got caught up with the hype and the popular sentiment of the times.
Webber wasn't that good.
I'd say he was a firm level or two below Gasol with a guys like Bosh.
That is his level.

Also when you move beyond their best years Gasol just ends up murdering Webber in terms of longevity so career wise its fairly clear that Gasol >>>>> Webber.

[Norcaliblunt]

Dude was a cancer early in his career. And a little baby dissing the city of Sacramento for not being "hood enough" when his bitch ass forced his way out of one of the most hood cities in America with Oakland. Dude was a little girl.

[Kblaze8855]

As ive said...say it all day. People you cant justify claiming dont know basketball would disagree. It isnt an appeal to authority...I never said it proves it true. You claimed people who disagree with you dont know ball. I said...you cant act like the many people who thought and think webber was amazing and better than Pau...dont know basketball. And the many(many many) examples I could site to suggest it make that clear.

You dont play in the nba 10 years and coach another 20 and just...not know shit about basketball.

You disagree with popular sentiment. Thats all well and good. But to make Pau>Webber out to be an argument so clearly in favor of Pau as to be used to decide who does and doesnt know ball? That is simply crazy.

Pau was better than Armen Gilliam(all due respect to the hammer). If you disagree you dont know basketball.

To apply that to him vs Webber is just being ridiculous.

[iamgine]

Post injury Webber was literal sh!t at the level of current Kobe.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Yes.

2002 was rigged.

[Norcaliblunt]

Pau vs Webber is like bread and butter vs hotdog with mustard. Take your pick.

[Fallen Angel]

No one can deny the fact that Webber will make the HOF even with the shit about him lying to a grand jury.

As far as him being a first ballot HOF'er, I don't think his career is accomplished enough to be in that category.

If Pau and Webber were both eligible for the Hall of Fame and you had to choose one, I'd personally choose Pau for what he's done both in the NBA and international basketball.

[Fallen Angel]

Pau isn't first ballot either just to clarify for people who may assume I think that

[D.J.]

Surprised the thread got this long. I've watched the NBA for coming up on 30 years now, so I'll give my views on Webber vs Pau.


Webber is one of the most skilled big men ever. Good range, elite rebounder, one of the best passing bigs ever, and certainly fun to watch. As someone earlier stated, coaches and analysts were just about all in agreement that Webber was a top player in the league and on par with a few others for the 2nd and 3rd best players in the league with Shaq as the clear cut #1. Yes, Webber was that good. Unfortunately, he was a bit soft in the paint and wasn't terribly efficient especially for a big man.

Pau, though not as rounded of a player as Webber, has always been incredibly efficient. A touch below the top scorers, but a top defender, reliable, and a defensive anchor on championship teams. Though Pau was considerably better than Webber defensively and also more efficient, he's not close to him offensively and didn't have his range. While a good passer, he wasn't quite on Webber's level.

Webber did underachieve and his knee injury in the 2003 playoffs pretty much ended his prime. He was quite painful to watch at times after that and I have no idea how he put up 20/9.9 in '06. Webber doesn't get hurt, no doubt the Kings beat the Mavs but I don't see them beating the Spurs with Duncan at his absolute peak.

Anyway, as for who was better and who I would take. That would be Mayce Edward Christopher Webber.

[ShaqTwizzle]

People you cant justify claiming dont know basketball would disagree.

And unless they can explain why... I don't really care.

I can't say that "those sort of guys" have typically shown good judgment or logic when rating players for the media.

They typically seem like casual fans who go with the popular sentiment of the time.
Many will have Kobe in their top 5 or say Wilts my GOAT he scored 50ppg!!! etc...
Very shallow reasoning typically.


You claimed people who disagree with you dont know ball.

Fair enough. I am kind of out of it... Christmas partying.

I respect other peoples opinions on this for sure but I think the stats (especially the playoff ones) and all the other info strongly support Pau being better even just short Prime for short Prime (for Webb's benefit since his Prime was quite short) and career wise there can be little dispute between the two because of the longevity chasm.


You disagree with popular sentiment.

Yes... the popular sentiment of back then.

And I backed myself up with stats and what I thought were pretty sound & reasonable arguments.

Pau is one of the best PF's of this generation.
Career wise he is probably only behind guys like Duncan, Dirk and KG.

There is no shame in being ranked below him as Webber clearly is career wise.

[Edgar Friendly]

Straight up choke artist.


He should be in the HOF but he will never, EVER live this down.:oldlol:

https://youtu.be/-QPB9NBUG2g

Possibly the greatest choke job in college basketball history, and frankly a reputation that followed him into the NBA, one he could never shake.

[Kblaze8855]

Far as the idea that people have a better understanding of the game....

Thats a whole other issue...but I couldnt disagree more. Fans have never been less knowledgeable or tried less to form valid opinions before opening their mouths.

Did you go to NBA games in the 80s and 90s? They were full of basketball fans. People who could call out a play as it developed. Knew the assistant coaches and what their roles were. You could learn from the people near you. I did. NBA games now are full of kids on cell phones and know nothing idiots.

It isnt some decline in intelligence of society...its the massive increase in popularity. NBA fans used to be hardcore fans of the sport.

Look at it this way...

Right now...im sure the people at a PBA event know bowling fairly well. Probably a lot of pros and former pros...people who care...a lot. Lets say bowling has a 10 billion dollar league in 20 years and millions of kids are added to the fanbase. How long would it take for the pool to reach the same average level of knowledge about the sport as it had when it was all 30-60 year old men who lived it?

We are in the middle of a fan expansion that diluted the average fans knowledge by more than team expansion hurt NBA teams average talent.

We have been left with millions of people who dont know what hedging on a screen is but they can recite what First Take said about a clutch gene and PER....

The NBA fanbase has NEVER known less about how basketball is played.

Id take the average NBA fans opinion from before say....1995...over todays every time.

And that isnt nostalgia. Thats expansion induced dilution of real fans.

[D.J.]

Another thing to add is that today's generation has sites like YouTube that glorifies highlights and doesn't allow them to truly watch the game. I grew up in the late 80s and into the 90s. You wanted to watch basketball, you had to watch on TV. NBA on NBC was my typical Sunday. I also had local channels so I could watch the Nets and Knicks. People today want to see LeBron dunk on people. They don't want to watch him play off the ball or how to exploit a mismatch.

[Round Mound]

I Think Both Webber and Gasol are HOFs...I Don`t Know What Place They Are If They Are Actually Top 10 PFs of All Time...Though...

[ShaqTwizzle]

Last post here.


Prime for Prime in the playoffs... (8 years)

Webber : 21 / 9.6 / 4.3 on 49%TS (19.6 PER)
Gasol : 18 / 9.6 / 3.3 on 57%TS (20.9 PER)

Pau
*considerably better defender
*better fundamentals (less mistake prone)
*8% more efficient

Webber
*2-3 more ppg
*1.0 more apg



5 year Peak VS 5 year Peak in the playoffs...

Webber : 22 / 9.8 / 4.1 / 1.3-bpg on 49%TS -- (48 games) (20.3 PER)
Gasol : 19 / 10.5 / 3.3 / 2.0-bpg on 58%TS -- (75 games) (21.5 PER)

Pau
*better rebounder
*considerably better defender
*better fundamentals
*9% more efficient

Webber
*2-3 more ppg
*0.8 more apg



Regular season Prime VS Regular season Prime (10 years)

Webber : 22 / 10.1 / 4.4 on 52%TS (21.9 PER)
Gasol : 19 / 9.1 / 3.2 on 58%TS (22.1 PER)

Note*
They are tired in terms of rebounding rate (TRB%).
Webber plays 2 extra mpg on average here.



Overall longevitiy

Gasol >> Webber

With Gasol you're getting a guy who was much more fundamentally sound.
You're getting a guy who was a much better defender and who offensively will give you only slightly lesser volume on much, much, much greater efficiency.

[Norcaliblunt]

Another thing to add is that today's generation has sites like YouTube that glorifies highlights and doesn't allow them to truly watch the game. I grew up in the late 80s and into the 90s. You wanted to watch basketball, you had to watch on TV. NBA on NBC was my typical Sunday. I also had local channels so I could watch the Nets and Knicks. People today want to see LeBron dunk on people. They don't want to watch him play off the ball or how to exploit a mismatch.

Lol. There were tons of highlight tapes back then. NBA Jam Session, NBA Superstars, Dazzling Dunks and Basketball Bloopers just to name a few. Every basketball head or young child had those in their collection. That mans fans back then were just as blinded by dunk highlights as this generation. At least today you have league pass, game reruns, full games on YouTube with analysis, plus advanced statistic reference sites all to help you "truly watch" and analyze the game more objectively and efficiently. Back in the day all you could do was watch your local teams games live ONCE, nationally televised games live ONCE, then you had dunk glorified highlight tapes. And man were those tapes ****ing popular. Peole would wear their tapes out watching them so much, because you couldn't just watch any ol team, or any ol game, any ol time. You watched NBA Jam Session not in depth X's and O's playing off the ball or exploiting mismatches. Lol.

[GIF REACTION]

Gasol a better defender?

LOL

[3ball]

Other players joining O'Neal and Iverson among North American nominees include Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, Chris Webber, Kevin Johnson, Marques Johnson, Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings, A.C. Green, Sidney Moncrief, Swen Nater, Mark Price, Jack Sikma, Reggie Theus and Paul Westphal.

I'm not sure if any of those guys get in.... definitely not for awhile considering guys like Nash/Dirk/Manu/Duncan/Pierce/Garnett/Kobe/Ray Allen/etc will be getting in a few years.....


Ray Allen and Manu are worse than a lot of the current nominees

and Webber is a shoe-in

[Collie]

Thinking about it, Cousins is the closest thing we have today to Webber. Except that Webber was such an incredible passer that you could build a contender around his high post passing.

That's something many people overlook when they consider Webber's career. He was like a PF version of Steve Nash. Put Pau on those Kings teams, are they as good? I'm not sure. I don't think Pau could elevate the rest of his teammates like Webber did.

[Fallen Angel]

Steve Nash is a little bit of an exaggeration

[JellyBean]

Heck yeah. C Webb is a Hall of Famer.

[GIF REACTION]

Thinking about it, Cousins is the closest thing we have today to Webber. Except that Webber was such an incredible passer that you could build a contender around his high post passing.

That's something many people overlook when they consider Webber's career. He was like a PF version of Steve Nash. Put Pau on those Kings teams, are they as good? I'm not sure. I don't think Pau could elevate the rest of his teammates like Webber did.
All Cousins needs to do is drop 10-20 pounds of fat and he'd be a more physical, center version of Webber

Both have freakish long arms, and all round skillsets

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Ray Allen and Manu are worse than a lot of the current nominees

and Webber is a shoe-in

Neither of those statements are true.

[feyki]

%100

[GoSpursGo1984]

No time while Webber was playing did I think wow that guy is a HOFer but he will probably get in because the HOF is a joke and will let pretty much anyone in.

[Edgar Friendly]

All Cousins needs to do is drop 10-20 pounds of fat and he'd be a more physical, center version of Webber

Both have freakish long arms, and all round skillsets

Cousins has excellent handles, but he still doesn't have the handles of Webber. Webber in his day had better handles than any big man outside of Garnett.

[MiseryCityTexas]

He was a lot better than Draymond Green currently is, so yeah he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

[MiseryCityTexas]

No time while Webber was playing did I think wow that guy is a HOFer but he will probably get in because the HOF is a joke and will let pretty much anyone in.

Chris is going to the Hall of Fame just off dunking on Charles Barkley alone. Not many NBA players can say that they dunked on Charles Barkley.

[BIZARRO]

The fact that this is even a thread shows how underrated Webber has become, and is on ISH.

Webber was a superior player to lots of players already in the Hall (i.e. Reggie Miller, Mutumbo, Dumars, etc.).....And without the Lakers (and let's face it, some controversial calls) in the early 2000's should have a ring or two. At least one anyway.

One of the most interesting things I found while looking at Webber's stats on Basketball Reference.....Is that his peak career points, rebounds, and assists numbers are 27.1, 13.0, and 5.4 respectively in each category.

Trying to find a player other than Wilt where all three meet that criteria........Let me repeat, I'm trying to find IN NBA HISTORY OTHER THAN WILT where all three categories meet that criteria. Help me out if you can (there might be a couple others, but I haven't found 'em), but Wilt is the only one I can think of whose peak totals are all that high.

Which is a pretty incredible statement about CWEbb. Which is the ultimate testament to CWebb's all around game, passing, boarding, etc.......

Great player, underrated player. Might not have totally lived up to his talent. But his talent was absolutely transcendent. And he had a great career by any standard, and easily Hall Of Fame worthy.

[PJR]

Would be willing to guarantee that the vast majority of basketball coaches would take Pau Gasol over Chris Webber at their peak, far more often than not.

[SouBeachTalents]

The fact that this is even a thread shows how underrated Webber has become, and is on ISH.

Webber was a superior player to lots of players already in the Hall (i.e. Reggie Miller, Mutumbo, Dumars, etc.).....And without the Lakers (and let's face it, some controversial calls) in the early 2000's should have a ring or two. At least one anyway.

One of the most interesting things I found while looking at Webber's stats on Basketball Reference.....Is that his peak career points, rebounds, and assists numbers are 27.1, 13.0, and 5.4 respectively in each category.

Trying to find a player other than Wilt where all three meet that criteria........Let me repeat, I'm trying to find IN NBA HISTORY OTHER THAN WILT where all three categories meet that criteria. Help me out if you can (there might be a couple others, but I haven't found 'em), but Wilt is the only one I can think of whose peak totals are all that high.

Which is a pretty incredible statement about CWEbb. Which is the ultimate testament to CWebb's all around game, passing, boarding, etc.......

Great player, underrated player. Might not have totally lived up to his talent. But his talent was absolutely transcendent. And he had a great career by any standard, and easily Hall Of Fame worthy.

Kareem, Barkley, and Baylor, pretty good company

[Kblaze8855]

Kareems peaks are about 35/17/5 with 4 blocks and 2 steals.

Billy Cunningham might be up there too. Maybe Doc in the ABA. I know he got above 30ppg and 13 rebounds. The assists im iffy on.

[Edgar Friendly]

Trying to find a player other than Wilt where all three meet that criteria........Let me repeat, I'm trying to find IN NBA HISTORY OTHER THAN WILT where all three categories meet that criteria. Help me out if you can (there might be a couple others, but I haven't found 'em), but Wilt is the only one I can think of whose peak totals are all that high.




http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zrIMXZST3go/0.jpg

[BIZARRO]

Kareem, Barkley, and Baylor, pretty good company


Actually Barkley never averaged the 5.4 assists to make the criteria.


So with that criteria, it's Wilt, Kareem, CWebb, and Elgin in that club.

And the only one to come into the league after 1970 who meets that criteria is CWebb.

My point being was, that is pretty impressive when looking at the player CWebb really was.

Instead of what ISH fanboys who never saw him play think he was.

[RRR3]

He will be.

[Smoke117]

I always found Webber to be overrated...at least as a scorer. He was always a guy taking way more shots than he should have. For instance, when he was putting up that 27.1ppg career high...he was doing it on a bad .516%ts and launching up 23 or so shots a game to do it...that's not being a good scorer. Let's face it...his real only post move was that ugly ass hook shot he had and in general, he just liked taking his mediocre jump shot most of the time. He was definitely never good enough to be a go-to guy. I think it annoys me so much because a guy like Sheed who was much more talented and skilled as a scorer WOULDN'T SHOOT. I wish he had, had Webber's mentality...

He was never a great defensive player, but at his best he was probably in the decent range. He couldn't anchor a defense, but he wasn't a liability. I've always liked his passing and rebounding...his ability to get offensive rebounds is the one thing that keeps his efficiency from just be dreadful...he could get a lot of easy points attacking the glass. All in all...he's probably a hofer because of his raw stats, but he'll always be overrated to me.

[Kblaze8855]

27 a game on 48% shooting with 70% from the line isn't even....good?

How many good scorers are there on the nba? 3 or 4 at a time?

What was 02 Tmac? 27 a game....46%. 521ts% 22 shots a game.

Not good?

If (note the "if")we aren't granting guys like Chris Webber and Tracy McGrady even good status as scorers what is a guy like say..... Cuttino Mobley? Unbelievably terrible?

[Smoke117]

27 a game on 48% shooting with 70% from the line isn't even....good?

How many good scorers are there on the nba? 3 or 4 at a time?

What was 02 Tmac? 27 a game....46%. 521ts% 22 shots a game.

Not good?

If (note the "if")we aren't granting guys like Chris Webber and Tracy McGrady even good status as scorers what is a guy like say..... Cuttino Mobley? Unbelievably terrible?

How is 27.1ppg on 23.3 shots a game good? You cannot spin that into good efficiency. I also fail to see how a big man shooting 48% is good anyhow...isn't the whole point originally that throwing the ball into a big man because he's closer to the basket is a much higher percentage shot? That was the whole point of throwing it into the post wasn't it?...a higher percentage shot? If not...enlighten me.

[Kblaze8855]

as I said if the likes of Webber and Tmac aren't good what are guys like Cuttino Mobley? Michael Finley? Antawn Jamison ?

when we set the bar so high that 27 points a game on 48% shooting isn't even good how are there more than five or six good scorers on earth?

what does the entire NBA range from god awful to average with four good scorers? does great even exist when 27 on 48% isn't even good? If it does... How many people have ever been great? 6 or 7?

[Smoke117]

as I said if the likes of Webber and Tmac aren't good what are guys like Cuttino Mobley? Michael Finley? Antawn Jamison ?

when we set the bar so high that 27 points a game on 48% shooting isn't even good how are there more than five or six good scorers on earth?

what does the entire NBA range from god awful to average with four good scorers?

How the **** does bringing up 3 players I've also found overrated scorers make a point? Michael Finley was massively overrated on the Mavs and a guy who should have spent more time playing defense and letting Dirk and Nash take the shots.

Bringing up 48% like it's the be all end all is worthless. Points per shot is what matters more and Webbers point per shot was garbage for a guy who was taking 20+ shots. He never had the skill or talent to be demanding the shots he was. I know you have watched enough Webber that you can't seriously make a case for him ever taking 23 shots a game in an entire season. He never had the skillset to turn that into good, efficient basketball, period.

[DMAVS41]

How the **** does bringing up 3 players I've also found overrated scorers make a point? Michael Finley was massively overrated on the Mavs and a guy who should have spent more time playing defense and letting Dirk and Nash take the shots.

Bringing up 48% like it's the be all end all is worthless. Points per shot is what matters more and Webbers point per shot was garbage for a guy who was taking 20+ shots. He never had the skill or talent to being demanding the shots he was. I know you have watched enough Webber that you can't seriously make a case for him ever taking 23 shots a game in an entire season. He never had the skillset to turn that into good, efficient basketball, period.

The Webber on the 02 Kings was just, flat out, a great overall player.

The biggest issue with him was not his ability or skills, but his health. Dude could never stay on the court enough...

[Smoke117]

The Webber on the 02 Kings was just, flat out, a great overall player.

The biggest issue with him was not his ability or skills, but his health. Dude could never stay on the court enough...

What does that have to do with his overall career...that is one season and a season where he only played 54 games. I'm talking about the man's career not a single season.

[DMAVS41]

What does that have to do with his overall career...that is one season and a season where he only played 54 games. I'm talking about the man's career not a single season.

You said the following:

He never had the skill or talent to being demanding the shots he was.

I disagree with that. Yes, I agree, that his career was rather dissapointing overall, but he did have the skill and talent to special things.

[D.J.]

You said the following:

He never had the skill or talent to being demanding the shots he was.

I disagree with that. Yes, I agree, that his career was rather dissapointing overall, but he did have the skill and talent to special things.


Very few were as skilled. He may have been a bit soft, but when you're averaging well over 20 a game for the bulk of your career and over 25 at peak, that kind of does demand a certain level of shots. Iverson was horribly inefficient, yet people praise him.

[Kblaze8855]

How the **** does bringing up 3 players I've also found overrated scorers make a point? Michael Finley was massively overrated on the Mavs and a guy who should have spent more time playing defense and letting Dirk and Nash take the shots.

Bringing up 48% like it's the be all end all is worthless. Points per shot is what matters more and Webbers point per shot was garbage for a guy who was taking 20+ shots. He never had the skill or talent to be demanding the shots he was. I know you have watched enough Webber that you can't seriously make a case for him ever taking 23 shots a game in an entire season. He never had the skillset to turn that into good, efficient basketball, period.


I'll tell you the point it makes.....

When guys like Webber and presumably Tmac....and to expand on your thinking probably Elvin Hayes, AI, and half the hall of fame....aren't good scorers....

What is good? And how few people fit the criteria?

