G
No. What was detrimental to the team were the stats you chose to ignore. For example, that year there were 10 Kings players who shot more efficiently from the field than Webber. But that didn't stop Webber from taking 7 more shots per game than any other player (Webber took 21 shots per game, Peja was second with 14 per game). Webber was the 76th most efficient shooter in the league that year, behind bricks like Jason Kidd and Stevie Francis.
That year Webber also averaged 3.2 turnovers per game, 12th worst in the NBA. His turnovers per minute were tied with turnover machine Allen Iverson.
And Webber shot 61% from the free throw line.
That year Webber also averaged 3.2 turnovers per game, 12th worst in the NBA. His turnovers per minute were tied with turnover machine Allen Iverson.
And Webber shot 61% from the free throw line.
You know this **** is getting real old. The last time Webb was healthy in the playoffs we went to game 7 in the WCF with Webb averaging about 24/12/6. The next year he goes down in the playoffs and the team doesn't sack up and we lose in the 2nd round. Last year he is playing at about 75% and no one else steps up and we are ousted again in the 2nd round. This upcoming year is huge for 2 players.....Webb and Peja. It's Webb's season to prove that he is again healthy and can put up the MVP numbers of previous years. It's Peja's year to prove he has actually grown a sack and can continue to improve his game and FINALLY show up in the playoffs. Bibby will be Bibby and everyone else will play their usual games. If Webb is healthy and Peja shows up in the playoffs then no one, I repeat, no one can stop the Kings and they will take the crown.
1
Well this is a nice little fairy-tale dream you have hear. For Webb to put up MVP numbers it will come at the expense of the rest of his team. Statistics say so (refer to Garliguys previous posts). Basically what we are going to see is Webber and Bibby running the 2 man game because that is the only way Cwebb can be effective. Think how much better it would be to run a 2 man game w/ Bibby and Pedja then vice-versa. There will be no movement and Webbers lack of D will help ensure a number of 30 pt losses for the Kings.
M
Great take. Webber's need to have the team focus on him when he's on the floor also limits Miller's ability to be effective within a (theorhetically) moving offense, as Webber claims the top of the key to himself and feels he alone must jump start the offense with either a fade away jumper (likely) or a drive to the rim (refreshing, but only because it's marginally better than those damn jumpers. Still would rather the ball be moved more frequently and not get stuck in Webber's claw).
The discussion on Webber NEVER gets old. As long as there are unenlightened, the debate must rage onward!
The discussion on Webber NEVER gets old. As long as there are unenlightened, the debate must rage onward!
...in the irrelevant regular season, with a cushy schedule and a healthy Brad Miller and Bobby Jackson. How come you never mention those things? I know you think they matter.
Besides that, the Kings played no defense. By the numbers, arguably worse than frickin' Dallas, for crying out loud. Our defense was better with Webber, and it was better in the playoffs. I'm not saying that Webber is this defensive mastermind that propelled us to playing incredible defense, but I'd say that his presence had something to do with it.
By the way, the Pistons' defense - what championships are usually built on - was worlds beyond what ours could ever have imagined being on our best night last season.
That Webber hasn't helped us in a long time. He helped us to a 59-23 record in 2003. If you want to say that that's been a long time, then I'm going to say that he hasn't been close to healthy since then. He wasn't healthy in 2003.
It's ironic that as soon as that "absolute detriment" went down in the playoffs, we lost to the Mavs, a team that we owned that season (behind Webber's successes against them, including two triple doubles) and were highly favored to beat.
Besides that, the Kings played no defense. By the numbers, arguably worse than frickin' Dallas, for crying out loud. Our defense was better with Webber, and it was better in the playoffs. I'm not saying that Webber is this defensive mastermind that propelled us to playing incredible defense, but I'd say that his presence had something to do with it.
By the way, the Pistons' defense - what championships are usually built on - was worlds beyond what ours could ever have imagined being on our best night last season.
