Printable View
[QUOTE=drza44]Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.[/QUOTE]
This is laughable :lol
[QUOTE=drza44]Not to step too far into the disagreement, but I think you're both ignoring a major point here in responding to FinishHim's in depth analysis:
You're comparing the starter on the Celtics to the back-up on the Kings. FinishHim did the same thing at swingman, where he compares the starter on the Celtics (Allen) with the back-up on the Kings (Hedo). He somehow managed to get all of those >>>>>>>>>>s in there without mentioning at all the starting backcourt for those Kings in Bibby and Christie, who were only the best defensive player on the team (Christie) and best clutch scorer (and possibly 2nd best player) in Bibby. :shrugs: Just seems like they might be pertinent to this discussion too.[/QUOTE]
It was a response to this:
[QUOTE=browntown]KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.
So I would choose KG.[/QUOTE]
which I don't see how you could've missed since it was one post above mine... But whatever, it's clear people on this website don't read, they just respond.
Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.
[QUOTE=bokes15]I don't think anyone who actually watched a prime C-Webb would make that statement. Prime C-Webb led his Kings to a 61-21 record while averaging 27/11 and being a strong MVP candidate... It took the powerhouse Lakers (and perhaps some questionable calls) to take him out that year in 7 games. Replace KG with prime C-Webb on that C's team and not only would they have still won the title, but the first two series might not have even gone 7.[/QUOTE]
Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn
and oh by the way, Bibby, Jackson, C-Webb, Divac, and Peja happened to be their 5 best players... I forgot to include Bibby in my post. Sue me.
[QUOTE=dhenk]Bull****.
That Sacramento team was stacked, and Webber wasn
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Hinrich is having a better season than Rondo? wow.[/QUOTE]
You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.
[QUOTE=wang4three]You're right. That was a bad pick. My fault on that. I didn't use my better judgement there. Ok, Rondo makes the top 15. I amend that to 14 I'd take over him.[/QUOTE]
Chris Duhon? TJ Ford? Kirk Hinrich?
[IMG]http://www.chillyoislamyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hater1.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=wang4three]This says to me one of two things:
1. Bibby is clearly not the same player he once was (most probable)
2. Bobby was brought off the bench for reasons like scoring and defensive shifts rather than because he wasn't as good, if not better than Bibby.
It wasn't uncommon for people to think that Bobby was better than Mike back in the Kings era. During his 6th man campaign, many though he should've started over Mike because he had been so efficient.
As far as Rondo shooting 50%, sure he makes more than he misses, but nothing really indicated to me that he's better at finishing than Bobby was.[/QUOTE]
What has Bibby's game lost? This makes no sense. He's at his career scoring average, shooting better than his norm, 1 assist per game under, big deal. With better stats than in his first season as a King, by the way. Some people thought Jackson was better but who started the game and had the ball in the clutch? And how is Rondo not a good finisher when he's shooting 50% overall? Where are the makes coming from? Threes? This is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=wang4three] [B]but know Rondo is better currently like DJ Augustin[/B], Jarret Jack, Rafer, and Stuckey.[/QUOTE]
:roll: DJ Augustin is equal to Rondo?
[QUOTE=drza44]Oversimplification. They were good enough to win 50 games expressly because Garnett borderlined on superhuman those years. 50 wins doesn't make a cast of Troy Hudson and Wally next to KG all of a sudden a legitimate matchup against Kobe and Shaq.[/QUOTE]
2000 - 50 wins (6th best) in a stacked west. Lost 3-1 against the 59 win Blazers. That team may not have been as good as Portland, but it wasn't a crappy team. Brandon, healthy Wally, Sealy, Smith, and Peeler were good role players.
2001 - 47 wins (8th best). Lost 3-1 to 58 win Spurs. Aside from Robinson, that team Duncan had wasn't stacked. They had similar players to what KG had, and that was solid role players. Derek Andersen, Daniels, Rose, Elliot, etc weren't far superior to Brandon, Wally, Peeler, Ellis, etc. Most of them were solid defenders and shooters. Rasho can win with Duncan, but isn't good enough for KG? If you switched those players to the opposite teams, I can't say the result would be different.
