End of an Era---Chris Webber Memories Thread

[TheSecretWeapon]

Chris Weber is the Anti Derek Jeter. While Jeter's numbers are good but not great he will go to the Hall of Fame easily because he is the one guy you don't want to face in the 8th inning of a 1 run playoff game.

Weber, on the other hand, had good number but we all know that they were all a product of the first 44 minutes. When the game was on the line Weber stepped out of bounds. Period.

I've always found this line of reasoning to be faulty. The game is on the line from the opening tip. A basket in the first quarter counts as much as a basket in the 4th. We arbitrarily assign more "credit" for stuff that happens late in a game. However, in Webber's case, without his contributions through the first 44 minutes of the game (in your example), his team would not be in position to do anything in the final 4 minutes.

In this case, it seems silly to me to basically dismiss a very good career because he didn't do as much as some thought he should at the end of a very few games.

[jmrosenth]

In terms of Webber memories, I'm surprised his college career hasn't been mentioned more and its impact. The Fab Five ushered in the era of bringing a street flavor to the college - with immensely good results - they were in back to back title games. And of course, there's the timeout - the one play that Webber will be remembered most for.

Of course, those Final Four appearances were eventually taken away because of Webber's involvement with a booster, whom he admitted he took a bunch of cash from. Those Fab Five teams though won't be forgotten - Webber, Howard, Rose, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson. A huge "What If" would have been seeing him and Shaq in Orlando together.

I always worshiped Webber's games. He put up HOF stats - no doubt, but the other factors might ultimately keep him out - the injuries, the legal troubles, and not winning a title (please don't compare Webber to guys like Barkley or Malone - please). And while I thought he was integral to the Kings success, that team was a very good one without him when he missed countless games during their run. That team was stacked.

Whoever mentioned LaVar Arrington had it almost right - both incredibly engaging guys who will do well with whatever they want to do in their post playing days. But Webber was the FAR superior player in his professional league than Arrington ever was.

[Maf]

no freaking way... He never was THAT good to make it to HOF... It would be joke, comme on... One of the best players of the league for four years isn't enough. LOCK

[TheSecretWeapon]

no freaking way... He never was THAT good to make it to HOF... It would be joke, comme on... One of the best players of the league for four years isn't enough. LOCK

Have you looked at some of the guys in the Hall of Fame?

If players like Gail Goodrich, Alex English, Dan Issel, KC Jones, Bob Lanier, Clyde Lovellette, Kevin McHale, Calvin Murphy, Maurice Stokes, Lenny Wilkens (inducted as a player), and some others are already in the Hall, then Webber surely qualifies.

[Maf]

-= original quote snipped =-



Have you looked at some of the guys in the Hall of Fame?

If players like Gail Goodrich, Alex English, Dan Issel, KC Jones, Bob Lanier, Clyde Lovellette, Kevin McHale, Calvin Murphy, Maurice Stokes, Lenny Wilkens (inducted as a player), and some others are already in the Hall, then Webber surely qualifies.

I'm not too high on this argument. I mean if they're some guys who aren't as respected or wasn't as good, then don't screw up whole Hall of fame by adding more of them, ain't? I must admit I can't remember who Stokes and Lovellette even are.

Too bad I saw most of C-Webbs games when he was at Philly. Injury-burned, lazy, fat guy standing 15 feets outside basket shooting 40% FG and showing defense that only few guys can (Carmelo, Eddie Curry).

[TheSecretWeapon]

-= original quote snipped =-




I'm not too high on this argument. I mean if they're some guys who aren't as respected or wasn't as good, then don't screw up whole Hall of fame by adding more of them, ain't? I must admit I can't remember who Stokes and Lovellette even are.

Too bad I saw most of C-Webbs games when he was at Philly. Injury-burned, lazy, fat guy standing 15 feets outside basket shooting 40% FG and showing defense that only few guys can (Carmelo, Eddie Curry).

If the only thing Webber had done was what he did in Philly, I'd agree that he would not deserve to be in the Hall. But, there's an entire body of work to consider, and the guy was good for many years, and REALLY good for a 5-6 year span. Looking at the totality of his career, I think he probably belongs. I'd agree that he doesn't have a slam dunk case -- there are arguments against him getting in. On balance, though, I think he's worthy.

