Grantland discusses CWebs HOF chances
Title says it all. Discuss.
PS. It would be great if this didn't become another discussion about how everyone feels about Webber's current relationship with Michigan but I know that is unlikely.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9682949/chris-webber-hall-fame-case
Edit:
The quick and easy version:
Pros
-maybe the greatest passing big man ever
-played with style
-numbers say he belongs
-if the refs didn't rob him of a 2002 championship he is a lock
Cons
-very short prime
-no championships
-shrank a bit in the playoffs
-may have been a lazy defender/rebounder and was somewhatbonehead mistake prone
September 17th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^
#9 on the all-time list at $178M.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
for what it's worth, LeBron James falls at #24 and Michael Jordan at #87. This doesn't seem to be a valid metric for HOF rationale.
September 17th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
I love Chris Webber and tend to side with him over Dave Brandon about bringing him back into the fold at Michigan.
That being said, consider this:
- There are 82 games in a NBA season.
- Chris Webber only had 4 seasons over a 14 year career in which he played at least 70 games (!!!)
- He was drafted by Orlando and promptly traded to Golden State.
- He lasted one year at Golden State before he was traded to Washington.
- Four more seasons at Washington before he left for Sacramento.
- 6.5 seasons at Sacramento before essentially becoming irrelevant (he did have the 2005-2006 season with the Sixers where he averaged 20.2 points and 9.9 rebounds per game, while playing in 75 - the second most of his career).
Yes he was a fantastic talent. Yes he had those memorable runs with Sacramento and pushed them over the top. But as a career in whole? No way he is a HOF player. Way too injury prone. Never won the big games. Traded too many times. Just my opinion.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
and you come away so wowed. . . but the breaks of the game for him were such that he just never had the impact. (He's been compensated for the lack, my word!)
I'd suggest he might be one of those guys who doesn't go in immediately but later is recognized for the style, beauty of his game--ten years up the road.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
I would also like to add:
Per basketball reference dot com:
- Similarity Scores compare to (in order of 'most like CWebb' in terms of overall career): Lou Hudson, Ben Wallace, Lamar Odom, Paul Silas, Glen Rice, Terry Cummings, Kiki Vandeweghe, James Worthy, Peja Stojakovic, Cliff Hagan (not exactly HOF worthy)
- He won as many NBA MVP titles as I have
- He was only present on 5 All Star teams
- Made all NBA First Team only once in his career
I really don't see an argument for why he should ever be in the HOF, much less why Grantland is discussing it in the first place. Especially since he came into the NBA when the talent was relatively weak - he should have dominated. I mean, one All NBA FIrst Team? 5 All Stars?
I just had to check and the only players in the HOF who played in the 80's or later and had 5 all star game appearances or less:
- Reggie Miller (5)
- Chris Mullin (5)
- Bernard King (4)
- Ralph Sampson (4)
Sampson hit a game winning shot to send the Rockets to the Finals (and otherwise had stats similar to Webber - career marred by injuries and not living up to lofty college-based expecatations) and was probably the most dominant college player of his era.
King won a scoring title and finished on 1st team all NBA twice.
Mullin was white.
Miller had a talented sister that played basketball.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:46 PM ^
of talent....they are chosen by fans.
September 17th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
Only the starters are voted by the fans. The reserves are voted by head coaches.
September 17th, 2013 at 6:41 PM ^
Thank you, jmblue. Looks like you just got served other guy!
September 17th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
None of those teams were particularly good.
They would have gotten killed (and some of htem did) in the late 80's and early 90's. And don't stack up with the best teams now, either. After Jordan's run the league took a talent hit. Their best players were very young, and only a few of them were all timers.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
It's not that there wasn't talent in the NBA in the 1990s, it's just that it was a little watered-down compared to the '80s due to expansion. There were still good players, but not as many good players per team. In the late '80s there were 23 teams. By 1995 there were 29. That's a big change in under a decade, expanding the league by over 25%. It's taken awhile for the talent pool to catch up. You could see this in the playoff contenders then - they tended to be very top-heavy, without much depth. The Bulls of the '90s were a great team, but I don't think they ever faced opposition as tough as the '80s Lakers, Celtics or Pistons.
September 17th, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
Yes, this.
Look at the teams around 2000 - time around when Webber was 29-30 - he should have been dominating the league for the 4 years around that point because the pool was diluted and he had the talent. He made a Western Conf Finals and should have made a Finals.
