Of course, my bad. Slightly less negative for C-Webb. Im liking my pick a lot more than when I first made it.

found it.

AC Cobra, you mentioned that the webber injury was freak in that his knee exploded without anybody touching him. i'm going to maintain that health is a genetic gift / skill and that somebody like karl malone despite similar size would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less likely to have a "freak injury" like this.

also you seem to be forgetting that webber always seemed to be nagged with injuries whether it was his knee, his shoulder, his foot. immensely talented guy, but relatively short peak followed by lots of injury ridden seasons. i would expect something similar in our fantasy replay world.

It's ingrained in my brain now, but I almost wish basketball-ref would put a star on the '99 year or something to remind me, because it's f'ed me up more than once.

BigCat just posted in the Premiership draft that he thought that was about basketball and then didn't make his pick here/disappeared from this board. Blahhh.

Oh of course, Im not saying its a complete freak along the lines of Robinsons foot or anything. Webber's definitely injury prone.

Just was trying to make the point that Webber was putting up very good seasons until he was 32 before severe decline and make a distinction between Webber's injuries (hitting him mostly later than his true "prime" in his career and therefore causing a much more drastic and clear dropoff than most) and Grant Hill for example where his actual prime was severely and clearly effected.

I also think the knee itself was a freak injury, even for an injury prone guy and it clearly had the biggest effect on him. Would of been awesome to see his career without that happening.

That would be nice. The one thing that looking at all these older players has shown me that there are so very few guys who didn't have injury problems, the Stocktons of the world who can play 82 games a year are exceedingly rare, let alone guys who consistently played 70 games a year for ten years straight.

I don't think this counts as a freak injury. It was bound to happen, because his body was set up to fail in that regard. A freak injury would be if he was fouled hardand his knee got stepped on after banging it on the court, or something like that - wrong place wrong time, could have happened to anyone.

This is very true.

Maybe I'm a bit off on the definition of freak injury. It was certainly at least wierd (noone touched the guy). Besides, Im settled with Webber being injury prone to a an extent, its what made him slip this far. I may have been trying to talk myself into the pick as when I was running it through before making the pick I had the feeling people would be a hell of a lot harsher on C-Webb because there is a lot of general hate for him thats a bit overdone. He still had very good numbers up until 32 when its likely he would of declined anyway (although of course his decline was severe).

AC-Cobra it was a freak injury versus the Mavs not the Lakers. I remember it pretty vividly. They were down by like 20+ in the 2nd half and for some reason he was in the game and went for a big move and fell down poorly. God, I hate that game it was real end of the Sacto era of possibly winning a title.

I remembered it this way, and checked Wiki and still put Lakers for some reason. It was the Mavs.

I'm waiting for someone to actually explain why they don't like the Hill pick. All I've heard so far is "vomit" and "don't like it." No one has come out and said "Hill won't be good for reason x and reason y." I think you all are severely underrating a player who, if not for an injury that should've been taken care of better, would be considered an all-time great. At his best, there's very few players who were better at the position (see Bird and LBJ). To say Pippen was better is absurd. At best Pippen was as good as Hill, but there is no way I consider him to be a superior player to Hill.

maybe I am making too big of a deal out of one injury, but one ankle injury basically ended up toasting his whole career. I agree if it never happens Hill > Pippen. He was a true stud. But one ankle injury is all it took. Not the best sign, and it's unfair to put that all on trainers and medical staff. Speaking of staff, the staph infection was definitely pretty freakish.

At 24 and older Hill had 4 pretty solid years in Detroit. Those 4 years either 24 or older he was rediculous and pretty healthy but after that he has 3 years where he's played over 50 games out of his last 7. He's not had an unlucky injury he is injury prone.

Pippen had 13 essentially good years and 8/10 good years at 24 and older. Hill had essentially 6 really good years and 3 or so good years at the tail of his career. Hill is really injury prone, his high could be argued being higher than Pippen although I'd say that offensively his high was higher. If you include defensively I think most will say Pippen is much more advanced although Hill's Defensive Win Shares were pretty solid at his peak, Pippen's defensive peak lasted a really long time.

What? I don't know how you guys are saying stuff like this. Let me break it down for you:

In 2000 Hill suffers an ankle injury. He had ankle problems at Duke, so he shouldn't have played. He does play and his ankle goes haywire for 3 years. After that, he has surgery, nearly dies because of it, then returns to play. He comes back in 2004-2005, after having only played 47 games the three previous years, and plays 67 games (not too shabby) en route to a 20 PER season. Hurts his groin the next year, and then the last two seasons has played solid basketball, putting up 65 and then 70 games. IMO had Hill's first injury been taken care of properly, then he would've put up more great seasons like he had just had (and we'd remember both Hill and T-Mac MUCH differently). The groin injury he suffered is a pretty common NBA injury and happened 4 years after he was first sidelined by the ankle. That's 10 full seasons of Hill if you're counting, not a full career by any means, but a lot.

oh OK great pic then. WTF?

It's 9 full seasons of which 5 are really when he was spectacular.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../hillgr01.html

Meanwhile you have Pippen who really never had nagging injuries atleast until his late career. Was a top 5 defender for a bunch of those years and a top 10 (all-nba 1st or 2nd team) 5 of those years which Hill also was although Pippen had more first teams. The thing is when Hill was out or hurt he was seriously out. Now that I look at it 1998-1999 was strike shortened so he played even more full seasons. So essentially you get 15 seasons where Pippen played 44 or more games in a season most of seasons which he played 72 or more games while you have Hill who played 9 full seasons and the rest of the seasons which he did play he was there for hardly any of them.

Webber was great when he was healthy, but he never once played over 76 games any season. His rookie year, he played 76.

There are a couple guys I would have taken ahead of Webber but he is in the range, not a terrible pick imo. C-Webb is probably the greatest passing big guy ever. He also banged Tyra for some time which should count for him.

Well in any regular season. If you include playoffs I'm pretty sure it's more than that.

But then you get pick the years you want to count. In that case, I want some of Dirk's pre-24 years to count.

Is Bird considered a big guy?

Yeah, I'm just talking 76/82 regulars.

Did not know this, major plus point imo.

Bah, we've lost BigCat for the day havent we? Gonna have to wait till tommorow for more picks

not supposed to discuss players who haven't been picked...