Cwebb isn't even....good. I assume Finley and Jameson are less than that. with the standard held that high.... it kind of feels like you think there are 20 30 people in the NBA. That or you don't consider what truly average is when you decide what good is which would seem difficult...

maybe Webber wasn't good if the standard is the greatest scorers of all time. He's good relative to the NBA at any given point. in fact "good" seems terribly conservative.

On the issue of his talent.... we are so far apart on that as to make this a go nowhere conversation. On the scoring that may just be an issue of wording and relativity.

talent? Webber might have been the most talented 4 of all time. At least in the conversation. Downplaying his talent just makes me feel you don't like the guy. Which is fine. But we wouldn't get anywhere having a real conversation.

[jbryan1984]

Without question, first ballet. Should get in just from college alone. But, he was a part of imo the best team the last 30-35 years to not compete in the NBA Finals. The early 2000's Kings.

[Smoke117]

I'll tell you the point it makes.....

When guys like Webber and presumably Tmac....and to expand on your thinking probably Elvin Hayes, AI, and half the hall of fame....aren't good scorers....

What is good? And how few people fit the criteria?

Cwebb isn't even....good. I assume Finley and Jameson are less than that. with the standard held that high.... it kind of feels like you think there are 20 30 people in the NBA. That or you don't consider what truly average is when you decide what good is which would seem difficult...

maybe Webber wasn't good if the standard is the greatest scorers of all time. He's good relative to the NBA at any given point. in fact "good" seems terribly conservative.

On the issue of his talent.... we are so far apart on that as to make this a go nowhere conversation. On the scoring that may just be an issue of wording and relativity.

talent? Webber might have been the most talented 4 of all time. At least in the conversation. Downplaying his talent just makes me feel you don't like the guy. Which is fine. But we wouldn't get anywhere having a real conversation.

Way to go out of your way to "politic" it all. Seventy Five percent of what you said was window dressing. I'm not one of these 17 year old infants that gets impressed by many words...so don't bother playing that bullshit game with me.

[DMAVS41]

Way to go out of your way to "politic" it all. Seventy Five percent of what you said was window dressing. I'm not one of these 17 year old infants that gets impressed by many words...so don't bother playing that bullshit game with me.

What? His point is very clear.

If guys like Jamison and or Finley can't even crack "good scorers" at their best...then we really just don't have more than a handful of guys that could ever be considered "good scorers" in the league at a time.

This seems like semantics, but perhaps not.

What held back guys like Jamison and Finley was the other parts of their games. Jamison was a terrible defender and about as unclutch as it gets. Finley could not go left and was a poor dribbler...he also saw his defense get worse over his career...and he wasn't a good passer either.

But only focusing on scoring? They were "good"...I think that is a reasonable word to use.

So is it just semantics? Or do you actually think this stuff and we should use the common definition of "good"?

[Wade's Rings]

That's ridiculous

You are obviously referring to the 2004 season where he returned from the knee injury

He clearly wasn't the same and was hurting the team

But it was clear how good he was and how he made the team so much better

They were very talented teams, but look at 2002-2003 playoffs. They were cruising to the conference finals then Webber did his knee and they lost in 7 to Dallas. He was a +11 during that playoffs run. In the playoffs two years before he was a +31 through 8 playoff games. He was extremely good, but he was also on a good team. He revived the Detroit Pistons almost like Rasheed did. It took a Lebron god performance to beat them in the ECF.

The Pistons won 64 Games the Year before losing in the Conference Finals in 6.

:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[ShaqTwizzle]

How skilled we percieve a player to be doesn't really mean anything.
What matters is how effective a player is.
And either way while Webber was very skilled in one or two areas (ball handling/passing) he was pretty bad, average or mediocre in some others (back 2 basket game / low post game / defense).

As a scorer he wasn't that good (compared to All-Time greats).
22ppg on 52%TS over his Prime in the reg-season.
Thats solid/good but hardly great/elite volume and it came on poor efficiency.

Playoff wise 4 year Peak (00-03) : I am still left with a 23.7-ppg scorer on .495%TS.
And that is very generous using his 4 best years.
Am I supposed to be impressed by that?
Good, maybe very good but not great volume on awful, awful efficiency.
Looking at his full playoff Prime we have 21-ppg scorer on 49%TS...

The guy was in love with deep 2pt perimeter shots and didn't attack the basket enough (taking advantage of his handles) because he shunned contact.

Anyway no one is saying he wasn't a great player and I do think he deserves a spot in the Hall but Hall_wise he is probably Bosh tier at best.

The reason why some of those Sacramento teams were so good (beyond having Webber) is because they were incredibly deep and had many guys with unique abilities/specialties.


02 Sacramento

Webber : 24 / 5
Peja : 21 / 3

Christie : 12 / 4
Bobby J : 11 / 2
Bibby : 14 / 5
Vlade : 11 / 4
Hedo : 10 / 2


How many teams have had two 20pt scorers + five other guys in double digits and such a wealth of BBIQ/passing ability/shooting ability/unique skills?

[dhsilv]

IF Pau is HOF why not Webber.....

International play makes the gap between them career for career massive. Gasol in terms of hall voting is likely two tiers ahead if not three over Webber. At least from a voter stand point (you can disagree with how the voters look at this stuff, but if you understand how the voting has worked, you know that Gasol is a 100% lock and likely a first ballot guy.).

[dhsilv]

Far as the idea that people have a better understanding of the game....

Thats a whole other issue...but I couldnt disagree more. Fans have never been less knowledgeable or tried less to form valid opinions before opening their mouths.

Did you go to NBA games in the 80s and 90s? They were full of basketball fans. People who could call out a play as it developed. Knew the assistant coaches and what their roles were. You could learn from the people near you. I did. NBA games now are full of kids on cell phones and know nothing idiots.

It isnt some decline in intelligence of society...its the massive increase in popularity. NBA fans used to be hardcore fans of the sport.

Look at it this way...

Right now...im sure the people at a PBA event know bowling fairly well. Probably a lot of pros and former pros...people who care...a lot. Lets say bowling has a 10 billion dollar league in 20 years and millions of kids are added to the fanbase. How long would it take for the pool to reach the same average level of knowledge about the sport as it had when it was all 30-60 year old men who lived it?

We are in the middle of a fan expansion that diluted the average fans knowledge by more than team expansion hurt NBA teams average talent.

We have been left with millions of people who dont know what hedging on a screen is but they can recite what First Take said about a clutch gene and PER....

The NBA fanbase has NEVER known less about how basketball is played.

Id take the average NBA fans opinion from before say....1995...over todays every time.

And that isnt nostalgia. Thats expansion induced dilution of real fans.

The new fans if you're right (suspect) wouldn't really be the base. The base are the same people from the 80's and 90's only today they have FAR more important, better information, and better sports writing (if they avoid the bill o'rielly style shit on espn).

The informed fan of the 90's would sound uninformed today. We just have a much better understanding of the game from analytic, motion cameras, great writers, and larger communities of fans who are better able to go out and obtain information.

Yeah you have 12 year olds claiming they watched Jordan his whole career around too...but it doesn't take long to understand someone who just doesn't get it.

[JohnnySic]

Absolutely. How is this even a question? :whatever:

[dhsilv]

Another thing to add is that today's generation has sites like YouTube that glorifies highlights and doesn't allow them to truly watch the game. I grew up in the late 80s and into the 90s. You wanted to watch basketball, you had to watch on TV. NBA on NBC was my typical Sunday. I also had local channels so I could watch the Nets and Knicks. People today want to see LeBron dunk on people. They don't want to watch him play off the ball or how to exploit a mismatch.

I don't claim this is all quality content. That said youtube is FAR and I mean FAR better than Sport Center's highlight mess. Keep in mind today you can actually (for free if you're willing to look) watch EVERY game. When I was growing up that wasn't an option, so I had to follow teams at least 60+ games a year through sport center or the NEWS PAPER! I mean watching the 96' bulls, I was lucky if 1 game a week was on. So I got to see MJ win 72 through 2-3 minute highlight clips. I will say Chuck Daily was better at explaining the game than anyone currently involved with inside the nba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_eCnTNt1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqHvupBQl6I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPy_xUubajg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3osYhb4ro0

Sorry but we didn't have this quality content ready to watch anytime we want in the past.

[game3524]

How is 27.1ppg on 23.3 shots a game good? You cannot spin that into good efficiency. I also fail to see how a big man shooting 48% is good anyhow...isn't the whole point originally that throwing the ball into a big man because he's closer to the basket is a much higher percentage shot? That was the whole point of throwing it into the post wasn't it?...a higher percentage shot? If not...enlighten me.

KG shot 47% that same year are you going to tell me he didn't demand the shots he was getting?

[game3524]

I always found Webber to be overrated...at least as a scorer. He was always a guy taking way more shots than he should have. For instance, when he was putting up that 27.1ppg career high...he was doing it on a bad .516%ts and launching up 23 or so shots a game to do it...that's not being a good scorer. Let's face it...his real only post move was that ugly ass hook shot he had and in general, he just liked taking his mediocre jump shot most of the time. He was definitely never good enough to be a go-to guy. I think it annoys me so much because a guy like Sheed who was much more talented and skilled as a scorer WOULDN'T SHOOT. I wish he had, had Webber's mentality...

He was never a great defensive player, but at his best he was probably in the decent range. He couldn't anchor a defense, but he wasn't a liability. I've always liked his passing and rebounding...his ability to get offensive rebounds is the one thing that keeps his efficiency from just be dreadful...he could get a lot of easy points attacking the glass. All in all...he's probably a hofer because of his raw stats, but he'll always be overrated to me.


Spoken like someone who is just reading numbers without context. League average TS% was around 52% in the early 2000s. C-Webb was maintaining league average efficiency while also doing it on a ton of volume. KG and Duncan were around 53% TS and were scoring 5 less points per a game then C-Webb.

He may not be a HOF, but he was as good as any PF in the league in 2001.

[dhsilv]

1. Yes he'll be in the hall.

OK now to the Gasol vs Webber debate.

1. The media certainly thought more of Webber at his peak than the media thought of Gasol. This isn't up for debate so if you want to discuss who the general media thinks is better, the MVP voting tell us that right away and we don't need to discuss further. I doubt anyone here is interested in that discussion, the question is given what we know and having better information today who was actually better?

2. What was each better at? Webber was a better shooter from range, a better passer, and a better ball handler. Gasol was better in the post. A better rebounder. A better defender (on his man and his zone).

3. Can we hold the number 1 vs number 2 thing against them? Webber was in this 27 year old season when he finally got out of the first round of the playoffs. He would get out of the first round 5 times in his career, one of those being on Detroit as very much not the man. Gasol also did not make it out of the first round until his 27 year season and he did that with Kobe. One could debate if Gasol or Buttler were the "guy" on chicago last year but Gasol was either way a meaningful part of that Bulls team. Ultimately given both were able to carry a team to the playoffs but not past the first round until they were given mature and just flat out BETTER talent, and other allstar level guys around them, I'm not sure the argument here would strongly favor one or the other.

4. Better Peak. This is an odd question and given the posts here, even more so. If ish has told me anything it is that the playoffs matter, A LOT. Webber's best playoff run from his team's perspective was 2002. Gasol's best was likely 2010. I could go over numbers but the stats are REALLY in favor of Gasol as was the final result which is not fair, Webber was robbed. RAPM from what I"m seeing was never really a fan of webber, it and no suprise to me loved Christie from that team. Oddly enough it wasn't that big of a fan of Gasol either. So neither really look to have moved the needle there.

5. Conclusion. Webber played with an all time great passing team and he was a perfect fit with that group of players. He had a MVP level season more years in 2002 but missed too many games and had a worthy one in 2001 as well. He however always seemed to come up short in the playoffs. Gasol didn't have any years I'd consider MVP worthy. He however did step up in the playoffs or at least trailed off less. Gasol is a more traditional player who fits into more systems. Both played on bad teams and they were good enough to get bad teams into the playoffs. I think Gasol is marginally better, if we're talking 3-5 year peak. I think Webber had the best 2 year run, but if you value playoff games a LOT more than regular season I can understand going with Gasol instead.

6. If I were a GM and drafting one of these guys. I'll take Gasol and it isn't close.

[dhsilv]

Spoken like someone who is just reading numbers without context. League average TS% was around 52% in the early 2000s. C-Webb was maintaining league average efficiency while also doing it on a ton of volume. KG and Duncan were around 53% TS and were scoring 5 less points per a game then C-Webb.

He may not be a HOF, but he was as good as any PF in the league in 2001.

If we're adding context he had an all time great cast around him. Great passing all over. One of if not the best 3 point shooter in the game at the time (for spacing). Heck he had one of the few centers ever who was an elite passer and had elite hands around the basket. Shouldn't those things work to his favor?

[game3524]

If we're adding context he had an all time great cast around him. Great passing all over. One of if not the best 3 point shooter in the game at the time (for spacing). Heck he had one of the few centers ever who was an elite passer and had elite hands around the basket. Shouldn't those things work to his favor?

Of course, it is a factor. But lets not make it sound as if his rivals,(especially Duncan who still had a capable all-star center next to him in Robinson and decent floor spacers as well with the likes of Derek Anderson) were playing with stiffs.

[Smoke117]

Spoken like someone who is just reading numbers without context. League average TS% was around 52% in the early 2000s. C-Webb was maintaining league average efficiency while also doing it on a ton of volume. KG and Duncan were around 53% TS and were scoring 5 less points per a game then C-Webb.

He may not be a HOF, but he was as good as any PF in the league in 2001.

Yeah...it's almost like I didn't watch Chris Webber during his entire career and am just talking shit...oh wait...I have watched him and am evaluating him fairly as someone who knows basketball...hm...

[game3524]

Yeah...it's almost like I didn't watch Chris Webber during his entire career and am just talking shit...oh wait...I have watched him and am evaluating him fairly as someone who knows basketball...hm...

Could have fooled me seeing how your bitching about his TS% without realizing what the league average was in 2001 and for the fact it was just harder to score in the late 90s and early 2000s(the majority of C-Webb's prime).

[Smoke117]

Could have fooled me seeing how your bitching about his TS% without realizing what the league average was in 2001 and for the fact it was just harder to score in the late 90s and early 2000s(the majority of C-Webb's prime).

Next you are going to tell me how dominant Iverson was while shooting more shots than points he was averaing in the 2001 playofs and having the refs put him over Ray's Bucks.

[BarberSchool]

The brother's cultural and social leadership thru a crazy time in college and pro basketball plus his championship title he was robbed of by a lakers happy league office (if you don't believe me check the Official Donaghy Feds tapes, he says it was a fix).

Webber would have been FMVP on that finals championship with Divac and Bibby and them, and could have won the college title on the greatest freshman starting five ever in NCAA basketball.

Was a misunderstood superstar.
Champion.
Absolutely HOF'er.

[game3524]

Next you are going to tell me how dominant Iverson was while shooting more shots than points he was averaing in the 2001 playofs and having the refs put him over Ray's Bucks.

I don't see how this is relevant to Chris Webber.

Seriously, just take your L and move on.:oldlol:

[dhsilv]

Of course, it is a factor. But lets not make it sound as if his rivals,(especially Duncan who still had a capable all-star center next to him in Robinson and decent floor spacers as well with the likes of Derek Anderson) were playing with stiffs.

Robinson offensively was WAY WAY WAY on his decline by 01 even. By 02 Robinson was not an allstar at all and was more or less a good offensive center and still a top tier defensive player. Even if we're just talking 01, Robinson made the spurs better, but he wasn't a guy who could pass or create for Duncan like the guys on the Kings could. There's a difference in having good players around you and having good players who make you better around you.

Derk Anderson has a huge soft spot in my heart as I'm a UK fan/grad/grew up in lexington so I love him, but come on. He wasn't a guy who made Duncan better. He wasn't an elite shooter or passer. More importantly are we only talking 01? Because he wasn't on the spurs in 02 which really was imo Webber's best year (he was hurt and played 50+ games but his playoff run and over all impact when it mattered).

[Fallen Angel]

Without question, first ballet. Should get in just from college alone. But, he was a part of imo the best team the last 30-35 years to not compete in the NBA Finals. The early 2000's Kings.
He's not first ballot. Guys like Shaq, Iverson, or Yao are first ballot Hall of Famers that'll get in as soon as they're eligible. Webber isn't on their level in terms of how they impacted the game outside the court. He may not even make it next year depending if there's a forgotten player of old who should be ahead of Webber.

Guys like Tim Hardaway and Mark Price have been waiting for their name to be enshrined in the basketball Hall of Fame for a while now, Webber may have to wait his turn like they did.

[DMAVS41]

The new fans if you're right (suspect) wouldn't really be the base. The base are the same people from the 80's and 90's only today they have FAR more important, better information, and better sports writing (if they avoid the bill o'rielly style shit on espn).

The informed fan of the 90's would sound uninformed today. We just have a much better understanding of the game from analytic, motion cameras, great writers, and larger communities of fans who are better able to go out and obtain information.

Yeah you have 12 year olds claiming they watched Jordan his whole career around too...but it doesn't take long to understand someone who just doesn't get it.

This on repeat.

[Smoke117]

He's not first ballot. Guys like Shaq, Iverson, or Yao are first ballot Hall of Famers that'll get in as soon as they're eligible. Webber isn't on their level in terms of how they impacted the game outside the court. He may not even make it next year depending if there's a forgotten player of old who should be ahead of Webber.

Guys like Tim Hardaway and Mark Price have been waiting for their name to be enshrined in the basketball Hall of Fame for a while now, Webber may have to wait his turn like they did.

The one actual James Haren fan giving his opinion and trying to be a big boy in this conversation...you are literally lucky I'm a at the point where I can't get upset at this point. I'll bury you tomorrow.

[game3524]

Robinson offensively was WAY WAY WAY on his decline by 01 even. By 02 Robinson was not an allstar at all and was more or less a good offensive center and still a top tier defensive player. Even if we're just talking 01, Robinson made the spurs better, but he wasn't a guy who could pass or create for Duncan like the guys on the Kings could. There's a difference in having good players around you and having good players who make you better around you.

Derk Anderson has a huge soft spot in my heart as I'm a UK fan/grad/grew up in lexington so I love him, but come on. He wasn't a guy who made Duncan better. He wasn't an elite shooter or passer. More importantly are we only talking 01? Because he wasn't on the spurs in 02 which really was imo Webber's best year (he was hurt and played 50+ games but his playoff run and over all impact when it mattered).

D-Rob had back issues in 2002, he was still a very good player in 2001. He wasn't the offensive force he was in the early to mid 90s, but his production in 2001 was still on par with what Vlade was giving the Kings. Offensively, I would still say teams feared D-Rob more so then they did Vlade, even with Robinson being a shell of what he use to be.

Derek Anderson didn't make Duncan a better player, he made his life easier because of the spacing, not to the level of what Peja did for Webber, but Timmy did have decent spacing around him. The Spurs did lead the league in 3P% that year and were 10th overall in 3-pointers made.

[dhsilv]

D-Rob had back issues in 2002, he was still a very good player in 2001. He wasn't the offensive force he was in the early to mid 90s, but his production in 2001 was still on par with what Vlade was giving the Kings. Offensively, I would still say teams feared D-Rob more so then they did Vlade, even with Robinson being a shell of what he use to be.

Derek Anderson didn't make Duncan a better player, he made his life easier because of the spacing, not to the level of what Peja did for Webber, but Timmy did have decent spacing around him. The Spurs did lead the league in 3P% that year and were 10th overall in 3-pointers made.

I wasn't saying Vlade was better than Robonson per say (I leave that open as I'd have to really think about it and honestly I'd have to watch a few games and go over some stats), but I'm saying is Robinson didn't make Duncan better than Vlade made Webber. Robinson isn't a great passer nor does he catch poorly thrown balls like Vlade can. So he doesn't make Duncan better like Vlade can.

The spurs had two very good bigs and were throwing the ball to shooters so yeah they hit a lot of 3's, what was their system.

My point is that the kings were built around what made webber good. The spurs used Duncan to make others good. Keep in mind that Duncan wasn't a very good passer yet in 01, if that's our year to compare. Webber was a great passer and he had great targets, but he was MUCH better passers from nearly all positions.

BTW I'm not trying to take away from anyone or add to anyone here, but since you were trying to add context, it's not right to ignore that Webber had one of the best passing groups of players of all time and some pretty damn good shooters too.

[Kblaze8855]

Way to go out of your way to "politic" it all. Seventy Five percent of what you said was window dressing. I'm not one of these 17 year old infants that gets impressed by many words...so don't bother playing that bullshit game with me.

I dont care what you are impressed by. I care that you dont seem to understand how far below the likes of Webber and the people ive mentioned you have to go to even reach average. You cant be dense enough to not see the flaw in an argument that Webber wasnt even a good scorer when there are hundreds of people in the league at any time incapable of doing what he did.

