Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber?

[wang4three]

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.

Well I don't have knowledge to qualify entirely that Bibby's not the same as he was. But to me, he's had health issues, looks slower, and he's averaging 42% shooting since joining the Hawks while he was a 44% shooter with the Kings. He also is taking a lot more 3s these days which usually signifies that he's slowing down. I don't think I have "no case," but certainly enough to say otherwise.

But maybe you're right lets say. Looking at the stats right now for this season, Bibby's averaging 15 ppg on 44% shooting 40% from 3 against Boston. So I don't know how you're saying he's being "destroyed by Rondo".

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.

Yeah so could've Jason Kidd. But to my point, Jackson was a better finisher. I'm not saying Rondo is Chester Fraizer in finishing out there, but he isn't a Bobby Jackson level.

[BA_God]

prime : Duncan >> Garnett >= Dirk >= Webber
career: Duncan >> Garnett > Dirk > Webber

[C-Webb4]

Horrible comparison. Iverson played, what 6-7 more seasons than LeBron to assemble more accomplishments. Webber and Garnett played the same amount of seasons. Plus LeBron's still put up better statlines than Iverson. And LeBron pretty much has an MVP already, barring serious injury.

1. Webber had microfracture knee surgery in 03, so his career even though he was able to somewhat re-invent his game after that was cut short. KG hasn't had a major injury in his entire NBA career, wihich is great for him but shouldn't factor into a prime vs. prime discussion.

2. If MVP = best player on best team, then C-Webb deserved it just as much as KG did when he finished first in the west. Dirk got one on those grounds, KG did, and C-Webb finished 7th when he was the best player on the best team (record). So an MVP trophy isn't a be all end all.

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.

[Kevin_Garnett_5]

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.

It's not debatable, KG beats him in every category except points.

[C-Webb4]

It's not debatable, KG beats him in every category except points.

The difference is that C-Webb had such a balanced team that his stats weren't overinflated like KG's were... It's just like how Al Jefferson is putting up 22.6/10.6/1.6 in Minnesota. He's a good player, but he's not as good as his numbers would indicate...

[drza44]

2. If MVP = best player on best team, then C-Webb deserved it just as much as KG did when he finished first in the west. Dirk got one on those grounds, KG did, and C-Webb finished 7th when he was the best player on the best team (record). So an MVP trophy isn't a be all end all.

3. C-Webbs best season was 27.1 ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.7bpg

4. KG's best season was 24.2ppg, 13.9rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg, 2.2bpg

So it's debatable on who had the better season. KG averaged more assists, but obviously anyone who watched the Kings in their day knew that C-Webb was the more gifted passer. KG was of course the better defender and rebounder but again, people are acting like C-Webb was a poor defender. To me, I think we've seen more of KG's capabilities in that regard because he never played a run and gun style of game.

Some counterpoints:

1) KG's MVP wasn't (just) because he was the best player on the best team, like Dirk's was. KG in '04 had one of the better individual seasons in NBA history. Just a few of the highlights:

*KG led the NBA in points scored and rebounds (the only one to do it since Wilt in 1966).

*KG led the league in PER with a mark topped over a full season by only 6 players in history

*KG put up the 7th best defensive win shares mark in history

*KG led the league in on-court/off-court +/- by a huge margin.

Translation: KG dominated the box score stats, he dominated on defense, and he carried a weak supporting cast to the best record in the NBA. By every measure he was by far the best individual player that season. And on top of that, he ALSO led his team to the best record in the strongest conference. He was a slam-dunk choice for MVP, which is why he won in a landslide.

2) KG's 04 and Webber's '01 seasons weren't really close, no matter how you look at it.

*Traditional stats: Webber scored a few more points (27 vs. 24). KG swept everything else: he had more rebounds (both offensive and defensive), more assists, fewer turnovers, more blocks, more steals, shot better from the field, and shot better from the line. KG's '04 was both more productive AND more efficient than Webber's '01, across the board.

*Advanced stats: KG had a much higher PER, a higher true shooting percentage, a much higher offensive rating, a much lower defense rating, many more win shares (both offensive and defensive), many more Wins Produced (wages of wins). The only reason I don't have more stats listed here is because they aren't convenient to find, but KG essentially swept every advanced stat that exists in this comp...by like a LOT.

* Team success: Webber's '01 Kings finished 3rd in the West, KG's '04 Wolves were the #1 seed in the West.

* Competition: Webber finished 4th in the MVP vote in '01, but all 3 that finished ahead of him had (at least) comparable stats on teams with better records. KG's stats were well beyond the competition, and he also led the best team in the West.

I really don't see much comparison between the 2 "peak" seasons, as you define them. Webber's was outstanding, but not really better than his contemporaries. KG's was by far the best in the league that year, and stacks up well historically.

