CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: D.o.s. on September 19, 2013, 04:09:32 PM
-
There's bit a couple articles circulating on this issue, so I figured I'd bring it to CB. Would you put Chris Webber in the Hall of Fame? Why or why not?
Personally, I would.
(I would also add a poll, if I could figure out how to.)
-
I think he deserves it, I still think his Kings got robbed of a title
-
I have no idea what hall of fame criteria is anymore...Iverson....Who undermined every coach and team he played for and played no defense at all...According to most talking heads....Is a lock. Robert Horry...Who just happened to be a champion almost everywhere he landed..Will never sniff one.
Webber fits into the Iverson mantra...Great stats.. (When he actually played) Publicly undermining his first coach and team...(But actually did play defense)..So why not?
-
I don't think so.
Very good in his prime. Top 5-7 player for a stretch. Borderline candidate but seemed to fade away in the big moments and clashed with, seemingly, every organization he ended up with. Didn't win anything either.
He had the talent but he never maximized it, IMO.
Only made 5 all-star teams and was all NBA first team only once. Doesn't scream HOFer at me.
-
Weber gets in because it's the Basketball hall of fame. Best player on and best pro from a team that made consecutive finals game appearances.
-
Weber gets in because it's the Basketball hall of fame. Best player on and best pro from a team that made consecutive finals game appearances.
I'm not sure how much weight two NCAA championship game appearances that were later stricken from the record books will play in his candidacy. IMO, not that much.
-
Bill Simmons and Zach Lowe had their take on this on the BS Report.
And I tend to agree with them. He has the numbers, accomplishments and stuff. Was considered one of the best if not the best PF in the game for a stretch and this is with KG and Tim Duncan (All NBA 1st team in 2000-01 over both) in their prime. And if not for the Lakers getting helped by the officials, he would have gotten a ring, making the enshrinement automatic.
Plus what he was in college, C-Webb should be HOF. First Ballot? Well, maybe not.
-
sorry i cant respond fully and provide a small mountain of stats, but i looked over webber's numbers and compared them to some players already in the HOF.
it seemed to me that webber belonged in the "hall of very good" more than the hall of fame. great at his peak, but his peak was not all that long. i just dont see the sustained greatness that would put him in the HOF.
but, as was noted above, this is the nba we are discussing so who knows?
-
cwebb was good, but not worthy of the hall of fame imo
-
If they're going to put T-Mac and Vince Carter in then Webber should be in too.
-
If they're going to put T-Mac and Vince Carter in then Webber should be in too.
I'd agree with that statement.
-
If they're going to put T-Mac and Vince Carter in then Webber should be in too.
I'd agree with that statement.
Of the three of them, I would say that T-Mac is the most deserving of Hall of Fame induction. In his prime, he was as good a basketball player as I've seen play.
Unfortunately for all three of them, winning is a major factor in a player's legacy, and the reality is that none of those guys did enough of it.
-
If the HOF is about accomplishment then it goes
Webb
Vince
TMac
Webber's team was one of the few that stood up to Shaq and dominated them. I absolutely don't recognize that Laker's win. It was a travesty and Joey Crawford is a joke. Nobody on Earth trusts NBA officiating and it has way more to do with Crawford and that series than Tim Donaghy. Generally Webber made most teams that he touched better and they got worse when he left. TMac was basically the exact opposite, and Vince doesn't have a lot to show for his time either.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
-
When you publicly tank for a trade as McGrady and Tank Carter both did...They should have been banished from the league...Much less the hall of fame.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
Sheed was a cancer. Webber wasn't.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
Webber was a better player and had a sigificantly better prime.
Webber is a borderline HOF candidate while Rasheed won't sniff it.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
I would agree with that analogy in a lot of ways, but Webber's numbers are much better than Sheed's.
Sheed's career numbers: 14.4/6.7/1.8 46%/33%/72%
C-Webb: 20.9/9.8/4.3 47%/29/65%
Also, for what it's worth, Basketball reference's formula has him with 75% probability to gain entry.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
-
I would trade Sheed for Webber any day (admittedly any day Webber was healthy).
I give Sheed credit for being the 4th best player on a very good team.