For what it's worth, basketball-reference.com puts Webber's HoF probability at .659. He's not a lock, but I think he will get in. (B-R's HoF calculator does not predict who SHOULD get in, but who WILL based on the credentials of players who made the Hall in the past.)

Here's a list of guys with lesser credentials (as measured by B-R's HoF probability calculator) that are in the Hall as players:

Frank Ramsey
Dick McGuire
Andy Phillip
Gail Goodrich
Joe Dumars
Walt Bellamy
Nate Thurmond
Clyde Lovellette
KC Jones
David Thompson
Jack Twyman
Earl Monroe
Joe Fulks
Connie Hawkins
Tom Gola
Dan Issel
Calvin Murphy

I think sometimes we get a narrative about a player and then it becomes all that the player is. And we end up overlooking or glossing over just how good a guy actually was.

[Davekn]

-= original quote snipped =-



I've always found this line of reasoning to be faulty. The game is on the line from the opening tip. A basket in the first quarter counts as much as a basket in the 4th. We arbitrarily assign more "credit" for stuff that happens late in a game. However, in Webber's case, without his contributions through the first 44 minutes of the game (in your example), his team would not be in position to do anything in the final 4 minutes.

In this case, it seems silly to me to basically dismiss a very good career because he didn't do as much as some thought he should at the end of a very few games.

It was not "a very few games" it was a pattern his whole life. He once made a tip in at the buzzer when he was with the Bullets and he was quoted afterwards as saying that was the first game winning shot of his life. When you consider how many games he had played at various levels, and when you consider that he was probably the most talented player on the floor in each of those games, that pretty much sums up Chris Weber to me. And this was before he laid an egg in the playoffs in Sacramento.

While I can see your point, to some degree, the Hall of Fame is for greatness. Call me crazy but I'd trade a few chest bumping highlights in the first quarter for a play in the last minute of a tied game.

[jmrosenth]

I'm with Dave on this. You're damn right we arbitrarily assign more credit for what happens late in games, because what happens late in games is the most important of said game. Unlike football or baseball, a basketball game isn't decided until the last five minutes in a large percentage of the games played. I don't have the statistical evidence to back this up, but I do have the anecdotal - all those Wizards blown leads in the 4th quarter over my lifetime of following the team. I understand Kev's point about the first 44 minutes, but there's a reason the last five minutes are called WINNING time.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I'm with Dave on this. You're damn right we arbitrarily assign more credit for what happens late in games, because what happens late in games is the most important of said game. Unlike football or baseball, a basketball game isn't decided until the last five minutes in a large percentage of the games played. I don't have the statistical evidence to back this up, but I do have the anecdotal - all those Wizards blown leads in the 4th quarter over my lifetime of following the team. I understand Kev's point about the first 44 minutes, but there's a reason the last five minutes are called WINNING time.

You and Dave are both wrong.

Most NBA games are decided early. 82games took a look at this a couple years ago, and the most important quarters are the first and the third -- the first quarter being most important.

So the oft spouted concept that NBA games are just back and forth and it all comes down to the last few minutes when the superior teams exert their will is demonstrably false: the good teams get the lead early and hold on.

[Davekn]

-= original quote snipped =-

OK I don't post here much so I have no idea if you are jerking my chain or not but just in case you're not I'd like to respond.

It's painfully obvious to me what is right here. Kobe is Kobe because of what he does countless times with the game in the balance. I've been saying all year that the folks who want Gilbert traded are nuts, the Wiz have been trying to find a go to guy who can win the game at the end since Bobby Dandridge. It wasn't Jeff Malone, it wasn't Googs, it wasn't Mitch Richmond and it sure as Hell wasn't Chris Weber. Guys like Reggie Miller were a huge part of their team's success. Guys like Chris Weber are like A-Rod. You come to rely on them all the way through and when your "star" doesn't deliver when it's needed most it's the death sentence for that team.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I'm not trying to yank your chain, I'm trying to post my view of the game. My view sorta differs from yours.

Subjectively, I agree the notion that what happens late IS most important. It's definitely most exciting -- at least when the game is close. However, the game is in the balance from the opening tip. That many don't perceive it to be so doesn't make it any less true.

[doclinkin]

I'm not trying to yank your chain, I'm trying to post my view of the game. My view sorta differs from yours.

