Chris Webber 51 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, 2 blocks vs Pacers

[D.J.]

@ this moron bringing up a game from 9 years ago.

@ your name. Unfortunately for you, you know what 24 is? And I'm not referring to Kobe's jersey number.

[Clippersfan86]

And yet he has more rings than the Clippers will ever have.

I'm not dissing Kobe it's just a fact. A volume shooting SG who was known early in his career as an egotistical shot jacker. Many players, including legendary ones called him out for it. I was actually defending Kobe and saying a big shooting those numbers is MUCH worse considering bigmen are supposed to be more efficient scorers and NOT shooting that many jumpers. I doubt Dirk has ever had a game like that and he's a jump shooting big.

BTW You know for a fact that in the next 100 years or however long the NBA lasts.... that the Clippers can't win 5 rings? Pretty ignorant statement.

[Cali Syndicate]

Older Vlade/Webber isn't enough to get the job done when they both want to shoot a bunch of jumpers and high post shots. A proper big likes to bang on the low block, play defense and draw defenders. Webber did none of this.

Adelman mainly runs a high/low offense and since one of Webber's best assets was his passing abilities, he was always up there. Same goes for Vlade, just not to the extent Webber was used. I agree that true bigs should play deeper in the paint.

However I liked Webber's game. His skill set allowed him to play a different brand of big man ball. He played like an over sized SF...somewhat similar to Larry Johnson. I was PISSED when the Warriors traded him after he won ROY. Warriors then followed his loss by drafting Clifford Rozier, Joe Smith, Todd Fuller and Adonal Foyle with their next 4 first round draft picks....straight utter failure. Through thick and thin right?

I also wish the 2002 WCF didn't have those shady implications behind them. In which case C-Webb should and would have ended up winning a chip....

[Ben-J]

I think Webber and Sheed have the same issue. More skilled than 99 percent of players.... but mentally immature/weak. Webber was a very high skill player but a low IQ player and a choke.

ARE you really comparing Sheed to Webber

That's like comparing Jeff Teague to Chancey Billups.
And regarding his BAsketball IQ, Watching C-Webb in his prime was like watching a 6ft9 big man trapped in a point guard's body

[ShaqAttack3234]

Webber's passing and court vision gives the impression of a smart player but his poor shot selection, inefficiency, and low impact on games despite his skill level and natural talent make him a lower IQ player. I watched him plenty to see him consistently force bad shots and make dumb plays. Maybe LOW is a bit excessive on my part, but he's average at best intelligence wise.

Do you know even at his peak the best he ever had in win shares was 11? How sad is that for a player putting up 27, 11, 4.2 apg, 1 spg and 2 bpg??? I've actually never seen such a good player on paper be less impacting on his team. Webber was his days Kevin Love in terms of impact. Amazing all around stats, little to show for it when you look at his impact. Never a legit franchise player/1st option really, despite appearing to be one. He never carried Sacramento.

First of all, win shares are a VERY questionable stat.

Even worse is calling his impact equal to Kevin Love's. Webber was leading title contenders, Love's team won a pathetic 17 games, comparing him to a superstar like Webber is ridiculous.

Yes, Webber settled for too many jumpers, especially since that linedrive jumper of his wasn't that consistent, and it's also true that he was an erratic free throw shooter and not the most reliable player in big games.

But those are the negatives. The positives are that he's easily one of the best passing big men ever, one of the best ball handling big men I've seen, very quick and athletic and a solid rebounder.

He could be a go to scorer because he did have the skills in the post and when he faced up and went to the basket, there was nothing you could do. Granted, he didn't do that enough relative to how many jumpers he shot, but he did enough so that he could put up points on a consistent basis, and not empty scoring numbers either. You could go to him, unlike Love. And when Webber's jumper was falling, there was nothing you could do. Nevermind how huge his passing was to Sacramento's offense.

Webber in 3 years from 2001-2003, Webber led teams to 55, 61 and 59 wins and a conference finals as well as 2 conference semifinals. Peja was also injured in the '02 WCF and Webber himself got injured in the '03 WCSF. If not for those things, he may have led his team to 2 rings. That should tell you how far beyond Kevin Love he is. Love is a better shooter and rebounder, but Webber was a superior passer, defender, post scorer and overall scorer.