And for being a total cancer that decided to play hard for about 6 games just enough for his team to lose a ring.
You know how some people act like there are good cancers? Like skin cancer or something? That's Sheed.
-
Hall of the very good not a hall of famer.
-
How about we compromise....Hall of Fame...Medical wing?
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
-
My initial reaction is "No. He was quite good, but not transcendent, all-time-great level." A refresher on his stats reinforces this: He played about a dozen seasons in which his number were good to great, but in several of those he missed big chunks of time due to injury. Sure, the Kings got rooked by the officials in that Lakers series, but if my memory serves me correctly, that was the only title-contending squad he was a part of. I says he's "borderline but no."
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
You have team success a lot lower on the scale than I do.
I think team successs should go hand in hand with individual success. One without the other lowers the value of the achievement in a large way.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think HoF is about achievement rather than talent. I care less about what a guy was capable of doing to what he actually did.
I would separate them into two areas individual success + team success (relative to role) ... with both separated further into peak + longevity. With individual success being far more important when on top teams rather than mediocre or losing teams.
----------------------------------------------
With regards to team success ... role matters.
I don't give a [dang] about Mitch Richmond riding the bench in LA to get a ring. His ring is just as valuable as Adam Morrison's ring is. Or Gary Payton in Miami whose ring is just as valuable as some other 20-25mpg 7th/8th man role player.
Then onto someone like James Posey who was a difference maker as a 20-25mpg role player (6th man). To a starter like Tayshaun Prince who plays 35mpg as a key role player.
Or to a higher level with Ray Allen winning a title here in Boston as the third star in a supporting star role (like Worthy or McHale). To someone like Shaquille O'Neal who was far and away the best player on his Lakers' Championship teams.
The success is all relative to role. Leading a team to a title being most important. Supporting star second most important. Then at a much lower levels as a role player (like Horry) at various different levels.
----------------------------------------------
I look at C-Webb and I think he had 3 seasons (2000-03) where he was absolutely dominant and one of the top 10 players in the league.
(for reference and to better explain) I would compare that to somebody like Bill Walton (another guy whose career was wrecked by injuries) who only really had 2 years of top level basketball but his performance level was up there with some of the greatest players of All-Time during that period while leading his team to an NBA Championship. So that is a peak that very few players have ever touched and that instantly puts him in a special group of players and in the HoF. Because it was that special. It was that incredible of an achievement and matched with team success.
In contrast, what Webber did (top 10 player in league for 2-3 years + only one long playoff run as star player in 7-9 year period) was matched by a greater pool of players (vs B.Walton) ... so while it puts Webber in a good place, I think C-Webb still needs a fair bit more to put him over the top and into the HoF.
I would look at Webber outside of those years, in the first half of his career, as having several All-Star caliber seasons. A fairly average defender for most of this period (except for those peak years where he played with much better effort/focus defensively) + a strong rebounder + one of the best passing big men in the league throughout his entire career + a good but unexceptional scorer whose lack of go-to moves regularly made him come up short in big moments.
And then into the second half of Webber's career, post injury in 2003, I thought Webber became an empty stats player who was one of the biggest defensive liabilities in the league and that he no longer made his teams better. Hence, Webber was no longer able to be a star player. He needed to become a low minute role player to be a positive influence on his team (which didn't really happen, only kinda sorta for half a year his final season in Detroit and even that was too many minutes).
In terms of team success - Webber had a pretty good season in GSW but lost in first round as a rookie. Followed up by a couple of mediocre seasons in Washington. One so-so season in Sacramento leading to year-on-year improvement until they became one of the best sides in the West in 2001-2003. With Webber played a starring role on those teams as the best player in Sacramento. After that spell, Webber's injury-related decline set in and he had little individual success or impact on team success for the remainder of his career.
---------------------------------------------
I look at Sheed and rate him as having several All-Star caliber seasons in Portland and Detroit. So in terms of individual achievement, Sheed cannot match C-Webb's peak performance (which was short lived) but he does have a very good level of individual performance.
Now that wouldn't be enough in itself to put someone in the HoF conversation but when it is backed up with tremendous team success I think Sheed moves into the picture.