You dont seem to have any actual response. The idea that anyone could score 27 a game in the NBA and shoot 48% while doing it....while not even being a good scorer? Its so far out of the realm of common sense that you cannot believe it to be true. A 17 year old infant could not believe it to be true. Know what most of the league is? Tyrone Nesby. Most of the league is so far beneath Chris Webber as a scorer that the idea hes not good isnt even debatable. Chris Webber was a good scorer...and an argument otherwise simply makes you look like a jackass. Note...I say jackass....not idiot. Because nobody is idiot enough to think anyone not good at scoring can score 21 a game on 48% shooting over 15 years. So its being a jackass...

I just wanted to make that clear. Im down to call you and anyone else an idiot where appropriate. But this isnt you being stupid. Its you being difficult.

If the standard hes being held to is Jordan, Durant, Curry, Kobe,...whoever you consider the best scorers ever to be? He isnt that.

He isnt the notch below that either.

But hes too many notches beyond anywhere a rational person would consider average to say he isnt good.

The man is going to the hall of fame. Where he will join many MANY players there only for their scoring...while shooting worse than him and having a worse points per shot ratio in many cases. Hell ive found 5 HOF inductees from 2012 to now alone who have had similar or worse ratios of shots to points in their primes and only 1 of them isnt in the hall primarily for scoring(Payton...who in his two best years shot over 20 times for 23 points).

I cant wait for AI to be a first ballot hall of famer to see you vent about how he scored 24 thousand points at 5'11'' while somehow being bad at scoring. The line of legends and peers coming out to explain how great he was while you cling to numbers not one person who was on the floor with him will give a shit about?

That will be gold.

I'll tell you now about Webber what the entire basketball world will tell you about AI as they unveil his bust much to your dismay....

If you could take someone who isnt good...even someone above average...and make them HOF caliber by giving them a green light? Every team would have 3 of them.

[BarberSchool]

http://youtu.be/iv_mNAqSCM4

[ShaqTwizzle]

http://youtu.be/iv_mNAqSCM4

49 shots
51%TS
team lost

:mad:

[Kblaze8855]

he talked about that game on one episode of open court. Mentioned a lot of missed put backs and attempted tip ins. I suppose that was some of the 26 rebounds but I've not watched the game lately.

[Mr. Jabbar]

by ALL means

[Smoke117]

I dont care what you are impressed by. I care that you dont seem to understand how far below the likes of Webber and the people ive mentioned you have to go to even reach average. You cant be dense enough to not see the flaw in an argument that Webber wasnt even a good scorer when there are hundreds of people in the league at any time incapable of doing what he did.

You dont seem to have any actual response. The idea that anyone could score 27 a game in the NBA and shoot 48% while doing it....while not even being a good scorer? Its so far out of the realm of common sense that you cannot believe it to be true. A 17 year old infant could not believe it to be true. Know what most of the league is? Tyrone Nesby. Most of the league is so far beneath Chris Webber as a scorer that the idea hes not good isnt even debatable. Chris Webber was a good scorer...and an argument otherwise simply makes you look like a jackass. Note...I say jackass....not idiot. Because nobody is idiot enough to think anyone not good at scoring can score 21 a game on 48% shooting over 15 years. So its being a jackass...

I just wanted to make that clear. Im down to call you and anyone else an idiot where appropriate. But this isnt you being stupid. Its you being difficult.

If the standard hes being held to is Jordan, Durant, Curry, Kobe,...whoever you consider the best scorers ever to be? He isnt that.

He isnt the notch below that either.

But hes too many notches beyond anywhere a rational person would consider average to say he isnt good.

The man is going to the hall of fame. Where he will join many MANY players there only for their scoring...while shooting worse than him and having a worse points per shot ratio in many cases. Hell ive found 5 HOF inductees from 2012 to now alone who have had similar or worse ratios of shots to points in their primes and only 1 of them isnt in the hall primarily for scoring(Payton...who in his two best years shot over 20 times for 23 points).

I cant wait for AI to be a first ballot hall of famer to see you vent about how he scored 24 thousand points at 5'11'' while somehow being bad at scoring. The line of legends and peers coming out to explain how great he was while you cling to numbers not one person who was on the floor with him will give a shit about?

That will be gold.

I'll tell you now about Webber what the entire basketball world will tell you about AI as they unveil his bust much to your dismay....

If you could take someone who isnt good...even someone above average...and make them HOF caliber by giving them a green light? Every team would have 3 of them.

I don't need a reason to say Allen Iverson is the most overrated player of all time and by far the most overrated scorer of all time. The ****ing clown was averaging 32.9ppg on 30 shots in the playoffs in 2001...you can't make that look good. He even averaged more shots than actual points vs the Bucks in that shady series.

[DMAVS41]

I don't need a reason to say Allen Iverson is the most overrated player of all time and by far the most overrated scorer of all time. The ****ing clown was averaging 32.9ppg on 30 shots in the playoffs in 2001...you can't make that look good. He even averaged more shots than actual points vs the Bucks in that shady series.

So when just speaking solely about "scoring"...you don't think the word "good" is okay to use when talking about Iverson?

[game3524]

So when just speaking solely about "scoring"...you don't think the word "good" is okay to use when talking about Iverson?

Don't bother.

OP has shown he has a simplistic view when it comes to scoring.

[Euroleague]

Peak Webber was definitely better than peak Gasol. He had a five year stretch of 24/11/5 on 48% and made more All-NBA teams in that span than Gasol has made in his career


Pau was not better by a wide margin

Webber was a much better well rounded player


first off you're inflating pau's stats with his first-round exit performances. anthony davis virtually averaged over 30 points in his playoff debut in a sweep.

and gasol's game was entirely dependent on the triangle and being bird-fed the ball by kobe.

pau wasn't better than anyone. he couldn't create like webber could, he couldn't score like webber could, and he couldn't lead a team past the first round like webber could.

face it, pau's career took off the moment he stepped inside kobe's shadow.



fact: your numbers are more inflated if you play for 4 games and get swept vs if you play 10+. that was my point but you missed it completely.

and you put the years that gasol hid in kobe's shadow vs when webber was the man? :facepalm

i don't get you or your agenda but you're just flat-out wrong and i'm glad to know that you are in the absolute minority.

webber lead his team to the wcf - gasol never lead a team past the first round.

webber was the best offensive creator for his team - kobe was when gasol played for the lakers.

webber has the accolades, has a better peak, has better career stats, etc.

gasol has absolutely nothing on him aside from international play.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/pUpApmcdMnUis/200.gif

PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE

I think Webber should be in the Hall of Fame. I mean if guys like Mitch Richmond are in there, then of course Webber should be. And Webber was a really damn good player.

But no way in hell was peak Webber better than peak Gasol.

GTFO with that bullshit.

[PsychoBe]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/pUpApmcdMnUis/200.gif

PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE

I think Webber should be in the Hall of Fame. I mean if guys like Mitch Richmond are in there, then of course Webber should be. And Webber was a really damn good player.

But no way in hell was peak Webber better than peak Gasol.

GTFO with that bullshit.

stop.

gasoft never carried a team as far as webber has. ever.

[Fallen Angel]

If Gasol and Webber were both eligible for the Hall of Fame at the same time then Gasol would get in first 10 times out of 10

[Euroleague]

Thats just flat out crazy. Even if Pau was better(he wasnt) there is too much evidence of people with long ties to the game considering Webber an elite player to say that. I have a tape of a game the Kings played vs the 76ers and during it they showed a clip of Doc Rivers listing Webber with Duncan, AI, Tmac, and Kobe as the only players in discussion for second best in the league(Shaq was the obvious #1 at the time) There is absolutely no question who the more highly regarded player would be if they shared a league in their primes. None.

You could rail against it all you like....Chris Webber was and would be considered better and if both are free agents 100% of the teams in the league call Webber before Pau.

I like Pau...but hes the backup plan 100% of the time if teams have both of them to pitch to. People who have been in and around the game 30-40 years were repping Webber hard and still are.

You can disagree...but he had people on his side far too involved in real playing and operating to say anyone who put him over Pau doesnt know the game.

Webber in his prime was seen as maybe a notch behind the top tier. Pau was never seen that way.

You might not agree....but too many people would to just say only know nothings believe it.

Hall of famers were talking him up as the MVP.

No one one that has an IQ over 65 and that has played even pee wee basketball, thinks Webber was as good as Gasol.

STOP IT

This thread is getting downright embarrassing.

[BIZARRO]

Nope. NBA Execs (for NBA league rules) would choose prime Webber over Gasol in a heartbeat.

[Meticode]

Yes, when I think of other power forwards that played during that time (Garnett and Duncan), he was right up there with them during his prime.

[Euroleague]

Nope. NBA Execs (for NBA league rules) would choose prime Webber over Gasol in a heartbeat.

All the moronic NBA execs maybe. Any one of them with an IQ over 80 (which actually is only a few NBA execs probably - most of these guys are complete idiots) would not.

[Pointguard]

The informed fan of the 90's would sound uninformed today. We just have a much better understanding of the game from analytic, motion cameras, great writers, and larger communities of fans who are better able to go out and obtain information.

Yeah you have 12 year olds claiming they watched Jordan his whole career around too...but it doesn't take long to understand someone who just doesn't get it.
Said like a true stat geek. More stat info doesn't help you with understanding the game. At best, it can help you understand what happened. But experience, is the much better teacher. In life, in basketball and in general. More info can help you see what happened in a game, and see more tendencies. If you seen more games, its better than more info. If you experienced different realities its better than being given info about things. A recent fan hasn't really seen deep post skills mastered. All the info in the world isn't going to make that experience a reality. Therefore saying oh I know how a team is going to counter it is never going to be a great answer to the stat geek. When you see more great teams play its worth more than what you are talking about above.

When SA was playing that great pass game (Laker, Celtic of the '80s) many knew it could beat the Heat two years ago. That's experience. Camera angles, analytics, motion camer's is cheap knowledge in comparison. In the 80's there were many different types of great teams. Recent watchers still haven't seen a lot of what those teams brought to the game. Popovich uses a lot of old school tactics. He and Kerr will tell you that they are old school. New school coaches haven't taken over the league. Analytic s will always favor more efficient players, which in the history of the game are inferior to aggressive players.

[Euroleague]

Said like a true stat geek. More stat info doesn't help you with understanding the game. At best, it can help you understand what happened. But experience, is the much better teacher. In life, in basketball and in general. More info can help you see what happened in a game, and see more tendencies. If you seen more games, its better than more info. If you experienced different realities its better than being given info about things. A recent fan hasn't really seen deep post skills mastered. All the info in the world isn't going to make that experience a reality. Therefore saying oh I know how a team is going to counter it is never going to be a great answer to the stat geek. When you see more great teams play its worth more than what you are talking about above.

When SA was playing that great pass game (Laker, Celtic of the '80s) many knew it could beat the Heat two years ago. That's experience. Camera angles, analytics, motion camer's is cheap knowledge in comparison. In the 80's there were many different types of great teams. Recent watchers still haven't seen a lot of what those teams brought to the game. Popovich uses a lot of old school tactics. He and Kerr will tell you that they are old school. New school coaches haven't taken over the league. Analytic s will always favor more efficient players, which in the history of the game are inferior to aggressive players.

Popovich basically copies everything from European basketball and European basketball coaches. He uses almost nothing at all from 1980s NBA.

[DMAVS41]

Said like a true stat geek. More stat info doesn't help you with understanding the game. At best, it can help you understand what happened. But experience, is the much better teacher. In life, in basketball and in general. More info can help you see what happened in a game, and see more tendencies. If you seen more games, its better than more info. If you experienced different realities its better than being given info about things. A recent fan hasn't really seen deep post skills mastered. All the info in the world isn't going to make that experience a reality. Therefore saying oh I know how a team is going to counter it is never going to be a great answer to the stat geek. When you see more great teams play its worth more than what you are talking about above.

When SA was playing that great pass game (Laker, Celtic of the '80s) many knew it could beat the Heat two years ago. That's experience. Camera angles, analytics, motion camer's is cheap knowledge in comparison. In the 80's there were many different types of great teams. Recent watchers still haven't seen a lot of what those teams brought to the game. Popovich uses a lot of old school tactics. He and Kerr will tell you that they are old school. New school coaches haven't taken over the league. Analytic s will always favor more efficient players, which in the history of the game are inferior to aggressive players.


Kerr and the Warriors use just about the most new age science/technology/techniques out of anyone in the league. So you are just dead wrong with Kerr.

Also, could you list the "aggressive" players you are talking about please? Who are you referring to when you say this?

People aren't dumber now. The smart people now are just as smart as the smart people 30 years ago...perhaps smarter...and now those smart people have greater means to analyze the game through data/technology.

And yes, sorry, stats actually can tell you what another team is likely to counter with or what you/they should be countering with.

Of course having experience and knowing the game is also an asset...not sure why this stuff has to be so black/white with you and most here...It's simply nonsense to act like more information is a problem.

[Pointguard]

Kerr and the Warriors use just about the most new age science/technology/techniques out of anyone in the league. So you are just dead wrong with Kerr.
Sorry, he uses technology, but his strategy he gathered from Pop and Phil. See my last response below.


Also, could you list the "aggressive" players you are talking about please? Who are you referring to when you say this?
Players who stay on the attack, take the most chances. go hard at key areas. Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, Kobe, Russell, Moses, Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Lebron when hes not trying to be super efficient, Durant and Westbrook when the other one isn't playing, etc.


People aren't dumber now. The smart people now are just as smart as the smart people 30 years ago...perhaps smarter...and now those smart people have greater means to analyze the game through data/technology.

They have more tools to look at the same game, but it doesn't make them smarter or exist on a level where previous people don't. Same amount of eager fans trying to understand the game.


And yes, sorry, stats actually can tell you what another team is likely to counter with or what you/they should be countering with.
But experience is better.


Of course having experience and knowing the game is also an asset...not sure why this stuff has to be so black/white with you and most here...It's simply nonsense to act like more information is a problem.
Information is good only as it is applied correctly. Without the right premise it leads to more folly. A great majority of fans are not at the level of using it correctly. Like TS% which you love to use: Careerwise, TS% doesn't prove to be a great stat as it relates to greatness. Aggressive players usually have a much better personnel at the top - which can be measured by steals, FGA, rebounds, asst., etc show for a better career than TS%.

We are in the information age right now. I was a Knowledge Management worker for years. You can get more of info quicker now than at any other time. People aren't any brighter for it because information is better when it's worked with knowledge and understanding guiding it. Info doesn't mean much without the other two controlling how its worked. A strategy based off of information is much weaker than a strategy built off of wisdom and understanding. Coaching and successful systems are built off of the later. Donald Trump is built off of the former.

Too many people think virtual reality is on the level of experience. It isn't. How you take in the game and understand it is more important than the info you get about it.

[DMAVS41]

PG

I honestly think you don't grasp some of the stats.

TS% is just a quick reference for overall scoring efficiency. It doesn't tell you anything more than that.

The fact that you think TS% alone is somehow an indicator of "greatness" just leads me to believe that you really aren't understanding what a lot of these metrics are and what they are designed for. It simply shows how efficiently a player scored for the most part. Like with anything...you have to talk about context and role...etc. It's one piece of many about scorers.

Meh...you just listed a bunch of the best players ever. Aggression, like anything...can be a good factor, but it can also be a detrimental one.

You keep arguing for context, but what gives? Iverson was super aggressive...yet it's fair to say that he was overly aggressive and not efficient enough as a scorer to make him as valuable as other guys that perhaps played less aggressively, but were more efficient.

Obviously if a player is protecting their efficiency over playing the right way...it's a detriment...this seems like about as obvious a statement as can be made.

What was "old school" about the Warriors? They shoot more range shots than just about any champion ever...they played smaller than just about any champion ever. They did what works...and what, according to the data, works best.

Experience is better? Perhaps, but Byron Scott has all the experience in the world and just about any coach that grasps the value of the corner 3 and lineup structure could coach circles around him.

I'm just confused to your actual point. We have far better information today than we did 20 years ago. People don't have less experience today than they did 20 years ago...

Nothing has changed other than us all having more and much better information about the game.

Of course you have to use it correctly, but this is so obvious that I'm not sure what you are even arguing.

[DaOldLion]

of course

[dhsilv]

Said like a true stat geek. More stat info doesn't help you with understanding the game. At best, it can help you understand what happened. But experience, is the much better teacher. In life, in basketball and in general. More info can help you see what happened in a game, and see more tendencies. If you seen more games, its better than more info. If you experienced different realities its better than being given info about things. A recent fan hasn't really seen deep post skills mastered. All the info in the world isn't going to make that experience a reality. Therefore saying oh I know how a team is going to counter it is never going to be a great answer to the stat geek. When you see more great teams play its worth more than what you are talking about above.

When SA was playing that great pass game (Laker, Celtic of the '80s) many knew it could beat the Heat two years ago. That's experience. Camera angles, analytics, motion camer's is cheap knowledge in comparison. In the 80's there were many different types of great teams. Recent watchers still haven't seen a lot of what those teams brought to the game. Popovich uses a lot of old school tactics. He and Kerr will tell you that they are old school. New school coaches haven't taken over the league. Analytic s will always favor more efficient players, which in the history of the game are inferior to aggressive players.

Man where to even start. First, modern technology allows us to watch more games so if you're argument is on seeing games, people have way more access today than before. So if that's why you're posting, I think I've settled that so you can go on. Second, nobody is claiming stats for the sake of stats is magical. Everything you posted is basically meaningless gibberish that assumes I place far more value in stats than I do.

Finally, we don't see post games because of rules changes that make it damn near impossible to get the ball to a post player. How are people STILL not getting this?

Oh and Pop runs the team that is at the forefront of statistics in the nba. The spurs have been employing analtics as long if not longer than anyone. If Pop's "old school" it is because old school is meaningless, and Pop is just good at his job. He uses all available tools at his disposal to make the best decisions, and you damn better believe he's using data from motion cams, Real plus minus data, PER, and everything else to make the right decisions.

Edit:

I wanted to also point out that the people running NBA teams ARE smarter than they were 30 years ago. With higher salaries, larger staff's, more specialization, and with more money on the line for owners (plus smarter owners) we're seeing a lot of the best and brightest people go right from college to go work in pro sports or seeing pro sports pulling talent from wallstreet and sillicon valley to places like the NBA. We see less GM's how were players and instead see people who have managed budgets and been leaders.

There are a lot of guys who played basketball who really know how to play. Some of those guys can coach. Some of them can scout. Some of them can game plan. Some of them were just good players and that knowledge they have about how THEY played just doesn't translate well. There are however people who didn't play who have learned the game through film, who have studied what does and doesn't work, and have other skills that translate to the jobs in the NBA. It seems to me that you're hinting that you don't think people who weren't players are somehow not qualified to have a role on these teams or worse you think everyone who writes about analtics doesn't turn the games on and watch them.None of this is true.

[mehyaM24]

tbh, i don't think pop is doing anything special.. as far as x's & o's are concerned at least.

pointguard is absolutely correct - at their core, san antonio is playing oldschool bball. hell anyone with a brain could see the 2014 version practically emulated the 86 celtics, in-terms of making the extra pass.

but thats not "omg the playcalling!!!" what popovich is good at is getting the personnel to buy in by sacrificing their own individuality - be it by limiting touches, shots, coming off the bench (manu), limiting minutes..

100% cohesion - wanting to be coached and playing the game the RIGHT WAY. not all players buy into that stuff though, which is why i laugh at people saying kobe could have played for the spurs and replicated the same success. pffft.

ofc, today people can get their film and data easier & whatnot due to the internet, but stuff like +/- etc. have been around since i think the 60s. crazy right?

morey is 100% all about numbers - and guess what? the rockets have been a joke. you simply can't base everything on metrics.. sometimes it does come down to having a keen eye for intangibles that are NOT measured - and that all comes from studying & watching game tape.

[Pointguard]

PG

I honestly think you don't grasp some of the stats.

TS% is just a quick reference for overall scoring efficiency. It doesn't tell you anything more than that.

The fact that you think TS% alone is somehow an indicator of "greatness" just leads me to believe that you really aren't understanding what a lot of these metrics are and what they are designed for. It simply shows how efficiently a player scored for the most part. Like with anything...you have to talk about context and role...etc. It's one piece of many about scorers.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in understanding things. How many times have we discussed TS% And now you are saying that I think TS% is an indicator of "greatness." I can't believe that you are even pretending to act like I would say something like that. Do you really think people don't know which positions we take. I have often told you that for big men TS% is far inferior to FG%. I've been saying this for 5 years.

Everybody here knows its a stat you run to all the time.



Meh...you just listed a bunch of the best players ever. Aggression, like anything...can be a good factor, but it can also be a detrimental one.

