Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Kevin_Garnett_5]I'll take KG without thinking twice.[/QUOTE]
wow, what a shocker.
i thought by your user name and avatar that you were a chris webber fan for sure.

[QUOTE=Stacey King][quote=Celts34]
I would argue the 00-01, and 01-02 Kings were probably very close.[/quote]Very good teams, but they don't compare to last years Celtics. Not even close. A team that topped out at 61 wins and never made the championship doesn't compare to a team with three stars winning 66 games and the championship[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Celts34]I guess I have to dumb myself down so you'll understand me better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, so there's no misunderstanding:

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

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

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

[QUOTE=drza44]

[B]Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA [/B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Stacey King]

[B]Dough Christie was one of the best defensive swingmen in the NBA [/B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=plowking]Haha.

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

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

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

There

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

There

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

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

[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]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=drza44]Highly questionable. Last year's Celtics won first and foremost with their defense. It was their dominant unit all season, and was their main weapon in the playoffs as well. Garnett was the centerpiece of their defense and was DPoY, which Webber really couldn't replicate. That's a more-than-minor point here.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=bokes15]Twice the player with half the results.[/QUOTE]
This is true, until he moved to Celts of course.

[QUOTE=bokes15]C-Webb was a better offensive player than Kevin Garnett,[/QUOTE]There are no stats to prove that.

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