RealGM

Think of your 50 most talented players of all time.

Not by position, not dominant, not successful, not athletic, not longevity or speciality…the most talented. That is plural, It isn’t talent. This is across the board talented players. Players with the most ability across the most skills.

The best modern example is Jokic.

Here’s the question, is Webber in the top fifty all time?

Consistency is a type of talent too.

No.

Some different things in this definition:

(a) Physical strength/quickness/leaping/hand eye coordination/fluency of movement
(b) Skill sets such as ball handling/shooting/blocking out
(c) BBIQ involves decision making and seeing the floor and the possibilities open to the player but also the wisdom of taking advantage of those possiblities. Leadership and being coachable probably go here also.
(d) Grit/determination/mental toughness/physical ability to play well through pain.

Which of these do you consider talent?

penbeast0 wrote:Some different things in this definition:

(a) Physical strength/quickness/leaping/hand eye coordination/fluency of movement
(b) Skill sets such as ball handling/shooting/blocking out
(c) BBIQ involves decision making and seeing the floor and the possibilities open to the player but also the wisdom of taking advantage of those possiblities. Leadership and being coachable probably go here also.
(d) Grit/determination/mental toughness/physical ability to play well through pain.

Which of these do you consider talent?

All of it and however you want to define it. Basketball talent.

If you include all of it, then no, Webber's issues are a bit too prevalent to be top 50. Maybe top 100 though I confess to a strong dislike of him as a player from his immaturity when he was in Washington.

I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

Oddly I agree with your assesment of Webber career, save the serious aside, which is why I find him interesting.

He is a bright guy, very gifted athletically who never quite figured out how to apply those gifts in a way that helped his team consistently. It makes him interesting for discussion because there are a lot of players I can think of who are dimmer than Webber but would have done more with his considerable gifts.

That differs from your analysis of Allen or Pierce. No matter what you think of those two, they did maximize their ability so there isn't much to say. With Webber that wasn't the case.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

Oddly I agree with your assesment of Webber career, save the serious aside, which is why I find him interesting.

He is a bright guy, very gifted athletically who never quite figured out how to apply those gifts in a way that helped his team consistently. It makes him interesting for discussion because there are a lot of players I can think of who are dimmer than Webber but would have done more with his considerable gifts.

That differs from your analysis of Allen or Pierce. No matter what you think of those two, they did maximize their ability so there isn't much to say. With Webber that wasn't the case.

Perhaps it's a bit of a generational/era thing. I my day to day knowledge of the NBA dissipates prior to 2005/6 range so I'm not as familiar with the situations surrounding Webber as someone older than me would, so looking at him retroactively he doesn't really stand out as notable or interesting.

Trying to think of another example of a guy similar to him from a more recent timeframe... perhaps Kyrie Irving sans 2016? Like in 20 years if you look back on Kyrie's career nothing really stands out (outside of 2016), yet if you talk to people more familiar with the day to day of the league in the mid 2010s they'd have a much more colored perception of him as a player.

And btw, wasn't trying to say that PP or Allen were underachievers or anything like that. Just saying that they were players that were probably better but aren't really mentioned or discussed as much as Webber, nor were they as respected in that era seemingly.

Whenever someone talks about a player being more 'skilled', or 'talented', or 'better pound for pound', it's always an attempt to skirt around the fact that said player was worse than players XYZ.

Who is more 'skilled', Jason 'White Chocolate' Williams or Shaq? It's obviously J.Will, but that has no bearing on who the more impactful player is. A guy can have fewer skills, and less 'talent' (whatever that means), but if that skill/talent is concentrated in areas that have more value to winning games then it's irrelevant.

The difference between a star and a role player can be as simple as one of them being more consistent. If Kelly Oubre played like he did in his best game every night, he'd be an all-star. Instead he's not even a starter.

RCM88x wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

Oddly I agree with your assesment of Webber career, save the serious aside, which is why I find him interesting.

He is a bright guy, very gifted athletically who never quite figured out how to apply those gifts in a way that helped his team consistently. It makes him interesting for discussion because there are a lot of players I can think of who are dimmer than Webber but would have done more with his considerable gifts.

That differs from your analysis of Allen or Pierce. No matter what you think of those two, they did maximize their ability so there isn't much to say. With Webber that wasn't the case.

