End of an Era---Chris Webber Memories Thread

[greendale]

He did cash $157,967,500 in career earnings.

Including the Michigan money?

[TheSecretWeapon]

I understand the point folks are making about the Hall being for great players. But I again ask people to take a look at who's already in the Hall -- that's the benchmark for "greatness," the benchmark for who should get in. And Webber was better than a number of them.

Look, I'm not trying to argue that Webber was a clutch performer -- he wasn't. My main point here is to say that we should not discount the rest of the game.

Although, in the interest of science (and to totally undercut my own argument), Webber's playoff performance -- looking at "the rest of the game" was pretty weak. In the playoffs, the average decline in performance is about 5%. The difference tends to get bigger in later rounds as competition gets tougher, but 5% is a good figure to use.

In my quickie analysis, Webber's career per minute playoff performance was only 82% of his regular season performance. He reached 95% (or better) of his regular season performance 4 times out of 10 trips to the playoffs. The year the Kings went to the Western Conference Finals (and lost to the Shaq-Phil-Kobe Lakers in game 7), Webber gave the Kings only about 84% of what he'd given them during the regular season. Basically, once the playoffs started, on average, Webber went from excellent to a little better than average.

To save nate some calculating time, Webber's regular season PER in years his team went to the playoffs was 20.8 -- the playoffs, his PER was 17.0. The league average PER is 15.0.

I still think Webber belongs in the Hall based on his total career in comparison to others already in the Hall. But he wasn't a clutch performer.

[Ruzious]

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).

How is it a reach - much less a HUGE reach - when ARod's and Jeter's post-season stats are very close - with Jeter being a sure HOFer and regarded as one of the great post season players of all time? An .860 OPS against playoffs teams (who presumably would have top pitching) can't be choking, imo. Jeter ain't going to the HOF for his defense.

[Ruzious]

To save nate some calculating time, Webber's regular season PER in years his team went to the playoffs was 20.8 -- the playoffs, his PER was 17.0. The league average PER is 15.0.

I still think Webber belongs in the Hall based on his total career in comparison to others already in the Hall. But he wasn't a clutch performer.

I don't know how PER is calculated, but would most players' PERs go down in the playoffs simply because the competition is tougher?

[TheSecretWeapon]

-= original quote snipped =-


I don't know how PER is calculated, but would most players' PERs go down in the playoffs simply because the competition is tougher?

Performance typically does decline a bit in the playoffs. Webber's decline is bigger than the decline most players experience.

[TheSecretWeapon]

-= original quote snipped =-


I don't know how PER is calculated, but would most players' PERs go down in the playoffs simply because the competition is tougher?

It occurred to me that there might be some issues with using PER because the regular season number gets adjusted so that the league average is 15.0, and I didn't make that adjustment in the numbers I posted earlier. So, I took another quick look using unadjusted PER for both the regular season and playoffs and got basically the same result. I tried it again using two different summary stat measures -- Dave Berri's Win Score and my own PPA. With PPA, I had Webber's playoff performance at 82% of regular season performance (same as it was with PER). With Win Score, Webber's performance got worse -- just 72% of his regular season production.

Compare with Kevin Garnett -- his playoff performance has been 95% of his regular season. KG's worst playoff performance (in relation to his regular season performance) was the year the T-Wolves went to the Western Conference Finals. I don't have time to look closely at it, but it could well be because of improved competition. This might make an interesting study if I ever get the time.

[doclinkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



Performance typically does decline a bit in the playoffs.

That's what occurred to me when I was looking at John Starks' higher 3pt% in the playoffs. It would be interesting to see which players' FG%'s etc actually increase in the playoffs, and who had the greatest increase above their average. But more patient spreadsheet warriors than I would have to work it out.

[TheSecretWeapon]

At first I was going to suggest that Starks' better 3pt shooting in the playoffs was mainly just luck -- the overall difference between his career 3pt percentage and his playoff percentage isn't all that big (about .03). Another explanation could simply be that more of his playoff 3pt attempts occurred in the years when the 3pt line had been moved in. I'd have to look closer, though. When I have some time.

[jmrosenth]

-= original quote snipped =-


How is it a reach - much less a HUGE reach - when ARod's and Jeter's post-season stats are very close - with Jeter being a sure HOFer and regarded as one of the great post season players of all time? An .860 OPS against playoffs teams (who presumably would have top pitching) can't be choking, imo. Jeter ain't going to the HOF for his defense.

Are you seriously trying to hold up an argument that ARod has had a similar postseason track record as Derek Jeter by pointing to an OPS stat? Seriously? This has nothing to do with ARod or Jeter's HOF credentials. Clearly ARod is on a level much higher level than that of someone like Webber.

Kev, along the point of measuring Webber vs. who is already in the Hall, I was thinking - could HOF criteria be changing and get more difficult? Is it possible that a lot of guys got in because there simply wasn't as many good players as there are now?