2002 - 50 wins (5th best). Lost 3-0 to the 57 win Mavs (Same mavs who were owned by Webber and the Kings in the playoffs). That team was all offense. They didn't even try to defend. The wolves were a good defensive team that had firepower themselves, as they had the 3rd best offense that year. Billups was playing then too.
The next two years they got stopped by LA, once in the first round, another in the WCF.
2005 - 44 wins. Failed to make the playoffs, despite having many of the key players from the previous WCF season. Flip was fired. It just gets worse from there.
So the point about KG only being stonewalled against LA isn't there, because he did lose against other teams. Superior? Yes, but some of them not that much better. I didn't even include some earlier playoff losses with Marbury. Your point about KG making the most of what he had and Webber not doesn't hold up IMO. He had many of the same players that left and became stars or role players for other contenders. I think he had enough talent to win a first round series, if he was so superhuman he could carry a team to the playoffs in a stacked Western conference. Aside from his 58 win WCF season, I just didn't see it, and I watched that era too.
[QUOTE=FinishHim!]It was a response to this:
[quote=browntown]
KG for me took full advantage of his opportunities. Chris Webbber had his chance with that great Sacramento team. Which consisted of prime Bibby, Peja in his prime, Divac, Bobby Jackson, Hedo, and he still didn't manage to win a tittle.
So I would choose KG.[/quote]
which I don't see how you could've missed since it was one post above mine... But whatever, it's clear people on this website don't read, they just respond.[/QUOTE]
I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?
[QUOTE=XxNeXuSxX]:roll: DJ Augustin is equal to Rondo?[/QUOTE]
Must have missed the part where I said that Rondo was better.
[QUOTE=drza44]I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?[/QUOTE]
Can you name me one player on that Kings team that was better than Paul Pierce?
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]What has Bibby's game lost? This makes no sense. He's at his career scoring average, shooting better than his norm, 1 assist per game under, big deal. With better stats than in his first season as a King, by the way. Some people thought Jackson was better but who started the game and had the ball in the clutch? And how is Rondo not a good finisher when he's shooting 50% overall? Where are the makes coming from? Threes? This is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Bibby looks visibly slower than he did as a King. He doesn't look nearly as sharp. Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version). No one is putting him in that rank right now. His points are most likely resultive of not having guys like Webber and Peja around who were both putting 20-25 a night. Bibby is probably the 2nd best scorer on that team versus being the outside 3rd.
I never said Rondo was not a good finisher. I just said that nothing he has done has proved to me he was a better finisher than a prime Bobby Jackson. Don't make conclusions I didn't explicitely say. It's not a knock on Rondo, but Bobby Jackson in his Kings day was a prolific scorer.
[QUOTE=wang4three]Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version).[/quote]
Funny, since Nash was making all star teams over him.
2002 - Nash 3rd team (Bibby nowhere to be found), and All Star
Mavs = 57 wins, Kings 61 wins.
2003 - Nash 3rd team (again, no nod for Bibby), and All Star
Mavs = 60 wins, Kings 59 wins.
I agree that Bibby was better, but it wasn't a general consensus at that time around the league.
[QUOTE=Showtime]Funny, since Nash was making all star teams over him.
2002 - Nash 3rd team (Bibby nowhere to be found), and All Star
Mavs = 57 wins, Kings 61 wins.
2003 - Nash 3rd team (again, no nod for Bibby), and All Star
Mavs = 60 wins, Kings 59 wins.
I agree that Bibby was better, but it wasn't a general consensus at that time around the league.[/QUOTE]
Enough for me to make that statement. Season after season when the Kings eliminated the Mavs, Bibby would beat Nash in the head to head.
[QUOTE=wang4three]Enough for me to make that statement. Season after season when the Kings eliminated the Mavs, Bibby would beat Nash in the head to head.[/QUOTE]
Listen, I already said that I agreed with your point about Bibby being better than Nash in Dallas. My point is people around the league obviously didn't think that, which is what you said.
[QUOTE=Showtime]2000 - 50 wins (6th best) in a stacked west. Lost 3-1 against the 59 win Blazers. That team may not have been as good as Portland, but it wasn't a crappy team. Brandon, healthy Wally, Sealy, Smith, and Peeler were good role players. [/quote]
That Blazers team was ridiculously stacked. Are you serious? I remember at the time that they were put together to be almost a super team, with about 8 talented players who had produced at other places brought together to try to win a title. And they were a historic 4th quarter collapse from beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and winning a title. Brandon and a bunch of role players was not nearly equivalent to that.