Perhaps it's a bit of a generational/era thing. I my day to day knowledge of the NBA dissipates prior to 2005/6 range so I'm not as familiar with the situations surrounding Webber as someone older than me would, so looking at him retroactively he doesn't really stand out as notable or interesting.

Trying to think of another example of a guy similar to him from a more recent timeframe... perhaps Kyrie Irving sans 2016? Like in 20 years if you look back on Kyrie's career nothing really stands out (outside of 2016), yet if you talk to people more familiar with the day to day of the league in the mid 2010s they'd have a much more colored perception of him as a player.

And btw, wasn't trying to say that PP or Allen were underachievers or anything like that. Just saying that they were players that were probably better but aren't really mentioned or discussed as much as Webber, nor were they as respected in that era seemingly.

I could easily see Kyrie filling a similar role for his generation. Why didn't Kyrie end up as as good as XYZ? That question is probably going to fascinate a lot of basketball fans after he retires.

And yeah I grasp your point about Pierce/Allen. FWIW I have both well ahead of Webber all time/

sp6r=underrated wrote:

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

Oddly I agree with your assesment of Webber career, save the serious aside, which is why I find him interesting.

He is a bright guy, very gifted athletically who never quite figured out how to apply those gifts in a way that helped his team consistently. It makes him interesting for discussion because there are a lot of players I can think of who are dimmer than Webber but would have done more with his considerable gifts.

That differs from your analysis of Allen or Pierce. No matter what you think of those two, they did maximize their ability so there isn't much to say. With Webber that wasn't the case.

What’s his modern parallel? Karl Anthony-Towns (in terms of a guy with all the talent in the world who had a great career but never quite reached their ceiling)

I see Kyrie's name in here. Kyrie is not more talented than Chris Webber.

When C-Webb came in the league, he was special. The problem is his big body broke down early, like Ewing and Embiid.

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

The fascination lies in the fact that he was a big, strong, athletic player with skill and mobility and dexterity and some fluidity relative to the era (a less skilled era) he came into (wouldn't be thought of the same way today). You see the way he’s talked about as he grabs a rebound and brings the ball up the court because at the time, you didn’t see these things as regularly.

But the results on both ends of the court were mediocre at best. He wasn’t even ever a top 10 player in any season.

SHAQ32 wrote:I see Kyrie's name in here. Kyrie is not more talented than Chris Webber.

When C-Webb came in the league, he was special. The problem is his big body broke down early, like Ewing and Embiid.

He was “special” for the time—he wouldn’t thought of that way today.

Special_Puppy wrote:
What’s his modern parallel? Karl Anthony-Towns (in terms of a guy with all the talent in the world who had a great career but never quite reached their ceiling)

Going by the OP’s definition, KAT is much, much more skilled than Webber ever was—KAT is in a class pretty much by himself as a combination of shooting/post game is concerned, a little ahead of Jokic, but of course, Jokic is also a playmaker. KAT is tiers ahead of Webber in both shooting and lost play, but Webber was much more athletic than KAT is.

homecourtloss wrote:

RCM88x wrote:I've never really understood the fascination with Chris Webber to be quite honest, he was a fringe top 10 player for a 5 year span and solidly one for just a single season. Was he ever really much better than guys like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce?

To answer the question though, no. Physically he certainly had the tools but never really applied them or took things seriously enough to really hit and maintain his ceiling as a player.

The fascination lies in the fact that he was a big, strong, athletic player with skill and mobility and dexterity and some fluidity relative to the era (a less skilled era) he came into (wouldn't be thought of the same way today). You see the way he’s talked about as he grabs a rebound and brings the ball up the court because at the time, you didn’t see these things as regularly.

But the results on both ends of the court were mediocre at best. He wasn’t even ever a top 10 player in any season.

SHAQ32 wrote:I see Kyrie's name in here. Kyrie is not more talented than Chris Webber.

When C-Webb came in the league, he was special. The problem is his big body broke down early, like Ewing and Embiid.

He was “special” for the time—he wouldn’t thought of that way today.

Special_Puppy wrote:
What’s his modern parallel? Karl Anthony-Towns (in terms of a guy with all the talent in the world who had a great career but never quite reached their ceiling)

Going by the OP’s definition, KAT is much, much more skilled than Webber ever was—KAT is in a class pretty much by himself as a combination of shooting/post game is concerned, a little ahead of Jokic, but of course, Jokic is also a playmaker. KAT is tiers ahead of Webber in both shooting and lost play, but Webber was much more athletic than KAT is.