He is our Ralph Sampson, only not nearly as good of a story...
September 17th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 8:07 PM ^
is membership awarded for career or NBA? Guess it's probably career. Webber was arguably as dominant a college player as Sampson, and likely had more impact on how the game is played.
September 17th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^
I don't know. Webber was an awesome, awesome college player, but Ralph Sampson was considered one of the greatest college players of all-time. Sampson also stayed four years in school, so he had longer to cement his legacy. Webber's college legacy is of course well-known too, but it's tied up with his Fab Five classmates.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
For PPG, Webber is ranked #43 all-time, ahead of guys like Clyde Drexler, Moses Malone, Tim Duncan, Spencer Haywood, Garnett, Gail Goodrich, Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, etc., #52 all-time for RPG, #53 for blocks, and all that is especially impressive considering he was hampered by injury for a large part of his career. He may not be a first ballot, no brainer, type of player, but he is HOF worthy on his numbers alone.
September 17th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
Bad stat considering how many games he missed. He averaged only 58 games per (and that's not counting his final year). All those players you list scored many more points than webber (17k), except haywood who isn't in the hall, afaik. give webber another 15-20 games per year and he would probably be a lock, but that's the equivalent of 3-4 full seasons. Mullen was probably the best pure shooter of his era. He shot over 50% from the field; unheard of anymore.
September 17th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
Perhaps his PPG would have been even higher had he played, which would only bolster his candidacy. If I understand you correct, you are assuming his PPG would have been lower if you factored in all those missed games, correct? PPG aside, Webber is #80 in all-time career points, #51 in career blocks, #79 in all-time steals, 59th all-time in rebounds. As you said, he missed out about 3-4 seasons and was not always 100% when he did play, so in light of that, these rankings are pretty darn good. Like I said, I do not think that he is a first ballot/slam dunk HOFer; I simply disagreed with the wholehearted statement that he is "in no way a HOF player".
September 17th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
I think his point is that his PPG would be lower, yes. But in the grand scheme of things TOTAL stats matter more than per game stats. Webber missed a TON of games, so his total stats are MUCH worse than his PPG stats.
September 17th, 2013 at 8:47 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 2:03 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
They passed on probably the greatest frontcourt of all time, and instead got a guy who took too much spotlight from Shaq and had him leave for LA. Webber would have had no problem playing second fiddle to Shaq; I mean, he did it with Jalen. With Webber's passing and range they could have co-existed. And they would have had a big man for fast break situations that always left Shaq in the dust. I always wondered where Webber would be if that trade hadn't gone through.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:31 PM ^
Penny did not chase Shaq to L.A. Shaq always had the publicity whore gene, didn't hide that he wanted the Lakers to hit the lottery for him in '92 and he had delusions of becoming a movie star. Sadly, Orlando always should have known they had him on a four-year loan.
I do agree that Webber/Shaq would have been ridiculous for those first few years, though. Perfect compliments to each other.
September 17th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
Also, Webber was traded from Golden State to Washington because of a feud with the head coach (Don Nelson), not because they didn't think he was good enough or anything.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
Golden State choosing Nelson over Webber in that feud was one of the dumbest decisions ever and other NBA teams took note. That trade was arguably the beginning of player power and extreme vulnerability for coaches.
September 17th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^
Magic Johnson actually was involved in a similar feud with Paul Westhead in the early '80s. There, the Lakers made the right choice and canned Westhead.
September 17th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
I agree with everything you said. However, I think he makes it. Why?
Because I think the threshold to make it into the Basketball HOF is incredibly low. Guys like Mullen and King (and dare I say Dumars, sorry Pistons fans) were very, very good players. But they probably weren't great players or elite players and I think they wouldn't get in if we were talking about the standards of the Baseball or Pro Football HOF.
But you have smaller rosters (and thus less players that played over the years), but are still inducting at least the same number of players per year (if not more) than football and are certainly inducting many more players per year than baseball.
As good as he was, and as much as I love(d) CWebb, it's hard not to look at his pro career and think he could have been so much more.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
He's a borderline HoF. In his prime he was one of the best 4-5 players in the league, but that lasted all of 3-4 years and there was baggage along the way. I know people point at guys like Dumars and Dantley as other guys who were on the lower end of admittance, but I still think they are probably more deserving at this point. The problem Webber really had was that he played in an where Shaq and Kobe kind of dominated the Western Conference and Tim Duncan was also in his prime, meaning he didn't have a great chance to win a little or otherwise play on the big stage. The same is kind of true with KG - he was a better player in his prime, but when he landed in Boston and won a title, the narrative changed from a guy who only got one team out of the first round of the playoffs to this grizzled champion. I honestly think had Webber been able to win a title after leaving Sacramento, even as a secondary starter, he'd have a better chance of making the hall.