That Webber hasn't helped us in a long time. He helped us to a 59-23 record in 2003. If you want to say that that's been a long time, then I'm going to say that he hasn't been close to healthy since then. He wasn't healthy in 2003.
It's ironic that as soon as that "absolute detriment" went down in the playoffs, we lost to the Mavs, a team that we owned that season (behind Webber's successes against them, including two triple doubles) and were highly favored to beat.
Name them. Seeing as how we had a 7-8 man rotation most of the year (with Peja, Hedo, Mike, Bobby and Gerald coming on and off the IL), I don't think it really matters.
Who was the most consistent player on both offense and defense? Who carried the team that year? Who was unable to, either due to injury or fatigue or inability?
Peja was in and out of the lineup that season, and Bibby got started late. It's not surprising that he took more shots than anyone else. But let's please not act like he's this black hole that the ball gets passed into and never comes out of. He was second on the team in assists. One of just two players that season to average 20/10/5.
And you keep concentrating on shooting. Was Webber a more efficient player than Steve Francis? I'd say so. We can argue about Jason Kidd, but I'm not the biggest fan of his game, so I'll decline that argument.
I won't argue with those. He needs to work on taking better care of the ball. He possesses and has shown the ability to keep his turnovers down. Hopefully he'll concentrate on that next season.
Regarding his free throw shooting, he took care of that, I'd say. 71% for a big man is decent. It could be better, but name 5 true big men with better free throw percentages. That's par for the course nowadays.
Who was the most consistent player on both offense and defense? Who carried the team that year? Who was unable to, either due to injury or fatigue or inability?
Peja was in and out of the lineup that season, and Bibby got started late. It's not surprising that he took more shots than anyone else. But let's please not act like he's this black hole that the ball gets passed into and never comes out of. He was second on the team in assists. One of just two players that season to average 20/10/5.
And you keep concentrating on shooting. Was Webber a more efficient player than Steve Francis? I'd say so. We can argue about Jason Kidd, but I'm not the biggest fan of his game, so I'll decline that argument.
I won't argue with those. He needs to work on taking better care of the ball. He possesses and has shown the ability to keep his turnovers down. Hopefully he'll concentrate on that next season.
Regarding his free throw shooting, he took care of that, I'd say. 71% for a big man is decent. It could be better, but name 5 true big men with better free throw percentages. That's par for the course nowadays.
M
The Kings lost that series because they didn't believe, not because Dallas was better (not even close).
They should have kicked Dallas's behinds all over the court, but they believed the hype that was being said, "The Kings can't win a championship without Webber."
Well, they obviously can't win one with him, so maybe they need to rethink that.
That the Kings lost that series said more about their internal problems rather than their talent/makeup.
They should have kicked Dallas's behinds all over the court, but they believed the hype that was being said, "The Kings can't win a championship without Webber."
Well, they obviously can't win one with him, so maybe they need to rethink that.
That the Kings lost that series said more about their internal problems rather than their talent/makeup.
Excuse me for saying so, but that's bull****. Totally, through and through.
I'm not saying that the Kings couldn't have beat Dallas without Webber. I am saying that losing him hurt the team, and they were more likely to win that series with him than they were without him. He played hard, he played well, and he was the only one to show up in the game that he got hurt in.
It's also telling that you say that they can't win one with him. The year we were closest, Webber played and played well. Peja was on the sidelines. The next year, Webber got hurt and the Kings went down. We haven't been close to a championship without Webber; we have been close with him, and it says a lot about your attitude towards Webber that you won't even acknowledge how much he meant to us in 2003 and what we likely would have done to Dallas had he not been hurt. Instead of saying that a big part of us losing that series was Webber going down - especially in light of how well he played against Dallas all year long and how well he played in the first two games of the series - you say that their internal makeup wasn't right. What wasn't right is that we lost our All-Star power forward who carried us through the entire regular season.
Again, I don't understand why you refuse to give Webber any credit. We can all be critical of him, but what gets under my skin is when you take the long way around instead of just acknowledging the fact that he can mean a lot to the Kings if he's healthy and plays within the team concept, recognizing that if he does so he's the most capable player we have.