Love wasn't even a top 20 player last season, Webber was top 10 four consecutive years and borderline top 5 a couple of seasons.

Phil Jackson called Webber a top 3 player in 2000.

Chris Webber is an exceptional power forward, who on the basis of his season-long consistency, I'd rank as being one of the top three players in the league.

[Clippersfan86]

First of all, win shares are a VERY questionable stat.

Even worse is calling his impact equal to Kevin Love's. Webber was leading title contenders, Love's team won a pathetic 17 games, comparing him to a superstar like Webber is ridiculous.

Yes, Webber settled for too many jumpers, especially since that linedrive jumper of his wasn't that consistent, and it's also true that he was an erratic free throw shooter and not the most reliable player in big games.

But those are the negatives. The positives are that he's easily one of the best passing big men ever, one of the best ball handling big men I've seen, very quick and athletic and a solid rebounder.

He could be a go to scorer because he did have the skills in the post and when he faced up and went to the basket, there was nothing you could do. Granted, he didn't do that enough relative to how many jumpers he shot, but he did enough so that he could put up points on a consistent basis, and not empty scoring numbers either. You could go to him, unlike Love. And when Webber's jumper was falling, there was nothing you could do. Nevermind how huge his passing was to Sacramento's offense.

Webber in 3 years from 2001-2003, Webber led teams to 55, 61 and 59 wins and a conference finals as well as 2 conference semifinals. Peja was also injured in the '02 WCF and Webber himself got injured in the '03 WCSF. If not for those things, he may have led his team to 2 rings. That should tell you how far beyond Kevin Love he is. Love is a better shooter and rebounder, but Webber was a superior passer, defender, post scorer and overall scorer.

Love wasn't even a top 20 player last season, Webber was top 10 four consecutive years and borderline top 5 a couple of seasons.

Phil Jackson called Webber a top 3 player in 2000.

I'm sorry but Win Shares is a very good stat when judging a players overall value. It's not a simple formula dude. Look up all the top players, highest impact players in NBA history and you'll see the patterns. I wasn't trying to say Love is equal to Webber. Just that both on paper look incredibly good, but have far less impact than they should.

PLEASE don't be foolish enough to diss on Love's success when the Kings roster ranks up there among the most stacked in NBA history. The Wolves have very few consistent contributors. For the 00-04 or so Kings they were absolutely loaded and any of their top 5 players could be the best players of any game. It could be Peja. It could be Webber. It could be Bibby. It could be Vlade. It could even be Doug Christie or Bobby Jackson.

Reality is CONSIDERING his excellent talent and skill set Webber had far less impact than he should have and was never the leader, closer Sacramento needed. He will always be remembered as a choke. Modern day Dirk pre championship wasn't even considered as much of a choke. Multiple players including Pippen like I wrote in my other post have called Webber an empty stat guy with little impact essentially.

[Clippersfan86]

Adelman mainly runs a high/low offense and since one of Webber's best assets was his passing abilities, he was always up there. Same goes for Vlade, just not to the extent Webber was used. I agree that true bigs should play deeper in the paint.

However I liked Webber's game. His skill set allowed him to play a different brand of big man ball. He played like an over sized SF...somewhat similar to Larry Johnson. I was PISSED when the Warriors traded him after he won ROY. Warriors then followed his loss by drafting Clifford Rozier, Joe Smith, Todd Fuller and Adonal Foyle with their next 4 first round draft picks....straight utter failure. Through thick and thin right?

I also wish the 2002 WCF didn't have those shady implications behind them. In which case C-Webb should and would have ended up winning a chip....

I liked his game too. I already admitted guy was incredibly skilled. I just think people acting like he's underrated need to really look at the all around circumstances. To be THAT good on paper and considered that good yet to never lead an extremely stacked team to a ring? That Kings team from about 00-04 was more stacked than the famous 99-00 Blazers squad.

Check these numbers out from the 01-02 Kings squad. 3rd ranked overall offense, 6th ranked overall defense. 7 players over 10 ppg. Two 20 ppg+ scorers in Webber and Peja. 7 players with a PER of over 15. 3 players that had more than 8.5 win shares. I mean when you really look at the numbers and if you've watched the early 00' Kings you'd understand Webber is actually an incredible underachiever. Blame the refs or w/e you want guys. Reality is Webber was supposed to be the man and couldn't get it done. The Kings talked a big game in interviews and got slapped the fu** up by the Lakers multiple times.