1 Championship, twice runner up (once as bench player), a total of 8 Conference Finals appearances (1 as bench player) ... I mean the man played a major role in just about every Championship for the best part of a decade. That is an incredible achievement.
It wasn't like Sheed was a passenger on those teams either. He was a defining player on those teams. The best player in Portland on a deep Blazers team and was one of the star players (supporting star?) on those Detroit Pistons team. He had major influence on all of those teams and in each of those playoff runs.
I rated Sheed as one of the best defensive forwards in the league for about a decade who could defend all three frontcourt positions at a high level. An above average passer but a mediocre rebounder (albeit better than his raw stats indicate, terrific at boxing out and keeping his own man off the glass). A solid but unexceptional scorer with a strong but underused post game and outside shot. Lacked the scoring mentality necessary (but not the skills) to take over in big moment situations.
-------------------------------------------
For me, I would need to see C-Webb have a longer peak performance (5-6 years) or more team success (more trips to CFs or Finals appearances) to put him ahead of Sheed whose team success far outweighs C-Webb's.
------------------------------------------------
I think Sheed's role as a star man (or supporting star player) on so many teams that advanced far in the playoffs (and while winning a title and coming [dang] close two other times) puts Sheed amongst a pretty rare group of players.
Basically, I think that would Sheed did was more special and worthy of being celebrated than what C-Webb did.
--------------------------------------------------------
If C-Webb hadn't of gotten hurt, I think he would have been a cert for the HoF. But he did and it happened just at the time when his team had finally risen to title-contender status and only shortly after he had finally begun to fulfill that wonderful potential of his. Just not enough time at the highest level. Injuries robbed him of that.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
Sheed was a cancer. Webber wasn't.
What team was he a cancer on?
If anyone stood up to shaqs teams it was Sheed with the blazers and then beating Shaq in the NBA finals.
Plus 3 title games 1 championship.
Oh and maybe I can't link it but lotta people on this thread are citing webber as "clashing with organizations"
Sheed clashed with some refs tho
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
I would agree with that analogy in a lot of ways, but Webber's numbers are much better than Sheed's.
Sheed's career numbers: 14.4/6.7/1.8 46%/33%/72%
C-Webb: 20.9/9.8/4.3 47%/29/65%
Also, for what it's worth, Basketball reference's formula has him with 75% probability to gain entry.
Sheed did a lot more with his teams.
And come on? If sheed retired when webber did his numbers would look better. We really including last years knicks season against him with career numbers?
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
Sheed was a cancer. Webber wasn't.
What team was he a cancer on?
If anyone stood up to shaqs teams it was Sheed with the blazers and then beating Shaq in the NBA finals.
Plus 3 title games 1 championship.
Oh and maybe I can't link it but lotta people on this thread are citing webber as "clashing with organizations"
Sheed clashed with some refs tho
On the Celtics he wasn't just cancer. He was brain cancer. I have never seen a player just mail it in like that. I lost a ton of respect for Doc that year. Yeah yeah. He had a pretty good finals where he did just enough for us to lose in the final tenths of a second in game 7. I know.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
I would agree with that analogy in a lot of ways, but Webber's numbers are much better than Sheed's.
Sheed's career numbers: 14.4/6.7/1.8 46%/33%/72%
C-Webb: 20.9/9.8/4.3 47%/29/65%
Also, for what it's worth, Basketball reference's formula has him with 75% probability to gain entry.
Sheed did a lot more with his teams.
And come on? If sheed retired when webber did his numbers would look better. We really including last years knicks season against him with career numbers?
Compare them through age 29, after which Webber's injuries really limited his play. Webber's numbers are quite a bit better.
-
I always thought Webber was in the Sheed category which most have said has no chance of getting in
I would agree with that analogy in a lot of ways, but Webber's numbers are much better than Sheed's.
Sheed's career numbers: 14.4/6.7/1.8 46%/33%/72%
C-Webb: 20.9/9.8/4.3 47%/29/65%
Also, for what it's worth, Basketball reference's formula has him with 75% probability to gain entry.
Sheed did a lot more with his teams.
And come on? If sheed retired when webber did his numbers would look better. We really including last years knicks season against him with career numbers?
