End of an Era---Chris Webber Memories Thread

[fishercob]

-= original quote snipped =-



Does CWebb's team have a timeout left?

Zing!

First off, it never should have come to the timeout because Webber clearly traveled in the backcourt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-_URq7K04 Fast forward to the 1:10 mark.

Secondly, Ruz, whether his teammates screwed up or not, he still called a timeout that they didn't have -- and that was his fault. Plus it's not like he was a Pat Ewing-type center. He handled the ball plenty.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



Zing!

First off, it never should have come to the timeout because Webber clearly traveled in the backcourt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-_URq7K04 Fast forward to the 1:10 mark.

Secondly, Ruz, whether his teammates screwed up or not, he still called a timeout that they didn't have -- and that was his fault. Plus it's not like he was a Pat Ewing-type center. He handled the ball plenty.

I realize that, but to expect him to be able to bring the ball up by himself against a full court press was crazy, imo.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-


Look at this http://www.basketballreference.com/play ... =MILLERE01 and tell us what the problem is with nate's stats - especially with the 95/96 highlighted stat.

Anyone? Bueller?

[nate33]

-= original quote snipped =-


Anyone? Bueller?

Okay, so his best scoring performance was a low-sample size fluke. Big deal. My point still stands that Reggie Miller substantially improved his scoring output in the playoffs while essentially maintaining his overall shooting percentages. I challenge you to find any other player with a significant playoff history who has managed to increase his per-minute scoring output without a significant dropoff in shooting percentage.

For God's sake man, we're talking about a guy with a TS% routinely around 60%! In the playoffs!

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-


Okay, so his best scoring performance was a low-sample size fluke. Big deal. My point still stands that Reggie Miller substantially improved his scoring output in the playoffs while essentially maintaining his overall shooting percentages. I challenge you to find any other player with a significant playoff history who has managed to increase his per-minute scoring output without a significant dropoff in shooting percentage.

For God's sake man, we're talking about a guy with a TS% routinely around 60%! In the playoffs!

What a bunch of shyte. It wasn't a small sample size. It was 1 game. That was very lame and misleading. The other impressive stats were small sample sizes.

When you're trying to do a stat beatdown - or whatever the hell you were trying to accomplish - it would be nice if you didn't "stretch"... the truth.

The fact is that his lifetime playoff stats are NOT as his good as his lifetime regular season stats. They're not a whole lot worse, and I never said they were. I just said he's not the all-time great clutch player that people made him out to be. By the tone of your post, you'd think I called him an all-time choker. His FG% regular season is .471 vs .449 in the playoffs, and that is a significant drop; 3 point % was .395 in the regular season v .390 in the playoffs. Assists, rebounds, and steals per game were all lower in the playoffs despite the fact that he averaged 2.6 more minutes per game in the playoffs.

[Davekn]

First off, it never should have come to the timeout because Webber clearly traveled in the backcourt.

He sure did and his timeout made most forget about that. So he choked twice in the final 15 seconds of the championship game, a sign of things to come.

Ruz: You have gone to great lengths in this thread but you still haven't addressed the real issue here: Was or wasn't Chris Weber a consistant choking dog not only in the playoffs but in the regular season? And does that not tarnish his image? You ready to forget all of that because in your eyes he had done enough in the previous 46 minutes to warrant greatness and a Hall of Fame induction? So the outcome of the game means little?

[nate33]

-= original quote snipped =-


What a bunch of shyte. It wasn't a small sample size. It was 1 game. That was very lame and misleading. The other impressive stats were small sample sizes.

When you're trying to do a stat beatdown - or whatever the hell you were trying to accomplish - it would be nice if you didn't "stretch"... the truth.

The fact is that his lifetime playoff stats are NOT as his good as his lifetime regular season stats. They're not a whole lot worse, and I never said they were. I just said he's not the all-time great clutch player that people made him out to be. By the tone of your post, you'd think I called him an all-time choker. His FG% regular season is .471 vs .449 in the playoffs, and that is a significant drop; 3 point % was .395 in the regular season v .390 in the playoffs. Assists, rebounds, and steals per game were all lower in the playoffs despite the fact that he averaged 2.6 more minutes per game in the playoffs.

