Chris Webber HOF?

[Bricklayer]

After the inductions of Chris Mullin, Artis Gilmore, and Dennis Rodman?

This was of course talked about when Webb retired, and at the time the consensus was that he was borderline, but might be just on the outside looking in. The injury, off court issues, and our inability to nab that ring were all seen as maybe just enough to keep one of the most talented players ever at his position out of the HOF.

But now all of a sudden a dam of some sort seemed to have burst with this year's HOF class. Artis Gilmore, who has been waiting two decades, was finally let in. Chris Mullin, who Dream Team aside had many of the same markers Webb did -- injury prone, off court problems (alcoholic), never won the big one -- gets in. And Dennis Rodman, who I always thoguht should be in but the consensus was would never have a chance, makes it despite being one of the ugliest off the court personas in NBA history. Meanwhile Webb has emerged as a charismatic bball analyst keeping him right there in the NBA spotlight rubbing elbows.

So the question is, after this most recent HOF class, is Chris Webber now inevitably going to make it to the HOF?

 

[=LarryLegend=]

I might be the wrong person to ask because he is my favorite player off all-time besides Larry Bird but.... 20.7pts 9.8rebs 4.2asts career avgs (rare company), rookie of the year, first pick in 1993, rebounding title, 5 time allstar and 5 time all nba.

also fab five...the good part, great highschool player aswell.

I really think he should be he was a star.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't know whether he'll make it or not, but he should. The dude averaged over 20 points and over 10 rebounds for like seven straight seasons and it would have been 10+ seasons if he hadn't gotten injured. His pre-injury numbers are pretty close to Barkley and Malone's career numbers. He made the game look easy. Plus he was the best player on one of the leagues best teams.

 

[Sac.1989]

He'll make it if we use the same precedent as Mullin

 

[Gary]

A lot of people LAUGHED AT ME, but I have a feeling that Ben Wallace will make it now too.. Laugh as you will, the guy was a defensive monster and has rings..

 

[hrdboild]

A lot of people LAUGHED AT ME, but I have a feeling that Ben Wallace will make it now too.. Laugh as you will, the guy was a defensive monster and has rings..

He did play sortof a Rodman role. And he was a defensive monster his first stint in Detroit. I'd like his chances better if he had even 1 good year in Chicago though. His career peaked early and his long decline makes it hard to remember how good he once was. There was also that whole brawl incident he had a role in starting.

I would have said borderline, no for CWebb before Mullin got in. Now I think it should be yes. Also when you look around at this generation of players he does stand out as one of the best -- lacking only in longevity and championships. So if the standard is relaxing, or if it's set relative to a player's peers, I think he's got a strong case.

 

[chief bromden]

He'll make it if we use the same precedent as Mullin

He would have to, right?

I would have thought that it could go either way with Webber with his productive career cut short and not winning a title, but after Mullin (!) it has to be guaranteed.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm a small hall guy but f it, if those guys are in...

 

[est.1999]

Ben Wallace? I don't think he has a chance in hell.

 

[bozzwell]

After the inductions of Chris Mullin, Artis Gilmore, and Dennis Rodman?

This was of course talked about when Webb retired, and at the time the consensus was that he was borderline, but might be just on the outside looking in. The injury, off court issues, and our inability to nab that ring were all seen as maybe just enough to keep one of the most talented players ever at his position out of the HOF.

But now all of a sudden a dam of some sort seemed to have burst with this year's HOF class. Artis Gilmore, who has been waiting two decades, was finally let in. Chris Mullin, who Dream Team aside had many of the same markers Webb did -- injury prone, off court problems (alcoholic), never won the big one -- gets in. And Dennis Rodman, who I always thoguht should be in but the consensus was would never have a chance, makes it despite being one of the ugliest off the court personas in NBA history. Meanwhile Webb has emerged as a charismatic bball analyst keeping him right there in the NBA spotlight rubbing elbows.

So the question is, after this most recent HOF class, is Chris Webber now inevitably going to make it to the HOF?

Yes, absolutely, of course.

The only question (well, more like a what-if then a question) for me is: If Chris won a championship and stayed healthy would we be debating whether he is the best PF of all time?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think that Rodman should have made it regardless, but if Mullin and Gilmore got in, there is certainly precedent.