[doclinkin]

At first I was going to suggest that Starks' better 3pt shooting in the playoffs was mainly just luck -- the overall difference between his career 3pt percentage and his playoff percentage isn't all that big (about .03). Another explanation could simply be that more of his playoff 3pt attempts occurred in the years when the 3pt line had been moved in. I'd have to look closer, though. When I have some time.

I was looking at his Knicks years, to refresh my memory. It always seemed like when the post season rolled around Johnny started doing crazy stuff he'd never been able to do in-season. Hitting shots. The guy was always streaky, but his streaks seemed to happen at the right time. With one notable glaring exception. But that streakiness sort of gives a little leeway to the exception. You can understand better why Riles might have stuck with him.

Statistically, during that time (Knicks career, 1992-1998, and throw away 1991 since he tried no 3's in his 9 minutes per game) if you compare his regular season 3fg% to his post season 3fg% in any given year the number takes a significant hop. Five years out of 7.

In 93 he pitches a 32% regular season, then hits 37% in the playoffs.
In 95 He jumped from 35% 3fg regular season to 41% post season.
In 96 he went from a 36% 3 pt shooter to a 46% shooter in the playoffs. In 98 he went from a 32% jacker to a 42% 3fg gunner.

Point being this is some part of how you cement fond memories in a fanbase and earn greater fame than infamy. Even though he lost the knicks their only chance at a ring in that era. Coming up large when it counts, matters. In the case of JStarks if he'd won that series vs the Rox, he'd probably be a surefire HOF candidate, despite merely decent numbers. Though granted a large part of that would be the NY media bias.

[nate33]

-= original quote snipped =-

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.

You should be banned for posting this slander!

Here are Reggie Miller's points/40 and TS% for regular season and playoffs. The first two columns are regular season, the second two columns are postseason:

Season Pts/40 TS% Pts/40 TS%
1989-90 - 25.3 .645 - 19.8 .701
1990-91 - 26.6 .650 - 22.4 .626
1991-92 - 21.7 .629 - 24.9 .721 :o
1992-93 - 23.5 .617 - 28.8 .687 :o
1993-94 - 23.9 .636 - 25.8 .581
1994-95 - 23.9 .620 - 27.1 .632
1995-96 - 24.5 .625 - 37.4 .614
1997-98 - 22.6 .619 - 20.3 .588
1998-99 - 20.6 .590 - 21.9 .555
1999-00 - 19.7 .603 - 23.6 .596
2000-01 - 19.2 .574 - 28.2 .606
2001-02 - 18.1 .617 - 23.8 .631

2002-03 - 16.6 .597 - 12.5 .436
2003-04 - 14.2 .600 - 14.1 .599
2004-05 - 18.5 .582 - 18.0 .583

I'm focusing on his first 12 years and ignoring his last 3 years, he was 37 years old in 2002/03 and just a role player.

First, his scoring average increases on a per-minute basis in 9 out of 12 years. That's truly an incredible stat. If you ignore his first two years in the playoffs when he was still learning how to play playoff style basketball,and focus on his 10-year prime, his per-minute playoff scoring average increased in 9 out of 10 playoff appearances!

And despite this increased usage rate, his TS% increased in 6 out of the 12 appearances, and was within 3 percentage points of his ridiculous regular season levels in 10 of 12 playoff appearances!

Reggie Miller was one of the clutchest playoff performers in history. As Wizkev pointed out, very few players are able to maintain their regular season performance during the playoffs because the defense is better and the competition is tougher. Reggie Miller managed to improve upon his regular season performance nearly every time.

[jmrosenth]

-= original quote snipped =-

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.

You should be banned for posting this slander!

Here are Reggie Miller's points/40 and TS% for regular season and playoffs. The first two columns are regular season, the second two columns are postseason:

Season Pts/40 TS% Pts/40 TS%
1989-90 - 25.3 .645 - 19.8 .701
1990-91 - 26.6 .650 - 22.4 .626
1991-92 - 21.7 .629 - 24.9 .721 :o
1992-93 - 23.5 .617 - 28.8 .687 :o
1993-94 - 23.9 .636 - 25.8 .581
1994-95 - 23.9 .620 - 27.1 .632
1995-96 - 24.5 .625 - 37.4 .614
1997-98 - 22.6 .619 - 20.3 .588
1998-99 - 20.6 .590 - 21.9 .555
1999-00 - 19.7 .603 - 23.6 .596
2000-01 - 19.2 .574 - 28.2 .606
2001-02 - 18.1 .617 - 23.8 .631

2002-03 - 16.6 .597 - 12.5 .436
2003-04 - 14.2 .600 - 14.1 .599
2004-05 - 18.5 .582 - 18.0 .583

I'm focusing on his first 12 years and ignoring his last 3 years, he was 37 years old in 2002/03 and just a role player.

First, his scoring average increases on a per-minute basis in 9 out of 12 years. That's truly an incredible stat. If you ignore his first two years in the playoffs when he was still learning how to play playoff style basketball,and focus on his 10-year prime, his per-minute playoff scoring average increased in 9 out of 10 playoff appearances!

And despite this increased usage rate, his TS% increased in 6 out of the 12 appearances, and was within 3 percentage points of his ridiculous regular season levels in 10 of 12 playoff appearances!