You keep arguing for context, but what gives? Iverson was super aggressive...yet it's fair to say that he was overly aggressive and not efficient enough as a scorer to make him as valuable as other guys that perhaps played less aggressively, but were more efficient.
Iverson, had to be aggressive above all else on most of those teams. That year he got to the finals was a great year. Only a super aggressive attacker could do much with that team. Not one other player on that team was a shooter, creator, skilled scorer or finisher. The only other scorer that had more than a 1000 pts that year was Arron McKey at 11.6 ppg. You can't sit around and wait for the right shot in that scenario. You have to attack and make something out of it. He had to make something out of nothing which is the hardest responsibility in the game. And he did it for the most part. To look for efficiency in that scenario is foolishness. He doesn't have the resources to pull that off.


What was "old school" about the Warriors? They shoot more range shots than just about any champion ever...they played smaller than just about any champion ever. They did what works...and what, according to the data, works best.
They play a lot like TMC an earlier Warrior team on offense. Obviously given that today there are more shooters but the spread and attack remind me of a less talented Warrior's team. I love the passing of this team.


I'm just confused to your actual point. We have far better information today than we did 20 years ago. People don't have less experience today than they did 20 years ago...

Nothing has changed other than us all having more and much better information about the game.

Of course you have to use it correctly, but this is so obvious that I'm not sure what you are even arguing.
I am saying more info doesn't mean there are more experienced people talking about the game. The experience gives people more context. There are definitely more stat geeks feeling empowered by analyzing information. That are more people talking in that vein and basically talking to each other. You agreed with poster that said "The informed fan of the 90's would sound uninformed today. " Which is a bit immature. Only the stat geek conversation might have changed. A guy who has played and coached or just studied the game isn't going to sound "uniformed."

[Pointguard]

tbh, i don't think pop is doing anything special.. as far as x's & o's are concerned at least.

pointguard is absolutely correct - at their core, san antonio is playing oldschool bball. hell anyone with a brain could see the 2014 version practically emulated the 86 celtics, in-terms of making the extra pass.

but thats not "omg the playcalling!!!" what popovich is good at is getting the personnel to buy in by sacrificing their own individuality - be it by limiting touches, shots, coming off the bench (manu), limiting minutes..

100% cohesion - wanting to be coached and playing the game the RIGHT WAY. not all players buy into that stuff though, which is why i laugh at people saying kobe could have played for the spurs and replicated the same success. pffft.

ofc, today people can get their film and data easier & whatnot due to the internet, but stuff like +/- etc. have been around since i think the 60s. crazy right?

morey is 100% all about numbers - and guess what? the rockets have been a joke. you simply can't base everything on metrics.. sometimes it does come down to having a keen eye for intangibles that are NOT measured - and that all comes from studying & watching game tape.
Well Said.

[DMAVS41]

PG

You misunderstand. I was saying that you accusing others of equating "greatness" with TS% alone is a joke. You are arguing a straw man.

We can boil this down simply.

TS% is far better than fg%...it's actually not remotely close. There are certain cases, of course, in which a dominant fg% can be better, but there is no "broad rule" in which fg% is always better or vice versa.

If there was a broad rule...TS% would be the one to go with...ft's and 3's matter...sorry.

Again, you just don't understand what you are talking about.

And no, it isn't stat geek at all to say that. The informed fan today is simply far more informed than the fan in the mid 90's.

You don't even realize that you make this argument yourself. You go on and on about watching games being a great tool and how that experience informs. Well, we watch considerably more games now. More people have cable, more people have league pass, games are on tv more often...etc. We have excellent writing by the likes of Lowe, Stein, Duncan...etc. Podcasts with guys like Lowe with coaches/players...guys that study the game for a living.

So on your own argument...you concede fans today are more informed. People back in the mid 90's were not as intellectual about the game at all and we watch more games now.

[mehyaM24]

Well Said.

thanks.

btw, didn't pop recently claim he would like to eliminate the 3pt line? you can't get more oldschool than that! :lol

[Pointguard]

PG

You misunderstand. I was saying that you accusing others of equating "greatness" with TS% alone is a joke. You are arguing a straw man.

We can boil this down simply.

TS% is far better than fg%...it's actually not remotely close.

Again, you just don't understand what you are talking about.
FG%, relative to the league percentage, with great centers and 7'0 footers is a better indicator of a trait of a great player than TS%, relative to the league TS%. Do you want to do this?
Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan, Kareem are on my side. Refute this. I could go on.

I know Dirk is on the TS side who else?

[DMAVS41]

FG%, relative to the league percentage, with great centers and 7'0 footers is a better indicator of a trait of a great player than TS%, relative to the league TS%. Do you want to do this?
Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan, Kareem are on my side. Refute this. I could go on.

I know Dirk is on the TS side who else?

We can do this quickly.

Who is a better offensive player...Dirk or Duncan?

[Pointguard]

thanks.

btw, didn't pop recently claim he would like to eliminate the 3pt line? you can't get more oldschool than that! :lol

Haha, yeah right.

[Pointguard]

We can do this quickly.

Who is a better offensive player...Dirk or Duncan?

Dirk is the top TS% representative. He gets totally humiliated by Wilt and Shaq. Not even remotely in their class. Duncan is at the end and will probably end up against Kevin Duckworth or somebody like that.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk is the top TS% representative. He gets totally humiliated by Wilt and Shaq. Not even remotely in their class. Duncan is at the end and will probably end up against Kevin Duckworth or somebody like that.

You are once again confusing TS% with overall play.

I'll ask again...was Duncan or Dirk the better offensive player?

[Pointguard]

You are once again confusing TS% with overall play.
Wait so you are saying Shaq and Wilt weren't better offensively than Dirk. It has nothing to do with overall play.


I'll ask again...was Duncan or Dirk the better offensive player?
I like Duncan's complete offensive package better than I like Dirk's offensive game. Especially if you are including assist.

[DMAVS41]

Wait so you are saying Shaq and Wilt weren't better offensively than Dirk. It has nothing to do with overall play.

I like Duncan's complete offensive package better than I like Dirk's offensive game. Especially if you are including assist.

No, but you phrased the question in an absurd way.

The fact that you think Duncan was a better offensive player than Dirk is sadly, yet another, example of how you don't remotely understand the game you spend so much time watching and discussing.

I'm not going down another rabbit hole with you on this. You just really need to pick a new sport or league or something to follow. You don't understand the game.

[dhsilv]

tbh, i don't think pop is doing anything special.. as far as x's & o's are concerned at least.

pointguard is absolutely correct - at their core, san antonio is playing oldschool bball. hell anyone with a brain could see the 2014 version practically emulated the 86 celtics, in-terms of making the extra pass.

but thats not "omg the playcalling!!!" what popovich is good at is getting the personnel to buy in by sacrificing their own individuality - be it by limiting touches, shots, coming off the bench (manu), limiting minutes..

100% cohesion - wanting to be coached and playing the game the RIGHT WAY. not all players buy into that stuff though, which is why i laugh at people saying kobe could have played for the spurs and replicated the same success. pffft.

ofc, today people can get their film and data easier & whatnot due to the internet, but stuff like +/- etc. have been around since i think the 60s. crazy right?

morey is 100% all about numbers - and guess what? the rockets have been a joke. you simply can't base everything on metrics.. sometimes it does come down to having a keen eye for intangibles that are NOT measured - and that all comes from studying & watching game tape.

Celtics didn't value the 3 like the spurs on offense or defense, nor did they understand the value of the corner 3.

Clearly nobody today is going to recreate the game from the ground up. They build upon the systems used in the past applying better information, better personnel decision making, adapting to modern rules, and mixing in some personal flair. Like science, math, or any other field those who revolutionize the sport today do so only because they stood on the backs of giants who came before them.

As for Moorey, he is simply NOT just about the numbers and if you seriously don't see that, then you really are helpless.

[dhsilv]

FG%, relative to the league percentage, with great centers and 7'0 footers is a better indicator of a trait of a great player than TS%, relative to the league TS%. Do you want to do this?
Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan, Kareem are on my side. Refute this. I could go on.

I know Dirk is on the TS side who else?

So you're telling me that getting fouled and going to the line is something we should not value in a big man? And please find me a quote of Duncan, Wilt, Russel, or Kareem discussing the mathematics going into TS% and why FG% is better.

[dhsilv]

I am saying more info doesn't mean there are more experienced people talking about the game. The experience gives people more context. There are definitely more stat geeks feeling empowered by analyzing information. That are more people talking in that vein and basically talking to each other. You agreed with poster that said "The informed fan of the 90's would sound uninformed today. " Which is a bit immature. Only the stat geek conversation might have changed. A guy who has played and coached or just studied the game isn't going to sound "uniformed."

Wait, so we're going from discussing FANS to talking about coaches? Who said coaches from the 90's would sound uninformed today? I said fans and I couldn't have been clearer about that distinction.

Now I would agree that coaches today have more information and as a result they have been able to incorporate that information into their coaching, but Chuck Daily if we brought him back from the grave would after watching 50 or so games today be able to reasonably explain what's going on and why. He might gain something through understanding how data informed some decisions that perhaps aren't intuitive, but he's be just fine.

Unlike an nba coach who could watch every game thanks to getting game tapes, FANS have NEVER and I mean NEVER had more access to games. They didn't have writers who did NOTHING but write about the sport in depth and on formats allowing unlimited words and even pictures! We didn't have hour long podcasts....this is a renaissance for those fans that want to be informed.

[mehyaM24]

Celtics didn't value the 3 like the spurs on offense or defense, nor did they understand the value of the corner 3.

the celtics actually did incorporate the 3, but what's with the bold?

who implied otherwise? just curious :confusedshrug:


Clearly nobody today is going to recreate the game from the ground up. They build upon the systems used in the past applying better information, better personnel decision making, adapting to modern rules, and mixing in some personal flair. Like science, math, or any other field those who revolutionize the sport today do so only because they stood on the backs of giants who came before them.

again, though, who is suggesting otherwise? in my post i even mentioned the 'easier access' to film & data simply by way of internet.

claiming that someone from the 90s would be "uninformed today" is no different than saying somebody from today would be uninformed about the 90s - if you were to drop them off in that decade and tell them to elaborate on what they see, they probably wouldn't be able to do it.

different rules. different game. for better or worse is up for debate.


As for Moorey, he is simply NOT just about the numbers and if you seriously don't see that, then you really are helpless.

its "morey", and he is mostly about numbers & metrics. i'm not sure how anyone paying attention by now could suggest otherwise.

[Pointguard]

So you're telling me that getting fouled and going to the line is something we should not value in a big man? And please find me a quote of Duncan, Wilt, Russel, or Kareem discussing the mathematics going into TS% and why FG% is better.
Why do I need to find a quote???? What does that have to do with anything. I never said that players shouldn't aspire to hit free throws. Just that the real goods in big men is seen by what they do when they got defenders on them. That's usually where the greatness is seen.

[Pointguard]

Wait, so we're going from discussing FANS to talking about coaches? Who said coaches from the 90's would sound uninformed today? I said fans and I couldn't have been clearer about that distinction.
Some fans now were at the level of developing strategies for teams and some were players, and some just really studied the game in the 90's. They bring a dimension that stat guys don't, that journalist a lot of times don't and podcast don't necessarily contain.


Unlike an nba coach who could watch every game thanks to getting game tapes, FANS have NEVER and I mean NEVER had more access to games. They didn't have writers who did NOTHING but write about the sport in depth and on formats allowing unlimited words and even pictures! We didn't have hour long podcasts....this is a renaissance for those fans that want to be informed.
Guys who love the game, hang out with other guys who love the game. Its always been like that. I listen to podcast every once in a while and I don't get this new age fan stuff thing you are talking about at all. I sometimes get annoyed at they won't go the independent route. What podcast should I be listening too. What journalist you think is neo-intelligensia?

[dhsilv]

the celtics actually did incorporate the 3, but what's with the bold?

who implied otherwise? just curious :confusedshrug:



again, though, who is suggesting otherwise? in my post i even mentioned the 'easier access' to film & data simply by way of internet.

claiming that someone from the 90s would be "uninformed today" is no different than saying somebody from today would be uninformed about the 90s - if you were to drop them off in that decade and tell them to elaborate on what they see, they probably wouldn't be able to do it.

different rules. different game. for better or worse is up for debate.



its "morey", and he is mostly about numbers & metrics. i'm not sure how anyone paying attention by now could suggest otherwise.

Claiming the spurs play like the celtics is just silly. I mean yes they both play good basketball and that at its core isn't going to radically change. What changes the spurs have made however are dramatic, which is why I pointed out the use of and how the spurs value the 3. It's more than just USING, it is understanding the value of it, understanding the value of shots in different locations on the court and how to address that value on offense and defense.

We'll just disagree on 90's fans vs today's fan. I have more access to games from the 90's or at least equal access as I did in the 90's. Not to mention all the media and analysis of all of those series and players.

As for Morey (if I ever consistently spell names correctly, please make sure I see a doctor, something is wrong with me), he was the guy who has allowed himself to be the poster child of analytics, but his actual decision making clearly places value on a LOT more than numbers. To claim he's mostly about numbers is just false and only someone informed purely based on twitter level writing would not know this. He is outside of Cuban one of the most open and out there GM's. He loves to talk about why he likes players and oddly enough, he's not going to bore with a lot of data and numbers when he does so.

[dhsilv]

Why do I need to find a quote???? What does that have to do with anything. I never said that players shouldn't aspire to hit free throws. Just that the real goods in big men is seen by what they do when they got defenders on them. That's usually where the greatness is seen.

That sounds like some hogwash about remember the gibber and giving 110%, but it doesn't pass any smell test. The goal of a great offensive player is to score as many points as possible per possession they get. There's a hell of a lot more to that statement than TS% which we both know. At the end of the day, if one guy can draw fouls and get free throws he's more valuable all else equal to a guy who doesn't.

[Pointguard]

No, but you phrased the question in an absurd way.

The fact that you think Duncan was a better offensive player than Dirk is sadly, yet another, example of how you don't remotely understand the game you spend so much time watching and discussing.

I'm not going down another rabbit hole with you on this. You just really need to pick a new sport or league or something to follow. You don't understand the game.
I have always said that I prefer an offensive player that is interconnected to the other 4 players and creates for others. Duncan had the game revolve around him in a way that was very different than Dirk. Dirk scored better but wasn't better offensively to me. Duncan had versatility, could rise up his play, and his game was less prone to going stale than Dirk's. Dunc was incredibly consistent. But I do have it very close.

[dhsilv]

Some fans now were at the level of developing strategies for teams and some were players, and some just really studied the game in the 90's. They bring a dimension that stat guys don't, that journalist a lot of times don't and podcast don't necessarily contain.

Guys who love the game, hang out with other guys who love the game. Its always been like that. I listen to podcast every once in a while and I don't get this new age fan stuff thing you are talking about at all. I sometimes get annoyed at they won't go the independent route. What podcast should I be listening too. What journalist you think is neo-intelligensia?

You know, nothing seems more incorrect to me ever than the claim that players actually make good commentators or analysts of the game. Clearly some players have done a great job at it, but the vast majority are just awful. Charles Barkly is a funny dude and when he first got into announcing he had a lot of value about the players he played against, but now he's just awful. The same can be said of just so so so many ex players.

That the insistence on calling people "stats guys" as that implies that these people don't also study the game. Now I'm sure some teams have some quants employeed who do nothing but crunch regression models and analize data at a pure quant level, but that is a HUGE minority of the guys out there. Hollinger is perhaps the poster boy for analytics because of PER, yet go read his writings when he covered games and tell me he wasn't a basketball fan first, and he just happened to also be extremely good with mathematics and employeed that skill to better explain what he was seeing when watching games.

I'd guess others will have some better choices, but if you've not listening to Zach Lowe when he's got former and current NBA coaches/GM's on his podcasts you're really missing out. Even former players like Jalen Rose (a huge believer in analtics) is a pretty good listen when he's talking basketball, I'll pass on his football discussions and anything pop culture related, just shoot me. Bill Simmons used to get some great guests on his old pods, but we'll see what he can do without the access of ESPN (the current stuff sucks due to lack of access). I'm sure others can mention some others. I know I've listened to some really good random pods that I was just linked but never tracked down who was doing it and if they normally put out that level of quality.

[Pointguard]

That sounds like some hogwash about remember the gibber and giving 110%, but it doesn't pass any smell test.
Are you honestly saying that the real test of great big men hasn't been what they do while the clock is ticking. That sounds like hogwash to you. This is the neo intelligensia.


The goal of a great offensive player is to score as many points as possible per possession they get. There's a hell of a lot more to that statement than TS% which we both know. At the end of the day, if one guy can draw fouls and get free throws he's more valuable all else equal to a guy who doesn't.
I agree with that. Never said anything against that. My point has been that certain play manifested in great big men in the past. Most of them were moreso aggressive than anything else.

[dhsilv]

Are you honestly saying that the real test of great big men hasn't been what they do while the clock is ticking. That sounds like hogwash to you. This is the neo intelligensia.

I agree with that. Never said anything against that. My point has been that certain play manifested in great big men in the past. Most of them were moreso aggressive than anything else.

At this point I think we just have a failure to communicate. What you're posting sounds like a 50's slogan to support the troops. It's basically an absurdly over simplified and meaningless statement that has truth in it but it's like saying "always do the right thing". I mean that's great advice, but it doesn't lend itself to a deeper discussion.

I don't really understand what being more aggressive means to you. I'd generally judge an aggressive player by how many free throw attempts they get. That's generally one of the easier metrics, and I'd assume an aggressive center would have a higher TS% due to more free throws. This all leads me to assume TS% is a better stat for aggressive players.

Now if you're talking about an Iverson, I'd assume you'd also want to discuss his usage rate (we can discuss which of the 4 versions of that gets used), or if we're talking about players today we have far FAR better stats thanks to the motion cams and we can isolate each and every part of a player's game if you have the data or the tools to extract it.

But again as i don't fully understand what you're trying to get at with aggressive or how to measure true big men or the absurd notion that all those big men are against TS%, I'm not sure how to really discuss this further.

[Pointguard]

You know, nothing seems more incorrect to me ever than the claim that players actually make good commentators or analysts of the game. Clearly some players have done a great job at it, but the vast majority are just awful. Charles Barkly is a funny dude and when he first got into announcing he had a lot of value about the players he played against, but now he's just awful. The same can be said of just so so so many ex players.

That the insistence on calling people "stats guys" as that implies that these people don't also study the game. Now I'm sure some teams have some quants employeed who do nothing but crunch regression models and analize data at a pure quant level, but that is a HUGE minority of the guys out there. Hollinger is perhaps the poster boy for analytics because of PER, yet go read his writings when he covered games and tell me he wasn't a basketball fan first, and he just happened to also be extremely good with mathematics and employeed that skill to better explain what he was seeing when watching games.
Ironically, I used to hang out with Hollinger and spoke of it several times here. He's grown to be uncomfortable around the non stat fan after 9/11 hit the city. So be it, the bars we used to go to can be obnoxious - he and I rarely drank alcohol. But I'm sure he knows of softer spots. He started missing good plays in games because he had his labtop out a lot - it was annoying. But you are right he was a true fan and was real cool.


I'd guess others will have some better choices, but if you've not listening to Zach Lowe when he's got former and current NBA coaches/GM's on his podcasts you're really missing out. Even former players like Jalen Rose (a huge believer in analtics) is a pretty good listen when he's talking basketball, I'll pass on his football discussions and anything pop culture related, just shoot me. Bill Simmons used to get some great guests on his old pods, but we'll see what he can do without the access of ESPN (the current stuff sucks due to lack of access). I'm sure others can mention some others. I know I've listened to some really good random pods that I was just linked but never tracked down who was doing it and if they normally put out that level of quality.
Simmons, as a New Englander, irked me and Hollinger too. I have repulsed certain forms of discussion because the Knicks have been bad for such awhile.

[Pointguard]

At this point I think we just have a failure to communicate. What you're posting sounds like a 50's slogan to support the troops. It's basically an absurdly over simplified and meaningless statement that has truth in it but it's like saying "always do the right thing". I mean that's great advice, but it doesn't lend itself to a deeper discussion.
You aren't ready for the next step. Get the first step down and then we will work on the next. TS% can be a quality stat for sure. Why isn't it a great measure in big men. You aren't even ready for that. You are too busy trying to belittle the first step.


I don't really understand what being more aggressive means to you. I'd generally judge an aggressive player by how many free throw attempts they get. That's generally one of the easier metrics, and I'd assume an aggressive center would have a higher TS% due to more free throws. This all leads me to assume TS% is a better stat for aggressive players.
That was bad. Dirk has a high TS% and isn't an aggressive player to me. Earlier I said FGA, blocks, steals, rebounds and makes things happen, but you resort to this paragraph above.