 

[bajaden]

I'm sort of borderline on this one. The fan side of me that loves Webb says yes, and the historical side of me, that wants only the best of the best says no. To be fair, if you go back and look at some of the early entries into the HOF, a lot of them wouldn't make it in today. You wouldn't even know who some of them are. My point is, that as the talent has increased, its gotten harder to get into the HOF. And perhaps thats fair. Perhaps the times should reflect the criteria.

Having said all that, it appears to me that with the latest entrys, to some extent, they've lowered the standards a little. This in not to belittle Chris Mullins, who I loved as a player. But he stands in the shadow of players like George Gervin, Julius Irving, and Michael Jordan. If in fact, those players are the standard by which admission is to be judged.

Personally, I believe that any player admitted into the HOF should be a complete player that played both ends of the floor. I can't say that Webb, or Mullins falls into the catagory. Not that they didn't try, its that they weren't physically capable. However, if Mullins can gain admission to the HOF, then Webb deserves to be there as well.

 

[uolj]

Posted many times before but here is DatabaseBasketball's Hall of Fame Monitor:

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadershof.htm

Likely HOF is anything over 135. Webber has a 139.

Take a look at the middle column. Everybody above Webber is pretty much a shoo-in, right? Look at the third column. The only eligible players with scores higher than Webber are Gilmore, who just got in, and some dude name Paul Westphal. Mullin has a 120 and Rodman has 118.

Obviously there's more to the basketball Hall of Fame than just NBA statistics like what are used in this rating, which is why Mullin or Rodman might get in. But Webber's time at Michigan should factor in as well.

So I'd say yes, Webber should be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Wouldn't Webber's time at Michigan work against him, given it has been wiped from the record books due to the money scandal? Not that I think that is fair or anything, but I always assumed that was going to be a strike on his resume.

bajaden, I'm not going to quote your post but very well said. Sums up my sentiments as a "small hall" guy but also as a fan.

 

[uolj]

Personally, I believe that any player admitted into the HOF should be a complete player that played both ends of the floor. I can't say that Webb, or Mullins falls into the catagory. Not that they didn't try, its that they weren't physically capable.

Wait, what? I didn't see this before, but Webber played defense.

I searched for some defensive statistic to back up my recollection and found defensive win shares from basketball-reference.com:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

Webber is 50th all time.

 

[uolj]

Wouldn't Webber's time at Michigan work against him, given it has been wiped from the record books due to the money scandal? Not that I think that is fair or anything, but I always assumed that was going to be a strike on his resume.

I'd say yes and no, but I don't think it was a big enough scandal to prevent his entry and I think the fame and success of the Fab Five (regardless of whether the games have been expunged) matters more than the stigma.

I guess it depends on the individual voter, though. If I had a vote I would say his Michigan time is a net positive.

 

[DesertFox]

I think so. He has as good if not a better case than Mullin. I would consider Reggie Miller a HOFer before Mullin too, though. Mullin had a short but high peak, squeezing in between Bird/Wilkins and Pippen/Hill as the league's best SF.

Webber was never considered the league's best PF, with Malone/Barkley hanging around, and when Webber surpassed them Duncan/Garnett/Dirk hit their stride. But Webber will never have to contend with either group, as he retired much later than the former, while the latter group is still playing. So who does that leave as his competition? Kemp, Coleman, Larry Johnson, Vin Baker, all guys who might have been considered better at one time but fizzled out. Webber should have at least 3-4 ballots without and competition, so you have to like his chances.

 

[rhythmless]

I'm sort of borderline on this one. The fan side of me that loves Webb says yes, and the historical side of me, that wants only the best of the best says no. To be fair, if you go back and look at some of the early entries into the HOF, a lot of them wouldn't make it in today. You wouldn't even know who some of them are. My point is, that as the talent has increased, its gotten harder to get into the HOF. And perhaps thats fair. Perhaps the times should reflect the criteria.

Having said all that, it appears to me that with the latest entrys, to some extent, they've lowered the standards a little. This in not to belittle Chris Mullins, who I loved as a player. But he stands in the shadow of players like George Gervin, Julius Irving, and Michael Jordan. If in fact, those players are the standard by which admission is to be judged.

Personally, I believe that any player admitted into the HOF should be a complete player that played both ends of the floor. I can't say that Webb, or Mullins falls into the catagory. Not that they didn't try, its that they weren't physically capable. However, if Mullins can gain admission to the HOF, then Webb deserves to be there as well.

I agree with everything said here.

The only question (well, more like a what-if then a question) for me is: If Chris won a championship and stayed healthy would we be debating whether he is the best PF of all time?