Compare them through age 29, after which Webber's injuries really limited his play. Webber's numbers are quite a bit better.
Not to mention that Sheed played little enough with the Knicks that the numbers don't really move one way or the other.
For the record, I really enjoyed both players. Two defining, and very different, power forwards.
I'd put them both in the Hall if it was up to me--especially since there are so many guys who fall short of both but were almost grandfathered in due to the era that they played.
-
The BS Report does a great breakdown (as Yoki already mentioned), and as others have mentioned, killer 5 year stretch, and that awful 02 Laker series that robbed Webber of a likely title...
I agree with Bill Simmons and Lowe, 'he hits that sweetspot where some guys get in, but a lot of them don't.'
And I don't think he does.
-
The Pistons would have been at least as good with Webber instead of Wallace. Webber was such a great passer... he would have been great on that team.
-
The Pistons would have been at least as good with Webber instead of Wallace. Webber was such a great passer... he would have been great on that team.
I don't think you can really say that definitively. Webber was a great passer, Sheed was a better defender, and his role offensively on those Pistons teams was perfect for him. Webber didn't have that 48% unstoppable 15 footer like Sheed did, and well, they're different players. I think Webber would've suffered more from Wallace's presence on the offensive end than Sheed did as well. Plus, the chemistry there..it just worked. Worked like it did for Webber in Sacramento (Sheed for instance could never have done for the Kings what Webber did either).
I think they may have been better, but they also might have been worse. They would surely have been different.
-
The Pistons would have been at least as good with Webber instead of Wallace. Webber was such a great passer... he would have been great on that team.
I don't think you can really say that definitively. Webber was a great passer, Sheed was a better defender, and his role offensively on those Pistons teams was perfect for him. Webber didn't have that 48% unstoppable 15 footer like Sheed did, and well, they're different players. I think Webber would've suffered more from Wallace's presence on the offensive end than Sheed did as well. Plus, the chemistry there..it just worked. Worked like it did for Webber in Sacramento (Sheed for instance could never have done for the Kings what Webber did either).
I think they may have been better, but they also might have been worse. They would surely have been different.
Maybe not definitively but I think the chances that the Pistons would've been just as good with Webber instead of Wallace are pretty good. The biggest hit on paper is on defense not necessarily because Webber was a bad defender but because Rasheed was an excellent one who fit perfectly with Ben. Still, looking at Webber's and Sacramento's defensive ratings, Webber's ratings were outstanding and Sacramento finished in the top 10 on defense four times (10th, 7th, 6th and 2nd). The season he came back late from microfracture, Sacramento fell to 21st on defense from 2nd. Maybe Detroit wouldn't have been historically elite on defense like the year they won the championship, but they would still have been at the top.
On offense, Detroit would've been different without Rasheed stretching the floor and Webber commanding more of the offense in the post but because neither Hamilton or Billups were prolific drivers to the hoop, having Webber and Wallace take up space in the paint wouldn't have affected their game as much. And while Webber's scoring ability was overrated because his efficiency was low, his outstanding passing would've fit well with the excellent shooting of Hamilton and Billups.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
No. Who on here said that?
I don't think Vince Carter belongs in the Hall of Fame.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
God yes. Absolutely yes.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
You have team success a lot lower on the scale than I do.
Not really.I think you're just misinterpreting what I wrote or maybe I wasn't clear enough.
In a nutshell, I think the gap between Webber & Wallace, big picture wise, is big enough where the team successes of Wallace isn't enough to put him on the same level as Webber.
Like I mentioned before, though, I don't think either really belong in the HOF although I would consider Webber "borderline" and Wallace not.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
No. Who on here said that?
I don't think Vince Carter belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Vince carters individual success easily outweighs Manu Ginoblis.
There's another thread about ginobli being a lock for HOF. I actually commented on it cause of a Van gundy comment during a broadcast referring to him as. "Sure fire hall of famer" which I thought was pretty bold.
Was Vince carter one of the best in the game during a few year span? I'd say so. Was Ginobli? Never even close.
I'm taking a wild guess that you (if not you prob 75% on this blog) would rate Ginobli over carter in yerms of the hall
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
God yes. Absolutely yes.