I'm not saying that the Kings couldn't have beat Dallas without Webber. I am saying that losing him hurt the team, and they were more likely to win that series with him than they were without him. He played hard, he played well, and he was the only one to show up in the game that he got hurt in.
It's also telling that you say that they can't win one with him. The year we were closest, Webber played and played well. Peja was on the sidelines. The next year, Webber got hurt and the Kings went down. We haven't been close to a championship without Webber; we have been close with him, and it says a lot about your attitude towards Webber that you won't even acknowledge how much he meant to us in 2003 and what we likely would have done to Dallas had he not been hurt. Instead of saying that a big part of us losing that series was Webber going down - especially in light of how well he played against Dallas all year long and how well he played in the first two games of the series - you say that their internal makeup wasn't right. What wasn't right is that we lost our All-Star power forward who carried us through the entire regular season.
Again, I don't understand why you refuse to give Webber any credit. We can all be critical of him, but what gets under my skin is when you take the long way around instead of just acknowledging the fact that he can mean a lot to the Kings if he's healthy and plays within the team concept, recognizing that if he does so he's the most capable player we have.
If you truly believe the Kings lost that series because they didn't believe they could win once Chris went down, then you would also have to admit that the players who play with him hold him in pretty high regard, and consider him to be far from a detriment.
What do you mean by internal problems? Wasn't everything peachy keen/wine and roses before Webb came back this past season? Or are you refering to the fact that the team lacked the mental fortitude to overcome the loss of Chris?
What do you mean by internal problems? Wasn't everything peachy keen/wine and roses before Webb came back this past season? Or are you refering to the fact that the team lacked the mental fortitude to overcome the loss of Chris?
G
Irrelevant regular season? Isn't that overstating things just a tad, considering that we've been knocked out of the playoffs in Game 7's on our opponents home floor the last two seasons? Wouldn't you have rather that the Kings had played those games at Arco?
In the "cushy" part of our schedule sans Webber (where the Kings had the best record in the NBA at 44-15), the Kings won home games against Detroit, the Lakers, and Indiana, and road games at Detroit, at Minnesota, at San Antonio, at Utah (twice) and at the Lakers.
With Webber on the floor (where the Kings went 11-12), the Kings did play a slightly tougher schedule, but they also lost at Miami, at Washington, and, in a must win game to acquire a seed higher than the Lakers, at Golden State.
Contrary to your assertion that I "never mention" anything about a tougher schedule or injuries, I have mentioned both of those factors several times in previous posts. But even with those factors, it is quite drastic to go from the best record in basketball without a player to a losing record with him, don't you think?
Wow. You are the first person I've seen advance that argument. Webber simply could not move on defense. He was absolutely terrible when I saw him play. Even against Minnesota, KG had problems when Miller was on him, but as soon as Webber switched over to KG, KG lit him up like a pinball machine.
As I indicated in my previous post, I think Webber two years ago, despite his "popular stats" (scoring, rebounding, assists), was detrimental to the team because of his poor shooting, his reluctance to tone down his shooting despite his misses, and his high rate of turnovers. As #1sacfan stated, "For Webb to put up MVP numbers it will come at the expense of his team."
Highly favored to beat? Dallas was the higher seed! In that series, we were 1-1 with Webber. Without him we went 2-3, losing Game 7 at Dallas. Do you think the outcome in Game 7 might have been different had the game been played at Arco? Or is the regular season still irrelevant?
In the "cushy" part of our schedule sans Webber (where the Kings had the best record in the NBA at 44-15), the Kings won home games against Detroit, the Lakers, and Indiana, and road games at Detroit, at Minnesota, at San Antonio, at Utah (twice) and at the Lakers.
With Webber on the floor (where the Kings went 11-12), the Kings did play a slightly tougher schedule, but they also lost at Miami, at Washington, and, in a must win game to acquire a seed higher than the Lakers, at Golden State.