Ignore the last 3 seasons of his career when he was 38 FREAKING YEARS OLD, (and his teams went deep, heavily weighting his number of playoff games played) and his career playoff numbers look exceptional. His overall TS% was about the same, maybe a percent or so less, and his scoring average was substantially higher.

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



He sure did and his timeout made most forget about that. So he choked twice in the final 15 seconds of the championship game, a sign of things to come.

Oh BS Dave. I've already gone over that. If you don't like my explanation, fine, but I've already gone over it.

Ruz: You have gone to great lengths in this thread but you still haven't addressed the real issue here: Was or wasn't Chris Weber a consistant choking dog not only in the playoffs but in the regular season? And does that not tarnish his image? You ready to forget all of that because in your eyes he had done enough in the previous 46 minutes to warrant greatness and a Hall of Fame induction? So the outcome of the game means little?

How many times would you like to go round and round? He wasn't a great clutch player, but he wasn't a choking dog, and the first 46 minutes do actually matter to the outcomes of the frikking games.

[TheSecretWeapon]

It's interesting how selective we can get. Yeah, Webber traveled (twice on that final play by my count -- when he was calling the timeout, it looked to me like he traveled) and called the timeout. But, just watching the video on that link, the only reason Michigan was in position for him to screw up like that was that he grabbed a tough offensive rebound and scored the putback, then he grabbed a defensive board off the missed free throw. Those looked like clutch plays to me.

Basically, I think these labels are too simplistic and get applied too easily. Looking at this seriously and systematically is too much work for this conversation, though. Unless someone else wants to back through the play-by-plays throughout his career and look at what he did late in close games. Even that would ignore all the clutch plays guys make throughout the game -- plays that affect the outcome just as much as a play in the final seconds, but don't get as much attention because they happen earlier in the game.

[doclinkin]

The fact is that his lifetime playoff stats are NOT as his good as his lifetime regular season stats. They're not a whole lot worse, and I never said they were. I just said he's not the all-time great clutch player that people made him out to be.

Eh. Way I see it, it's fair to consider the peak years of a player's career. The longer the peak the better the player, but everybody drops sometime. You gain the most Fame for what you do at your pinnacle, more than how you finish (except a guy like Darrell Green for the redskins, who was remarkable inasmuch as he didn't drop off, basically ever, for 20 years).

And sample sizes of what is and is not 'clutch' will necessarily be small, considering there are only a few key moments in a game or postseason or career where a single player can make all the difference. Very few chances come up to score 8 points in 9 seconds and all that.

Reggie was definitely clutch. That said, Ruz' point is a fair one. A truly great player can carry his team deep into the postseason by himself, further defining themselves as clutch. The small sample size of Reggie in the postseason in the year's cited maybe indict him on these grounds, not because they skew the data and %'s, but because 'if he was so danged good why ain't his team won the Championship?'

In one respect the answer would be: another clutch player, who was yet more clutch. No shame to be knocked back by one of the clutchest players of all clutchtime.

The rest of the equation on Reggie is that, much like a great post player, Reggie's game was as a dependent player. He is one of the paramount archetypal off-the-ball guards. He was the 'rich man's Reggie Miller', that is when weaker minds fumble for a metaphor to describe a player who works well off the ball, they cite a low rent version of This Guy. It's mighty tough for an off-the-ball player to take over a game, since they have to rely on the rest of the team for their game. Some one has to set the screen, someone has to hit them when they're open in that split second before the defender recovers. They just have to make the shot. No knock on Reggie if his asst rate fell while his scoring increased, he was busy making the shot. Finishing. That's his job. His role.

There's no question Reggies a lock HOF guy. There is a question with CWebb. The difference between 'em ain't 'championships'. The difference lies in what they did, when they were the best in the world at what they did, and whether they came up largest on the biggest stage. Reggie came up bigger on larger stages, CWebb, not so much. Probably Webber's most lasting effect on the game of basketball: bigger shorts. That fab five squad had some big ass pantaloons on 'em din't they?