Tim Duncan

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Wait, what? I didn't see this before, but Webber played defense.

I searched for some defensive statistic to back up my recollection and found defensive win shares from basketball-reference.com:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

Webber is 50th all time.

You have to be a bit careful with DWS just because it is a cumulative stat and Webber did have a relatively long career. I found the list of players who had equal or better DWS/minute as compared to Webber. (link)

Looking at this list, what you find is that only 25 players in NBA history were at least as efficient defensively as Webber AND played as many minutes. Only 96 other players were as efficient defensively and played a total of 5000 minutes (0.00155 DWS/min). I think it's fair to call that "elite" defense. I think it's also interesting to note that Vlade (0.00156 DWS/min) is three slots above Webb. Another note: Dalembert is on the list (also 0.00156 DWS/min).

 

[bajaden]

Wait, what? I didn't see this before, but Webber played defense.

I searched for some defensive statistic to back up my recollection and found defensive win shares from basketball-reference.com:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

Webber is 50th all time.

I'm not familiar with this site, so I don't know what their criteria is. I find it interesting that he's ranked higher than players like Dalembert and Kobe Bryant. I'm also not sure just exactly what, "Career leaders and records for defensive win shares" means. What is the ranking based on?

That aside, I never for a moment said that Webb never played defense. Unfortunately Webb wasn't blessed with great lateral quickness, which limited how good a defender he could be in the post to some extent. Add in that Webb played away from the basket more and more later in his career, which limited his ability to affect plays around the basket, which is what you want a 6'10" player with great leaping ability to do.

When folks look back on Webb's career, no one is going to say, wow, what a great defensive player he was. But they are going to wonder at his ability to pass the ball, rebound the ball, and score inside and outside. For a 12 year span, Webb averaged over 5 assists a game. Thats what made him a special player. For five or six years, he was certainly an above average defender, averaging 2 blocks a game at least twice in his career. He also had quick hands and got his share of steals. As I said, if Mullins can get in, then Webb belongs. I'd certainly take Webbs defense over Mullins.

Its probably a good thing I'm not in control of the HOF. Because if I were, I'd be kicking out some of the players that are in there. I'd only let in the best of the best. And to my mind, Webb is right on the edge if you use that criteria. When you look at players like Jordan, the thing that set them apart, aside from their talent, was that they were leaders, and they were winners, who refused to lose. At the end of the game, when it was on the line, all eyes turned to them. Thats where Webb was lacking. And for many years, that was the knock on Webb. He overcame some of it while in sacramento, but your judged on your whole career.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Its probably a good thing I'm not in control of the HOF. Because if I were, I'd be kicking out some of the players that are in there. I'd only let in the best of the best. And to my mind, Webb is right on the edge if you use that criteria. When you look at players like Jordan, the thing that set them apart, aside from their talent, was that they were leaders, and they were winners, who refused to lose. At the end of the game, when it was on the line, all eyes turned to them. Thats where Webb was lacking. And for many years, that was the knock on Webb. He overcame some of it while in sacramento, but your judged on your whole career.

Please submit your resume to the HOF immediately.

I know you can't really kick guys out but I've never really liked the small but essentially insignificant waiting period on entrance. Either let players be considered immediately and forever or make them wait 10-15 years+ to see if we're still talking about them a generation later. The way they do it now it's like you go "He was top 5/top 10 of his era, sure he's in" and then all the sudden you've got this idea that all eras are equal and should contribute an equal amount of players into the hall of fame. 100 years+ from now many of these guys are going to be inconsequential to the real history of the game.

 

[Gary]

Ben Wallace? I don't think he has a chance in hell.

I don't think so either (maybe 50/50 that SOMEDAY he gets in), but those 6 years in Detroit were something of beauty. If he carried it on from Detroit to Chicago he probably would have been a shoe-in. But i don't think 6 years is enough to make it.

 

[bozzwell]

I agree with everything said here.




Tim Duncan

No doubt he is clear #1 now. But if Webber had a ring and healthy knees for few more years, suddenly you're looking at one of the all time greats. Episode at Michigan is suddenly just a side note, bunch of his teammates a viewed completely differently - Vlade probably makes HOF himself, Bibby's number too is retired by the Kings, maybe even DC's, Pedja gets to stand around and shoot 3s for few more years and chase Ray Ray for the best of all time 3-point shooter etc. Kings have a new Arena and good people of Anaheim are not showing up at Ice Hockey games alone as opposed to basketball games too etc., etc. One thing about Webb is certain - when healthy he was always the best player on his team, and most of the time best player on the court - in college and in NBA. He lacks silverware and few more years of health to be a shoe in for HOF and to challenge Duncan for the title of GOAT at PF.