[quote]2001 - 47 wins (8th best). Lost 3-1 to 58 win Spurs. Aside from Robinson, that team Duncan had wasn't stacked. They had similar players to what KG had, and that was solid role players. Derek Andersen, Daniels, Rose, Elliot, etc weren't far superior to Brandon, Wally, Peeler, Ellis, etc. Most of them were solid defenders and shooters. Rasho can win with Duncan, but isn't good enough for KG? If you switched those players to the opposite teams, I can't say the result would be different. [/quote]
Wait, what? "Aside from Robinson"? Robinson was one of the best big men ever, and was still playing at an extremely high level then. Saying "aside from 35-year old Robinson" on that team wouldn't be hugely different from saying "aside from 33-year old Duncan" once the current Spurs hit the playoffs. So yeah, if you just pretend that DRob didn't exist then KG's cast had some similarities to Duncan's. And on your last sentence, I guess we'll just agree to disagree because I think there were exactly 3 impact players in that series, 2 young studs and one older vet that was still bringing it. Whichever team had any 2 of those 3 would get my vote for winning that series.
[quote]2002 - 50 wins (5th best). Lost 3-0 to the 57 win Mavs (Same mavs who were owned by Webber and the Kings in the playoffs). That team was all offense. They didn't even try to defend. The wolves were a good defensive team that had firepower themselves, as they had the 3rd best offense that year. Billups was playing then too.[/quote]
Those Mavs were a lot more talented than the Wolves. Nash and Van Exel blew Billups (who, by the way, was a career back-up/journeyman with poor defense at that point in his career) and Anthony Peeler away in the backcourt (Brandon had gone down for the season injured halfway through that year, ending his career). Finley toyed with Wally Z, and even Lafrentz pulled Rasho away from the rim and unloaded on him. That Wolves squad literally had no players outside of KG that could defend their counterpart on the Mavs one-on-one. The Mavs would spread the floor and let either Nash or Van Exel break down Billups/Peeler off the dribble, then when the defense inevitably collapsed to help the burnt guard they would either score or set up a teammate for an open shot. KG ended up trying to be the help defender on everyone which left Dirk often wide open from the perimeter (obviously a losing formula as Dirk averaged well into the 30s in points as a finisher mainly off basically open shots).
Seriously, go back and re-watch that series if anyone has it on video. KG did all that was humanly possible that series (he averaged something like 24/19/5/2/2) but the Wolves were just flat out-gunned. Dirk did his thing too, don't get me wrong, but if anything he and KG played each other to a draw in that series. The rest of the Mavs beat the snot out of the rest of the Wolves
[quote]The next two years they got stopped by LA, once in the first round, another in the WCF.[/quote]
Another 2 talent mismatches.
[quote]2005 - 44 wins. Failed to make the playoffs, despite having many of the key players from the previous WCF season. Flip was fired. It just gets worse from there. [/quote]
You forgot to mention that Cassell was still hobbled all season from the hip injury (and possibly pouting over a contract), Spree was on literally his last legs and playing poorly, and the rest of the team reverted to the hot garbage that was their usual norm. Because KG and Cassell carried them to such heights in '04, people seemed to forget that Olowokandi really stinks, Hassell and Hoiberg had been cut by the terrible Bulls in '03, Troy Hudson was a glorified CBA player, and Eddie Griffin was certifiably insane with chemical dependency issues.
[quote]So the point about KG only being stonewalled against LA isn't there, because he did lose against other teams. Superior? Yes, but some of them not that much better. I didn't even include some earlier playoff losses with Marbury. Your point about KG making the most of what he had and Webber not doesn't hold up IMO. He had many of the same players that left and became stars or role players for other contenders. I think he had enough talent to win a first round series, if he was so superhuman he could carry a team to the playoffs in a stacked Western conference. Aside from his 58 win WCF season, I just didn't see it, and I watched that era too.[/QUOTE]
Ultimately, here is where we disagree. Because of the loss of 1st round picks and lack of other ways to bring in talent, the Wolves used to scrape the bottom of the barrell every off-season to come up with players to fill out the roster. Before he got to Boston, KG never lost in the playoffs with a single team as good as any of the ones that surrounded Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Webber, or Sheed in any of the seasons from that time period.