Contrary to your assertion that I "never mention" anything about a tougher schedule or injuries, I have mentioned both of those factors several times in previous posts. But even with those factors, it is quite drastic to go from the best record in basketball without a player to a losing record with him, don't you think?
Wow. You are the first person I've seen advance that argument. Webber simply could not move on defense. He was absolutely terrible when I saw him play. Even against Minnesota, KG had problems when Miller was on him, but as soon as Webber switched over to KG, KG lit him up like a pinball machine.
As I indicated in my previous post, I think Webber two years ago, despite his "popular stats" (scoring, rebounding, assists), was detrimental to the team because of his poor shooting, his reluctance to tone down his shooting despite his misses, and his high rate of turnovers. As #1sacfan stated, "For Webb to put up MVP numbers it will come at the expense of his team."
Highly favored to beat? Dallas was the higher seed! In that series, we were 1-1 with Webber. Without him we went 2-3, losing Game 7 at Dallas. Do you think the outcome in Game 7 might have been different had the game been played at Arco? Or is the regular season still irrelevant?
M
Spare me. It is not me who refuses to acknowledge that Webber has an effect on the team that is both his responsibility AND his teammates (as I do all the time), it is you who appears to be extra sensitive to any takes that show Webber's longstanding, consistent, repetitive, ongoing history with this team in the light that it is: bleak.
I never said they were a better team without Webber - it is your apparent hypersensitivity that interprets it that way. I said they should have won anyway. Big difference.
I never said they were a better team without Webber - it is your apparent hypersensitivity that interprets it that way. I said they should have won anyway. Big difference.
M
You're right. I do. And I think that there comes a point (which Peja reached - finally - last season) when the players and the coach must realize that the person who you've designated for this role is overwhelmingly inadequate.
I don't believe everything was peachy keen prior to Webber's return last season. In fact, I think there was tremendous angst about his return, since they had been playing so well together - especially with the new integration of All-Star Miller playing such a large role in the mix. I think the team finally realized what a good thing they had going, and they were anxious about integrating Webber (and everything he as a player and person brings to the team) into that mix. In other words, they knew that Webber doesn't integrate into the mix; he expects the team to integrate into his (regardless of what his talking head soundbites say), which is inevitably what happened.
I think the recent past, with Vlade and Peja speaking up (as well as Jimmy Jackson when he left), was the first time some players on the team DID appear to have the mental fortitude to stand up for what they thought was BEST for the team. How it translates from here on is anyone's guess. In the past, they could find ways to be dominant with Webber on the floor because they all put their faith in him (never to fruition however) and found comfort in deferring their games for the good of the team. But with the injury, the dissention/light bulb of reality, and the repeated early playoff exits, it will be tougher than ever this year.
I don't believe everything was peachy keen prior to Webber's return last season. In fact, I think there was tremendous angst about his return, since they had been playing so well together - especially with the new integration of All-Star Miller playing such a large role in the mix. I think the team finally realized what a good thing they had going, and they were anxious about integrating Webber (and everything he as a player and person brings to the team) into that mix. In other words, they knew that Webber doesn't integrate into the mix; he expects the team to integrate into his (regardless of what his talking head soundbites say), which is inevitably what happened.
I think the recent past, with Vlade and Peja speaking up (as well as Jimmy Jackson when he left), was the first time some players on the team DID appear to have the mental fortitude to stand up for what they thought was BEST for the team. How it translates from here on is anyone's guess. In the past, they could find ways to be dominant with Webber on the floor because they all put their faith in him (never to fruition however) and found comfort in deferring their games for the good of the team. But with the injury, the dissention/light bulb of reality, and the repeated early playoff exits, it will be tougher than ever this year.
Allow me to rephrase, since you misunderstood me.
What we look like we are capable of accomplishing in the regular season isn't indicative of what we can accomplish in the playoffs. I'd definitely rather play Game 7's at home, but we lost one of those, too.