I like the consistency. You either weigh individual or peak play more than team success. Thats all a matter of preference and that's fine. Some people rate team success higher some rate individual performance higher. It will be hard to argue with someone who rates one or the other higher since they have their own thoughts in what's more important.
Which really turns the discussion into what does everyone think are the most important things which people talk about all the time
-
The issue I always had, and I know a lot of Sacramento fans felt the same way because I lived there for several years during the Webber years, was this: even on those great teams Webber was never really "the man."
On those great teams Vlade made the offense go, running things out of the low post. If the Kings needed a big hoop, you wanted Bibby to take the shot.
Webber was one of those guys who you never really trusted to produce, or even make the right decision, late in games. Nor did he dominate big playoff games the way the greats do. His numbers would end up being good, but in a surprising way - "Webb had 24/12? Really?"
This is important to me, because a lot of the Sheed/Webber debate above discusses team success. I generally think team success is overrated by some people, but in this case it's important because if Webber had come up bigger, he would have a ring - so in his case, individual success and team success are actually pretty close to the same thing.
That pushes against his case in my opinion.
-
I distrust that sort of train of thought Boris, because people have said the same thing about KG on this board even during the 2007-2008 title run.
This despite us running our offense through KG in the post when it wasn't Pierce on the elbow, KG being our leading scorer in the playoffs, and our leading scorer in the fourth quarter in the playoffs.
I'm betting you'd find the same thing going on in Sacramento if you ran that tape. I don't recall the offense being run through Divac, but instead Webber. Once a dude is declared "not the guy" people make their memories match the facts they "know".
I think there is something to the criticism of Webber not being aggressive enough for his own individual offense, but I think its wildly overblown.
-
I am really surprised people have Webber ahead of or even equal to Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed had a far far more successful career. An NBA title. A 2nd Finals appearance where he came within minutes of back-to-back titles. 2 more Conference Finals appearances in Portland. Plus another 3 in Detroit. And then finally one last Finals appearance in here in Boston as a key bench player. That is 3 Finals appearances and 8 trips to the Conference Finals. Repeat that again. 1 title, 3 trips to the Finals and 8 years in the Conference Finals.
What did Chris Webber do? No Championship. No trips to the Finals. Only once ... ONCE!!! ... did he lead his team to the Conference Finals in Sacramento. And then once again, a 2nd Conference Finals trip, in Detroit (thanks to Sheed and Co.) as a role player.
Webber had a higher peak but it was too short. Injuries took his best years away from him. That brief period dDoesn't make up for the HUGE difference in team success between the two of them.
I am not sold on Webber in the HoF (peak too short, not enough team success) but I definitely think Sheed should be there along with Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. The four of them.
The success they achieved together in Detroit was terrific. 7 50 win seasons. 6 conference finals showings. 2 Finals appearances. 1 NBA Title. Played a key role in every Title for 6 straight seasons.
Plus, Sheed had his successes in Portland + Chauncey in Denver + to a lesser extent, Big Ben in Cleveland + Rip had the NCAA title but not the team success in NBA outside of Detroit.
It's simple.
Team success is only one of the attributes to consider when evaluating a player for HOF purposes.
Webber was a better basketball player. The stats spell that out. Watching him played spelled that out to me.
Webber was simply more talented.
Webber was the better talent & Sheed had the better team successes.
I'll use team success as a tiebreaker if I feel 2 guys are on the same plane. These two were not.
That being said, Webber is borderline HOF while Sheed is not.
So we are talking Vimce carter as head and shoulders above manu ginobli for HOF?
No. Who on here said that?
I don't think Vince Carter belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Vince carters individual success easily outweighs Manu Ginoblis.
There's another thread about ginobli being a lock for HOF. I actually commented on it cause of a Van gundy comment during a broadcast referring to him as. "Sure fire hall of famer" which I thought was pretty bold.
Was Vince carter one of the best in the game during a few year span? I'd say so. Was Ginobli? Never even close.
I'm taking a wild guess that you (if not you prob 75% on this blog) would rate Ginobli over carter in yerms of the hall
Manu is a very interesting case because of the international items and the fact that its the Basketball Hall of Fame and not NBA Hall of Fame.