So while I think that Garnett was as good as (or better than most of) those guys, he wasn't enough on his own to beat out combos of historic players (i.e. Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/DRob) or star ensembles (Portland, Sac, Dallas) with essentially Wally Szczerbiak as his best lieutenant. Considering that he's undefeated in any playoff series this millenium where his 2nd best player was clearly better than Wally (a situation that all of the above great big men had every year), I think my line of thinking can be well supported. Obviously you disagree, and that's fine. But I think the tragedy for Garnett (and the NBA as a whole) is that there have only been 1.5 seasons over his first 13 years where that (seemingly impossibly low) bar has been cleared.
the answer is clear... how are there 7 pages of debate???:confusedshrug:
At his peak, there are very few players I would rather have than Chris Webber.
Sure, Garnett is more intense and plays better defense, but Webber was far superior on the offensive end. He had a silky mid range J, great post moves, and the passing ability of a top point guard (but you didnt need me to tell you that)
Garnett was a statistical monster in Minnesota, and his fierce play was unmatched, but Chris Webber could straight up ball.
i realize my reasoning is vague but it is an overall thing, rather than pinpointing certain areas of each players' game.
it's like going on a date and getting rejected. People try to analyze the precise thing they did wrong to get rejected, but it is the 'overall' that played into the decision.
I don't care what the stats say, I saw prime Webber and prime Garnett, and prime Webber was better. end of story.
[QUOTE=wang4three]Bibby looks visibly slower than he did as a King. He doesn't look nearly as sharp. Prime Bibby was considered to better than Steve Nash (Mavs version). No one is putting him in that rank right now. His points are most likely resultive of not having guys like Webber and Peja around who were both putting 20-25 a night. Bibby is probably the 2nd best scorer on that team versus being the outside 3rd. [/quote]
Some thought Bibby was better, but they weren't the ones making Nash an All-Star. That's a lame "point." Bibby outplayed Nash in one or two playoff series but he never had that rep overall. And the present difference in their rep has a bit to do with Nash winning two MVPs..."IMO," of course. Bibby might be a little slower, that's natural, but he's just as effective if not moreso. You really have no case for him being worse now. He's 30 years old, which is still a player's prime, and getting normal numbers by his standards.
[QUOTE=wang4three]I never said Rondo was not a good finisher. I just said that nothing he has done has proved to me he was a better finisher than a prime Bobby Jackson. Don't make conclusions I didn't explicitely say. It's not a knock on Rondo, but Bobby Jackson in his Kings day was a prolific scorer.[/QUOTE]
And I'm not saying Rondo is the scorer Jackson is but he can definitely finish. He's averaging 11 with no jumper. If he could shoot he'd be a big scorer as well.
KG won the mvp with an aging spreewell and casell. how can people argue that webber is better when kg just displayed that he can beat the kings who in that time think that the kings have one of the best starting 5's ever built up.
I am a big webber fan as well but no way in hell id pick him over kg.
also some people pick webber because they simply hate kg.. just like spudjay's hate over ray allen :D
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek]KG. How can someone think otherwise? If you do, you're just not being objective. MVP, DPOY, ring - three very notable things that KG has but Webber doesn't. KG is a slam dunk first ballot HOFer, [B]whereas people will fight over Webber's HOF status if you create a thread whether he's a HOFer.
[/B]
Webber was a better scorer, especially in the low post, but no doubt that KG's ppg average would be a couple of points higher had he played for those explosive Kings teams.[/QUOTE]
am I missing something? C-Webb is a definite HOFer. and considering that the hall counts college ball too... shoe in.
[QUOTE=FinishHim!]Can you name me one player on that Kings team that was better than Paul Pierce?[/QUOTE]
One player, definitely better? I tell you what, let's play a game:
Player A: 25.0 ppg, 44% FG, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 TOs, 21.7 PER, 110 offense rtg, 107 defense rtg
Player B: 24.2 ppg, 48% FG, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.9 TOs, 21.8 PER, 120 offense rtg, 106 defense rtg
Player A: 19.6 ppg, 46% FG, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 TOs, 19.6 PER, 115 offense rtg, 100 defense rtg
Player B: 19.2 ppg, 48% FG, 5.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 1.4 TOs, 19.6 PER, 117 offense rtg, 101 defense rtg
This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.
