Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

[BlakkMajik3000]

I was having a moment of nostalgia recently, and started looking at old NBA Draft pick selections (via Wikipedia).

It was fun, looking at all the previous drafts, laughing at the busts and the teams that drafted said busts, feeling a bit sad about all the players that just never reached their full potential, the 2nd rounders that became even more prolific than the lottery picks (Dennis Rodman), but also reflecting on how many legends that have come and gone in this league in just the past 15 years or so.

After a bit of reminiscing about how dominant Shaq eventually became (c/o '92), I came to it. The class of '93.

My heart sank. A wave of emotion went over me. Basketball fans that have been around for a bit know what I'm feeling at this point. This group holds a special place in my heart to this day.

I look at the names, specifically the lottery. Webber, Hardaway, Mashburn, Houston...Each name, a player that we should be talking about entering (or potentially enterting) the Hall soon. Each player, a career marred in "What If?" scenarios.

Many people, myself included, felt like the combination of the 92 and 93 draft would be the future of the NBA once Jordan retired. Alas, injuries and personal problems took their toll on most of the highly touted players from the class, and none of them seemed to reach the level that so many felt they would.

So much talent, so much potential. Potential legends, reduced to "What Could Have Been" conversation pieces. I almost feel like so many of these players were "robbed" in the prime of their careers, and we fans were "robbed" of seeing them at their full potential.

I just want to appreciate this group for the talent they brought to the game. You might not get into the hall of fame, but you will always be stars to me.

[SteelersFreak]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

One of the drafts that was supposed to give the 90's Mavs hope that was a failure with Mashburn.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

This proves that talent alone isn't enough to become a transcendent player in the NBA. All four of those guys were lacking that special something that would push them over the top. An investigation into their respective games must be conducted.

Chris Webber could pass, handle, shoot, run, and rebound. Versatile and supremely talented. However, in the clutch, every aspect of Webber's game nosedived. His passes turned wobbly, his jumpers banged off front rim, and he shunned driving into the paint. Indeed, he was instrumental in the Kings collapse against the Lakers in the WCF (had nothing to do with any fixing of games). His questionable judgement was even displayed off the court, when he lied under oath to a grand jury.

Penny Hardaway was a terrific one on one scorer whose size and speed created unsolvable matchup problems. However, he never played a lick of defense and his domination of the ball made it impossible to run team offense. Even before his devestating knee injury, Hardaway's style of play was a loser.

Jamal Mashburn was another gifted one on one scorer. Too bad he needed full time posession of the ball to amass his numbers. Mashburn never played any form of defense and was known for making crucial mistakes in the clutch. Mashburn's understanding of the game was always highly questionable.

Allan Houston was a smooth streak shooter. Throughout his career, he played one on one ball but he wasn't physically strong enough to take the poundings that come with that territory. A patsy on defense. Moreover, that game winning shot against Miami in the playoffs must have bounced around the rim 4 times before going in. A lucky shot that too many New York fans have overrated.

EDIT: My bad on the Houston shot. A big bounce high off the backboard and then in, you're right DHY26.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

This proves that talent alone isn't enough to become a transcendent player in the NBA. All four of those guys were lacking that special something that would push them over the top. An investigation into their respective games must be conducted.

Chris Webber could pass, handle, shoot, run, and rebound. Versatile and supremely talented. However, in the clutch, every aspect of Webber's game nosedived. His passes turned wobbly, his jumpers banged off front rim, and he shunned driving into the paint. Indeed, he was instrumental in the Kings collapse against the Lakers in the WCF (had nothing to do with any fixing of games). His questionable judgement was even displayed off the court, when he lied under oath to a grand jury.

Penny Hardaway was a terrific one on one scorer whose size and speed created unsolvable matchup problems. However, he never played a lick of defense and his domination of the ball made it impossible to run team offense. Even before his devestating knee injury, Hardaway's style of play was a loser.

Jamal Mashburn was another gifted one on one scorer. Too bad he needed full time posession of the ball to amass his numbers. Mashburn never played any form of defense and was known for making crucial mistakes in the clutch. Mashburn's understanding of the game was always highly questionable.

Allan Houston was a smooth streak shooter. Throughout his career, he played one on one ball but he wasn't physically strong enough to take the poundings that come with that territory. A patsy on defense. Moreover, that game winning shot against Miami in the playoffs must have bounced around the rim 4 times before going in. A lucky shot that too many New York fans have overrated.