Based on the entire picture, I think he has a much better case for the HOF than Carter. What he achieved in Europe, in the Olympics, and with the Spurs makes for a pretty dynamic career.
I think if you just go off of NBA, then my answer would be "No". However, taking in his entire basketball career, I think he probably is.
What do you think?
-
Given past international candidates and whom has been admitted, Manu is an absolute shoe in for the HoF.
-
Given past international candidates and whom has been admitted, Manu is an absolute shoe in for the HoF.
Yeah, I'm inclined to think the same thing. The international stuff will put him over the top.
-
Interesting to note, Carter's HOF probability is .7678 which ranks 80th (Webber is 83rd at .7459) while Manu ranks 159 at .1331.
Of course, the author's model doesn't seem to incorporate anything that occurred outside the NBA (unless you want to consider height).
EDIT: Rasheed is #209 at .0472
-
I think I drafted Webber in the first round of one of our Historical Drafts. Absolutely loved the guy for what he could do on the court, and was entranced by his swagger.
But there's just no way the guys a hall of famer. A hand full of solid years where he's the third best power forward in the league? A guy who never seemed to elevate his game when the team needed it most? No way. If you're going to do it on small sample sizes Penny Hardaway's a more deserving candidate.
-
I distrust that sort of train of thought Boris, because people have said the same thing about KG on this board even during the 2007-2008 title run.
This despite us running our offense through KG in the post when it wasn't Pierce on the elbow, KG being our leading scorer in the playoffs, and our leading scorer in the fourth quarter in the playoffs.
I'm betting you'd find the same thing going on in Sacramento if you ran that tape. I don't recall the offense being run through Divac, but instead Webber. Once a dude is declared "not the guy" people make their memories match the facts they "know".
I think there is something to the criticism of Webber not being aggressive enough for his own individual offense, but I think its wildly overblown.
I was skeptical enough of my own memories that I tried to find the data, but couldn't.
But I am 100% certain that the doubts I had, along with many other fans, were in place during that time, and not developed after the fact.
This Grantland article discusses the evidence in some detail. There's a solid factual basis for the view that he was a subpar playoff performer. There's evidence of success too, but it's true at a minimum that Webber is not one of those guys like Rondo who consistently elevated his game when it counted.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9682949/chris-webber-hall-fame-case
-
Boris the vast majority of players decline performance wise in the playoffs.
Jordan*
Pierce
Kobe
KG
etc.
All declined in the playoffs. Rondo is a rare bird.
*Jordan doesn't show as much of a decline as others because he played those two terrible (by his standards) seasons in Washington which compromised of 12% of his regular season minutes. Those drag down his "overall" numbers quite a bit actually and he didn't make the playoffs those years
As for the doubts, the doubts about KG were in place at the time too. They were just as wrong. Real time narrative building also happens, no matter the facts. That offense was built around Webber not Divac.
-
Of course now looking at it Rondo didn't really increase his performance statistically in the playoffs either. Looks like he's about the same instead of declining overall. His better TOs and rebounds are offset by worse efficiency shooting (teams playing off and forcing jumpers when they've prepped for him is my shoot from the hip guess)
-
Boris the vast majority of players decline performance wise in the playoffs.
Jordan*
Pierce
Kobe
KG
etc.
All declined in the playoffs. Rondo is a rare bird.
*Jordan doesn't show as much of a decline as others because he played those two terrible (by his standards) seasons in Washington which compromised of 12% of his regular season minutes. Those drag down his "overall" numbers quite a bit actually and he didn't make the playoffs those years
As for the doubts, the doubts about KG were in place at the time too. They were just as wrong. Real time narrative building also happens, no matter the facts. That offense was built around Webber not Divac.
Magic, Bird, Lebron each had similar playoff vs regular season statistical production. That means each of these superstar players didn't produce any better nor worse than they did in the regular season.
I think for most players, production is most likely to fall in the playoffs so I agree.
If you can put up the same production against the supposedly better teams in the league in a series of games where defensive strategies and gameplans can focus on stopping you more...well I think you are doing your job as best as you can.
I think if we were to find a player who significantly increases his production in the playoffs it would have to come from a role player maybe.