Reggie Miller was one of the clutchest playoff performers in history. As Wizkev pointed out, very few players are able to maintain their regular season performance during the playoffs because the defense is better and the competition is tougher. Reggie Miller managed to improve upon his regular season performance nearly every time.

Statistical beatdown.

[Donkey McDonkerton]

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.

.

I see Nate just put you on failroad straight to the failboat?

[Ruzious]

I'm focusing on his first 12 years and ignoring his last 3 years

Aha! I skipped the rest. Was there anything important?

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



Are you seriously trying to hold up an argument that ARod has had a similar postseason track record as Derek Jeter by pointing to an OPS stat? Seriously? This has nothing to do with ARod or Jeter's HOF credentials. Clearly ARod is on a level much higher level than that of someone like Webber.

Honestly, I have no idea what you were trying to say there. What is wrong with using OPS? And who said that Webber was on ARod's level?

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



Statistical beatdown.

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.

[tsherkin]

Just to get back to Chris Webber...

I think it's functionally clear that he's a HoF player... He's pretty much a 20/10/4 player on his career and had a three-year peak around 26/11/4.5 (and a 23/10.5/5.4 season right after that). His Sacramento teams made the playoffs every year (1st, 1st, 2nd, WCFs, 2nd, 2nd) and were generally very competitive.

He wasn't ever really as good as some thought (I was surprised to find that he posted only 6 seasons with 10+ Offensive Win Shares, 5 seasons with ORTGs under 100 and only a single season with a WSAA at 10+) but he was still a spectacular player.

He was a brilliant passer... far from the best passing big man ever, though. That's a huge overstatement made by people who need to watch more a host of players: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton were all much better passers and Vlade's last season with the Kings was better by a large margin than anything Webber ever managed. Karl Malone compares pretty favorably with Webber if you look at the last 8 or 9 years of his career (as compared to Webber's 6-year peak as a passer).

Who else? I'd say Alvan Adams but he was a bit too turnover-prone even if you like his APG averages. The same might be said of Wes Unseld, though his outlet passes were extremely skillful. I WOULD however discuss Dave Cowens at least a little, though Webber was better than Cowens.

And of course Garnett is a better passer than was Webber, though people don't like to talk about it. KG is the guy who broke Bird's record for consecutive 20/10/5 seasons and has a higher AST% and a lower TOV% than Webber, too.

Nevertheless, Chris Webber was a significant player in the regular season. You're talking about a 5-time All-Star, a ROY who made 5 All-NBA First Teams, who led the league in RPG in the lockout year...This is a guy who has 4 top-10 scoring appearances (3 consecutive) and consecutive appearances in the top-5 in PER.

He was also better on D than people like to remember, though he was certainly far beneath the impact of Duncan or Garnett.

HoF player? Yeah, most especially given some other guys who've made it but even on his own merits. Webber was a guy who was a pretty astonishing talent and who achieved pretty well, all told. I mean, he had some fine years in Sacramento like that 27/11/4 season he put down in 00-01.

Chris Webber was a pretty special player, pretty awesome to watch. Yeah, he choked it in the playoffs a lot but he had two really good years in 01-02 and 02-03 (especially 01-02) when the Kings made that run to the WCFs and were robbed against L.A.

I will remember him for a long time because of the pretty, pretty passes he made in Adelman's Princeton setup.

[Davekn]

I know how stats are a huge part of all sports and can be used in any discussion but at times you have to open your eyes and look at what you have seen. I know there are a lot of Maryland fans here (Ruz being one). On a MD board they posted the stats of the current backcourt (GV and Hayes) against that of Juan Dixon and Steve Blake. We were all shocked at how close they were. But anyone with a pair of eyes can see that there was no comparison in the 2 backcourts.

It's the same thing here. To say that Jeter has had the same impact in the playoffs as A-Rod is nuts, regardless of what the the numbers say. Ask yourself this question: if you were rooting against the Yanks (and really, who doesn't) who would you rather see at the plate in a 4-3 game with runners on the corner and 2 outs in the 9th?

It's the same thing with Weber (and guys like Reggie Miller). Given what you've seen, if there is 8 seconds left in a 93-92 game and Weber has the ball, honestly would you rather be rooting for the team on offense or the team on defense? And I'm not just talking about playoffs. Just as points in the first quarter count too, regular season games do as well. And guys like Miller and Gilbert have won countless regular season games at the buzzer. Weber, well we all know what he has done.

Sorry, I can't simply dismiss this when considering greatness.

[BigA]

<snip>
Given what you've seen, if there is 8 seconds left in a 93-92 game and Weber has the ball, honestly would you rather be rooting for the team on offense or the team on defense?

Does CWebb's team have a timeout left?

[Ruzious]

-= original quote snipped =-



Does CWebb's team have a timeout left?

I think he got an unfair bad rap on that timeout. He was the team's center, and yet he was left alone by his teammates (particularly Jalen Rose) to try to bring the ball up court - on that play. I thought it was bizarre that his teammates didn't even try to help him out in that situation.