And again, outside of Pierce/Peja, Bibby compares very favorably as a King to Allen last season, Vlade was much more accomplished than Perk, Christie more reliable than Rondo, BoJax a better 6th man than Posey, etc. etc. on down the line. Those Kings were really, really talented.
I will sum up again, my point about KG without addressing every playoff matchup: I don't believe KG ever had teams that were as talented as his opponents that I listed. I believe every team he faced was better. I don't need a rundown of that, because I didn't say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that they were so superior that a victory was beyond reach, and that the Wolves didn't have enough talent to be competitive. Upsets happen EVERY year. My point is that if KG was so "superhuman" as to take a team in a very stacked west all the way to the playoffs and win 50 games, then trying to say it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO WIN against those same teams is BS IMO.
[QUOTE=drza44]Ultimately, here is where we disagree. Because of the loss of 1st round picks and lack of other ways to bring in talent, the Wolves used to scrape the bottom of the barrell every off-season to come up with players to fill out the roster.[/quote]
I'm not putting McHale's failure on KG's back. I'm not looking on "what could have been", I'm only looking at how much KG did with what he had. If he was good enough to take his teams to the playoffs and win, he certainly COULD have won a first round series in those matchups. It's not like he played his best ball in those series.
[quote]Before he got to Boston, KG never lost in the playoffs with a single team as good as any of the ones that surrounded Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Webber, or Sheed in any of the seasons from that time period.[/quote]
He lost to LA in 2004, so yeah, he lost with a good team.
[quote]So while I think that Garnett was as good as (or better than most of) those guys, he wasn't enough on his own to beat out combos of historic players (i.e. Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/DRob) or star ensembles (Portland, Sac, Dallas) with essentially Wally Szczerbiak as his best lieutenant.[/quote]
But he was good enough to carry them through 82 games in a conference with all of that talent, even beating some of those teams in the regular season, but when it comes to the first round, suddenly he's no match. I guess the playoffs are his kryptonite to his superpowers. You only bring up his winning when it suits you. When he carries a team to the playoffs and 50 win seasons, it's because he's so great. When he loses in the first round of those seasons, it's because he doesn't have the talent around him.
[quote]Considering that he's undefeated in any playoff series where his 2nd best player was clearly better than Wally (a situation that all of the above great big men had every year), I think my line of thinking can be well supported.[/quote]
He didn't win a championship in 2004. He, like Webber, lost to LA in the conference finals. You keep saying he's undefeated, but he only got past the first round in Minny ONCE, where he reached the same level as Webber.
[quote]Obviously you disagree, and that's fine. But I think the tragedy for Garnett (and the NBA as a whole) is that there have only been 1.5 seasons over his first 13 years where that (seemingly impossibly low) bar has been cleared.[/QUOTE]
I think it's a tragedy to blame everything on his supporting casts. Yes, he had the worst GM in the league, but he chose to remain in that situation, and he had enough talent to consistently make the playoffs. If he was good enough to win in the regular season, it's my opinion that he could have won a first round series. He didn't play flawless basketball, and he often times didn't take over games late. KG against Sac in 2004 was the best I've seen KG play in a clutch game. Other than that, he wasn't a great clutch player IMO. I don't think losing is all on his shoulders, but I also don't think it's all on his team's shoulders.
[QUOTE=drza44]This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.[/quote]
You are forgetting styles and clutch play. Peja didn't perform in the playoffs, and Pierce did. Pierce was more versatile of a scorer who could penetrate and make plays for others. Peja mainly got his points as a shooter. Pierce can create way more than Peja could. Production was similar in those examples you cited, but it was night and day in what each brought to the table.
[QUOTE=Showtime]I will sum up again, my point about KG without addressing every playoff matchup: I don't believe KG ever had teams that were as talented as his opponents that I listed. I believe every team he faced was better. I don't need a rundown of that, because I didn't say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that they were so superior that a victory was beyond reach, and that the Wolves didn't have enough talent to be competitive. Upsets happen EVERY year. My point is that if KG was so "superhuman" as to take a team in a very stacked west all the way to the playoffs and win 50 games, then trying to say it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO WIN against those same teams is BS IMO.