I can talk about the tough teams we beat with Webber (Indiana, LA, Dallas) and the easy ones we lost without him. Fact of the matter is that the schedule was easier and less strenuous, and like we should have, we capitalized on it.
Let me say that you frequently fail to comment on those things when talking about how poorly THE TEAM played in the last month of the season.
And I don't think it was as drastic as it looks that we went 11-12 with Chris, especially when you consider the fact that we started 8-4 (I believe) with him. What else played a part in those final 8 losses? Was it just Chris, or did Vlade's complacency, Brad and Bobby's injuries and the tougher schedule have just as significant a role? I'd say that those three factors combined are worth mentioning, instead of trying to push those losses off on Webber.
I agree that Webber couldn't move on defense. I didn't say that he was some defensive stalworth; in fact, I acknowledged that he wasn't. I said that the team played better defense when he was on the floor. At least I think so.
And I think you're the first person I've seen say that Miller plays Garnett better than Webber (ignoring the fact that Webber was hurt). In two games during the regular season in which Miller was assigned to Garnett, Garnett averaged 30.5 points, 18 rebounds and 4.5 assists. KG didn't have any problems versus Miller. KG doesn't have any problems versus anybody. He lights everyone up like a pinball machine.
Okay. I disagree. I think that Webber was the only constant on the team that season, and that without him we wouldn't have won 50 games. Maybe now it will come at the expense of his team since Peja is much better than he played two years ago, Mike is healthy, and :: knocks on wood :: hopefully we don't have a revolving door of injuries. In other words, the team should be much better this season than it was two seasons ago, and it won't NEED Webber to play like he did that year. Yes, I contend that he NEEDED to play the way he played in 2003, and that because of it, we played well.
Who did you think would win that series? Many people had Dallas getting swept; the popular opinion was Kings in five.
And like I said, our regular season record may matter (depending on what the matchups end up being), but we haven't won a Game 7 at home, either. I'd much rather it be in Arco, but it's not a guarantee of anything.
What we look like we are capable of accomplishing in the regular season isn't indicative of what we can accomplish in the playoffs. I'd definitely rather play Game 7's at home, but we lost one of those, too.
I can talk about the tough teams we beat with Webber (Indiana, LA, Dallas) and the easy ones we lost without him. Fact of the matter is that the schedule was easier and less strenuous, and like we should have, we capitalized on it.
Let me say that you frequently fail to comment on those things when talking about how poorly THE TEAM played in the last month of the season.
And I don't think it was as drastic as it looks that we went 11-12 with Chris, especially when you consider the fact that we started 8-4 (I believe) with him. What else played a part in those final 8 losses? Was it just Chris, or did Vlade's complacency, Brad and Bobby's injuries and the tougher schedule have just as significant a role? I'd say that those three factors combined are worth mentioning, instead of trying to push those losses off on Webber.
I agree that Webber couldn't move on defense. I didn't say that he was some defensive stalworth; in fact, I acknowledged that he wasn't. I said that the team played better defense when he was on the floor. At least I think so.
And I think you're the first person I've seen say that Miller plays Garnett better than Webber (ignoring the fact that Webber was hurt). In two games during the regular season in which Miller was assigned to Garnett, Garnett averaged 30.5 points, 18 rebounds and 4.5 assists. KG didn't have any problems versus Miller. KG doesn't have any problems versus anybody. He lights everyone up like a pinball machine.
Okay. I disagree. I think that Webber was the only constant on the team that season, and that without him we wouldn't have won 50 games. Maybe now it will come at the expense of his team since Peja is much better than he played two years ago, Mike is healthy, and :: knocks on wood :: hopefully we don't have a revolving door of injuries. In other words, the team should be much better this season than it was two seasons ago, and it won't NEED Webber to play like he did that year. Yes, I contend that he NEEDED to play the way he played in 2003, and that because of it, we played well.
Who did you think would win that series? Many people had Dallas getting swept; the popular opinion was Kings in five.
And like I said, our regular season record may matter (depending on what the matchups end up being), but we haven't won a Game 7 at home, either. I'd much rather it be in Arco, but it's not a guarantee of anything.