Subjectively, I agree the notion that what happens late IS most important. It's definitely most exciting -- at least when the game is close. However, the game is in the balance from the opening tip. That many don't perceive it to be so doesn't make it any less true.

Eh. Dunno. Perception is kinda the point though. We're talking the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stat Accumulation.

If Mike Jordan missed the shot against Georgetown, lost the ball to Craig Ehlo, or was more blatant with that push-off on Bryon Russel and caught a whistle instead, (etc times etc.) then whatever his stats were we'd be talking about his inability to come up large when the game mattered most. Would it keep him out of the HOF? Nah-- 'Nique's in there, right?

But it's not excepted from the conversation. In Webbers' case I have the feeling that if his own 'perception' led him to believe that the first quarter WAS as important as late game/last shot-- well, his percentages would have suffered there as well.

He's just always had this anti-clutch thing, this star-crossed quality, as though he didn't believe he was actually worth the acclaim and accolades, just happened to be born blessed. I don't hate him for it, but neither do I envy him his success either. He paid for it anyway, even without apparent effort or struggle to live up to his gifts. Struggled emotionally.

The psychobabble after Michigan was that in a way he envied Jalen Rose's hard upbringing and Juwan Howard's family trauma. Felt like as a middle class kid with a prep school upbringing he was sorta handed everything in life. Hard to resonate with the hophop hardcore and ancestral struggle when you been sorta handed everything your whole life. From your daddy's hard work, to the largess of a Michigan booster, all via an accident of genetics that gave you awe-striking athleticism size and muscle mass. And intelligence. Perception. 10,000 candlepower smile.

No tragedy either. Just a vague dissolute dissatisfaction of a guy who never seemed totally happy with who he was. Akin to Kareem and maybe Bill Russell, only without the actual hard work and success, and also minus any rationale for the introspection and frustration.

Was it Thoreau who said "The massive men lead lives of quiet desperation"? (...)

(Or Something like that...)

But I mean really, would you blow your lid if the newspapers linked you romantically with Tyra Banks at the time? Dunno. Chris might make it to the Hall of Fame based on numbers, merit, whatever-- but does anyone think it would make him happy if he did?

Good luck and bon voyage CWebb, here's hoping you find your calling, man. Whatever it is. And hey thanks for a couple exciting happy years here with our Wizard/Bullets. You were fun to watch, gave me my money's worth, and boy we had an exciting roller coaster ride for a couple years there, didn't we? I don't blame you if we fell a little short. Hey Mike Jordan did that to alot of people's dreams.

[fugop]

If Webber's performance had been steady over the course of the game -- if he merely failed to elevate his game in the last 4 minutes -- you'd have a pretty compelling argument, WizKev.

But isn't the claim that Webber's performance deteriorated at the end of the game? That he buckled under pressure?

[Davekn]

We're talking the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stat Accumulation.

While I'm not quite ready to comment on doclinkin's Sociology Thesis I gotta say this is a great line. My point has never been that Chris Webber is a bum. OK I'll admit to feeling a bit like a scorned lover, I think a lot of us feel let down that he wasn't the answer that we thought he would be when he arrived. But we are talking about the Hall of Fame here. And the Hall of Fame is for true greatness, not for guys who roll up numbers and then dribble the ball off their foot with 30 seconds to go.

Not saying he is a Hall of Famer but the fact is John Starks was a damn good player. But he is remembered for one thing, as it should be.

[doclinkin]

Not saying he is a Hall of Famer but the fact is John Starks was a damn good player. But he is remembered for one thing, as it should be.

Yep, that posterizing dunk over Jordan and [edit] Ho Grant will always have a special place in my heart...

[Davekn]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yep, that posterizing dunk over Jordan and Pippen will always have a special place in my heart...

Um, that's not it. But let me go out on a limb and guess that they both happened in the 2nd quarter of games in December that the Knicks ultimately lost.

[jmrosenth]

You and Dave are both wrong.

Most NBA games are decided early. 82games took a look at this a couple years ago, and the most important quarters are the first and the third -- the first quarter being most important.