-
I found, Dirk, Hakeem and Allen Iverson each increased their production in the playoffs by a small non-huge margin.
-
Of course now looking at it Rondo didn't really increase his performance statistically in the playoffs either. Looks like he's about the same instead of declining overall. His better TOs and rebounds are offset by worse efficiency shooting (teams playing off and forcing jumpers when they've prepped for him is my shoot from the hip guess)
Rondo's per36 scoring is about 1.5 points higher in the playoffs than the regular season. That's actually an unusually large increase for players that have been in a decent amount of playoff games. You're more likely than not to see lower production, which is what you'd expect considering that defense is much better in the playoffs.
-
Boris the vast majority of players decline performance wise in the playoffs.
Jordan*
Pierce
Kobe
KG
etc.
All declined in the playoffs. Rondo is a rare bird.
*Jordan doesn't show as much of a decline as others because he played those two terrible (by his standards) seasons in Washington which compromised of 12% of his regular season minutes. Those drag down his "overall" numbers quite a bit actually and he didn't make the playoffs those years
As for the doubts, the doubts about KG were in place at the time too. They were just as wrong. Real time narrative building also happens, no matter the facts. That offense was built around Webber not Divac.
I wasn't talking so much about overall stats - like others have said there are reasons to underweight a pure statistical comparison.
But in my opinion Webber never dominated a key playoff series the way so many other greats have. That's what I was referring to with Rondo. Bird did it. So did Jordan, Hakeem, Magic etc...
-
If it was upto me, I'd vote for him just because of this: ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qoSXxWHV7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qoSXxWHV7Q)
-
I can't figure out to give him points for dating Tyra Banks or take them away for not marrying her
-
Weber gets in because it's the Basketball hall of fame. Best player on and best pro from a team that made consecutive finals game appearances.
I'm not sure how much weight two NCAA championship game appearances that were later stricken from the record books will play in his candidacy. IMO, not that much.
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Paul-Pierce-Smile-and-Shock.gif)
-
If people argue that Webber should have a title because the refs handed that conference Finals series to LA so that should enhance his HOF chances, then I think it fair to also mention his actions handed over an NCAA championship to North Carolina because he choked mentally at the end of a championship game.
Either way, the man won nothing.
I also think injuries curtailed what would have been a lot of years with much better numbers making his career numbers much lower and costing him "sure fire HOF status"
All that said, I don't think he deserves to get in but because the HOF of basketball isn't nearly as selective as the other HOF's of other sports, he gets in. Eventually.
-
Webber had 6 seasons of at least 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 4 assists. 3 more of at least 20, 9 and 3.4. A bunch of other really good statistical seasons. All of this while being fairly consistently injured. He took a number of pretty sub par teams to the playoffs. He is basically Kevin Garnett without the trade to Boston or a better version of Chris Bosh without Miami.
He is also a better player than a number of players in the HOF and there aren't that many that are eligible that aren't in that are better than him (I can't actually think of one). I think he probably gets in someday, but not on the first ballot, especially if his time at Michigan is counted.
-
Webber is somewhat close to KG if KG retired after minnesota
-
Webber is somewhat close to KG if KG retired after minnesota
Sure, if KG played defense like Webber.
-
Webber had 6 seasons of at least 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 4 assists. 3 more of at least 20, 9 and 3.4. A bunch of other really good statistical seasons. All of this while being fairly consistently injured. He took a number of pretty sub par teams to the playoffs. He is basically Kevin Garnett without the trade to Boston or a better version of Chris Bosh without Miami.
He is also a better player than a number of players in the HOF and there aren't that many that are eligible that aren't in that are better than him (I can't actually think of one). I think he probably gets in someday, but not on the first ballot, especially if his time at Michigan is counted.
That's true, but that's a very tricky idea and precedent to set.
-
KG's peak at Minnesota was much better than Webber's.
Similar scoring (KG was more efficient there though too) and passing, much better defense and rebounding. Makes a big difference when your peak is MVP and if your peak was merely all-nba.
-
KG's peak at Minnesota was much better than Webber's.