I'm not putting McHale's failure on KG's back. I'm not looking on "what could have been", I'm only looking at how much KG did with what he had. If he was good enough to take his teams to the playoffs and win, he certainly COULD have won a first round series in those matchups. It's not like he played his best ball in those series. [/quote]
Stats aren't a be-all/end-all by any stretch, but they at least can be part of an interesting story. The Wins Produced guys (love them or hate them) generally do an adequate job of using their statistical model to predict how many wins a team should have had, based on each player's individual stats. They did a chart for the Timberwolves during the KG era, and their model indicated that replacing KG with an average NBA player would have resulted in Wolves teams that averaged around 27 wins per year. Even the famed 03-04 team would have projected to about 32 wins with an average player in place of KG. [url]http://www.wagesofwins.com/WhatIfNoKG.html[/url] His teams just really, really were not that talented during his Minnesota years. Especially compared to the rash of historically stacked teams that the Wolves tended to face in the playoffs.
Was it IMPOSSIBLE that KG lead that poor supporting cast to upset a much more talented one? Of course not. ANNNNNNNNNYYYYYTTTTTHHIIIINNNGGGG's POSSSSSSSIIIIBBBBBLLEE!!!" :D On the other hand, the fact that he wasn't able to do it isn't an indictment to me, especially in a comparison against Webber.
[quote]He lost to LA in 2004, so yeah, he lost with a good team.[/quote]
Ah ah, that's not what I said. I said he's undefeated this millenium when his 2nd best player was clearly better than a Wally Szczerbiak. In '04 KG was undefeated with a healthy Cassell. It wasn't until both Cassell and Hudson were injured, leaving Garnett to have to play some point guard himself with Wally-caliber production as a 2nd option that they lost to the Lakers.
[quote]But he was good enough to carry them through 82 games in a conference with all of that talent, even beating some of those teams in the regular season, but when it comes to the first round, suddenly he's no match. I guess the playoffs are his kryptonite to his superpowers. You only bring up his winning when it suits you. When he carries a team to the playoffs and 50 win seasons, it's because he's so great. When he loses in the first round of those seasons, it's because he doesn't have the talent around him.[/quote]
In the postseason, you face the same team for a series and it allows teams to focus on weaknesses. KG still did his thing in the playoffs...his post-season numbers were almost always as good as or better than his regular season ones, especially in his last 3 playoffs trips in Minny when he averaged 25 and 16 in the playoffs. But the playoffs shined a light on the weakness of his teammates. For instance, Wally was so 1-dimensional that it was easy to scheme him out in the playoffs, which is why his offensive numbers turned to hot garbage in the postseason and/or he tended to get torched by his opponent (like Finley in '02). He averaged 12 ppg on poor shooting in the postseason, pretty terrible for a "2nd option" whose claim to fame in the regular season were scoring/high-percentage shooting.
[quote]He didn't win a championship in 2004. He, like Webber, lost to LA in the conference finals. You keep saying he's undefeated, but he only got past the first round in Minny ONCE, where he reached the same level as Webber. [/quote]
Again, he was undefeated until both the starting and back-up point guards (including the 2nd best player) were injured, leaving KG running the PG with Szczerbiak-caliber help.
[quote]I think it's a tragedy to blame everything on his supporting casts. Yes, he had the worst GM in the league, but he chose to remain in that situation, and he had enough talent to consistently make the playoffs. If he was good enough to win in the regular season, it's my opinion that he could have won a first round series. He didn't play flawless basketball, and he often times didn't take over games late. KG against Sac in 2004 was the best I've seen KG play in a clutch game. Other than that, he wasn't a great clutch player IMO. I don't think losing is all on his shoulders, but I also don't think it's all on his team's shoulders.[/QUOTE]
Well, it depends on what you mean by "blame everything". Those Wolves were IMO teams that over-achieved their talent level, which to me is commendable more-so than blame-worthy. I don't blame his supporting cast for this, as to me they did great with what they had. But if you're asking why they weren't title contenders or making playoff runs in a historically stacked Western Conference then yes, it is largely because the teams as assembled weren't talented enough.