They had the best record in the league like 2 times if I recall also.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm sorry but Win Shares is a very good stat when judging a players overall value. It's not a simple formula dude. Look up all the top players, highest impact players in NBA history and you'll see the patterns. I wasn't trying to say Love is equal to Webber. Just that both on paper look incredibly good, but have far less impact than they should.

Actually win shares is nothing more than a subjective formula.

PLEASE don't be foolish enough to diss on Love's success when the Kings roster ranks up there among the most stacked in NBA history. The Wolves have very few consistent contributors. For the 99-03 or so Kings they were absolutely loaded and any of their top 5 players could be the best players of any game. It could be Peja. It could be Webber. It could be Bibby. It could be Vlade. It could even be Doug Christie or Bobby Jackson.

I'm well aware of how stacked Webber's team was, but I'm also well aware of how good Webber himself was.

Reality is CONSIDERING his excellent talent and skill set Webber had far less impact than he should have and was never the leader, closer Sacramento needed. He will always be remembered as a choke. Modern day Dirk pre championship wasn't even considered as much of a choke. Multiple players including Pippen like I wrote in my other post have called Webber an empty stat guy with little impact essentially.

I never said he was as good as he could've or should've been, but he was still a damn good player.

Let me ask you this, looking at 2000-2003, how many players were better each year?

2000- Shaq, Duncan, Mourning, Garnett and Malone.
2001- Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Iverson, Garnett and Carter.
2002- Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Garnett.
2003- Duncan, Garnett, McGrady, Kobe, Shaq, Kidd, Dirk and Iverso

A pretty short list....

And that's nice about Pippen saying that, but as you pointed out, he said the same thing about KG. And if you're going by others words then it should speak volumes that a guy like Phil Jackson thought highly enough of him to call him a top 3 player.

[Clippersfan86]

Actually win shares is nothing more than a subjective formula.



I'm well aware of how stacked Webber's team was, but I'm also well aware of how good Webber himself was.



I never said he was as good as he could've or should've been, but he was still a damn good player.

Let me ask you this, looking at 2000-2003, how many players were better each year?

2000- Shaq, Duncan, Mourning, Garnett and Malone.
2001- Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Iverson, Garnett and Carter.
2002- Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Garnett.
2003- Duncan, Garnett, McGrady, Kobe, Shaq, Kidd, Dirk and Iverso

A pretty short list....

And that's nice about Pippen saying that, but as you pointed out, he said the same thing about KG. And if you're going by others words then it should speak volumes that a guy like Phil Jackson thought highly enough of him to call him a top 3 player.

We aren't debating how good Webber is. I'm criticizing the fact that people are implying he's underrated. I'm explaining WHY I feel he's overrated if anything. I agree with your lists. Basically he was a fringe top 5 player for a stretch of about 4 seasons, at least statistically. I just think when we factor in impact, inability to be a full blown franchise player/first option and his consistent choking and poor playoff showings in his career hurt his all time rank and even his rank in each of those seasons.

I personally felt Elton Brand had more impact at his peak as a big man and was a better all around player. Unlike Webber he was an excellent defender. 15 win shares vs 11 in each of their best seasons with the advantage going to Brand. Brand also beats him easily when you combine their offensive and defensive ratings in their peak years. Brand's PER was 26.5 in his best season vs Webber's best of 24.7. These aren't small differences. Elton Brand was a better all around bigman.

He played for the Clippers though and was less flashy so people didn't give him his dues while a bunch of people kissed Webber's ass.

[ShaqAttack3234]

We aren't debating how good Webber is. I'm criticizing the fact that people are implying he's underrated. I'm explaining WHY I feel he's overrated if anything. I agree with your lists. Basically he was a fringe top 5 player for a stretch of about 4 seasons, at least statistically. I just think when we factor in impact, inability to be a full blown franchise player/first option and his consistent choking and poor playoff showings in his career hurt his all time rank and even his rank in each of those seasons.