The shot hit front rim, the backboard, and then went in. Hardly "bouncing around the rim 4 times".

[wwharton]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

Webber's "questionable judgement" came into question long before the grand jury fiasco. His sense of entitlement with run ins with the law pushed him out of DC.

That one really sucked to me bc I thought Webber was LBJ before LBJ. Seemed like he just peaked very early and leveled off.

[justblaze09]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

I think Webber's demise from not reaching his full potential started when Golden State foolishly gave him a contract that allowed him to be able to opt-out after his first year, which forced their hand to trade him to Washington. If he would have stayed, it's no telling how those Warriors teams would have been.

[wwharton]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

I think Webber's demise from not reaching his full potential started when Golden State foolishly gave him a contract that allowed him to be able to opt-out after his first year, which forced their hand to trade him to Washington. If he would have stayed, it's no telling how those Warriors teams would have been.

That's a statement about the Warriors but I'm not sure it is about Webber. The Washington team he ended up on was pretty damn good. They had some bigs playing out of position but Webber wasn't really one of them (flirted with him at center a bit but not much... he was fine as a SF or PF). I can't speak on the people around him in Cali, if you're saying they would've kept him straight or helped him grow up, but outside of something like that I don't think the move to DC was the problem.

[VDusen04]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

This proves that talent alone isn't enough to become a transcendent player in the NBA. All four of those guys were lacking that special something that would push them over the top. An investigation into their respective games must be conducted.

Chris Webber could pass, handle, shoot, run, and rebound. Versatile and supremely talented. However, in the clutch, every aspect of Webber's game nosedived. His passes turned wobbly, his jumpers banged off front rim, and he shunned driving into the paint. Indeed, he was instrumental in the Kings collapse against the Lakers in the WCF (had nothing to do with any fixing of games). His questionable judgement was even displayed off the court, when he lied under oath to a grand jury.

Penny Hardaway was a terrific one on one scorer whose size and speed created unsolvable matchup problems. However, he never played a lick of defense and his domination of the ball made it impossible to run team offense. Even before his devestating knee injury, Hardaway's style of play was a loser.

Jamal Mashburn was another gifted one on one scorer. Too bad he needed full time posession of the ball to amass his numbers. Mashburn never played any form of defense and was known for making crucial mistakes in the clutch. Mashburn's understanding of the game was always highly questionable.

Allan Houston was a smooth streak shooter. Throughout his career, he played one on one ball but he wasn't physically strong enough to take the poundings that come with that territory. A patsy on defense. Moreover, that game winning shot against Miami in the playoffs must have bounced around the rim 4 times before going in. A lucky shot that too many New York fans have overrated.

EDIT: My bad on the Houston shot. A big bounce high off the backboard and then in, you're right DHY26.

A lot of that seems a little dramatic to me. I think Chris Webber's ability in the clutch has been overly scrutinized ever since the time-out during the UNC game (a game in which he dropped 23 and 11 on 11-18 shooting, the primary reason Michigan had a chance to win in the first place). I don't really recall his passes suddenly becoming wobbly, as you stated. Surely, as the teams he played for did not win championships, it's clear Webber likely missed some shots when it counted, but I feel he ended up performing very well over his career in the NBA, especially considering my thoughts back then when he played for Washington that he might never get through a season uninjured.

Regarding Hardaway, again, the statements feel a little over-dramatic. I do not think Hardaway had the play style of a loser, I don't think he didn't play a lick of defense, and I didn't feel he dominated the ball to the point of not allowing a team to run an offense.

I feel Webber and Hardaway had great NBA careers (only Penny's dropped off significantly after his injury). Otherwise, to limit them only to a pessimistic view of their worst attributes is a little misleading. Webber and Hardaway actually both met my expectations. I always thought Jamal Mashburn would have ended up being greater, but he still didn't have a bad career overall (19ppg during his ten years). Allan Houston actually greatly exceeded my expectations. I wasn't expecting a lot out of him after leaving Tennessee. I thought Lindsey Hunter was going to be the part of that Pistons draft duo to excel. Instead, Houston turned into one of the deadliest shooters in recent NBA history. Not a bad gig.

Not every player can be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Even then, each guy will have his shortcomings. I suppose you are just more interested in accentuating and aggrandizing the downfalls of each player while I often like to celebrate the successes. I'm just not sure your summaries provided an accurate and full picture.

Webber's "questionable judgement" came into question long before the grand jury fiasco. His sense of entitlement with run ins with the law pushed him out of DC.