Now if you're talking about an Iverson, I'd assume you'd also want to discuss his usage rate (we can discuss which of the 4 versions of that gets used), or if we're talking about players today we have far FAR better stats thanks to the motion cams and we can isolate each and every part of a player's game if you have the data or the tools to extract it. If you are bringing up Iverson then that means you actually did see my reference to aggression stats. Are you conveniently acting confused?


But again as i don't fully understand what you're trying to get at with aggressive or how to measure true big men or the absurd notion that all those big men are against TS%, I'm not sure how to really discuss this further.
This is the second time I am flat out saying that big men aren't against TS%. Its just not the manifestion of gauging how great big men are and that FG% is much better. That's not that hard of a concept for you to keep messing it up.

[mehyaM24]

Claiming the spurs play like the celtics is just silly. I mean yes they both play good basketball and that at its core isn't going to radically change. What changes the spurs have made however are dramatic, which is why I pointed out the use of and how the spurs value the 3. It's more than just USING, it is understanding the value of it, understanding the value of shots in different locations on the court and how to address that value on offense and defense.

well, to be fair, i don't think anybody claimed they played exactly like the celtics.

i do believe the majority of their fundamental principles are more or less identical. not really different than the 86 celtics who i'm sure had access to "impact stats", and were told how valuable the extra point is when taking threes.

even today though, popovich still thinks taking threes are a gimmick, and if he had it his way, they would've been abolished years ago.

of course, i'm not suggesting threes were just as emphasized then as they are today. like i said - different game. different rules.


We'll just disagree on 90's fans vs today's fan. I have more access to games from the 90's or at least equal access as I did in the 90's. Not to mention all the media and analysis of all of those series and players.

same here, but aside from an over-usage of numbers, i've seen nothing to indicate fans today know more than they did then. the basic understanding of fundamentals and principles seem lost upon kids with calculators.


To claim he's mostly about numbers is just false and only someone informed purely based on twitter level writing would not know this. He is outside of Cuban one of the most open and out there GM's. He loves to talk about why he likes players and oddly enough, he's not going to bore with a lot of data and numbers when he does so.

he's one of the very few (emphasis on few) that host analytical conferences (MIT) - and has even came out saying "success comes from better analytics, not better analysis".

https://hbr.org/2011/08/success-comes-from-better-data
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1206495/index.htm

^ articles detailing the specifics, but to keep it short, morey is in fact the exec using MORE analytics than everyone else - and its not even close.

i think you need to read up more on the guy. not sure where you got the idea he just became analytical by accident.

[dhsilv]

Simmons, as a New Englander, irked me and Hollinger too. I have repulsed certain forms of discussion because the Knicks have been bad for such awhile.

The value of Simmons, sure he knows basketball, was really who he'd get on as a guest and his ability to get them to discuss things that weren't generic and boring as they'd normally do with others. He asks better questions than most people.

[dhsilv]

You aren't ready for the next step. Get the first step down and then we will work on the next. TS% can be a quality stat for sure. Why isn't it a great measure in big men. You aren't even ready for that. You are too busy trying to belittle the first step.

That was bad. Dirk has a high TS% and isn't an aggressive player to me. Earlier I said FGA, blocks, steals, rebounds and makes things happen, but you resort to this paragraph above.
If you are bringing up Iverson then that means you actually did see my reference to aggression stats. Are you conveniently acting confused?

This is the second time I am flat out saying that big men aren't against TS%. Its just not the manifestion of gauging how great big men are and that FG% is much better. That's not that hard of a concept for you to keep messing it up.

Again why is FG% better? What do you REALLY mean in a tangible manner what is aggressive? You still have not been able to explain what you're talking about in a way that others can understand you. I can't argue against you if I can't fully understand you.

Yes, i read your statements on Iverson. He did have to have a high usage rate and we should evaluate his TS% in context of his usage rate if we're just talking stats here. But again you're not making a lot of sense. Again you sound like an ad agency selling snake oil.

[dhsilv]

well, to be fair, i don't think anybody claimed they played exactly like the celtics.

i do believe the majority of their fundamental principles are more or less identical. not really different than the 86 celtics who i'm sure had access to "impact stats", and were told how valuable the extra point is when taking threes.

even today though, popovich still thinks taking threes are a gimmick, and if he had it his way, they would've been abolished years ago.

of course, i'm not suggesting threes were just as emphasized then as they are today. like i said - different game. different rules.



same here, but aside from an over-usage of numbers, i've seen nothing to indicate fans today know more than they did then. the basic understanding of fundamentals and principles seem lost upon kids with calculators.



he's one of the very few (emphasis on few) that host analytical conferences (MIT) - and has even came out saying "success comes from better analytics, not better analysis".

https://hbr.org/2011/08/success-comes-from-better-data
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1206495/index.htm

^ articles detailing the specifics, but to keep it short, morey is in fact the exec using MORE analytics than everyone else - and its not even close.

i think you need to read up more on the guy. not sure where you got the idea he just became analytical by accident.

Saying the spurs play like the spurs is just incorrect. Yes, they have similarities because they were both great basketball teams that were great passers. Again basketball builds on what was done before. The differences become more nuanced but they are clear and apparent.

As for pop saying he thinks the 3 is a gimmick, that might be true, pop is never one to be fully open. He is however the driver of all those 3's the spurs take. He's been using corner 3's for nearly 2 decades, and I bring up corner 3's for a damn good reason. That was one of the things that he was a huge user of and somewhat early adopter (again nothing is new, it's all building on what others used).

Why are you bringing up kids? No kid is going to be an expert in anything, ever. If you were talking to 50 year old basketball fans in the 90's the 50 year old basketball fans today are going to be more informed. 15 year old kids are idiots, doesn't matter what generation you're a part of. Perhaps you had a better point but bringing up kids is just silly. Oh and they're using databases and python, not calculators.

As for Morey, seriously you think I don't know who he is? Of course he's the post boy of analytic. That doesn't mean he's running a team 100% based on it. I do however think he's somewhat right if that quote is accurate about the need more more analytics and less analysis. You really can't analyize more than we've done without having data to use with the analysis. The nba when he first came along was lacking in data. We've only had play by play data going back to 97 league wide. The motion cams have greatly altered our level of and volume of data. Over time we'll better understand what that data can tell us and we'll be able to add analysis to it.

[DMAVS41]

I have always said that I prefer an offensive player that is interconnected to the other 4 players and creates for others. Duncan had the game revolve around him in a way that was very different than Dirk. Dirk scored better but wasn't better offensively to me. Duncan had versatility, could rise up his play, and his game was less prone to going stale than Dirk's. Dunc was incredibly consistent. But I do have it very close.

But it's actually not very close. I'm not saying that Duncan was trash, but he wasn't an elite offensive force throughout his career...and this is why you need to, at the very least, rethink how you view the game.

You are extremely narrow minded when it comes to how players should play. You want everyone fit the "typical mold"...and if they don't...you think it's a weakness.

Dirk wasn't interconnected? Dirk didn't create for others? Again, you simply don't grasp the value of a 7 foot forward that is on the short list for best mid range shooter ever with elite 3 point range that creates a near impossible to stop scenario out of the pick and roll/pop....who also happens to be one of the best post players in the game, one of the most clutch players of the era (if not the most), and an elite ft shooter.

Spurs offensive ratings:

With Duncan 109.1
No Duncan 106.7

Mavs offensive ratings:

With Dirk 112.2
No Dirk 103.7

That is no fancy stat. It's literally just points scored per possession.

It's why Dirk grades out offensively better than Duncan across the board. Now, Duncan was no slouch on offense, but he didn't have the versatility or off ball impact Dirk did. Less prone to going stale? Just no...this isn't even true...but Duncan had much better teammates feeding him easy baskets for most of his career post 03.

And this gets to the bedrock of many of these issues. We both watch them play. For over 20 years now in my case as I watched Duncan all through college. And it's clear to me Dirk is the better offensive force. You disagree. So where do we go from there? You, for some reason, want to ignore everything associated with offense from ortg, team ortg, on/off, offensive rapm, obpm, scoring efficiency, scoring...just everything.

It's like...I get you don't like objective measures, but at some point you have to have a bit more to back up what you say other than "because I say so"

If Duncan was on par with Dirk or better as an offensive player....there would be more data to support it.

Just like if Dirk was as good of a player as Duncan overall...more data would support it. It's funny how accurate a lot of this stuff is.

We pretty much know Duncan was elite defensively...he grades out elite defensively. We know Dirk was elite offensively...he grades out elite offensively.

We think Duncan was good offensively...very good at times in his career, but we think he wasn't elite. What do you know...he grades out not elite offensively.

Dirk was average to above average defensively for most of his career...what do you know...he grades out in that range.

[DMAVS41]

You aren't ready for the next step. Get the first step down and then we will work on the next. TS% can be a quality stat for sure. Why isn't it a great measure in big men. You aren't even ready for that. You are too busy trying to belittle the first step.

That was bad. Dirk has a high TS% and isn't an aggressive player to me. Earlier I said FGA, blocks, steals, rebounds and makes things happen, but you resort to this paragraph above.
If you are bringing up Iverson then that means you actually did see my reference to aggression stats. Are you conveniently acting confused?

This is the second time I am flat out saying that big men aren't against TS%. Its just not the manifestion of gauging how great big men are and that FG% is much better. That's not that hard of a concept for you to keep messing it up.

Well, lets look at the bold.

Considering TS% and fg% have nothing to do with blocks, rebounds, or steals. You seem lost yet again.

However, when speaking offensively...you seem to indicate that field goal attempts get things done. You say you value more aggressive players and a sign of being more aggressive is taking more shots. Right?

You then say you think Duncan was better than Dirk offensively.

But;

Regular season field goal attempts game;

Duncan - 14.8

Dirk - 16.4

Playoffs field goal attempts per game;

Duncan - 16.1

Dirk - 18.3


So what gives? If aggression offensively matters so much...and attempts matter...why is Duncan better on your own criteria? Not to mention Dirk is just clearly more efficient across the board....again, 3 point shots are worth 3...and ft shooting matters.

Dirk takes better care of the ball as well. He doesn't turn it over as often as Duncan did.

So, on your own criteria, Dirk is more aggressive. He takes better care of the ball. Is clearly the better and more efficient scorer. Has a better off ball impact. Causes more match-up issues with his range shooting and pick and role play. And just about every measure we have favors Dirk.

See why it's so hard to converse with you? Even when you spell out your criteria...you don't follow it.

[Pointguard]

Again why is FG% better? What do you REALLY mean in a tangible manner what is aggressive? You still have not been able to explain what you're talking about in a way that others can understand you. I can't argue against you if I can't fully understand you.

You honestly dont know what aggressive means? Its a primal instinct in all animals. A house plant knows when another house plant is aggressive. A single cell plant knows when another single cell plant knows when another single cell plant is aggressive. You can't distinguish Garnett from Bargani in terms of aggression? Then when I say fga, blocks, rebounding you still don't get it? In all competitive endeavors its almost impossible not to know what the main quality is that predominates the game. The guys who go hard to make things happen don't stand out to you? Does geek reality have a different set of universal laws?

[DMAVS41]

You honestly dont know what aggressive means? Its a primal instinct in all animals. A house plant knows when another house plant is aggressive. A single cell plant knows when another single cell plant knows when another single cell plant is aggressive. You can't distinguish Garnett from Bargani in terms of aggression? Then when I say fga, blocks, rebounding you still don't get it? In all competitive endeavors its almost impossible not to know what the main quality is that predominates the game. The guys who go hard to make things happen don't stand out to you? Does geek reality have a different set of universal laws?

So how was Duncan "more aggressive" on offense than Dirk if field goal attempts is such a big factor?

[Pointguard]

Well, lets look at the bold.

Considering TS% and fg% have nothing to do with blocks, rebounds, or steals. You seem lost yet again.

However, when speaking offensively...you seem to indicate that field goal attempts get things done. You say you value more aggressive players and a sign of being more aggressive is taking more shots. Right?

You then say you think Duncan was better than Dirk offensively.

But;

Regular season field goal attempts game;

Duncan - 14.8

Dirk - 16.4

Playoffs field goal attempts per game;

Duncan - 16.1

Dirk - 18.3


So what gives? If aggression offensively matters so much...and attempts matter...why is Duncan better on your own criteria? Not to mention Dirk is just clearly more efficient across the board....again, 3 point shots are worth 3...and ft shooting matters.

Dirk takes better care of the ball as well. He doesn't turn it over as often as Duncan did.

So, on your own criteria, Dirk is more aggressive. He takes better care of the ball. Is clearly the better and more efficient scorer. Has a better off ball impact. Causes more match-up issues with his range shooting and pick and role play. And just about every measure we have favors Dirk.

See why it's so hard to converse with you? Even when you spell out your criteria...you don't follow it.
In my response to d shily I responded to two of his concepts, one with a way to tell what aggression is and the other to something i didn't understand, which you merged the two together. I wasnt saying what you thought I was.

[DMAVS41]

In my response to d shily I responded to two of his concepts, one with a way to tell what aggression is and the other to something i didn't understand, which you merged the two together. I wasnt saying what you thought I was.

I'll ask again.

You said Duncan was better offensively than Dirk.

You've told me that aggression is the most important thing...then you've claimed FGA is very important as well.

So...why was Duncan better offensively than Dirk...if aggression and FGA are such a huge factor for you?

[Smoke117]

I have always said that I prefer an offensive player that is interconnected to the other 4 players and creates for others. Duncan had the game revolve around him in a way that was very different than Dirk. Dirk scored better but wasn't better offensively to me. Duncan had versatility, could rise up his play, and his game was less prone to going stale than Dirk's. Dunc was incredibly consistent. But I do have it very close.

Duncan is better offensively than Dirk? What kind of ****ing nonsense is this?

[Pointguard]

So how was Duncan "more aggressive" on offense than Dirk if field goal attempts is such a big factor?I just said its an indicator of aggression. I never said it was the end all sign of who is better. One year Duncan lead his team in almost all the main raw categories on a trip to the championship. He did everything offensively that he needed to do. The team was offensively weak out side of him so his assist meant a ton. He stayed in constant motion and always got the basket that was needed. In that way he was more resourceful than Dirk, more consistent than Dirk, and more versatile than Dirk.

[DMAVS41]

I just said its an indicator of aggression. I never said it was the end all sign of who is better. One year Duncan lead his team in almost all the main raw categories on a trip to the championship. He did everything offensively that he needed to do. The team was offensively weak out side of him so his assist meant a ton. He stayed in constant motion and always got the basket that was needed. In that way he was more resourceful than Dirk, more consistent than Dirk, and more versatile than Dirk.

Yes...you've listed it repeatedly as an indicator...and you have said aggression is what matters most.

So you must factor that in heavily. Yet you don't do it with Dirk vs Duncan.

So now you are changing it to the very best Duncan ever played vs Dirk's entire level broadly over his career? Sure...03 Duncan in the playoffs was better offensively than Dirk was broadly for his career. Considering that was never the discussion...great point.

LOL...silly tactic, but pointless, because Dirk was a better offensive player in the 11 playoffs than Duncan ever was.

Dirk scored more and was more efficient overall...and his team performed better on offense.

Does it every get tiresome for you to hold views you can't even defend without changing the argument many times over and over again?

So we have Dirk taking more attempts, Dirk's usage was higher in the playoffs we are now talking about...definitely not indicating Duncan was more aggressive...Dirk was more efficient while being used more offensively...and his team performed better offensively while he was on the court.

And again, my comments were not about 03 Duncan only. You have just arbitrarily chosen to use a peak playoff run as the only evidence for an entire career...which makes no sense. If Duncan played his whole career at his 03 level offensively...he'd probably be the GOAT.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Chris Webber is most definitely a HOFer for so many reasons. Lets not forget that the biggest threat to the 3peat Lakers was a Chris Webber led team. Dude was so good and was up there with Duncan & KG in his prime.

[Smoke117]

Chris Webber is most definitely a HOFer for so many reasons. Lets not forget that the biggest threat to the 3peat Lakers was a Chris Webber led team. Dude was so good and was up there with Duncan & KG in his prime.

https://godofall.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wade-laugh.gif

It's good to see that none of your stupidity has waned.

[DMAVS41]

I just said its an indicator of aggression. I never said it was the end all sign of who is better. One year Duncan lead his team in almost all the main raw categories on a trip to the championship. He did everything offensively that he needed to do. The team was offensively weak out side of him so his assist meant a ton. He stayed in constant motion and always got the basket that was needed. In that way he was more resourceful than Dirk, more consistent than Dirk, and more versatile than Dirk.


Doesn't the bold kind of strike you as a non point? What does that really mean?

Also, you are really using "he got the basket that was needed" argument against Dirk? Dirk is a better clutch player than Duncan...and if we go peak to peak...Dirk in 11 had the best clutch run in the playoffs in 20 years.

Duncan, also, is nowhere near as versatile as Dirk on offense. Like...I can't believe anyone would ever argue this. Dirk is an all time great shooter...Duncan isn't. Dirk can play in the low post, the wing post, take a guy off the dribble for a pull up, convert ft's better and is about as good at drawing them, can exploit a switch at the nail in a way Duncan couldn't...has elite off ball impact and can drag a big all the way away from the basket in a way Duncan couldn't.

Like...i've fallen for the trap again...here I am arguing Duncan vs Dirk on which one was more versatile on offense.

Sigh...

[Euroleague]

Man where to even start. First, modern technology allows us to watch more games so if you're argument is on seeing games, people have way more access today than before. So if that's why you're posting, I think I've settled that so you can go on. Second, nobody is claiming stats for the sake of stats is magical. Everything you posted is basically meaningless gibberish that assumes I place far more value in stats than I do.

Finally, we don't see post games because of rules changes that make it damn near impossible to get the ball to a post player. How are people STILL not getting this?

Oh and Pop runs the team that is at the forefront of statistics in the nba. The spurs have been employing analtics as long if not longer than anyone. If Pop's "old school" it is because old school is meaningless, and Pop is just good at his job. He uses all available tools at his disposal to make the best decisions, and you damn better believe he's using data from motion cams, Real plus minus data, PER, and everything else to make the right decisions.

Edit:

I wanted to also point out that the people running NBA teams ARE smarter than they were 30 years ago. With higher salaries, larger staff's, more specialization, and with more money on the line for owners (plus smarter owners) we're seeing a lot of the best and brightest people go right from college to go work in pro sports or seeing pro sports pulling talent from wallstreet and sillicon valley to places like the NBA. We see less GM's how were players and instead see people who have managed budgets and been leaders.

There are a lot of guys who played basketball who really know how to play. Some of those guys can coach. Some of them can scout. Some of them can game plan. Some of them were just good players and that knowledge they have about how THEY played just doesn't translate well. There are however people who didn't play who have learned the game through film, who have studied what does and doesn't work, and have other skills that translate to the jobs in the NBA. It seems to me that you're hinting that you don't think people who weren't players are somehow not qualified to have a role on these teams or worse you think everyone who writes about analtics doesn't turn the games on and watch them.None of this is true.

Every time I see an NBA exec in an interview, I see someone that is borderline retarded.

Except for guys like Pat Riley, R.C. Buford, John Hammond, Dennis Lindsey, Jerry West, Rod Thorn, Phil Jackson, Mike Budenholzer, Carroll Dawson, Danny Ainge, Kiki Vandewegh, Mitch Kupchak....every NBA exec I have seen in an interview has come across as being a complete retard.

And most of those guys I listed are from older generations, and a lot of them are long since retired.

The so-called new and young "genius" execs like Presti and Morey for example, are clearly complete idiots.

[TheMarkMadsen]

https://godofall.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wade-laugh.gif

It's good to see that none of your stupidity has waned.

don't know what is so funny.. Webber in 01 was first team all nba and was selected over KG. Finished higher in MVP than KG in 01 & 02 so you acting like this is laughable to say Webber was up there with KG and Duncan during his prime years is pretty stupid.

in 02 he was 2nd team all nba alongside KG. During those few years he was certainly up there with those guys.

[Euroleague]

thanks.

btw, didn't pop recently claim he would like to eliminate the 3pt line? you can't get more oldschool than that! :lol

Everything the Spurs do is copied from Euroleague teams and coaches. Anything the Spurs do, you see 5-10 years before they do it, being done regularly in the Euroleague.

Other teams like the Atlanta Hawks, Golden State Warriors, Utah Jazz, Memphis Grizzlies, Boston Celtics, Miami Heat, Denver Nuggets, Phoenix Suns, Dallas Mavericks - all of them exactly copy and mimic Euroleague teams, and every single thing they started doing, was a system they copied from Euroleague teams from 5-15 years ago.

Some of the teams literally run the EXACT offense and defense that they were taught by the coaches of Euroleague teams, and even call the in practice sets either after the Euroleague coach or team.

Just some examples........