[QUOTE=drza44]One player, definitely better? I tell you what, let's play a game:
Player A: 25.0 ppg, 44% FG, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 TOs, 21.7 PER, 110 offense rtg, 107 defense rtg
Player B: 24.2 ppg, 48% FG, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.9 TOs, 21.8 PER, 120 offense rtg, 106 defense rtg
Player A: 19.6 ppg, 46% FG, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 TOs, 19.6 PER, 115 offense rtg, 100 defense rtg
Player B: 19.2 ppg, 48% FG, 5.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 1.4 TOs, 19.6 PER, 117 offense rtg, 101 defense rtg
This is Pierce and Peja, in the first case primarily without KG/Webber and in the second case within a year of the first but playing with KG/Webber. You tell me which one is Pierce, and which one is Peja. Would I rather have Pierce, sure, because of his ability and toughness when the chips are down. But on the whole, Peja (before the injuries) and Pierce produced very similarly both with and without their star big men, so those that would pretend that Peja wasn't on his level are distorting things.
And again, outside of Pierce/Peja, Bibby compares very favorably as a King to Allen last season, Vlade was much more accomplished than Perk, Christie more reliable than Rondo, BoJax a better 6th man than Posey, etc. etc. on down the line. Those Kings were really, really talented.[/QUOTE]
Wow is all I can say...... If you can really say that prime Peja Stojakovic was anywhere near the level of Paul Pierce, then there is absolutely no point in arguing with you.
Player A: 32.1 ppg, 45% FG, 6.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.6 TOs, 30.3 PER, 116 offense rtg, 104 defense rtg
Player B: 30.0 ppg, 45% FG, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 3.5 TOs, 26.2 PER, 111 offense rtg, 103 defense rtg
Any guesses? No? Well player A = Tracy Mcgrady and player B = Kobe Bryant. So we can conclude that prime T-mac was better than prime Kobe. See how easy that was John Hollinger?
[QUOTE=drza44]I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You were responding to a post that references Bibby, Peja, Divac, etc. so you responded with a series of "player A >>>>>>>>>>> player B" lines that somehow didn't include Bibby, one of the best players on that team? And you're criticizing me for...what? What didn't I read before I responded?[/QUOTE]
Lol I wasn't even responding to your message. I just opened the topic link and clicked reply. It's just a coincident's that you where taking about Webber being with the Kings lol. Also I did mention Bibby.
One point that I don't think has been mentioned here is the extenuating circumstances concerning Webber's career ( and others ).
It's fact that at least one pivotal game in Webber's career had a pre-determined outcome. With the stock people in basketball circles put on playoff accomplishments this is an EXTREMELY valid point.
ttt
threadstarter, your name is ****ing retarded.
anyways, what did cwebb accomplish???
KG for me. not a question
[QUOTE=Chrono90]anyways, what did cwebb accomplish???
KG for me. not a question[/QUOTE]
And what did KG accomplish? Up until being paired with two future HOF players, next to nothing. Aside from one successful playoff run he was on that T-mac status.
[QUOTE=C-Webb4]And what did KG accomplish? Up until being paired with two future HOF players, next to nothing. Aside from one successful playoff run he was on that T-mac status.[/QUOTE]
One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.
[QUOTE=browntown]One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.[/QUOTE]
I don't... AI has an MVP and 2 ASG MVP's. Does that make him better than Lebron James?
[QUOTE=browntown]One MVP tittle, 1 All star MVP I think thats enough.[/QUOTE]
Not to get off on a MVP rant, but if it's "best player on best team" for the regular season, then why didn't Webber get respect in voting? The kings lead the league with 61 wins (better than LA's 58 in the same divison) in 2002, and Webber was 7th in MVP voting. Everybody makes a big deal about guys like Nash having the best year on a top team, Dirk having the best year on a top team, but when the best player on the best team has an outstanding season, he can't even make the All-NBA first team. I don't consider Nash twice the player KG was, nor do I think Dirk is on the same level as Shaq. Shaq has one MVP. Awards don't mean much without context. KG deserved that award, but that doesn't mean Webber wasn't MVP caliber if he didn't get one.