I watched Fab Five documentary recently. Webb didn't even participate in the making of it and it felt like the show was all about him. Maybe I am biased, but I don't know of other basketball player who combined more talent and ability with sporting tragedy.

 

[uolj]

I'm not familiar with this site, so I don't know what their criteria is. I find it interesting that he's ranked higher than players like Dalembert and Kobe Bryant. I'm also not sure just exactly what, "Career leaders and records for defensive win shares" means. What is the ranking based on?

That aside, I never for a moment said that Webb never played defense. Unfortunately Webb wasn't blessed with great lateral quickness, which limited how good a defender he could be in the post to some extent. Add in that Webb played away from the basket more and more later in his career, which limited his ability to affect plays around the basket, which is what you want a 6'10" player with great leaping ability to do.

When folks look back on Webb's career, no one is going to say, wow, what a great defensive player he was. But they are going to wonder at his ability to pass the ball, rebound the ball, and score inside and outside. For a 12 year span, Webb averaged over 5 assists a game. Thats what made him a special player. For five or six years, he was certainly an above average defender, averaging 2 blocks a game at least twice in his career. He also had quick hands and got his share of steals. As I said, if Mullins can get in, then Webb belongs. I'd certainly take Webbs defense over Mullins.

You said that Webber didn't play both ends of the floor. I'd say that's basically the same as saying he didn't play defense.

And really, I'm all for being more strict on who enters the Hall of Fame. I was borderline on Webber before for that reason, but if they're letting in Gilmore, Mullin and Rodman, then it only makes sense to include Webber. Now, if you want players to play defense better than Webber before they can get in I think you're either being way too strict or you're severely underestimating Webber's defense. He wasn't elite, but he was good. He got votes for NBA All-defensive team a couple times. He rebounded and blocked shots, played good post defense. Your comments sound like you're only remembering post-injury Webber, who didn't have lateral quickness and spent more time away from the basket (which doesn't really have anything to do with defense anyway).

The stat wasn't meant to be the evidence, I just looked it up to make sure I wasn't misremembering. I don't think I was.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Ben Wallace? I don't think he has a chance in hell.

It's an interesting debate. Depends on how you view peak versus longevity. He wasn't effective for more than 6 years, but he was a complete defensive monster during that time. And he was arguably the best player on a championship team. I know most people think of Billups, but Wallace controlled the paint, the board and guarded the other team's best big. He guarded Shaq without automatic double teams back when that was an unheard of feat.

I actually agree he won't make the HOF, but I think his career is underrated historically.

 

[bajaden]

You said that Webber didn't play both ends of the floor. I'd say that's basically the same as saying he didn't play defense.

And really, I'm all for being more strict on who enters the Hall of Fame. I was borderline on Webber before for that reason, but if they're letting in Gilmore, Mullin and Rodman, then it only makes sense to include Webber. Now, if you want players to play defense better than Webber before they can get in I think you're either being way too strict or you're severely underestimating Webber's defense. He wasn't elite, but he was good. He got votes for NBA All-defensive team a couple times. He rebounded and blocked shots, played good post defense. Your comments sound like you're only remembering post-injury Webber, who didn't have lateral quickness and spent more time away from the basket (which doesn't really have anything to do with defense anyway).

The stat wasn't meant to be the evidence, I just looked it up to make sure I wasn't misremembering. I don't think I was.

I guess it was my bad for putting it the way I did. Thats usually the reason I write such long posts. To explain every little thing I say, less it be interpruted to mean something I didn't mean. So to clarify. Yes, I would have very high standards for anyone entering the HOF. A moot point now, since those standards set low from the beginning when you look at some of the early entries. And no, I wasn't just looking at the post injury Webber. Webb never had good lateral quickness. He was a terrific athlete in every other regard. But hey, we can't perfect in everything.

Akeem is in the HOF. So the question I would ask, is that if I make him, or his equal the standard, would I then allow Webb into the HOF? And my answer would be no. As much as I love Webb, he's not Akeem, or Jabbar, or Jordan, or Dr. J. I can't put him in the same sentence with Russell or Chamberlin. He's down at the level just below those guys. So if my standard is set that high, he doesn't get in. But as I said, the standard has already been lowered, so he probably deserves to be there at some point. But hey, its just my opinion. And please don't take it as a slam on Webb. He's one of my all time favorite Kings.

