Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[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.