There’s a lot to disagree with here.

I’ll focus on the results were mediocre comment. Webber was clearly the best player and leader of a team that barring playing 8 on 5 beats prime Shaq/Kobe. He was the best player on the best team. If that’s mediocre…give me mediocre any day.

But this is a thread about talent. Webber oozed talent. It’s just a matter of comparison. To get to 20-30 players better, that’s easy. It’s 45-50 that he has a real case.

SNPA wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Some different things in this definition:

(a) Physical strength/quickness/leaping/hand eye coordination/fluency of movement
(b) Skill sets such as ball handling/shooting/blocking out
(c) BBIQ involves decision making and seeing the floor and the possibilities open to the player but also the wisdom of taking advantage of those possiblities. Leadership and being coachable probably go here also.
(d) Grit/determination/mental toughness/physical ability to play well through pain.

Which of these do you consider talent?

All of it and however you want to define it. Basketball talent.

I'm a little confused by the exercise:

You explicitly state in OP to not consider athleticism.
penbeast0 lists among possible things to consider: athleticism (everything under "a" above), asking if it should be counted.
You say yes, count whatever you want.


So which are we doing? Skillset only, or all-around 'talent'?
The athletic attributes of a player would generally be considered among the full 'talent' package, and DEFINITELY it's a major factor for Chris Webber (he might [arguably] crack the top 50 if including that; he definitely does not otherwise).

trex_8063 wrote:

SNPA wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Some different things in this definition:

(a) Physical strength/quickness/leaping/hand eye coordination/fluency of movement
(b) Skill sets such as ball handling/shooting/blocking out
(c) BBIQ involves decision making and seeing the floor and the possibilities open to the player but also the wisdom of taking advantage of those possiblities. Leadership and being coachable probably go here also.
(d) Grit/determination/mental toughness/physical ability to play well through pain.

Which of these do you consider talent?

All of it and however you want to define it. Basketball talent.

I'm a little confused by the exercise:

You explicitly state in OP to not consider athleticism.
penbeast0 lists among possible things to consider: athleticism (everything under "a" above), asking if it should be counted.
You say yes, count whatever you want.


So which are we doing? Skillset only, or all-around 'talent'?
The athletic attributes of a player would generally be considered among the full 'talent' package, and DEFINITELY it's a major factor for Chris Webber (he might [arguably] crack the top 50 if including that; he definitely does not otherwise).

Not just or specifically X or Y or Z. But those things can count. Korver was a great shooter, but not a great basketball talent.

The question is about basketball talent, broadly. Define how you’d like.

The webber hate always seems extreme to me. He wasn't the most efficient or durable but he was the best player on one of the best offenses in history and stuffed the stat sheet in multiple ways. Over a 10 year period he averaged 22/10/4/1.5/1.5. are those numbers obscure and cherry picked, maybe a little. But I couldn't immediately find anyone else that hit all 5. Not LeBron, kg, giannis.

trex_8063 wrote:

SNPA wrote:All of it and however you want to define it. Basketball talent.

I'm a little confused by the exercise:

You explicitly state in OP to not consider athleticism.
penbeast0 lists among possible things to consider: athleticism (everything under "a" above), asking if it should be counted.
You say yes, count whatever you want.


So which are we doing? Skillset only, or all-around 'talent'?
The athletic attributes of a player would generally be considered among the full 'talent' package, and DEFINITELY it's a major factor for Chris Webber (he might [arguably] crack the top 50 if including that; he definitely does not otherwise).

OP is fishing for people to praise Webber but accidentally shot an own goal with that initial definition. That's why they are backtracking and broadening "talent" to anything the voter wants. But it's so vague an ordered list is pretty much impossible.

A better question would be Webber's ranking all time as a draft prospect. Is there anyone except Shaq/Duncan/Iverson over him in the 90s? I don't follow college basketball though so I will leave this discussion to others.

LA Bird wrote:A better question would be Webber's ranking all time as a draft prospect. Is there anyone except Shaq/Duncan/Iverson over him in the 90s? I don't follow college basketball though so I will leave this discussion to others.

I agree that for the 90s, Webber was probably the 3rd highest rated draftee behind Duncan and Shaq. Lots of hype at Michigan.