That one really sucked to me bc I thought Webber was LBJ before LBJ. Seemed like he just peaked very early and leveled off.

I've always been a big Chris Webber guy, but I'm not sure I'd call him LBJ before LBJ. I found their play types extremely different. With LeBron James, we've always known he was someone who could do virtually anything he wanted on a basketball court. It was his prerogative to handle the rock, dish the rock, sprint like a guard, knock down incredible three pointers, overpower opponents due to his unique mix of speed and size, etc.

In Webber's case, I believe his bread and butter was always operating out of the post. Only, at the moments he happened to end up with the ball in the open floor, he was often able to make things look awfully neat. Otherwise, I can't picture a lot of similarities between their games. Even had Webber continued rising as high as you believe he should have (in terms of potential) I still believe he just would have been an excellent power forward with better-than-normal (but still not elite or particularly reliable) dribbling and passing skills.

Instead, I always sort of viewed Grant Hill as LBJ 1.0.

I think this video is a solid illustration of his skills. He could make fancy open court plays in a straight line, but that was about the extent of it. Still, he was nasty as all get out:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zQ9S-DjBrgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ScoobySnax]

Penny easily could have been one of the all-time greats at the point guard position. He was my absolute fave growing up. Kinda hoped he would make that Heat team back in '08 lol.


Sent from my 4S using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

A lot of that seems a little dramatic to me. I think Chris Webber's ability in the clutch has been overly scrutinized ever since the time-out during the UNC game (a game in which he dropped 23 and 11 on 11-18 shooting, the primary reason Michigan had a chance to win in the first place). I don't really recall his passes suddenly becoming wobbly, as you stated. Surely, as the teams he played for did not win championships, it's clear Webber likely missed some shots when it counted, but I feel he ended up performing very well over his career in the NBA, especially considering my thoughts back then when he played for Washington that he might never get through a season uninjured.

Regarding Hardaway, again, the statements feel a little over-dramatic. I do not think Hardaway had the play style of a loser, I don't think he didn't play a lick of defense, and I didn't feel he dominated the ball to the point of not allowing a team to run an offense.

I feel Webber and Hardaway had great NBA careers (only Penny's dropped off significantly after his injury). Otherwise, to limit them only to a pessimistic view of their worst attributes is a little misleading. Webber and Hardaway actually both met my expectations. I always thought Jamal Mashburn would have ended up being greater, but he still didn't have a bad career overall (19ppg during his ten years). Allan Houston actually greatly exceeded my expectations. I wasn't expecting a lot out of him after leaving Tennessee. I thought Lindsey Hunter was going to be the part of that Pistons draft duo to excel. Instead, Houston turned into one of the deadliest shooters in recent NBA history. Not a bad gig.

Not every player can be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Even then, each guy will have his shortcomings. I suppose you are just more interested in accentuating and aggrandizing the downfalls of each player while I often like to celebrate the successes. I'm just not sure your summaries provided an accurate and full picture.


I've always been a big Chris Webber guy, but I'm not sure I'd call him LBJ before LBJ. I found their play types extremely different. With LeBron James, we've always known he was someone who could do virtually anything he wanted on a basketball court. It was his prerogative to handle the rock, dish the rock, sprint like a guard, knock down incredible three pointers, overpower opponents due to his unique mix of speed and size, etc.

In Webber's case, I believe his bread and butter was always operating out of the post. Only, at the moments he happened to end up with the ball in the open floor, he was often able to make things look awfully neat. Otherwise, I can't picture a lot of similarities between their games. Even had Webber continued rising as high as you believe he should have (in terms of potential) I still believe he just would have been an excellent power forward with better-than-normal (but still not elite or particularly reliable) dribbling and passing skills.

Instead, I always sort of viewed Grant Hill as LBJ 1.0.

The only numbers that mean anything are produced in the clutch. The fact is that Webber failed to take control in the waning moments of that National Championship. Positioning yourself for the stretch run isn't enough, the last giant step must be taken to win the game. Webber's travel and dribble to the coffin corner was embarassing.

Don't remember his passes being wobbly? You'll want to rewatch those 02 WCF games against the Lakers. With a golden opportunity to reach the Finals, here is what Webber did in the decisive fourth quarter of games 4 through 7: shot 10-26 for 23 points.
Webber did perform very well throughout his career, until the game was on the line.