Similar scoring (KG was more efficient there though too) and passing, much better defense and rebounding. Makes a big difference when your peak is MVP and if your peak was merely all-nba.
Agreed, but I do think Webber was a better passer and ballhandler than KG.
Although I guess that depends on how much you value flashy passing and handles.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy5AhhCY8ZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy5AhhCY8ZY)
Garnett's had a couple of flashy passes.
-
Totally. Not trying to denigrate KG at all.
But KG couldn't run the break like C-Webb.
-
Totally. Not trying to denigrate KG at all.
But KG couldn't run the break like C-Webb.
Can't argue with that.
-
KG's peak at Minnesota was much better than Webber's.
Similar scoring (KG was more efficient there though too) and passing, much better defense and rebounding. Makes a big difference when your peak is MVP and if your peak was merely all-nba.
much better is a stretch. Webber was a better and more varied offensive player. Much higher peak ppg, more post moves, and a longer range on the jump shot. Webber was a much better ball handler and they were both excellent passers (Webber actually has a better career AST%). KG was obviously a better rebounder (though some of that is who they played with and Webber was actually a better offensive rebounder) and a significantly better defensive player overall (though Webber was a pretty good shot blocker and his man defense was always underrated). KG was/is better but their peaks aren't so far off that a comparison is silly.
-
Hypothetical: swap KG onto those Sac teams and Webber onto Minny.
How do things unfold?
-
KG's peak at Minnesota was much better than Webber's.
Similar scoring (KG was more efficient there though too) and passing, much better defense and rebounding. Makes a big difference when your peak is MVP and if your peak was merely all-nba.
much better is a stretch. Webber was a better and more varied offensive player. Much higher peak ppg, more post moves, and a longer range on the jump shot. Webber was a much better ball handler and they were both excellent passers (Webber actually has a better career AST%). KG was obviously a better rebounder (though some of that is who they played with and Webber was actually a better offensive rebounder) and a significantly better defensive player overall (though Webber was a pretty good shot blocker and his man defense was always underrated). KG was/is better but their peaks aren't so far off that a comparison is silly.
Not a stretch at all. The PPG difference is a few points which is mostly explained by a much faster pace and slightly higher usage by Webber. Meanwhile KG had superior efficiency at their best, gave him a higher ORTG, PER, ARPM, win shares, every way you can measure it.
KG had a higher assist percentage at their peaks too, his career is lower because he's still playing as an offensive role player. Also KG was a better offensive rebounder at their peaks, Webber had right around 7 during his KG was at around 9. KG has just played longer his offensive rebounding declined as he aged and played more seasons and minutes as an older player (plus coaching wise Doc had him bail on it to play D).
Webber had a better low post game, but KG had his killer face up game in the high post and an underrated post game himself.
So yeah KG had a much better peak that was also longer (I was really sad for Webber when he blew his knee right in the middle of his), I think the difference between MVP caliber peak and an all-nba talent is significant one.
-
Hypothetical: swap KG onto those Sac teams and Webber onto Minny.
How do things unfold?
I think the Kings may have been champions a couple times with KG. I don't think much would have changed with Webber on the Wolves.
-
Hypothetical: swap KG onto those Sac teams and Webber onto Minny.
How do things unfold?
I think the Kings may have been champions a couple times with KG. I don't think much would have changed with Webber on the Wolves.
Agreed. Those Kings teams would have benefited hugely from having someone with a tougher mental attitude. And KG never had shot makers like Peja and Bibby around him.
-
Hypothetical: swap KG onto those Sac teams and Webber onto Minny.
How do things unfold?
I think the Kings may have been champions a couple times with KG. I don't think much would have changed with Webber on the Wolves.
Would've had a title in '02. Other than that, not sure. West was so good during that period.
-
Hypothetical: swap KG onto those Sac teams and Webber onto Minny.
How do things unfold?
I think the Kings may have been champions a couple times with KG. I don't think much would have changed with Webber on the Wolves.
Would've had a title in '02. Other than that, not sure. West was so good during that period.
But KG is a "culture changer" as they say. Webber was along for the flashy ride, and he was awesome for a couple of years. I just think the Kings would have had a whole different attitude and some extra nastiness and accountability if KG were on that team.