Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[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.