Hardaway's specific talents were not conducive to his team playing championship-level basketball. His teammates just stood around while he played with the ball on a string. This compelled his team to play now its my turn, now its your turn offense. A sure strategy to lose crucial ballgames.
And he didn't play a lick of defense (he was especially pitiful at navigating any type of screen).

I certainly wouldn't say that either guy had a "great" career. For me, their weaknesses were too damning and their positives couldn't compensate. Every player who ever laced them up has weaknesses, but the guys who play the complete game are truly special. I provided a breakdown of each players' strengths and weaknesses. Its not my fault that their flaws were glaring.

Your take on Webber is right on. But comparing LBJ to Grant Hill is an insult. Hill had a too loose handle and limited range. He was always reluctant to take a big hit and relied too much on fadeaway jumpers.

[wwharton]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

A lot of that seems a little dramatic to me. I think Chris Webber's ability in the clutch has been overly scrutinized ever since the time-out during the UNC game (a game in which he dropped 23 and 11 on 11-18 shooting, the primary reason Michigan had a chance to win in the first place). I don't really recall his passes suddenly becoming wobbly, as you stated. Surely, as the teams he played for did not win championships, it's clear Webber likely missed some shots when it counted, but I feel he ended up performing very well over his career in the NBA, especially considering my thoughts back then when he played for Washington that he might never get through a season uninjured.

Regarding Hardaway, again, the statements feel a little over-dramatic. I do not think Hardaway had the play style of a loser, I don't think he didn't play a lick of defense, and I didn't feel he dominated the ball to the point of not allowing a team to run an offense.

I feel Webber and Hardaway had great NBA careers (only Penny's dropped off significantly after his injury). Otherwise, to limit them only to a pessimistic view of their worst attributes is a little misleading. Webber and Hardaway actually both met my expectations. I always thought Jamal Mashburn would have ended up being greater, but he still didn't have a bad career overall (19ppg during his ten years). Allan Houston actually greatly exceeded my expectations. I wasn't expecting a lot out of him after leaving Tennessee. I thought Lindsey Hunter was going to be the part of that Pistons draft duo to excel. Instead, Houston turned into one of the deadliest shooters in recent NBA history. Not a bad gig.

Not every player can be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Even then, each guy will have his shortcomings. I suppose you are just more interested in accentuating and aggrandizing the downfalls of each player while I often like to celebrate the successes. I'm just not sure your summaries provided an accurate and full picture.


I've always been a big Chris Webber guy, but I'm not sure I'd call him LBJ before LBJ. I found their play types extremely different. With LeBron James, we've always known he was someone who could do virtually anything he wanted on a basketball court. It was his prerogative to handle the rock, dish the rock, sprint like a guard, knock down incredible three pointers, overpower opponents due to his unique mix of speed and size, etc.

In Webber's case, I believe his bread and butter was always operating out of the post. Only, at the moments he happened to end up with the ball in the open floor, he was often able to make things look awfully neat. Otherwise, I can't picture a lot of similarities between their games. Even had Webber continued rising as high as you believe he should have (in terms of potential) I still believe he just would have been an excellent power forward with better-than-normal (but still not elite or particularly reliable) dribbling and passing skills.

Instead, I always sort of viewed Grant Hill as LBJ 1.0.

I think this video is a solid illustration of his skills. He could make fancy open court plays in a straight line, but that was about the extent of it. Still, he was nasty as all get out:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zQ9S-DjBrgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Man really can't make comparisons without them being taken as literally as possible, lol.

Let me explain more... Webber was one of the few "big" guys that just naturally looked comfortable and fluent moving up and down the court. He was a PF that moved more like a SF and just fit his frame perfectly. This gave the impression he just naturally had an edge on the others that would have to guard him, and that would be even bigger as his game grew. On a smaller level I felt the same way about Rodney Rogers. Webber and LBJ's games are completely different, but I considered them both man childs. I'd say the same about Shaq but that's way too confusing of a comparison. Would also say the same about Blake but that's also more of stretch for what I was getting at here. I thought Webber's body and athleticism, along with his skills coming into the league gave him the potential to be a lock for the HOF. He just didn't really get any better from that point.

[VDusen04]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

The only numbers that mean anything are produced in the clutch. The fact is that Webber failed to take control in the waning moments of that National Championship. Positioning yourself for the stretch run isn't enough, the last giant step must be taken to win the game. Webber's travel and dribble to the coffin corner was embarassing.