My rankings weren't based on stats, and those negatives were already factored in. In 2000, I can't think oif many negatives, he gave the Lakers a scare in the first round despite being the 8th seed. That may have been the best I've seen Webber play for a season. In 2001, he would've been at least ranked over Carter based on the regular season, but his poor playoff performance drops him. In 2002, he'd have won a title if he had kept making his free throws in the playoffs and stepped up a bit more, in that case, he'd have been ranked top 3-4 instead of 5th.

And you could argue 1 or 2 more players over him during those seasons such as maybe Hill and Payton in 2000, arguably T-Mac in '01 and '02, arguably Kidd in '02 and maybe Pierce or Jermaine O'Neal in 2003.

As far as career rankings? I agree, those have to be factored in, possibly even more than in season to season rankings. But I don't think many would claim Webber was as good as Duncan, Barkley, Malone, Garnett, Dirk, Pettit or McHale.

I personally felt Elton Brand had more impact at his peak as a big man and was a better all around player. Unlike Webber he was an excellent defender. 15 win shares vs 11 in each of their best seasons with the advantage going to Brand. Brand also beats him easily when you combine their offensive and defensive ratings in their peak years. Brand's PER was 26.5 in his best season vs Webber's best of 24.7. These aren't small differences. Elton Brand was a better all around bigman.

He played for the Clippers though and was less flashy so people didn't give him his dues while a bunch of people kissed Webber's ass.

I think that your statement is valid, not because of the advanced stats, but because Brand had a very good peak season which I'd agree was on par with Webber's peak. But imo, you'd have to argue Brand's 1 year peak and that's it, because comparing their best 3-4 seasons makes it more clearly in Webber's favor.

I don't know if I'd call Brand better at his peak, but he had a phenomenal season in 2006, and I was a fan. I was rooting for him to beat Phoenix and thought that he would at one point in the series. And I was kind of disappointed that he didn't play nearly as well in '07(many people saying he was tired from playing for team USA) and when he had the injury that ended his prime.

So I guess we're not as far off as I initially thought.

[DevilsAssassin]

Webber's passing and court vision gives the impression of a smart player but his poor shot selection, inefficiency, and low impact on games despite his skill level and natural talent make him a lower IQ player. I watched him plenty to see him consistently force bad shots and make dumb plays. Maybe LOW is a bit excessive on my part, but he's average at best intelligence wise.

Do you know even at his peak the best he ever had in win shares was 11? How sad is that for a player putting up 27, 11, 4.2 apg, 1 spg and 2 bpg??? I've actually never seen such a good player on paper be less impacting on his team. Webber was his days Kevin Love in terms of impact. Amazing all around stats, little to show for it when you look at his impact. Never a legit franchise player/1st option really, despite appearing to be one. He never carried Sacramento.

[Clippersfan86]

Fair enough Shaq. I respect your posting man.

[NugzHeat3]

That comparison with Kevin Love is pushing it but its definitely true in the sense that Webber wasn't as good as his stats suggest.

Its a big reason why Sacramento rarely struggled with Webber out and you had people hyping Peja as an MVP candidate.

Webber's game was pleasing to the eye and he's one of the most skilled bigs I've seen but he had several flaws as a player.

[D.J.]

That comparison with Kevin Love is pushing it but its definitely true in the sense that Webber wasn't as good as his stats suggest.

Its a big reason why Sacramento rarely struggled with Webber out and you had people hyping Peja as an MVP candidate.

Webber's game was pleasing to the eye and he's one of the most skilled bigs I've seen but he had several flaws as a player.

2000-01 w/Webber: 48-22
2000-01 w/o Webber: 7-5

2001-02 w/Webber: 42-12
2001-02 w/o Webber: 19-9

2002-03 w/Webber: 49-18
2002-03 w/o Webber: 10-5

2003-04 w/Webber: 11-12
2003-04 w/o Webber: 44-15

[Clippersfan86]

That comparison with Kevin Love is pushing it but its definitely true in the sense that Webber wasn't as good as his stats suggest.

Its a big reason why Sacramento rarely struggled with Webber out and you had people hyping Peja as an MVP candidate.

Webber's game was pleasing to the eye and he's one of the most skilled bigs I've seen but he had several flaws as a player.

Wow we finally agree on something. Did I give you money when I was drunk or something? Lol