[Showtime]

^ 2002 Kings won 61 games, the most in the league with a 25/10/5 season. So, I don't know why you are talking about 01 in regards to MVP, unless you are talking about that specific year of stats. I think what he was trying to prove was that those guys were the only ones putting up those numbers, and Webber was doing it with more wins.

CW also brought up the point that it's easier to dominate the numbers on a team that doesn't have top talent. Your argument about Webber's talent around him actually works against you, because if he had a stacked team, he was still putting up those numbers and was the best player among those guys.

[drza44]

^ 2002 Kings won 61 games, the most in the league with a 25/10/5 season. So, I don't know why you are talking about 01 in regards to MVP, unless you are talking about that specific year of stats. I think what he was trying to prove was that those guys were the only ones putting up those numbers, and Webber was doing it with more wins.

I talked about '01 because I was responding to the guy that listed in his post the stats for Webber in '01 and KG in '04 as their best seasons. Also, that was the year that Webber had his best MVP finish (4th). But if C-Webb4 would have put down the stats for '02, I'd have used Webber's stats for '02 instead. The main gist of everything that I typed out would have fit for comparing KG's 04 and Webber's '02, though, except the best record part. So to address that:

Webber finished 7th in the MVP vote in '02, the year the Kings won 61 games. I'm not going to go through all 6 that finished ahead of him, but I know that year that Duncan, Kidd, and Shaq went 1 - 3. Now, if the ONLY criterion was best player on best team then yeah, Webber had a case. But there are other things voters look at too: individual stats, perceived impact, doing more with less, and buzz. Duncan and Shaq both had better stats than Webber that year and they were generally considered the 2 best players in the league. Kidd had come in to a terrible Nets team and led them to the top of their conference, which generated a lot of buzz. I don't remember any national buzz at all that Webber should win...it was pretty much a 2-horse race between Duncan and Kidd. So I don't see why 7 years later it would be considered an injustice that Webber didn't win it.

CW also brought up the point that it's easier to dominate the numbers on a team that doesn't have top talent. Your argument about Webber's talent around him actually works against you, because if he had a stacked team, he was still putting up those numbers and was the best player among those guys.

Not really in this case, though, because generally a "best-player-on-bad-team" situation comes out in the advanced stats (one of the reason I like them so much). Players in those situations tend to be less efficient (facing more double teams, trying to force it = worse FG% and more TOs). Net +/- often shows empty stats as well, because empty stats rarely lead to team success (i.e. the Al Jefferson example you gave, last season he was among the worst in the league at +/- for that very reason). So even if the traditional counting stats might be helped by being best player on a bad team, using advanced stats and looking at the team's success generally helps to point that out.

That's part of what made KG's 03-04 so amazing. He didn't play on a stacked team, so without him putting up such huge numbers they aren't contenders. He was also more efficient (better shooting and fewer turnovers) in '04 than Webber in '01 or '02, despite not having as much help. And KG led the league in net +/-, showing that he was having a huge positive impact on the court instead of just empty numbers like the Big Al example. Again, almost no matter how you choose to measure it, KG's '04 season was pretty easily better than any season that Webber ever had.

[artest 93]

Look at all these Celtic "fans"

They've become pretty annoying, mostly because they are bandwagoners and love to homer in their players. First Rajon and now it's KG

Of course, I'd pick KG to build a franchise around, too, mostly because of his longevity and consistent career, whereas Cwebb had troubles off the court and went through injuries. But in terms of talent, it's very close. It's been repeated: KG beats Cwebb on the defensive, but Cwebb had much more of a polished offensive game. If C-Webb was on a horrible team, I'm sure he could post 30 ppg. He was close in 2002, with 27~ And C-Webb is/was much more entertaining.

[veilside23]

people who pick webber over kg cant even bring a valid arguement... like where is webber better.. rebounding scoring defense ?? titles aside.... kg's accomplishment alone is clearly better than webber's accomplishment whatever that is.

[Showtime]

people who pick webber over kg cant even bring a valid arguement... like where is webber better.. rebounding scoring defense ?? titles aside.... kg's accomplishment alone is clearly better than webber's accomplishment whatever that is.

Most of the Webber supporters bring up his offense. You can look at all the stats you want, but Webber was more versatile of a scorer and playmaker. And then, of course, is winning. It seems a lot of players get credit for turning a franchise around, except Webber. With the exception of KG's late spurt in Boston, they had reached the same peak, but Webber had consistently won more before his injury.

And for the record, I'm not picking Webber over KG, because I feel they were on the same level at their peaks.

[veilside23]

what has webber won ? i mean i am a big fan of webber. but lets be honest here... kg took a team of scrubs exception to casell and an aging spree to the WCF. and lost to the kobe/shaq tandem...

webber is the more consistent scorer alright.. but thats it nothing else..