Don't remember his passes being wobbly? You'll want to rewatch those 02 WCF games against the Lakers. With a golden opportunity to reach the Finals, here is what Webber did in the decisive fourth quarter of games 4 through 7: shot 10-26 for 23 points.
Webber did perform very well throughout his career, until the game was on the line.

According to basketballreference.com's box score's and according to espn.com's shot charts, Chris Webber shot 42-82 from the field in games 4-7 against Los Angeles. In the fourth quarter of those games, my conclusion was that he shot a combined 9-20, including 5-10 combined in games 6 and 7. As a total, it appears as if, in four of the biggest games of his NBA career, Webber averaged 24ppg, 10rpg, and 7apg on 51% shooting. (edit: I think I found where you were coming from, I believe you were including the overtime of game 7, where Webber shot 1-4 including two misses from 19 feet plus).

Link to one game of series (others can be toggled): http://www.basketball-reference.com/...205260LAL.html

Link to shot chart in one game of series (others can be toggled): http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/shotch...meId=220526013

Of course, none of that means Webber didn't have his struggles at times. Again, I just find the hype surrounding his inability to perform in the clutch to be greatly exaggerated. And even if Webber was spectacularly clutch throughout his career, I still would not be in agreement with the disproportionate amount of weight many folks have given to clutch play versus overall play. It is my feeling in many cases that the ability to perform in the clutch wouldn't even be a possibility if certain players weren't beasting throughout an entire contest. It's sort of similar to those moments when a player who misses a key layup late in the game tends to receive the lion's share of the blame. You know what my feeling is in that case? What about the easy layup his teammate blew in the 2nd quarter? Or what about the horrible free throw shooting putting the team in such a position to begin with? Basically, I believe in the looking at the entire scheme of things, not just what a player does at a certain point.

Though again, even then, I feel as though someone going for 26, 13, and 8 in a potential WCF-clinching game (including 4-6 in the 4th quarter) is someone taking the giant step you mentioned. It's just sometimes the giant step isn't enough. To insinuate Game 7's fourth quarter and overtime were somehow the only clutch moments of the series would be wildly off-base, but I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting. Instead, it seems more like Webber was able to come up big in most clutch situations in that series (and prior). Even with the 1-4 overtime, a game seven effort of 20, 8, and 11 isn't exactly closing up into a ball.

Also, to go back to the UM-UNC game - as a resident of Ann Arbor and life-long Michigan fan, I found absolutely nothing embarrassing about Chris Webber's time-out. I hated it and it made me very sad, but I didn't think it was embarrassing. It could have happened to anyone. Can we all imagine being 19 years old, game watched by millions, history on the line, and you grab the defensive rebound with the opportunity for your team to tie things up? Would or should your decision at that point define you for life?

The travel was real and it existed, but for as much as that was a bad play on Webber's part, it was definitely created by a great play on UNC's side, as I believe it may have been George Lynch who decided to randomly pressure the outlet pass in the backcourt, thus forcing Webber to reel back what he thought was going to be a routine outlet pass (or as routine as it could be in a situation like that).

From there, as a player I could really relate to what happened next. Webber knew he was travelling, he panicked, and he took off downcourt as the crowd jeered at the no-call, hoping the officials didn't pick up on it. Then a double team came, he ran to the corner, his teammates (standing right beside him on the bench) yelled at him to call time-out, and he did. That's not to excuse any of his actions. They were still wrong and anti-clutch. But I see nothing very embarrassing about it. It was a bad play that happened. That team gave it everything they had though, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

[VDusen04]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

Hardaway's specific talents were not conducive to his team playing championship-level basketball. His teammates just stood around while he played with the ball on a string. This compelled his team to play now its my turn, now its your turn offense. A sure strategy to lose crucial ballgames.
And he didn't play a lick of defense (he was especially pitiful at navigating any type of screen).

I certainly wouldn't say that either guy had a "great" career. For me, their weaknesses were too damning and their positives couldn't compensate. Every player who ever laced them up has weaknesses, but the guys who play the complete game are truly special. I provided a breakdown of each players' strengths and weaknesses. Its not my fault that their flaws were glaring.

Your take on Webber is right on. But comparing LBJ to Grant Hill is an insult. Hill had a too loose handle and limited range. He was always reluctant to take a big hit and relied too much on fadeaway jumpers.