Just as a final thought, and to some extent, it plays a part in HOF decisions. If you ask just about anyone who the leader on the Kings was during that great era. I would bet the majority of them would say Vlade, and not Webber. And thats part of the reason he's not at the highest level.

 

[Bricklayer]

I guess it was my bad for putting it the way I did. Thats usually the reason I write such long posts. To explain every little thing I say, less it be interpruted to mean something I didn't mean. So to clarify. Yes, I would have very high standards for anyone entering the HOF. A moot point now, since those standards set low from the beginning when you look at some of the early entries. And no, I wasn't just looking at the post injury Webber. Webb never had good lateral quickness. He was a terrific athlete in every other regard. But hey, we can't perfect in everything.

Akeem is in the HOF. So the question I would ask, is that if I make him, or his equal the standard, would I then allow Webb into the HOF? And my answer would be no. As much as I love Webb, he's not Akeem, or Jabbar, or Jordan, or Dr. J. I can't put him in the same sentence with Russell or Chamberlin. He's down at the level just below those guys. So if my standard is set that high, he doesn't get in. But as I said, the standard has already been lowered, so he probably deserves to be there at some point. But hey, its just my opinion. And please don't take it as a slam on Webb. He's one of my all time favorite Kings.

Just as a final thought, and to some extent, it plays a part in HOF decisions. If you ask just about anyone who the leader on the Kings was during that great era. I would bet the majority of them would say Vlade, and not Webber. And thats part of the reason he's not at the highest level.

If you are making Hakeem the standard then its a 10 person HOF.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Ten?

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Abdul-Jabbar
Johnson
Robertson
Mikan
Bird
Olajuwon
*O'Neal
*Bryant

Okay, an eleven-person Hall of Fame.

 

[bajaden]

If you are making Hakeem the standard then its a 10 person HOF.

Hey, I said I had high standards. Look, its all subjective, and there are so many things you can, or cannot take into consideration. Whether or not a player ever won a championship. Use that as one of the criteria, and you eliminate quite a few players. Maybe you compare each player with only players that played the same position. So is Webb as good a player as Karl Malone? Not in my opinion. If we go back in time, was he as good as one of my hero's, Bob Pettit? Hard to say. They played in different era's and the talent level overall wasn't as good then as now. But Pettit did play against Russell and Chamberlain, and held his own.

Was he as good as Sir Charles Barkley. Barkley played 16 seasons and averaged 22.1 PPG for his career. He also averaged 11.7 RPG and 3.9 assists per game. And did all this standing only 6'4" without shoes. Webber played 15 seasons, and averaged 20.7 PPG. 9.8 RPG, and 4.2 Assists per game. He also averaged 1.4 blocked shots per game. Just looking at the stats, you'd have to say that Webber was close to Barkleys equal. Close, but not quite.

One thing that may be held against Webber is is lack of durability. How many of you know that in his 15 seasons, he never once played 82 games. As a matter of fact, he averaged 55 games played a year. Barkley averaged 67 games a year. You want an iron man? Jabbar played 20 seasons and averaged 78 out of 82 games for his career. And while he was averaging that many games, he also averaged 24.6 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 2.0 BPG. If you throw out the first 4 years of Jabbar's career when they didn't keep track of blocked shots, he then averaged 2.5 blocks per game.

So if Jabbar is the standard, then Webb isn't in the HOF. But if Dave Cowens is the standard, then he's a shoe in. When it comes down to it, the only standard is the memories, fond or otherwise, of the sportswriters that do the voting. Sometimes time can soften the perception. Too much time, and the voters might become senile.

 

[bajaden]

Ten?

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Abdul-Jabbar
Johnson
Robertson
Mikan
Bird
Olajuwon
*O'Neal
*Bryant

Okay, an eleven-person Hall of Fame.

You have O'Neal, but no Duncan? Just curious. How about David Robinson? Great defensive center who also could score. He averaged 21.1 PPG, 10.6 RPG, 2.9 blocks, and 1.4 steals for his career. No Elgin Baylor? He played 14 seasons and averaged 27.4 PPG, 13.5 RPG, and 4.3 assists per game all while standing 6'5". Its hard not to make a case for Barkley or Drexler. So perhaps thats where the line should be drawn.