The Heat 100% copy and run the Panathinaikos and Fenerbahce system, and it's even known as Panathinaikos.

The Jazz 100% copy and run the Olympiacos system, and even call it Olympiacos.

The Warriors use a hybrid of the Real Madrid and Olympiacos systems.

The Spurs basically use a combination of the Olympiacos, CSKA, and Efes systems.

Etc.

[dhsilv]

Every time I see an NBA exec in an interview, I see someone that is borderline retarded.

Except for guys like Pat Riley, R.C. Buford, John Hammond, Dennis Lindsey, Jerry West, Rod Thorn, Phil Jackson, Mike Budenholzer, Carroll Dawson, Danny Ainge, Kiki Vandewegh, Mitch Kupchak....every NBA exec I have seen in an interview has come across as being a complete retard.

And most of those guys I listed are from older generations, and a lot of them are long since retired.

The so-called new and young "genius" execs like Presti and Morey for example, are clearly complete idiots.

Morey is far from an idiot, and to even say so shows you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

More over, I was not talking about the 30 guys who run basketball. I'm talking about the 1000+ people in a place of influence in running the league. Do you think NBA teams just have 5-6 people on staff?

[Euroleague]

Chris Webber is most definitely a HOFer for so many reasons. Lets not forget that the biggest threat to the 3peat Lakers was a Chris Webber led team. Dude was so good and was up there with Duncan & KG in his prime.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/PQuKXWTPZWZYA/200.gif

[TheMarkMadsen]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/PQuKXWTPZWZYA/200.gif

I guess receiving more MVP votes than KG for 2 straight years and making the all nba first team over KG means he wasn't up there with KG

:lol :lol

[Euroleague]

Morey is far from an idiot, and to even say so shows you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

More over, I was not talking about the 30 guys who run basketball. I'm talking about the 1000+ people in a place of influence in running the league. Do you think NBA teams just have 5-6 people on staff?

Morey is obviously a complete dumb ass, he's probably borderline retarded.

[dhsilv]

Morey is obviously a complete dumb ass, he's probably borderline retarded.

by all means if you can write something even remotely close to making that case I'd be all ears. I see a guy who's done a very good job by any reasonable standard. He like anyone who's run a team has had his misses and set backs, but that's a part of sports.

[Euroleague]

by all means if you can write something even remotely close to making that case I'd be all ears. I see a guy who's done a very good job by any reasonable standard. He like anyone who's run a team has had his misses and set backs, but that's a part of sports.

Almost everything he has done with the Rockets has been idiotic. Even his so-called "good moves" have either been idiotic, or done for a reason coming from complete and total failed logic and incompetence.

[Smoke117]

don't know what is so funny.. Webber in 01 was first team all nba and was selected over KG. Finished higher in MVP than KG in 01 & 02 so you acting like this is laughable to say Webber was up there with KG and Duncan during his prime years is pretty stupid.

in 02 he was 2nd team all nba alongside KG. During those few years he was certainly up there with those guys.

A kobe stan falling back on MVP voting and all nba teams...where have I see this before? Tell me how he was ever as good as them without looking up silly accolades...if you can? Why is it that none of you moronic kobe stans can ever give an actual basketball opinion? Probably because you don't know anything about the actual sport.

[dhsilv]

Almost everything he has done with the Rockets has been idiotic. Even his so-called "good moves" have either been idiotic, or done for a reason coming from complete and total failed logic and incompetence.

So you aren't able to explain at all. Got it, I'll remember to ignore your statements going forward. Thanks for contributing.

[TheMarkMadsen]

A kobe stan falling back on MVP voting and all nba teams...where have I see this before? Tell me how he was ever as good as them without looking up silly accolades...if you can? Why is it that none of you moronic kobe stans can ever give an actual basketball opinion? Probably because you don't know anything about the actual sport.

oh look you're calling me a Kobe stan in a discussion that has nothing to do with Kobe, while not providing any evidence for your argument after I already made an argument and used actual facts to back it up :oldlol: :oldlol:

some things never change.

MVP votes aren't the end all be all, but how can you look at the voting and say that the guy who finished 4th and was first team all nba "wasn't up there" that year with the guy who finished below him in MVP voting and made second team all nba. I'm not saying that he is up there with this guys over his entire career, but for a few years of his prime his was most certainly up there..that is just idiodic

Finishing higher on all nba teams and MVP voting certainly points to him being up there with those guys. I"m not even saying he was better, just that he was up there with these guys. This isn't anything surprising for anybody who actually watched the NBA in the early 2000's..

[Smoke117]

oh look you're calling me a Kobe stan in a discussion that has nothing to do with Kobe, while not providing any evidence for your argument after I already made an argument and used actual facts to back it up :oldlol: :oldlol:

some things never change.

MVP votes aren't the end all be all, but how can you look at the voting and say that the guy who finished 4th and was first team all nba "wasn't up there" that year with the guy who finished below him in MVP voting and made second team all nba. I'm not saying that he is up there with this guys over his entire career, but for a few years of his prime his was most certainly up there..that is just idiodic

Finishing higher on all nba teams and MVP voting certainly points to him being up there with those guys. I"m not even saying he was better, just that he was up there with these guys. This isn't anything surprising for anybody who actually watched the NBA in the early 2000's..

Still waitin' on that actual basketball opinion.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Still waitin' on that actual basketball opinion.

still waiting on you to post anything that has an actual argument instead of "Kobe fan so dumb me so smart"

[game3524]

still waiting on you to post anything that has an actual argument instead of "Kobe fan so dumb me so smart"


Smoke is one of the most useless mother****ers on here. Dude is reaching dubeta level of irrelevancy.

[ShaqTwizzle]

still waiting on you to post anything that has an actual argument instead of "Kobe fan so dumb me so smart"

Smoke is right on this one though.
KG was a far better player then Webber from 01-02.

Using "MVP" votes as the sole basis of your argument is pretty weak and assumes that MVP voters are good at objectively rating players.
Plus Webber barely got any MVP votes in 02... like practically zero.

It also ignores the team success bias that is naturally present in such an area and while Webber was on some good/very good teams back then KG was stuck on horrible ones.

Even in terms of just offense Webber was behind KG and well behind Duncan back then and when you factor in defense (enormous "light years wide" gap) and BBIQ/rebounding/fundamentals it becomes a joke.

Webber was multiple tiers below KG & Duncan in the early 00's.
Comparing them by MVP votes is just stupid.
Kobe got some MVP votes in recent years (2011, 2012, 2013) would you take him over 2002 KG who got none?

[DMAVS41]

Smoke is right on this one though.
KG was a far better player then Webber from 01-02.

Using "MVP" votes as the sole basis of your argument is pretty weak and assumes that MVP voters are good at objectively rating players.
Plus Webber barely got any MVP votes in 02... like practically zero.

It also ignores the team success bias that is naturally present in such an area and while Webber was on some good/very good teams back then KG was stuck on horrible ones.

Even in terms of just offense Webber was behind KG and well behind Duncan back then and when you factor in defense (enormous, enormous gap) and BBIQ/rebounding/fundamentals it becomes a joke.

Webber was multiple tiers below KG & Duncan in the early 00's.
Comparing them is just stupid.

Webber was not well behind Duncan and KG back then. I agree Duncan was a better player from 00-03...which must be the years you are talking about, but no...Webber was not "multiple tiers" below KG/Duncan/Dirk...might as well include Dirk in 02 and 03 because he was right there with those guys.

Webber was a 25/11/5 52% TS...23.3 PER player those 4 years.

Yes, his defense was lacking compared to KG/Duncan...and he didn't have the range Dirk did, but this guy was a very good to great player back then. His scoring efficiency wasn't elite either, but he was an artist with the ball in certain situations in the high post and played very well within the team concept.

This notion that if he stepped on the court with KG or Duncan...it would be clear he was much worse is simply false.

They used to say the same shit about Dirk against those guys back then...then Dirk and KG faced off in the 02 playoffs and Dirk murked the Wolves to the tune 33/16 69% TS.

Say Webber wasn't as good as Duncan/KG...okay...I'm cool with that...I'm actually not a big Webber guy, but to act like he was multiple tiers below them from 00-03...nope

[TheMarkMadsen]

Smoke is right on this one though.
KG was a far better player then Webber from 01-02.

Using "MVP" votes as the sole basis of your argument is pretty weak and assumes that MVP voters are good at objectively rating players.
Plus Webber barely got any MVP votes in 02... like practically zero.

It also ignores the team success bias that is naturally present in such an area and while Webber was on some good/very good teams back then KG was stuck on horrible ones.

Even in terms of just offense Webber was behind KG and well behind Duncan back then and when you factor in defense (enormous "light years wide" gap) and BBIQ/rebounding/fundamentals it becomes a joke.

Webber was multiple tiers below KG & Duncan in the early 00's.
Comparing them by MVP votes is just stupid.
Kobe got some MVP votes in recent years (2011, 2012, 2013) would you take him over 2002 KG who got none?

That's not what I'm doing at all. I also mentioned that Webber was selected as first team all nba in 2001 over KG. That right there proves he was in the discussion of being up there with KG during that year. Doesn't mean he was better, but he sure as hell was up there with him. That much is clear..

You've already stated that you feel Pau was miles better and that anybody who knows basketball would agree, so you are clearly extremely biased when it comes to Webber and you were put back in your place when Kblaze demonstrated that your claim just wasn't true.

[ShaqTwizzle]

I also mentioned that Webber was selected as first team all nba in 2001 over KG. That right there proves he was in the discussion of being up there with KG during that year.

In your opinion that is what it means.
In my opinion it just means the voters made a big, borderline laughable mistake.

Webber that year : 27 / 11 / 4-apg on 51%TS
KG that year : 22 / 11 / 5-apg on 53%TS

Not a big gap in terms of box score stats.
Then you factor in defense [KG >>>>> Webber]
Then you factor in BBIQ/fundamentals [KG >>> Webber]

Yeah it wasn't close.
KG was a far better player who had much higher impact.

Then let us see how they did in the playoffs that year (2001).

Garnett : 21 / 12 / 4.1-apg on 57%TS [24.9 PER]
Webber : 23 / 11 / 3.1-apg on 43%TS [14.6 PER]

I rest my case.
Webber just got overrated because he had a fluke reg-season in terms of "ppg" and was on a good team.


You've already stated that you feel Pau was miles better

Career wise or extended Prime wise? Yes he was.


and that anybody who knows basketball would agree

I took that back but yes many if not most would agree among educated fans.


Kblaze demonstrated that your claim just wasn't true

Except he didn't so... yeah.
But I appreciated his input nonetheless, he is a smart guy.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Playoffs *** 2001-2003

Webber : 23.6 / 10.4 / 4.0 on .496%TS (20.3 PER)

Garnett : 24.5 / 15.2 / 4.8 on .540%TS (25.1 PER)
Duncan : 25.2 / 14.9 / 4.8 on .558%TS (28.3 PER)

Defense : Duncan/KG >>>>> Webber

B... but Webber was right up there with dem boys!!!
No he wasn't.

[DMAVS41]

Playoffs *** 2001-2003

Webber : 23.6 / 10.4 / 4.0 on .496%TS (20.3 PER)

Garnett : 24.5 / 15.2 / 4.8 on .540%TS (25.1 PER)
Duncan : 25.2 / 14.9 / 4.8 on .558%TS (28.3 PER)

Defense : Duncan/KG >>>>> Webber

B... but Webber was right up there with dem boys!!!
No he wasn't.

I'm actually asking.

Is your argument that KG/Duncan were better than Webber?

Or is it that KG/Duncan were multiple tiers better than Webber?

One of them I agree with...the other, not so much.

[ShaqTwizzle]

I'm actually asking.

Is your argument that KG/Duncan were better than Webber?

Or is it that KG/Duncan were multiple tiers better than Webber?

One of them I agree with...the other, not so much.

I think multiple tiers.
I also think that Dirk was much better then Webber from 01-03.

Sorry but Webber is in the Chris Bosh class for me... slightly below the Pau class.

Comparing guys like that to GOAT PF's like Duncan, Dirk or KG who are arguably all Top 20-25 All-Time is an insult to them.
Not like the stats are close over that period especially in the playoffs where Webber declined much more then the other guys.

Then in terms of defense/bbiq/fundamentals/leadership and other key areas Webber is badly outranked by those guys especially in terms of defense compared to Duncan & KG.
He was good but he wasn't in that league.

[DMAVS41]

I think multiple tiers.
I also think that Dirk was much better then Webber from 01-03.

Sorry but Webber is in the Chris Bosh class for me... slightly below the Pau class.

Comparing guys like that to GOAT PF's like Duncan, Dirk or KG who are arguably all Top 20-25 All-Time is an insult to them.
Not like the stats are close over that period especially in the playoffs where Webber declined much more then the other guys.

Then in terms of defense/bbiq/fundamentals/leadership and other key areas Webber is badly outranked by those guys especially in terms of defense compared to Duncan & KG.
He was good but he wasn't in that league.

You are pretty much just talking about the 01 playoffs with Webber. The other 3 years he was pretty good actually.

Agree to disagree about the multiple tiers stuff...

[Smoke117]

I'm actually asking.

Is your argument that KG/Duncan were better than Webber?

Or is it that KG/Duncan were multiple tiers better than Webber?

One of them I agree with...the other, not so much.

I dunno about multiple... but definitely, at LEAST, one. That's not even the issue at hand, though...the issue is how this clown mark is incapable of actually giving a real opinion. It doesn't bother me if you disagree if you can reasonably give an intelligent opinion...that's the nature of how a debate works. What bothers me is someone saying Chris Webber was as good in his prime as KG and Duncan because he was on the 1st team all nba or was wherever in MVP voting...that's not an opinion at all. That's just stating a fact and does not have any bearing on whether or not he was actually as good as they were. That's like saying Kobe Bryant is a better defensive player than Michael Jordan because he was on the all defensive team more times. Without context...that means nothing.

[90sgoat]

No. He was a little bitch.

Yes his personality was annoying as hell and he was all into that black power bs.

As a player though he was great, but had a deserved rep for faltering under pressure.

Gasol is just as good as Webber but they're not the same player. CWeb was a stronger, better Chris Bosh.

[kennethgriffin]

Pau >>> Webber

He'll almost certainly get in though I think.

Webber:

MVP Award Shares
1998-99 NBA 0.043 (7)
1999-00 NBA 0.079 (9)
2000-01 NBA 0.420 (4)
2001-02 NBA 0.029 (7)
2002-03 NBA 0.016 (10)
Career 0.588 (50)

made it to 1st team all NBA level



Pau:

MVP Award Shares
-none-

made it to 2nd team all NBA level





















https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/chris-webber.jpg

[Smoke117]

Webber:

MVP Award Shares
1998-99 NBA 0.043 (7)
1999-00 NBA 0.079 (9)
2000-01 NBA 0.420 (4)
2001-02 NBA 0.029 (7)
2002-03 NBA 0.016 (10)
Career 0.588 (50)

made it to 1st team all NBA level



Pau:

MVP Award Shares
-none-

made it to 2nd team all NBA level

And here is Kenneth to prove my point for me...thank you.

[kennethgriffin]

And here is Kenneth to prove my point for me...thank you.



everyone can admit people got snubbed for an MVP or 2

at the same time

everyone can admit that if a guy never got a single mvp vote for as little as much as 5th place EVEN ONCE is definitely not getting snubbed for anything

[ShaqTwizzle]

Career MVP Shares

1. Michael Jordan* 8.138
2. LeBron James 6.524
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.203
4. Larry Bird* 5.693
5. Magic Johnson* 5.129
6. Bill Russell* 4.827
7. Shaquille O'Neal 4.380
8. Karl Malone* 4.296
9. Tim Duncan 4.278
10. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.269
11. Kobe Bryant 4.206

Kobe confirmed outside the Top 10.
Lebron confirmed Top 2 All-Time and will be the GOAT in a year or two.

:applause:

[ShaqTwizzle]

You are pretty much just talking about the 01 playoffs with Webber. The other 3 years he was pretty good actually.


Yeah but I used a multiple year sample (01-03).
I could add 00 & 04 but that would only end up hurting Webber.

The fact is statistically unless you only look at the 01 reg-season Chris isn't really close to the other guys and in the playoffs the gap over that multi-year span is enormous and then you factor in the tremendous defensive gap, BBIQ differences and other things and well we gotta admit there is a significant gap between them.

Plus Webber was in the best situation of the 3 to put up good stats and win games.
He was given the green light to shoot on deep teams with great passers/shooters.

KG was on awful teams and Duncan was also on considerably weaker teams.

I just think Webber was a lower caliber of player which is not really an insult since as I mentioned Duncan, KG & Dirk are literally GOAT PF's who all have arguments to be in the Top 20 All-Time.

[kennethgriffin]

Career MVP Shares

1. Michael Jordan* 8.138
2. LeBron James 6.524
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.203
4. Larry Bird* 5.693
5. Magic Johnson* 5.129
6. Bill Russell* 4.827
7. Shaquille O'Neal 4.380
8. Karl Malone* 4.296
9. Tim Duncan 4.278
10. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.269
11. Kobe Bryant 4.206

Kobe confirmed outside the Top 10.
Lebron confirmed Top 2 All-Time and will be the GOAT in a year or two.

:applause:



Mvp shares arent the end all be all based on a slight percentile difference


I used webber and paus as an example because the gap is astronomical

[TheMarkMadsen]

I can't take anybody seriously if they think Webber was multiple tiers lower than KG, Duncan & Dirk or whoever when he made the all nba first team. That isn't even worth responding to.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Mvp shares arent the end all be all based on a slight percentile difference


Tony Parker and Billups have nearly triple the MVP shares that John Stockton has.

Harden already has more MVP shares then Wade career wise.

Derrick Rose has an MVP.
Steve Nash has 2 and Shaq has 1.

I don't care about MVP awards/stats.
Maybe in some contexts they can be included alongside other deep arguments supported by other facts/information but on their own... worthless.

[Cleverness]

Webber is a HOF for his basketball analysis alone.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah but I used a multiple year sample (01-03).
I could add 00 & 04 but that would only end up hurting Webber.

The fact is statistically unless you only look at the 01 reg-season Chris isn't really close to the other guys and in the playoffs the gap over that multi-year span is enormous and then you factor in the tremendous defensive gap, BBIQ differences and other things and well we gotta admit there is a significant gap between them.

Plus Webber was in the best situation of the 3 to put up good stats and win games.
He was given the green light to shoot on deep teams with great passers/shooters.

KG was on awful teams and Duncan was also on considerably weaker teams.

I just think Webber was a lower caliber of player which is not really an insult since as I mentioned Duncan, KG & Dirk are literally GOAT PF's who all have arguments to be in the Top 20 All-Time.

Why not just 00-03 as that makes the most sense...because he injured his knee and missed most of 04?

Doesn't that seem the most reasonable.

I think we all agree that KG and Duncan were better players...Dirk certainly wasn't as good as Webber until the 03 season.

But the multiple tiers below is what gets me. Just not how I would view 00-03 at all...I think Webber was pretty damn good and while not as good as a Duncan...was good enough to not say multiple tiers below imo.

[ShaqTwizzle]

I can't take anybody seriously if they think Webber was multiple tiers lower than KG, Duncan & Dirk or whoever when he made the all nba first team.

So we are only talking about 2001 then?
Because he didn't make the 1st team in any other year.

Sorry but even "that year" when you factor in the playoffs I have him at the very least 2+ tiers below the other guys.

Maybe regular-season wise the gap wasn't that large but the playoffs mean ALOT to me.

Garnett : 21 / 12 / 4.1-apg on 57%TS [24.9 PER]
Duncan : 24 / 15 / 3.8-apg on 53%TS [25.4 PER]

Webber : 23 / 11 / 3.1-apg on 43%TS [14.6 PER]
(and don't forget the tremendous defensive gap)

One of these is not like the others... :lol

But lets just say he was close to those guys based on one outliersh reg-season which was overrated anyway since voters that year only seemed to care about PPG/WINS (Iverson won MVP that year).

:pimp:

[ShaqTwizzle]

Why not just 00-03 as that makes the most sense...because he injured his knee and missed most of 04?


Alright then.

00-03 Playoff stats

Webber : 23.7 / 10.3 / 4.2 on .495%TS (21.2 PER)

Dirk : 25.5 / 10.9 / 2.0 on .583%TS (23.3 PER)
Kevin : 23.1 / 14.2 / 5.8 on .518%TS (24.0 PER)
Duncan : 25.2 / 14.9 / 4.8 on .558%TS (28.3 PER)

I think your perception of how good Webber was is slightly off.
He was overrated back in his day.

[JohnFreeman]

His hair is HOF

[ShaqTwizzle]

His hair is HOF

Now that I can agree with.
I would happily call him the GOAT and spread his gospel across the lands if he gave me his hair genes.