I wanted to split up my two posts to prevent a singular novel from occurring. I'm not sure if I agree with you on Hardaway but I'm also not sure I'm well-versed enough with his extended stay in Orlando (beyond his Finals appearance) to really make a strong enough rebuttal at this point.

Regarding "greatness", I think it's in the eye of the beholder and it's your right to not think Webber had any kind of great career just as it'll be mine to believe he did. I think that's just a matter of different associations with lingo. By great I don't mean Webber is a legend amongst legends. I just mean he had a pretty great basketball career, considering he was arguably one of the 20 best players in the best league in the world for extended period of time.

Lastly, I knew the Grant Hill/LeBron James thing was subject to being mistaken. I was a little vague when I called Hill "LeBron 1.0". By using the 1.0 tag, I was trying to say they had similar play types, but Hill's was not nearly as advanced. James is the new and improved version, featuring more intimidating accessories (namely, a 6'9'' 270 pound frame) and new moves. The comparison was more or less to illustrate my connection between Hill and James' playmaking game style, in contrast to Webber being a bruising forward with soft hands who could sometimes do neat things in the open floor.

With all that said, the line about Grant Hill relying too much on fallaway jump shots seemed to come out of left field. I don't remember that being the case at all. Early in his Pistons days he was a relentless attacker. Then, as the mid-90's moved forward, he began to develop a deft pull-up jumper, which only made him more dangerous than he already was, as it prevented the lane from collapsing on his drives so readily. I don't really remember him over abusing a fallaway jump shot. I also didn't find him reluctant to take a big hit. He attacked the rim regardless of who stood in his path. Where I'd meet you midway on that would be admitting he couldn't absorb contact and overpower defenders as well as the physical specimen James can. But by no means did Hill unnecessarily shy away from contact.

Man really can't make comparisons without them being taken as literally as possible, lol.

To be fair, there's only so many ways to interpret a statement like, "Webber was LBJ before LBJ."

Your clarification makes more sense though. As you mentioned, Shaq was another guy I was thinking of when considering "big man ball handlers" similar to Webber. Of course, I find Webber's handling skills exceeded O'Neal's, but I still felt they were in the "big guy is a threat to possibly take off down floor with ball in hand" category, whereas LeBron's surely in the, "Find him, give him the ball whenever you can so he can run the floor and dominate" camp.

[wwharton]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

To be fair, there's only so many ways to interpret a statement like, "Webber was LBJ before LBJ."

Your clarification makes more sense though. As you mentioned, Shaq was another guy I was thinking of when considering "big man ball handlers" similar to Webber. Of course, I find Webber's handling skills exceeded O'Neal's, but I still felt they were in the "big guy is a threat to possibly take off down floor with ball in hand" category, whereas LeBron's surely in the, "Find him, give him the ball whenever you can so he can run the floor and dominate" camp.

You don't even need to be fair, I really did chuckle when you replied bc I knew that would happen. Lebron's definitely a different breed bc he's a legit guard while most (maybe all) others I'd put in this category are really bigs that are able to do what some guards can do.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Moment in Time: The 1993 NBA Draft

VDusen, I did include the overtime in game 7 where Webber shot 1-4. My bad for not clarifying that. The second link you provided is the link I used. Click on the play by play tab and look at the fourth quarter results.

What transpires in the first 3 quarters is important but in the playoffs, those defecits aren't very significant because there is so much time left to make the necessary adjustments. You are right to look at the entire picture, but it does invariably come down to the fourth quarter. The difference between these teams just isn't that big.
For sure, Webber posted good numbers.

Webber was supposed to be one of the top players in the country and he had a fine handle. Carrying the ball across the timeline should have been a piece of cake. Ideally, he would have made an initiatory wing pass and ensconced himself in the mid post. From there he would face and drive his right hand to the middle for a high percentage jump hook to win the Title.

Orlando had a relatively simple gameplan, Shaq in the post surrounded by shooters/scorers. Hardaway was the second option and he loved to post up and fire turnarounds. His other ploy was to isolate from the right wing. Could drive both ways and catch and shoot. Orlando didn't really run a quick-hitting or cohesive offense though. Ball movement was limited to kickout passes (Penny's speciality pass) and around the horn passes. Not much man movement. Penny's style of play contributed to their simplistic approach.

I respect your judgement of Webber and you are right to feel that he had a distinguished career. Appreciate the clarification of the Hill/James comparison. And I agree with you.

Hill has always struggled against aggressive chest to chest defenders because his handle is shaky and can be sniped at on drives. He has always been a finesse player.