Re: F the Bay Area
[ QUOTE ]
1. I remember the Kings still being great offensively the next year, but that was when they knew Webber wasn't going to be there. Whatever the reams of paper might have proved, he was still the #1 guy at the time (Peja was definitely peaking at this time, too) and him going down seems tough to adjust to on the fly. But, I haven't read the reams of paper.
[/ QUOTE ]
Basic idea is that that team had a lot of players who could score, whose efficiency didn't drop off too badly with higher usage rates. Bibby, Jackson and Peja in particular were operating at around 20 usage rates, and could have been much higher without loosing too much offensive efficiency (all three are very good with the ball in their hands in tough situations). Meanwhile, Webber was operating at like a 28 usage rate with a sub 100 offensive efficiency. When he was off the floor, his possessions were eaten up by other players in a very efficient manner. The next year, this is even more dramatically exhibited, as the Kings were on pace to be the best offense ever without Webber and a .750 team, but he came back, they promptly turn into .500 team, and almost entirely Webber's fault. Webber can be very good player on teams that need someone to soak up possessions because his efficiency drop is very low at high usage rates, but he doesn't have that high of efficiency at low usage, so he's a bad fit for teams with scorers.
|