:lol

[DMAVS41]

Alright then.

00-03 Playoff stats

Webber : 23.7 / 10.3 / 4.2 on .495%TS (21.2 PER)

Dirk : 25.5 / 10.9 / 2.0 on .583%TS (23.3 PER)
Kevin : 23.1 / 14.2 / 5.8 on .518%TS (24.0 PER)
Duncan : 25.2 / 14.9 / 4.8 on .558%TS (28.3 PER)

I think your perception of how good Webber was is slightly off.
He was overrated back in his day.

It's not "off" at all...

For starters, playoffs is not the only thing that matters, but that just isn't "multiple tiers" below in my opinion...even on just the stats.

Kind of obvious that your perception is "off" here actually. I can just flat out tell you that Webber was better than Dirk as a player overall in 00, 01, and 02 as well probably...02 is when it started to get close enough I guess, but meh...give me Webber.

So you think Webber was multiple tiers worse than Dirk yet Webber was just a better player in 3 of those 4 years?

Based on strictly the stats above...Duncan was on a different level of a player than Duncan...and while I do think Duncan was better...he wasn't on a different level.

[ShaqTwizzle]

but that just isn't "multiple tiers" below in my opinion...even on just the stats

How is it not?
(unless for you the gap between tiers is truly enormous)

Duncan has considerably better offensive stats, is a far better rebounder and is light years better defensively.

KG has noticeably better offensive stats, is a far better rebounder and is light years better defensively.

Even Dirk (who was below the other two during that period) is considerably better offensively, slightly better on the boards.
Defensively there probably isn't much of a gap between the two.


I can just flat out tell you that Webber was better than Dirk as a player overall in 00, 01, and 02 as well probably...02 is when it started to get close enough I guess, but meh...give me Webber.

Webber was better in 2000.

2001 is debatable in my eyes based on the playoffs (I would probably take Dirk).

2002... give me Dirk.
2003... give me Dirk.

[Kblaze8855]

Im gonna try to explain the reason behind my often used point of "But at the time people thought....".

The older I get the more of a haze certian events have. Even the ones that were vivid. I watched Jordan score 58...live. In the building. I remember like...4-5 crowd eruptions and talking with some fans sitting near us. I remember a couple shots. Like...literally 2.

It was one of my favorite sports moments ever...I watch highlights of it I see plays I dont remember. Half my memories...are the highlights not the live action.

So....I ask myself...if someone asked me how good someone on the Bulls at the time was...at the time...do I know better now? Or would I know better if you asked me then?

Seems clear id know better then. I was watching every game. Ive seen hundreds of Bulls players come and go. I remember most...I cant speak intelligently about all the role players games.

So how is it so many people feel 10-15 years later...they know better than people knew at the time? People who were watching these games....moments before speaking? Not decades.

We talk about if Webber was ever Duncan and KG great...at the time...I was actually here arguing he wasnt. I got here during the 00-01 season.

Duncan, KG, Webber, and even Dirk all had their fans who said they were the best 4. Really. People argued 01-03 Dirk and Webber>Duncan. And not always stupid people.

There were always articles and quotes and explanations to back up each side.

Say it was after this game:



SACRAMENTO, California (Ticker) -- Chris Webber and the
Sacramento Kings can play tough, too.




Webber scored 30 points and grabbed 10 rebounds as the normally
flashy Kings pounded and grinded their way to a rousing 81-75
victory over the San Antonio Spurs.



Victims of an 0-for-13 shooting performance from 3-point range
in Wednesday's tough 82-79 loss at San Antonio, the Kings
continued to try and bomb away at the Spurs tonight but went
just 2-of-18 from beyond the arc.



Undaunted, Webber took the game into his own hands against Spurs
"Twin Towers" Tim Duncan and David Robinson. His teammates
followed suit as Sacramento used a stifling interior defense to
limit San Antonio to just 13 fourth-quarter points.



"It's one of those games, it's the same game we had with them in
San Antonio," Sacramento coach Rick Adelman said. "Both teams
just slug it out. Fortunately we made some stops, Webb hit some
big shots and we won the game. It was a terrific one."



Webber scored nine points in the final six minutes and hit the
shot of the game with 23 seconds to play. After Robinson made
two free throws to shave the deficit to 78-75, Webber followed a
pair of missed 3-pointers by Peja Stojakovic by ripping down a
rebound off a missed hook shot by Duncan and settling matters on
the other end.



"I think we both like playing against each other," Webber said
of his budding rivalry with Duncan. "We really respect each
other's game."



The 6-10 power forward drove the lane from the left side,
contorted his body in the paint and threw up a one-hand
semi-hook shot that bounded off the glass and through for a
five-point lead.



Webber rebounded Derek Anderson's miss on San Antonio's next
trip and hit 1-of-2 free throws to close out the scoring and
give the first-place Kings their eighth win in nine home games.



"Chris is a great player," Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "He
got to the rim on us a couple of times in the second half when
we didn't allow him to in the first half."



Duncan had 23 points and a season-high 23 rebounds and Robinson
added 15 and 12 for the Spurs, who have lost four of five on the
road. San Antonio was held to a season low in points after
doing the same to Sacramento on Wednesday.



"It was a great game," Duncan said. "We played hard all the way
through and it came down to who could finish the game. Basically
what it came down to was making plays at the end of the game and
I think Chris Webber made some incredible plays to give his team
a boost and take them over the top."





Webber forced the ninth and final tie with a 13-footer to make
it 66-66 with 10:32 to play and Stojakovic completed the 13th
and final lead change by hitting 1-of-2 free throws with 9:36
remaining.



Webber appeared to give the Kings some breathing room when he
hit an 18-footer and two free throws around a free throw by
Barry to make it 74-68 with 6:57 left. But Elliott made one
free throw and Robinson added four more from the line to cut the
deficit to one with 5:37 remaining.



Again the Kings went to Webber and again Webber came through,
sinking an 18-footer before Doug Christie's free throws
re-established a five-point lead. Neither team scored for better
than two minutes before Robinson's free throws got the Spurs
within three.



But Webber's acrobatic hook shot in the lane exacted the Kings'
revenge for the tough loss six days ago at the Alamodome.


He comes out and outplays Duncan(Duncan had a bad shooting night).

Guess who is talking that night? The Webber fans.

And you have to shut up and take it.

Soon after KG kicked his ass....KG fans talked. Then he beat up on Dirk....Dirk drops 40 on him....Webber stalemates Duncan next week.

This goes on for....4 years or so?

Whatever tiers you want to place them on...those dudes play...anyone could get the best of the matchip.


So who should I trust to decide where they rank? The me who watched every game and talked about it all night with you maniacs....

Or the me who googled the stats and cant remember many individual plays?

What new information do I actually have? Combining numbers that already existed to make TS% isnt new information.

Why do I know better now that ive seen their entire careers than I knew then? Than the 150 media members(really just...longtime fans), 30 coaches and GMs, 400 players, and numerous legends watching at the time?

I trust myself at the time more than the media at the time. Do I trust myself 15 years later more than Doc Rivers at the time?

Thats tough. I know Idont know more than an NBA coach. Even the ones we call idiots...know the game. But its an issue of reasonable men may differ.

Which brings me to my point...

The accolades are almost always within the range of "Reaosnable men may differ....".

I dont think they are always right. I dont think Malone was MVP in 97. I dont think Kobe was nearly the defender Tony Allen was some of those late 2000s years he beat him out for all D team.

We all have opinions...

But most(note the "most")of the accolades like all nba teams...most coach opinions...most generally informed person opinions? They fall in the magic range.

So my issue isnt....anyone feeling Webber isnt KG or Duncan. Id have been on your side at the time.

My issue is....thinking its so stupid only people who dont know the game could think it.

I heard it from the mouths of guys who played them.

I kinda feel foolish arguing. Ive mentioned my uncles friend...local 70s NBA player Clyde Mayes. Dude played Elvin Hayes...and Kareem. Played them himself...in the post...in their primes. Where the hell do I get off telling him how good Elvin Hayes was in 1978?

I know Hayes at times was taking like 25 shots for 27 points a game. I can call him whatever I feel that makes him. How am I gonna put that up against him backing you down and hitting a reverse pivot fadeaway in your eye? Against trying to box him out? Against sitting on the bench watching him from 12 feet away?

In the end I think what I think....but I dont see how I just dismiss the thoughts of people in the games...coaching them...covering them riding on the team plane watching every game and practice...

It was all too long ago. I have numbers and memories all mashed together. People at the time...watched it from 2 rows away, watched it again in film rooms, devised a gameplan to stop it next time, and knew the guy for 15 years.

Forgive me but I feel there is a credibility issue there.

Doesnt make the people at the time right...

But its usually enough for me to not utterly dismiss their thoughts because I dont agree a decade later.

Webber vs KG and Duncan was...at the time...a reasonable men may differ argument.

Id have put him third...people closer to the action than me might say any of the 3.

They arent ALL idiots.

You could argue Webber was the best athlete of the 3(considering the strength edge on KG), that he had the best hands at the 4 ever Karl Malone aside, that he was the best shooter, the best passer(arguably...the best passing 4 ever...though KG is too) the second best interior scorer, the worst rebounder(though he did lead the NBA one season) and worst defender.

Im a defensive guy. I take him 3rd because of that edge. Doesnt mean KG on those Kings wins 68 games instead of 62 or that he beats the Lakers.

Id say Duncan>KG>Webber. But if its multiple tiers...what....are tiers 1 player? 2?

Lets say in 02 its

Shaq. Tier to himself.

Duncan, KG, Kobe, AI, Webber, Pierce, Tmac, Dirk, and Kidd

Throw in VC if you like.

OK.

Show me tiers. Duncan im guessing is...2.

Webber is 4 or 5? We making that many tiers in a top 10?

[Smoke117]

It's not "off" at all...

For starters, playoffs is not the only thing that matters, but that just isn't "multiple tiers" below in my opinion...even on just the stats.

Chris Webber was never good enough to be the first option. Between that ugly hook shot and his mediocre jump shot...who the hell ever thought that was a good idea. It makes perfect sense that in the playoffs when defenses got tougher that his efficiency went from the mediocrity it already was...to the complete garbage it was in the postseason.

[DMAVS41]

How is it not?
(unless for you the gap between tiers is truly enormous)

Duncan has considerably better offensive stats, is a far better rebounder and is light years better defensively.

KG has noticeably better offensive stats, is a far better rebounder and is light years better defensively.

Even Dirk (who was below the other two during that period) is considerably better offensively, slightly better on the boards.
Defensively there probably isn't much of a gap between the two.



Webber was better in 2000.

2001 is debatable in my eyes based on the playoffs.

2002... give me Dirk.
2003... give me Dirk.

I'm telling you that this is wrong. You can't boil down an entire 3 seasons to 20 games...you get this right?

Webber played 20 playoff games in 00, 01, and 03 combined...you can't do it like that when looking at such a small sample.

Webber was clearly a better player than Dirk in 00 and 01... Dirk had not even played a playoff game until 01.

02 Dirk was on that level, but I thought 02 was probably Webber's best year...then I thought Dirk was better in 03.

[ArbitraryWater]

Webber missed 28 games in 2002... Kings still runaway #1 record with 61 wins.

Thats insane.

[Pointguard]

Yes...you've listed it repeatedly as an indicator...and you have said aggression is what matters most.
I never said it's what matters the most. You confusing different things. I said it manifested itself as a better indicator than TS%. You desperately want to believe I said something more than that but I didn't. So stop trying so hard to make it sound like I was saying it was the supreme indication. It was a comparative statement with TS%.

Still, Duncan attacks a defensive player's weakness as much as any big in the league. If a player is weaker than him he overpowers him. If a defender is bad with his feet, he goes to his moves, if a defender is stronger than him he goes around him. He also attacks the defense in a variety of ways: passing, drawing them in, offensive rebounding. And he's constant with it. He can change up like that because he's versatile.


So now you are changing it to the very best Duncan ever played vs Dirk's entire level broadly over his career? Sure...03 Duncan in the playoffs was better offensively than Dirk was broadly for his career. Considering that was never the discussion...great point.

LOL...silly tactic, but pointless, because Dirk was a better offensive player in the 11 playoffs than Duncan ever was.
I give Duncan in '03 the edge on the best Dirk, because he played his best in the finals. The 4 offensive rebounds per game and the 5.3 assist as compared to .06 O rebs and 2.5 assist. Plus a far superior regular season... its not really close.


Dirk scored more and was more efficient overall...and his team performed better on offense.

Does it every get tiresome for you to hold views you can't even defend without changing the argument many times over and over again?
Offense is rebounding and passing too. Duncan also had more of a burden in his early years. I don't worry myself with how you are going to misinterpret what I say. You lump things together that I never did.


So we have Dirk taking more attempts, Dirk's usage was higher in the playoffs we are now talking about...definitely not indicating Duncan was more aggressive...Dirk was more efficient while being used more offensively...and his team performed better offensively while he was on the court.

And again, my comments were not about 03 Duncan only. You have just arbitrarily chosen to use a peak playoff run as the only evidence for an entire career...which makes no sense. If Duncan played his whole career at his 03 level offensively...he'd probably be the GOAT. In their primes Dirk was 3 ppg better. Duncan created the offense for his team. They played off of him in an inside out game - for about 7 years.

As far as versatility
who is better on the right block
who is better on the left block
who has more moves
who has a better left hand
who has better foot work
who uses his height better
who uses his strength better
who is getting more offensive rebounds
who has a better power game
who has a better finesse game 15 feet and in.
who is going to get more tap ins
who is going to get more alley oops
who has a hook shot
who plays at the center of their offense.
who adjust their game more than Duncan to the defense.

Dirk has better range.

Why don't you add to his list.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Whatever tiers you want to place them on...those dudes play...anyone could get the best of the matchip.


While h2h matchups shouldn't be ignored they don't mean much compared against the larger picture of how these guys were performing on an average basis over much larger samples against the entire league.

Webber was a great player and he held his own in numerous games against Duncan but looking back Duncan generally outplayed him to some extent in most of their meetings and kicked his ass in a fair number also.

The number of games where Webber clearly outplayed Duncan was very few.
Probably wouldn't even need a full hand to count them on.

This is partially reflected in their career h2h stats.
---
Duncan : 22.4 / 14.3 / 2.8 on 59%TS
Webber : 20.1 / 9.5 / 3.5 on 46%TS

Webber was a very good player who was very fun to watch and was on some good/deep/fun to watch teams.
But honestly even on offense I don't think he was on Duncan's level back then and defensively + on the boards the gap between them was really quite large.

Saying there was a tier or two gap between them doesn't seem that odd nor does it suggest that Webber wasn't a talented/valuable/excellent player in his own right.
Maybe perception wise people at times didn't see it that way back then but you know that perception doesn't always match reality.

[DMAVS41]

I never said it's what matters the most. You confusing different things. I said it manifested itself as a better indicator than TS%. You desperately want to believe I said something more than that but I didn't. So stop trying so hard to make it sound like I was saying it was the supreme indication. It was a comparative statement with TS%.

Still, Duncan attacks a defensive player's weakness as much as any big in the league. If a player is weaker than him he overpowers him. If a defender is bad with his feet, he goes to his moves, if a defender is stronger than him he goes around him. He also attacks the defense in a variety of ways: passing, drawing them in, offensive rebounding. And he's constant with it. He can change up like that because he's versatile.

I give Duncan in '03 the edge on the best Dirk, because he played his best in the finals. The 4 offensive rebounds per game and the 5.3 assist as compared to .06 O rebs and 2.5 assist. Plus a far superior regular season... its not really close.

Offense is rebounding and passing too. Duncan also had more of a burden in his early years. I don't worry myself with how you are going to misinterpret what I say. You lump things together that I never did.
In their primes Dirk was 3 ppg better. Duncan created the offense for his team. They played off of him in an inside out game - for about 7 years.

As far as versatility
who is better on the right block
who is better on the left block
who has more moves
who has a better left hand
who has better foot work
who uses his height better
who uses his strength better
who is getting more offensive rebounds
who has a better power game
who has a better finesse game 15 feet and in.
who is going to get more tap ins
who is going to get more alley oops
who has a hook shot
who plays at the center of their offense.
who adjust their game more than Duncan to the defense.

Dirk has better range.

Why don't you add to his list.

I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you any further.

Duncan is not the offensive player Dirk was in their careers...and Dirk was far more versatile offensively. Your list above is a joke...I'll save it to laugh at when and remind myself why conversing with you is a waste of time. If you don't think Dirk creates offense or is interconnected with his teammates...you just don't ****ing know the game.

And, the last thing I will say...as I pointed out earlier...if Duncan played offense on the 03 level most of his career...he'd probably be the GOAT. Your bringing up that playoff run like it's the norm for his career on offense is silly.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't know if head-to-head averages tell it all when one was on arguably the greatest defense of all time with one of the greatest 4-5 defensive combos ever coached by Gregg Popovich and the other faces the Kings who even when they have good defensive numbers we're closer to those mid 2000 Suns teams who could drag your field goal percentage down by making you play their game and take quick shots you'd rather not.

plus career numbers factor in times before and after the player was the person they are going to be remembered I as. I hope you didn't include Philly numbers in there. I don't hope enough to investigate though.

as I said it I would have been on Duncan's side then and now. But they going into a game you're going to look at 2 elite big man go at it knowing anyone to come out ahead and how everyone else he did was probably going to tell the story.

and really career numbers hurt Duncan more than Webber. Even when he was putting up big numbers Duncan was better than his numbers suggested.

[ShaqTwizzle]

I don't know if head-to-head averages tell it all when one was on arguably the greatest defense of all time with one of the greatest 4-5 defensive combos ever coached by Gregg Popovich and the other faces the Kings who even when they have good defensive numbers we're closer to those mid 2000 Suns teams who could drag your field goal percentage down by making you play their game and take quick shots you'd rather not.


Those are some very good/fair points.


as I said it I would have been on Duncan's side then and now. But they going into a game you're going to look at 2 elite big man go at it knowing anyone to come out ahead and how everyone else he did was probably going to tell the story.


I completely agree and I feel sort of bad because I appreciate your memories and how you enjoyed watching Webber.
Don't wanna take away from that.

Still just because the above is true doesn't mean that Duncan wasn't a higher caliber of player in the bigger picture.

Just like when Pau Gasol went up against Duncan it was the same and Gasol (like Webber) held his own against Duncan on many occasions and even outplayed him a few times.

Here are their career stats h2h.

Duncan : 17.4 / 10.9 / 3.1 on 53%TS
Gasol : 17.8 / 8.8 / 3.0 on 54%TS

In regards to 2002 "tiers" I would need time to think and right now I am really burned out from a hard work day.

Off my head though.

Tier 1 : Shaq
Tier 2 : Duncan
Tier 3 : KG
Tier 4 : Webber/Kobe etc...

Probably something like that I guess.
Right now though I am so burned out... would be better to ask me another time.
Can't think right now.

[Pointguard]

Duncan is not the offensive player Dirk was in their careers...and Dirk was far more versatile offensively. Your list above is a joke...I'll save it to laugh at when and remind myself why conversing with you is a waste of time. If you don't think Dirk creates offense or is interconnected with his teammates...you just don't ****ing know the game.
I like it when you squirm. What I said above isn't even related to his inter-connectivity with his teammates. But when in squirm mode, you immediately try to confuse concepts and lump them together. This was your chance to show me up and you ran. As I knew you would. Duncan's versatility and adjustments are crazy. That's his game. He was impossible to scout.

As I said in the previous post. You desperately want to believe things other than what I said. I laid out a map for you to show me up...

[DMAVS41]

I like it when you squirm. What I said above isn't even related to his inter-connectivity with his teammates. But when in squirm mode, you immediately try to confuse concepts and lump them together. This was your chance to show me up and you ran. As I knew you would. Duncan's versatility and adjustments are crazy. That's his game. He was impossible to scout.

As I said in the previous post. You desperately want to believe things other than what I said. I laid out a map for you to show me up...

Okay...you got me. Your list is just too smart for me to combat. I just wish it had an obvious and repeating flaw so I could respond, but it clearly doesn't...

But, my only option left is to be in "squirm mode"...

[Kblaze8855]

well if you're going to make a top 5 with 5 completely distinct tiers fine. it just seems like kind of a cheap way to say he's a multiple tiers below some of these guys. having a guy that is the undisputed best player in the league on a tier of its own kind of makes sense to me. But for 5 tiers in a five player group? I don't know if players that elite have ever had that much separation between them.

[dhsilv]

I think multiple tiers.
I also think that Dirk was much better then Webber from 01-03.

Sorry but Webber is in the Chris Bosh class for me... slightly below the Pau class.

Comparing guys like that to GOAT PF's like Duncan, Dirk or KG who are arguably all Top 20-25 All-Time is an insult to them.
Not like the stats are close over that period especially in the playoffs where Webber declined much more then the other guys.