Unfortunately, they did it too late and in a wrong (non confrontational) way. Ultimately, they lost meaning they either do not play here or are on their way out.
Bottomline, they are as much responsible for this situation as him and the coaching stuff.
There is an exelent opportunity that there will be roster changes during the season. Maybe even a coaching change
Bottomline, they are as much responsible for this situation as him and the coaching stuff.
There is an exelent opportunity that there will be roster changes during the season. Maybe even a coaching change
Well, it's really a shame Peja came to this epiphany, since the only thing HE showed in the play offs is he, Peja, isn't the man for that particular job either. I am far more concerned with Peja's apparent lack of certain parts of the male anatomy and how it will effect the team in this years post season, then I am with if Peja thinks Chris can carry us to the title.
A slightly tougher schedule?
the Kings went from the second easiest schedule in the league on the Sagarin ratings (USA today) to the 3rd toughest from when Webber returned to the end of the season.
Note that that third toughest is CUMULATIVE for the whole year (including the easy early portion).
You don't have to know much about computing averages to know that if you average the easiest (29) with some unknown quantity "X" and end up with the the toughest (3), that the unknown quantity "X" was a bit tougher than "easiest".
the Kings went from the second easiest schedule in the league on the Sagarin ratings (USA today) to the 3rd toughest from when Webber returned to the end of the season.
Note that that third toughest is CUMULATIVE for the whole year (including the easy early portion).
You don't have to know much about computing averages to know that if you average the easiest (29) with some unknown quantity "X" and end up with the the toughest (3), that the unknown quantity "X" was a bit tougher than "easiest".
5 winning seasons - three of which were + 50 - is bleak? I beg to differ.
Besides, I acknowledge that Webber has an effect on the team, one way or the other. I just don't think that it necessarily has to be a detrimental one. Such has only been the case once in his 6 year tenure with the team, and all of a sudden it's a foregone conclusion that he hurts the team more than he helps it? Again, I beg to differ.
The Kings definitely should have won anyway. My "hypersensitivity" doesn't lead me to believe that you think the Kings are better without Webber. My "hypersensitivity" leads me to believe that you'd rather focus on so-called "internal problems" than acknowledge the fact that the Kings season went down with Webber.
We can talk about Webber's injuries, his free throw shooting, his turnovers, his suspension, his forcing offense, his occasional complacency on defense, etc. I don't refuse to acknowledge any of those things. The man has many shortcomings, and I can be critical of them. But I take issue when you purposely avoid acknowledging what he's meant for the Kings in the past and what he can do for us next season, especially if he realizes that he needs his team more than they need him (44-15/11-12). It's obvious to me that you do that when you say that the Kings lost because they didn't believe instead of saying that they lost because Webber got hurt. What was more obvious? To me, it was that Webber got hurt.
Besides, I acknowledge that Webber has an effect on the team, one way or the other. I just don't think that it necessarily has to be a detrimental one. Such has only been the case once in his 6 year tenure with the team, and all of a sudden it's a foregone conclusion that he hurts the team more than he helps it? Again, I beg to differ.
The Kings definitely should have won anyway. My "hypersensitivity" doesn't lead me to believe that you think the Kings are better without Webber. My "hypersensitivity" leads me to believe that you'd rather focus on so-called "internal problems" than acknowledge the fact that the Kings season went down with Webber.
We can talk about Webber's injuries, his free throw shooting, his turnovers, his suspension, his forcing offense, his occasional complacency on defense, etc. I don't refuse to acknowledge any of those things. The man has many shortcomings, and I can be critical of them. But I take issue when you purposely avoid acknowledging what he's meant for the Kings in the past and what he can do for us next season, especially if he realizes that he needs his team more than they need him (44-15/11-12). It's obvious to me that you do that when you say that the Kings lost because they didn't believe instead of saying that they lost because Webber got hurt. What was more obvious? To me, it was that Webber got hurt.