September 17th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
Dumars, in all honestly (I am a Piston fan), probably shouldn't be in the Hall. In his prime he was very good, but never a franchise player, and his peak performance years didn't last all that long. His reputation as a great character guy undoubtedly helped him.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:34 PM ^
Jordan and Reggie Miller both called Dumars the best defender they ever faced. That counts for a lot.
DPOY is a joke because it's voted on by hack reporters who only look at blocks and steals. If games were actually watched, Dumars would have had more than a few of those awards.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
Webber doesn't seem like a Hall of Famer at all. Hugely talented and often fun to watch but what's he ever really accomplished?
Now if we were talking about a Hall of Infamy, he'd be a first ballot inductee.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
Many probably would not consider Webber a first ballot, for some of the reasons you mentioned - short prime (5X All-Star), no championships, average in the playoffs, - but on numbers alone, I think many would agree that he should eventually get the nod. He has very strong career numbers - 20.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.2 apg - and an impressive peak production. I think his career numbers would have been even greater, and perhaps he could have won a championship, had he not been slowed down by that bad knee injury in 2002. Despite that, like I said, his numbers are very strong and he should, eventually, get into the hall. Grant Hill and Alonzo Mourning are another two players whose super star potential and a very strong early career derailed by injuries/health issues. Mourning will probably eventually get in but I am not sure about Hill.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^
It's impossible to have this discussion without looking at Webber's time at Michigan. Remember, the other three major sports HOF's all pretty much exclusively look at a players professional career... the basketball HOF is different in that it looks at the totality of a players career including what they did while an amateur/college player.
Is it possible that the negativity surrounding Webber's college days could keep him out as a borderline candidate? I think it could.
September 17th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^
When did I say there was an "NHL HOF"? Well aware of the HHOF... I've played hockey since I was 7. HHOF has been criticized for years for focusing only on NHL careers while largely ignoring other pro leagues (WHA) and International accomplishments. It wasn't until the past decade that they've started looking at international and female players. Again, this contrasts with the Basketball HOF which looks at the totality of your amateur/professional/post-professional career.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^
It isn't the NBA hall of fame, it is just the basketball hall of fame. So his time in college should add bonus points. Also, guys like Rodman, Gary Payton, Chris Mullin, Ralph Sampson, and a host of others who don't come to mind immediately as Hall of Famers are already in.
I don't see how you keep him out under the current circumstances.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^
"I don't see how you keep him out"
Dude....you lock the doors. It's pretty simple, really. Unless he has the key, then that complicates things.
;)
September 17th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
But then I remember the basketball hall of fame is just about the easiest to get into. They let in everybody. So why not Webber?
September 17th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
Gary Payton isn't a HOFer? Really? That's one of the worst examples you could think of. He was a slam dunk HOF under any metric.
September 17th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^
Reflexively, I found myself thinking "hall of very good," then I saw that the article was written by Zach Lowe, knew it would be incredibly well reasoned and documented, and immediately changed my mind.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^
If the NBA did not fix the 2002 Western Conference Finals (and I say that with zero hesitation of sounding like a nut - it really was fixed), would this even be a debate? I think he'd be a cinch. The Kings would have rolled over that weak Nets squad in the Finals and Webber would have been the best player on a title team.
September 17th, 2013 at 6:27 PM ^
I completely agree that that series was fixed and I completely agree that, had it not been, Webber would be a lock for the HOF but you can't really take that into account now for whether or not he gets in.
September 17th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^
If an exception should be made, that is it. I think Webber's legacy needs to be totally re-evaluated after that series. To me, it's the biggest scandal in the history of sports that never really broke big in the mainstream.
That David Stern is taking a victory lap as commissioner right now instead of in jail or in seclusion as a disgraced man simply blows my mind.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:45 PM ^
For all the people who say they don't like pro basketball, I urge you to read all of Zach Lowe's columns and then give it another try. He is a fantastic analyst, IMO. Or you could continue to love college basketball and read Drew Sharp.
BOOM FALSE DICHOTOMY'D