Then in terms of defense/bbiq/fundamentals/leadership and other key areas Webber is badly outranked by those guys especially in terms of defense compared to Duncan & KG.
He was good but he wasn't in that league.

Can you define a tier as it relates to a single season, not a career? It's possible you have narrow bands for tiers where as many would have broader bands. For example 01 was NOT peak KG as i recall, and really not his peak defensively either. Meanwhile Webber was great that year even if he kinda crapped the bag in the playoffs.

[Pointguard]

I think he will get in as a player and his fab five experience, perhaps on his second or third try. If Webber doesn't get in as a player he's a lock to get in as an announcer and overall contribution to the game.

[dhsilv]

I think he will get in as a player and his fab five experience, perhaps on his second or third try. If Webber doesn't get in as a player he's a lock to get in as an announcer and overall contribution to the game.

He's got a LOT of work to do as an announcer....a LOT.

[Pointguard]

He's got a LOT of work to do as an announcer....a LOT.
He'll get there. He's likable and always has an angle that the others don't. His commentary is on point and engaging. His insight usually plays out in the second half. He'll refine the other aspects.

[game3524]

He's got a LOT of work to do as an announcer....a LOT.

I actually enjoyed some of the work he did with Dick Stockton over the last couple of years.

[dhsilv]

He'll get there. He's likable and always has an angle that the others don't. His commentary is on point and engaging. His insight usually plays out in the second half. He'll refine the other aspects.

He's not bad, but he's nothing special. Sadly I think the live or post game commentating on the nba has really set the bar low lately. Way too many players doing it and not enough people who know the game...

[Pointguard]

He's not bad, but he's nothing special. Sadly I think the live or post game commentating on the nba has really set the bar low lately. Way too many players doing it and not enough people who know the game...
Here is this board talking about him. We love him here and its the same in a couple of other places. I know you want somebody who spent his life reading a calculator.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291177&page=3

[Euroleague]

So you aren't able to explain at all. Got it, I'll remember to ignore your statements going forward. Thanks for contributing.

I don't have time to deal with idiots. Anyone that can't see Morey is a retard is an idiot. Smart people never waste time with idiots.

Because they always come up with "logic" like you just created.

"Prove it, or shut up". "Right, like I thought, you got nothing". "I ignore you now".

And these types of people don't even realize they were already dismissed by the other person they were discussing the matter with before they even think that crap.

You were disqualified from any coherent basketball discussion the moment you claimed Morey was "smart".

Thanks for playing though.

[Euroleague]

Im gonna try to explain the reason behind my often used point of "But at the time people thought....".

The older I get the more of a haze certian events have. Even the ones that were vivid. I watched Jordan score 58...live. In the building. I remember like...4-5 crowd eruptions and talking with some fans sitting near us. I remember a couple shots. Like...literally 2.

It was one of my favorite sports moments ever...I watch highlights of it I see plays I dont remember. Half my memories...are the highlights not the live action.

So....I ask myself...if someone asked me how good someone on the Bulls at the time was...at the time...do I know better now? Or would I know better if you asked me then?

Seems clear id know better then. I was watching every game. Ive seen hundreds of Bulls players come and go. I remember most...I cant speak intelligently about all the role players games.

So how is it so many people feel 10-15 years later...they know better than people knew at the time? People who were watching these games....moments before speaking? Not decades.

We talk about if Webber was ever Duncan and KG great...at the time...I was actually here arguing he wasnt. I got here during the 00-01 season.

Duncan, KG, Webber, and even Dirk all had their fans who said they were the best 4. Really. People argued 01-03 Dirk and Webber>Duncan. And not always stupid people.

There were always articles and quotes and explanations to back up each side.

Say it was after this game:



SACRAMENTO, California (Ticker) -- Chris Webber and the
Sacramento Kings can play tough, too.





He comes out and outplays Duncan(Duncan had a bad shooting night).

Guess who is talking that night? The Webber fans.

And you have to shut up and take it.

Soon after KG kicked his ass....KG fans talked. Then he beat up on Dirk....Dirk drops 40 on him....Webber stalemates Duncan next week.

This goes on for....4 years or so?

Whatever tiers you want to place them on...those dudes play...anyone could get the best of the matchip.


So who should I trust to decide where they rank? The me who watched every game and talked about it all night with you maniacs....

Or the me who googled the stats and cant remember many individual plays?

What new information do I actually have? Combining numbers that already existed to make TS% isnt new information.

Why do I know better now that ive seen their entire careers than I knew then? Than the 150 media members(really just...longtime fans), 30 coaches and GMs, 400 players, and numerous legends watching at the time?

I trust myself at the time more than the media at the time. Do I trust myself 15 years later more than Doc Rivers at the time?

Thats tough. I know Idont know more than an NBA coach. Even the ones we call idiots...know the game. But its an issue of reasonable men may differ.

Which brings me to my point...

The accolades are almost always within the range of "Reaosnable men may differ....".

I dont think they are always right. I dont think Malone was MVP in 97. I dont think Kobe was nearly the defender Tony Allen was some of those late 2000s years he beat him out for all D team.

We all have opinions...

But most(note the "most")of the accolades like all nba teams...most coach opinions...most generally informed person opinions? They fall in the magic range.

So my issue isnt....anyone feeling Webber isnt KG or Duncan. Id have been on your side at the time.

My issue is....thinking its so stupid only people who dont know the game could think it.

I heard it from the mouths of guys who played them.

I kinda feel foolish arguing. Ive mentioned my uncles friend...local 70s NBA player Clyde Mayes. Dude played Elvin Hayes...and Kareem. Played them himself...in the post...in their primes. Where the hell do I get off telling him how good Elvin Hayes was in 1978?

I know Hayes at times was taking like 25 shots for 27 points a game. I can call him whatever I feel that makes him. How am I gonna put that up against him backing you down and hitting a reverse pivot fadeaway in your eye? Against trying to box him out? Against sitting on the bench watching him from 12 feet away?

In the end I think what I think....but I dont see how I just dismiss the thoughts of people in the games...coaching them...covering them riding on the team plane watching every game and practice...

It was all too long ago. I have numbers and memories all mashed together. People at the time...watched it from 2 rows away, watched it again in film rooms, devised a gameplan to stop it next time, and knew the guy for 15 years.

Forgive me but I feel there is a credibility issue there.

Doesnt make the people at the time right...

But its usually enough for me to not utterly dismiss their thoughts because I dont agree a decade later.

Webber vs KG and Duncan was...at the time...a reasonable men may differ argument.

Id have put him third...people closer to the action than me might say any of the 3.

They arent ALL idiots.

You could argue Webber was the best athlete of the 3(considering the strength edge on KG), that he had the best hands at the 4 ever Karl Malone aside, that he was the best shooter, the best passer(arguably...the best passing 4 ever...though KG is too) the second best interior scorer, the worst rebounder(though he did lead the NBA one season) and worst defender.

Im a defensive guy. I take him 3rd because of that edge. Doesnt mean KG on those Kings wins 68 games instead of 62 or that he beats the Lakers.

Id say Duncan>KG>Webber. But if its multiple tiers...what....are tiers 1 player? 2?

Lets say in 02 its

Shaq. Tier to himself.

Duncan, KG, Kobe, AI, Webber, Pierce, Tmac, Dirk, and Kidd

Throw in VC if you like.

OK.

Show me tiers. Duncan im guessing is...2.

Webber is 4 or 5? We making that many tiers in a top 10?

Bottom line, anyone that thinks Webber was as good as Duncan or Garnett is a certifiable imbecile and a complete unabashed troll. Just because this forum is teaming with such people, does not make those people's opinions true or factual.

It just means this site was full of a bunch of stupid jackasses ever since you were hear.

[dhsilv]

I don't have time to deal with idiots. Anyone that can't see Morey is a retard is an idiot. Smart people never waste time with idiots.

Because they always come up with "logic" like you just created.

"Prove it, or shut up". "Right, like I thought, you got nothing". "I ignore you now".

And these types of people don't even realize they were already dismissed by the other person they were discussing the matter with before they even think that crap.

You were disqualified from any coherent basketball discussion the moment you claimed Morey was "smart".

Thanks for playing though.

And yet you respond, showing you haven't dismissed me. You simply know that you have nothing of value to add but wanted to talk trash knowing you are wrong in the first place. I swear you're useless.

[dhsilv]

Here is this board talking about him. We love him here and its the same in a couple of other places. I know you want somebody who spent his life reading a calculator.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291177&page=3

This whole calculator thing you speak of. You really need help if you think that's what people are saying.

What would be nice is if he had more experience watching and/or coaching the game. Playing basketball is just NOT the same thing and most former players can't speak remotely well about the game. Add in he's relatively speaking pretty young and inexperienced at sports commentating. The guys who are great as commentators generally don't get there until their 50's as a rule, yet these top jobs constantly go to former players who are simply not seasoned enough for the jobs.

[JohnFreeman]

Yes, but he won't get voted in

[dhsilv]

Bottom line, anyone that thinks Webber was as good as Duncan or Garnett is a certifiable imbecile and a complete unabashed troll. Just because this forum is teaming with such people, does not make those people's opinions true or factual.

It just means this site was full of a bunch of stupid jackasses ever since you were hear.


I'm not one to generally bring up spelling, but this is the wrong word and it's pretty damn comical.

[Pointguard]

This whole calculator thing you speak of. You really need help if you think that's what people are saying.

What would be nice is if he had more experience watching and/or coaching the game. Playing basketball is just NOT the same thing and most former players can't speak remotely well about the game. Add in he's relatively speaking pretty young and inexperienced at sports commentating. The guys who are great as commentators generally don't get there until their 50's as a rule, yet these top jobs constantly go to former players who are simply not seasoned enough for the jobs.
Insight and analytical ability should be things you are looking for in an commentator if he already has superb communication skills which Webber has. Webber has been in around the game for 20 years under 5 different coaches and its clear as day he understands the game and shows old man wisdom in knowing how games will play out - at a rate far superior than the most experienced commentators. So you are crazy to say he isn't experienced enough. You implying that he can't speak "remotely well" is a joke.

[DMAVS41]

Insight and analytical ability should be things you are looking for in an commentator if he already has superb communication skills which Webber has. Webber has been in around the game for 20 years under 5 different coaches and its clear as day he understands the game and shows old man wisdom in knowing how games will play out - at a rate far superior than the most experienced commentators. So you are crazy to say he isn't experienced enough. You implying that he can't speak "remotely well" is a joke.

I like Webber and thinks he does understand the game, but being around the game for 20 plus years doesn't automatically mean someone understands it fully.

Byron Scott is a straight up moron out there. Do you deny this? Literally thousands of coaches would learn better and do better than he has done. He's ignorant to so many things.

I'm also curious...what do you think these "old school" and "old man wisdom" coaches and players would say to you when you told them;

"The Cavs, who swept the Hawks last year in the playoffs, would have lost the series if Kyrie and Love had been 100% healthy?"

You think you could ever find anyone in the world to agree with you?

[dhsilv]

I said to speak on the subject which was not directed at Webber but most younger commentators and especially former nba players. Webber is a good communicator, great would be a huge overstatement, but he is good. As for 20 years playing, I am sure that is as good as 3-5 years as an analyst so yes he has some experience there, but to act like that is the same as coaching or analysis is comical. I can't speak on old man insight on how games will play out, I have not observed that. He does an OK job...but he is far from special. You once again are going to making up gibberish to define things and aren't explaining what you mean.

[DMAVS41]

I said to speak on the subject which was not directed at Webber but most younger commentators and especially former nba players. Webber is a good communicator, great would be a huge overstatement, but he is good. As for 20 years playing, I am sure that is as good as 3-5 years as an analyst so yes he has some experience there, but to act like that is the same as coaching or analysis is comical. I can't speak on old man insight on how games will play out, I have not observed that. He does an OK job...but he is far from special. You once again are going to making up gibberish to define things and aren't explaining what you mean.


:applause:

[Pointguard]

I like Webber and thinks he does understand the game, but being around the game for 20 plus years doesn't automatically mean someone understands it fully.

Byron Scott is a straight up moron out there. Do you deny this? Literally thousands of coaches would learn better and do better than he has done. He's ignorant to so many things.

I'm also curious...what do you think these "old school" and "old man wisdom" coaches and players would say to you when you told them;

"The Cavs, who swept the Hawks last year in the playoffs, would have lost the series if Kyrie and Love had been 100% healthy?"

You think you could ever find anyone in the world to agree with you?
I don't get why you follow me around in every thread I go to. Its stalking if it was in the real world. Please go do your own thing. If I let you win an argument would stop following me? You are going too far with this.

I said to speak on the subject which was not directed at Webber but most younger commentators and especially former nba players. Webber is a good communicator, great would be a huge overstatement, but he is good. As for 20 years playing, I am sure that is as good as 3-5 years as an analyst so yes he has some experience there, but to act like that is the same as coaching or analysis is comical.
His halftime prognosis is better than guys who are rocking coaching and analysis for 30 years. Its comical because you don't realize insight is a gift in some people just like the ability to communicate insight is. Its not something that experience can override. You can tell that you don't interact with people - You are a lot like Dmavs. You too should try being on the board at the same time and IM each other.


I can't speak on old man insight on how games will play out, I have not observed that. He does an OK job...but he is far from special. You once again are going to making up gibberish to define things and aren't explaining what you mean.:lol Dmavs - that you. I am not striving to win over one more obtuse observer who debates like a child. I don't respect your opinion as there is very little to show that you know what you are talking about. You said Webber had a lot to learn as an announcer like 7 exchanges back, you've never backed up what you meant. Instead, made a general attack about young inexperienced announcers, never acknowledging that Webber doesn't subscribe to your stereotype. In fact, you haven't backed up one thing you said negatively about Webber with anything specific. And this is all after you said the new wave fan is on higher level than the previous generation but you want to see old school people televising the game because of experience.

You've come a long way since your original statement and are now even using my phrasing to explain yourself here (coaching, experience, understanding). You're ungrateful, just like Dmavs.

[DMAVS41]

You pop in threads I'm in...saying ignorant things. You are right I shouldn't respond, but it's kind of exciting to see what absurd thing you will say next.

Like...I just never know what you are going to say.

Never, in a million years, would I imagine someone dumb enough to claim the Cavs would go from a sweep to a series loss with 2 of their 3 best players healthy.

Also, you have this odd thing about me being multiple posters...which is just not true.

As for the other stuff...you are just quite literally very hard to understand because what you think is intellectual...is actually drivel and non sense. So when others can't figure out what you are actually trying to say...you accuse them/me of it being me.

It's not...you just really struggle to form coherent points and think you are much smarter than you are.

[bizil]

Peak wise, I think C Webb was CLEARLY an HOFer. When it comes to scoring, passing, and rebounding as a package, he's one of the top 10 PF's of all time. Hell Webb could even be a top 5 PF of all time in that regard.

I often see people compare him to his Golden Age PF contemporaries like Timmy, KG, and Dirk. The thing that made Timmy unique was the fact that he was basically a dominant 7 foot center who HAPPENED to play the PF position. NO OTHER great PF can offer that.

KG was a freak of nature! Without a doubt, I think KG was the most versatile 7 footer of all time. Had the ability to defend swingmen to centers. And had point forward skills on top of it. A peak KG season was 24 points, 14 rebounds, 6 assists, and world class versatile defense!

And Dirk at 7 foot was the ultimate stretch PF. He's a HUGE reason why we see so many stretch big men today. I just think the things that Duncan, KG, and Dirk brought to the PF spot made them more unique and franchise altering than what Webber brought to the table. EVEN THOUGH peak Webber was very unique and great himself. And in that Golden Era of PF's in the late 90's to mid 2000s, he was in the top 4 with Duncan, KG, and Dirk.

[mehyaM24]

Saying the spurs play like the spurs is just incorrect. Yes, they have similarities because they were both great basketball teams that were great passers. Again basketball builds on what was done before. The differences become more nuanced but they are clear and apparent.

just watch tape of the 86 celtics. the spurs of today (2014) obviously take advantage of the 3pt line, but the fundamental extra pass, one for all, systematic sacrifice is very much the same.

people that read box scores wouldn't be able to pick up on that stuff, so i'm not holding it against you or anything.


Why are you bringing up kids? No kid is going to be an expert in anything, ever. If you were talking to 50 year old basketball fans in the 90's the 50 year old basketball fans today are going to be more informed. 15 year old kids are idiots, doesn't matter what generation you're a part of. Perhaps you had a better point but bringing up kids is just silly. Oh and they're using databases and python, not calculators.

kids as in teenagers and young adults - you read posts here and they're all based on numbers. i'm all for advanced metrics (like rapm), but not to the point where everything is explained and argued with numbers.

numbers require context and therefor analysis - analysis always trumps analytical data.


As for Morey, seriously you think I don't know who he is? Of course he's the post boy of analytic. That doesn't mean he's running a team 100% based on it. I do however think he's somewhat right if that quote is accurate about the need more more analytics and less analysis.

i think you need to read more of his work, and understand the reasoning behind his decisions - for the most part, they all come back to numbers.

skim through the articles i linked.

moreys "seminars" which can be found online also detail what exactly he looks for when drafting and/or signing players.

[ISHGoat]

How the **** did this thread get so off topic and generate so many pages? Of course CWebb is a HOF'er.

[DMAVS41]

just watch tape of the 86 celtics. the spurs of today (2014) obviously take advantage of the 3pt line, but the fundamental extra pass, one for all, systematic sacrifice is very much the same.

people that read box scores wouldn't be able to pick up on that stuff, so i'm not holding it against you or anything.



kids as in teenagers and young adults - you read posts here and they're all based on numbers. i'm all for advanced metrics (like rapm), but not to the point where everything is explained and argued with numbers.

numbers require context and there for analysis - analysis always trumps analytical data.



i think you need to read more on his work, and understand the reasoning behind his decisions - for the most part, they all come back to numbers. readup on the articles i linked for a better understanding. his seminars which can be found online detail what exactly he looks for when drafting and/or signing players.

I see very few people actually say everything is explained solely by the numbers. If they do...you are right to point out that flaw.

I'd be careful about sweeping statements about how analysis always trumps data. Depends on who is doing the analysis and how much weight they are putting into certain data points.

I agree if proper analysis is done, but that isn't always the case.

Take the "hacking strategy" for fouling bad ft shooters. If one only looked at offensive production from the other team. The data might tell you it's better to foul DJ than it is to play regular defense.

However, that is, only one part of the equation. If would be a flaw to only look at that.

You'd have to also look at how your offense performs after made and missed ft shooting. If your offense takes a hit when the defense gets to set up in the half court...hacking may not be a good idea in most scenarios.

So while I agree that data is just neutral without context and analysis...who is providing that context and analysis matters...bad analysis exists and doesn't trump the data imo.

A common theme on here is when RAPM is brought up and people that supposedly claim to know what the numbers are and represent...say things like "I've seen enough to know it's a shit metric because it ranks Amir Johnson over Kobe"

And it's hard to converse with someone like that because they fundamentally misunderstand so much that it would take hours to explain why only someone extremely ignorant would make that statement.

You see the same thing with PER when a player like Wright is way up there, but very few grasp how playing a different role and less minutes impact it.

So I totally agree withe sentiment of your post...I'd just be careful about that broad claim...because people how analyze this stuff can be really ignorant.

[mehyaM24]

dmavs- that's a good point.

somebody like nathanjizzle, the freakish derrick rose stan would be the exception to the rule. somebody that doesn't use numbers, and arrives at goofy results.

i would say 100% proper analysis is better than 100% analytical data though because the analysis tells you WHY and HOW something happened whereas the data just tells you the output (and you draw your conclusions from there).

i'm always looking for the happy medium.

[DMAVS41]

dmavs- that's a good point.

somebody like nathanjizzle, the freakish derrick rose stan would be the exception to the rule. somebody that doesn't use numbers, and arrives at goofy results.

i would say 100% proper analysis is better than 100% analytical data though because the analysis tells you WHY and HOW something happened whereas the data just tells you the output (and you draw your conclusions from there).

i'm always looking for the happy medium.

Agreed.

Like I said...it's frustrating because when one brings up something like RAPM...I can't tell you how many times I've had people say exactly this:

"oh yea, well any stat that claims Amir Johnson was making more of an impact that Rose, Kobe, Westbrook...etc...is worthless and means nothing"

Then I try to explain to them that not only RAPM isn't saying that at all, but just the statement of one trying to compare Amir Johnson to Kobe/Rose shows a huge level of ignorance about the metric as it doesn't work like that at all.

You have to compare like with like...and even then it's of course not perfect by any means...and no number tells you everything.

But people are too simple minded for legit discussions usually and are just willfully ignorant....and to make matters worse...go on and on about something they don't even understand.