Look, Webb DEFINATELY has flaws in his game. No question. Furthermore he had MORE flaws last year, when he was trying to play his way back into form. Also no question.
But the LEVEL of criticism thrown at him is SO incredibly beyond the pale that it has the perverse effect of actually obscuring genuine weaknesses that he has. Saying statements that are so obviously patently false leaves TRUE flaws hidden in the shadows.
Webber has never been my favorite player, but the constant onslaught of, frankly, bulls*** that is leveled at him puts me in the position of always attacking what I perceive to be OBVIOUS holes in reasoning, and the end result of attacking the attacks is always coming across as defending webber. This is BS. Webber has PLENTY of flaws, unfortunately so do Peja, Miller, Bibby and Bjax etc… but discussing webber’s flaws is impossible because we can’t even get into the general NEIGHBORHOOD of his TRUE flaws.
He didn’t invade Belgium.
He didn’t punch your sister.
He didn’t invent aids.
He didn’t burn the flag.
He didn’t dis Sacramento. (well, yes he did. But so did I when I first saw it )
etc…
But the LEVEL of criticism thrown at him is SO incredibly beyond the pale that it has the perverse effect of actually obscuring genuine weaknesses that he has. Saying statements that are so obviously patently false leaves TRUE flaws hidden in the shadows.
Webber has never been my favorite player, but the constant onslaught of, frankly, bulls*** that is leveled at him puts me in the position of always attacking what I perceive to be OBVIOUS holes in reasoning, and the end result of attacking the attacks is always coming across as defending webber. This is BS. Webber has PLENTY of flaws, unfortunately so do Peja, Miller, Bibby and Bjax etc… but discussing webber’s flaws is impossible because we can’t even get into the general NEIGHBORHOOD of his TRUE flaws.
He didn’t invade Belgium.
He didn’t punch your sister.
He didn’t invent aids.
He didn’t burn the flag.
He didn’t dis Sacramento. (well, yes he did. But so did I when I first saw it
) etc…
Last edited:
I just saw uolj's other thread, basically saying the EXACT same thing I just said here.
All I can say is BRILLIANT analysis and insight uolj! Pure Genius!
http://forums.kingsfans.com/showthread.php?t=230
All I can say is BRILLIANT analysis and insight uolj! Pure Genius!
http://forums.kingsfans.com/showthread.php?t=230
They also lost to Golden State (should have lost twice, but JRich Pejaed a game-winning open layup in the 1st game), Boston (blew a 15 point lead in about 3 minutes), New York (blew a big lead late), Portland (one of the worst losses I can ever remember, blowing both a 20+ point lead and a 10 point lead with 1:30 to go - just unbelievable), imploded against Dallas on Christmas (totally embarassing, another big lead squandered), etc... There were bad losses in that stretch, too - just as bad as any of the bad losses once Webber returned.
The schedule wasn't just 'slightly' tougher, it was a couple orders of magnitude tougher:
The average winning percentage of the Kings' opponents in the 59 games without Webber was .461. The average winning percentage of their opponents in the 23 games with Webber was .534. Pretty significant difference - but it isn't the only thing tougher.
The Kings played 13 road games and 9 home games with Webber - 59% of the games were road games, compared to 47% without him.
The Kings played 7 road games on the 2nd half of a back-to-back in the 23 games Webber played - 23% of the games were the toughest situation in the NBA, compared to 7 in the 59 he didn't play (11% of the 59).
7 of the 23 games came against the NBA's Elite (LA, SA, Dallas, Minnesota, Detroit, Indiana), 30% of the games, compared to 20% without Webber.
- Harder overall opponents
- More road games
- More road games with no rest
- More games with elite opponents
That's not slightly harder; it's significantly harder in every conceivable way. I remember when the Kings had some of their bad losses early in the season and I got slammed for some of my criticism; well, I knew the Kings' closing schedule was ridiculously brutal and they couldn't afford to blow 20 point leads.