I don't know Kev. The study covers just one half of one NBA season (has it been looked at in a larger sample size?) and I'm not sure if that methodology really gets at the crux of what we are discussing here. It makes sense that good teams are able get out to an early lead and sustain it. Perhaps the point of this is that if you want win games make sure you have a good cushion to work with in the 4th - when, as I'm sure has also been studied - points are harder to come by, refs swallow their whistles, defenses tighten up, etc.

[Ruzious]

It's painfully obvious to me what is right here. Kobe is Kobe because of what he does countless times with the game in the balance. I've been saying all year that the folks who want Gilbert traded are nuts, the Wiz have been trying to find a go to guy who can win the game at the end since Bobby Dandridge. It wasn't Jeff Malone, it wasn't Googs, it wasn't Mitch Richmond and it sure as Hell wasn't Chris Weber. Guys like Reggie Miller were a huge part of their team's success. Guys like Chris Weber are like A-Rod. You come to rely on them all the way through and when your "star" doesn't deliver when it's needed most it's the death sentence for that team.

I think reputations - good and bad - are often wrong, but people buy into them at some point and just won't be swayed by facts. They'll insist Reggie Miller was one of the great clutch players ever - and ignore the fact that he shot 28% in the 2003 playoffs and that his shooting was worse in playoffs than in the regular season.

They'll say Chris Webber never got it done in the playoffs, but how many players average 20.9 P's, 9.3 R's, and 4.2 A's in the playoffs (almost identical to his regular season stats)?

You can have Jeter, and I'll take A-Rod (as long as I don't have to pay him). Jeter is generally regarded as the ultimate clutch player and A-Rod the ultimate choker, but their post-season stats are almost identical - Jeter has a little better on base average, while A-Rod has a little better slugging %. It's just that people remember things with their own personal biases.

[doclinkin]

Um, that's not it. But let me go out on a limb and guess that they both happened in the 2nd quarter of games in December that the Knicks ultimately lost.

Funny, even Wikipedia references the dunk first and the missed shots second.

No it was Game One of the 1993 Knicks Bulls playoff series, the Knicks went up 3-2 in the series, then ultimately you know, lost. But that dunk set the tone for the physicality of the Knicks-Bulls rivalry, that here was a team that wasn't intimidated one way or the other, even if they ultimately fell short every damn time.

If Knicks fans had the only vote that mattered, they'd have John Starks in the HOF. The Rockets game 7 was the primary exception in a NYK career where John Starks defied the odds time and again and managed the improbable. That dunk was an example-- before that game Knicks fans had never seen Johnny jump that high in his life. Afterwards he admitted as much. Didn't know he could do that, just did it.

He's sorta an anti-Webber actually, always sorta looked like the kid who was still out bagging groceries at Safeway but managed to exceed and overacheive. Knicks fans don't fault him for the loss. Many games he hit those shots. And Starks for one was never scared to take the big shot, hit or miss. Whatever, he wasn't gonna pass it.

--To emphasize the point: Starks playoff 3pt% was most always way higher than his regular season %'s.

[jmrosenth]

-= original quote snipped =-

You can have Jeter, and I'll take A-Rod (as long as I don't have to pay him). Jeter is generally regarded as the ultimate clutch player and A-Rod the ultimate choker, but their post-season stats are almost identical - Jeter has a little better on base average, while A-Rod has a little better slugging %. It's just that people remember things with their own personal biases.

I'd take A-Rod over Jeter as well, but the last two sentences are a HUGE reach. A-Rod, especially with the Yankees, far underperforms in the playoffs based on his regular season stats. Jeter stays about the same. And that's before we even touch on the late inning hits (although Kev will tell me what happens in the first 6 innings is more important than what happens in the last 3).

As for Webber specifically, I remember him being a beast in that Lakers series. But that was the only West Finals appearance for that Kings team. Sure, they had to deal with the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, but that's life. In talking about his legacy (and his HOF candidacy) I do think that team success needs to be considered. I think that will ultimately be the thing that keeps him out (not this clutch time scoring thing) as well as the injuries and the off court issues. As good of a career he had, at the end of the day he only had 4 All Star appearances and only finished in the top 5 of MVP voting once in his career. Those don't sound like "must be in the HOF" credentials to me.

This is an interesting debate, because we'll be discussing the same issues with Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady...and maybe Arenas (ducks). And Robert Horry!

He did cash $157,967,500 in career earnings. Life is good for Chris Webber.