[nate33]

Here are Reggie Miller's regular season versus playoff averages based on his career totals ignoring his last 3 seasons (reg. season is first):

Points: 19.2 / 23.5
Pts/40: 22.0 / 24.1
eFG%: .546 / .534
TS%: .616 / .607

He dropped just 0.9% off of his unbelievable TS% against playoff-caliber opponents while upping his scoring average by 4 points per game. That's clutch no matter how you slice it.

Again, I challenge you to find any first-option scorer with at least a 5-year track record who has a career playoff per minute scoring averaging exceeding his regular season per minute average without a dramatic loss in efficiency. I glanced at a bunch of the greats from years past. Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, they all dropped about 2% off their FG% and about 2 points off their per-40 scoring average. (Typically, they maintained the same point total but it required an extra 8-10% more minutes to do so.) Jordan was closest, but only because his regular season averages are skewed downward by his Washington years while his playoff averages did not bear that burden.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I don't consider Reggie Miller a lock for the Hall of Fame. Reggie had some wonderful clutch moments, but really didn't do much beyond shoot the ball well. Webber scored, rebounded, assisted, got steals, blocked some shots.

Reggie played in 5 All-Star games -- same number as Webber. Reggie was 3rd team All-NBA 3 times -- Webber made All-NBA 5 times, including 1st team once and 2nd team 3 times. Webber was top 10 in MVP voting 5 times; the highest Reggie ever got in MVP voting was 13th. Reggie got MVP votes twice in his career -- Webber got votes 5 times.

Just throwing this out there, but Reggie's Hall of Fame probability score at b-r is .054 -- a player with his career has about a 5% chance of getting into the Hall. Webber's HoF probability is .659.

But hey -- Webber is nothing more than a choking dog who wore big shorts, and Reggie had some great moments.

[fishercob]

It's interesting how selective we can get. Yeah, Webber traveled (twice on that final play by my count -- when he was calling the timeout, it looked to me like he traveled) and called the timeout. But, just watching the video on that link, the only reason Michigan was in position for him to screw up like that was that he grabbed a tough offensive rebound and scored the putback, then he grabbed a defensive board off the missed free throw. Those looked like clutch plays to me.

Basically, I think these labels are too simplistic and get applied too easily. Looking at this seriously and systematically is too much work for this conversation, though. Unless someone else wants to back through the play-by-plays throughout his career and look at what he did late in close games. Even that would ignore all the clutch plays guys make throughout the game -- plays that affect the outcome just as much as a play in the final seconds, but don't get as much attention because they happen earlier in the game.

Interesting point. It's a good reminder that our eyes lie to us, and to a degree, we see what we want to see.

[nate33]

I don't consider Reggie Miller a lock for the Hall of Fame. Reggie had some wonderful clutch moments, but really didn't do much beyond shoot the ball well. Webber scored, rebounded, assisted, got steals, blocked some shots.

Reggie played in 5 All-Star games -- same number as Webber. Reggie was 3rd team All-NBA 3 times -- Webber made All-NBA 5 times, including 1st team once and 2nd team 3 times. Webber was top 10 in MVP voting 5 times; the highest Reggie ever got in MVP voting was 13th. Reggie got MVP votes twice in his career -- Webber got votes 5 times.

Just throwing this out there, but Reggie's Hall of Fame probability score at b-r is .054 -- a player with his career has about a 5% chance of getting into the Hall. Webber's HoF probability is .659.

But hey -- Webber is nothing more than a choking dog who wore big shorts, and Reggie had some great moments.

I think the effect of pure shooters is underrepresented by box score statistics. Great outside shooters make things easier for their teammates on every single possession, even if they don't even touch the ball. There's a reason Reggie Miller made the playoffs in 15 out of 18 seasons despite Indy never having a single superstar-caliber player in that time period.

I wish they had on/off tracking back then. I'd bet Reggie was consistently positive, probably up in double digits. He was +6.1, +11.5 and +9.0 in his last 3 seasons at ages 37, 38 and 39 respectively!

EDIT:
In 2002/03, Webber was +2.0 per 100 possessions. In the following year, he was -7.3. In the year after that, he was -2.5. He may have been just past his peak, but Webber still averaged 23 and 10 in 2002/03 and 19/9 in the following two years. I don't know if he helped his team more when he was at his peak, but his numbers certainly seemed a bit "empty" during the backside of his career.

[doclinkin]

I don't consider Reggie Miller a lock for the Hall of Fame. .

Well then you misjudge basketball writers and pontificators, and probably give them more credit than they deserve.

Fact is when the question is considered and a round of yammering starts on who does or does not deserve their spot in Springfield, Reggie will end up a 'no question' entry and Webber will have his faults rehashed. When Miller's name comes up, nobody immediately thinks 'time out' or 'boy that Reggie sure didn't pass or rebound much' they'll think 8 points in 8.9 seconds and taunting and bedevilling Spike Lee and a rep as a Knick killer and his smiling villain reputation.

That's how 'Fame' works. In the lexicon and lingo of the game, players define archetypes and stick in our head, carve durable reputations. Reggie was a gunner. But he was one of the best gunners of all time. Hence HOF. Still the league record for most threes ever. With 1200 more Ray Allen can catch him if he plays what 7 more years with no injury or drop off. I don't see anyone catching Reggie.

But CWebb's archetype tends to be one of disappointing promise. When describing a player coming out in a draft, if you say a "Reggie Miller' type, you know what you're getting. If you say "Chris Webber" you usually require a qualifier. A sweet-passing forward? A soft froward? A finesse big with a face up game? A few mental question marks?

But sure any team in the league want to draft a 'Clutch' Chris Webber. The qualifier makes the case.

[doclinkin]

When Miller's name comes up, nobody immediately thinks 'time out' or 'boy that Reggie sure didn't pass or rebound much'

Actually, to be fair, on these boards, when miller's name comes up, people usually think: 'snitch'.

[nate33]

My biggest problem with Webber is his career .512 TS%. If you just focus on his so-called "prime" with the Sacramento kings, and ignore his run and gun days with Nellie ball and the Wizards as well as his last 3 seasons plagued by injury, his TS% is an atrocious .504. We're talking Antoine Walker bad here.

In Sacramento's system, Webber should not have been a guy averaging 25 points per 40 with 4.6 assists per 40. He should have passed more, shot less, and scored with more efficiency. I think that he hurt his team's offense, despite the impressive "show me" stats.

[TheSecretWeapon]

'Nique was a gunner -- Reggie was basically a specialist. Very good at that specialty -- perhaps the best 3pt shooter who's played to date. But he did very little but hit jumpers during his career. He hit them in bunches a few times, but that doesn't make him an automatic HoFer.

You're probably right, doc, that writers (or whoever it is that votes on the basketball Hall) will put them in. Doesn't mean they're right to do it, though. If Reggie gets in, he'll have fairly weak career accomplishments in comparison to other players in the Hall. He played a lot of years, and some fabulous moments. Unlike someone like say Isiah, who won championships, had incredible moments, and had a bunch of individual accolades.

nate's point about Webber isn't bad. Webber was a far better offensive player than Walker, but the point still remains. He wasn't all that efficient. His peak offensive rating was 109 in a league (league average was 104.5 that season). His career ortg was about 104, which was just a little below average during his career. Perhaps he could have helped Sacramento's offense a bit by shooting a bit less. The issue, of course, was who else should take the shots.

Divac faded after 2001. Peja would have been a good guy to get some more shots -- his usage remained pretty consistent throughout his career, though. Christie? Nah -- he was basically Bruce Bowen, a defensive specialist. Bibby? Eh, maybe.

[miller31time]

I think the effect of pure shooters is underrepresented by box score statistics. Great outside shooters make things easier for their teammates on every single possession, even if they don't even touch the ball. There's a reason Reggie Miller made the playoffs in 15 out of 18 seasons despite Indy never having a single superstar-caliber player in that time period.

You hit the nail on the head there, Nate. From someone who watched a crapload of Pacers games and really focused primarily on Reggie, the amount of attention he drew on a consistent, play-by-play basis, was incredible. His 3pt shooting ability, paired with the fact that he's one of the best off-ball players in NBA history made him difficult to cover and the sole focus of the opposing team's defense.

He was also deadly with his ability to get the ball to a player immediately after coming off a screen and receiving the ball.

[Davekn]

Why is Ruzious so testy? Is this a sore spot or something?