As far as injuries go:
- Bobby Jackson played about 10 minutes in those last 23 games (pretty significant loss, considering his minutes went to a guy who has 1 skill)
- Brad Miller effectively missed 6 games after injuring his elbow against Houston (he sat out 3, but was so ineffective in 3 others (averaging around 3 points and 4 rebounds in over 25 minutes/game - his jumper was so off that he made Webber look like Larry Bird when Bird was in the zone) that he might as well not have played) and was limited for about 6 more
Yes, those factors, combined with the fatigue of Peja (played in the Summer AGAIN and just looked tired towards the end) and Vlade (old and worn out from too many minutes) are the reason why the Kings went 11-12 down the stretch. Does that excuse Webber? No. He didn't generally play well during this stretch, and while he wasn't the problem IMO, he did not provide the solution (something the franchise player is supposed to do in hard times - his injury cannot fully excuse that).
However, I think it's just insane that so much focus is placed on a few regular season games; the Kings didn't go down in the playoffs because they lost HCA, they lost in the playoffs because they blew a lead in PATHETIC fashion in Game 2 (the series was just over if Bibby or Peja just would have had a shred of discipline and could have just held the freaking ball instead of quickshooting, but Adelman-led teams have never had the slightest bit of discipline when it matters) - the series was over, and the Kings still found a way to lose. Let's focus on THAT failure (the only one that matters, unless you think hanging Pacific division banners means more than NBA championship ones), not the regular season wipeout.
The schedule wasn't just 'slightly' tougher, it was a couple orders of magnitude tougher:
The average winning percentage of the Kings' opponents in the 59 games without Webber was .461. The average winning percentage of their opponents in the 23 games with Webber was .534. Pretty significant difference - but it isn't the only thing tougher.
The Kings played 13 road games and 9 home games with Webber - 59% of the games were road games, compared to 47% without him.
The Kings played 7 road games on the 2nd half of a back-to-back in the 23 games Webber played - 23% of the games were the toughest situation in the NBA, compared to 7 in the 59 he didn't play (11% of the 59).
7 of the 23 games came against the NBA's Elite (LA, SA, Dallas, Minnesota, Detroit, Indiana), 30% of the games, compared to 20% without Webber.
- Harder overall opponents
- More road games
- More road games with no rest
- More games with elite opponents
That's not slightly harder; it's significantly harder in every conceivable way. I remember when the Kings had some of their bad losses early in the season and I got slammed for some of my criticism; well, I knew the Kings' closing schedule was ridiculously brutal and they couldn't afford to blow 20 point leads.
As far as injuries go:
- Bobby Jackson played about 10 minutes in those last 23 games (pretty significant loss, considering his minutes went to a guy who has 1 skill)
- Brad Miller effectively missed 6 games after injuring his elbow against Houston (he sat out 3, but was so ineffective in 3 others (averaging around 3 points and 4 rebounds in over 25 minutes/game - his jumper was so off that he made Webber look like Larry Bird when Bird was in the zone) that he might as well not have played) and was limited for about 6 more
Yes, those factors, combined with the fatigue of Peja (played in the Summer AGAIN and just looked tired towards the end) and Vlade (old and worn out from too many minutes) are the reason why the Kings went 11-12 down the stretch. Does that excuse Webber? No. He didn't generally play well during this stretch, and while he wasn't the problem IMO, he did not provide the solution (something the franchise player is supposed to do in hard times - his injury cannot fully excuse that).
However, I think it's just insane that so much focus is placed on a few regular season games; the Kings didn't go down in the playoffs because they lost HCA, they lost in the playoffs because they blew a lead in PATHETIC fashion in Game 2 (the series was just over if Bibby or Peja just would have had a shred of discipline and could have just held the freaking ball instead of quickshooting, but Adelman-led teams have never had the slightest bit of discipline when it matters) - the series was over, and the Kings still found a way to lose. Let's focus on THAT failure (the only one that matters, unless you think hanging Pacific division banners means more than NBA championship ones), not the regular season wipeout.
Last edited:
