When has the team experienced success with Travis as the "closer" at ends of games?
Sure, we've won a few, but this team was at .500 last year due to a big win streak where James Jones was prominently featured, and now that the team is winning it looks like Travis's role is being reduced.
I'm not claiming that Webster is great, nor that I expect him to be great. I think that your evidence of him being a poor choice for end-of-game situations is flimsy.
While JJ was prominently featured - Travis was a closer on that team and did very well in that role.
The team was .500 and overachieved because they were able to close so many close games - and the people who won these close games were Roy and Travis. You look at Portland's season statistics and you see that they had a -1 PPG margin of victory per game and were beaten on the boards night in night out - and it is pretty clear that the reason they went as high as .500 was because they were so good at the end of games.
Travis won the Memphis game and the Atlanta game on the last shot, he forced overtime in Toronto and he had other big4th quarter performances that allowed someone else (Roy, usually) to close the deal.
This year, where he was much less prominently featured in the 4th quarter thanks to a much better team success and big margin wins - he still helped us steal the 2nd Kings game with 9 points in the 4th, he still was valuable to seal both come from behind wins against the T-Wolves in the 4th.
As for my evidence as flimsy? We do not know what Webster can do nowadays in a close game in the 4th - because we never see him there - but we have never seen him consistently create for himself in 3 years of play and we have seen the coaching staff going away from him closing the games last year - when the team started showing some real success.
Is it clear evidence? No. Is it flimsy? I do not think so. There must be a reason we have not seen him there and the team over-achieving...
I guess I just reject that bad shot selection is preferable to alternatives.
I would rather have someone willing to take some risks than someone shying away from responsibility and willing to step to the plate. If it means we win some games we have no point of winning and losing some games we would lose anyway... I would much rather have someone willing to take these tough shots.
Webster (or Batum, or Travis) should be the fourth option at the ends of games. Outlaw has the mindset (bless his heart) that he's the PRIMARY option, and he's just not good enough with his shot selection to make that make sense.
At this point, they should probably be third option, not 4th (Oden is not yet a reliable offensive player and gets stripped too much). I agree that in the future he will probably be our 2nd or 3rd option, but he is not yet.
As for Travis - he has not been playing like he is the primary option at the end of games this year - unless pressed into this situation with the shot-clock running down - so I am not sure really what the argument is. It is clear that the ball is in Roy's hands, he tries to set up himself, LaMarcus or an open shooter (Usually Blake) at the end of games - and if this does not happen - he gives it to Travis for a bail-out shot. This bail-out shot does not always fall - but I am more confident in Travis taking a ridiculous hard to hit shot with the clock running down than Webster. I would say that my feeling is that in this situation we have a 50% of the shot going down rather than a 5% - and that's why I think Travis is important in late game situations.
I'd rather go with someone who plays a role that is more team-oriented, whether it's Webster or Batum, at the end of games.
I have no real issue with Batum in this situation - since he seems to be able to move with the dribble to get himself a better shot. I have no confidence in Webster doing what-so-ever - since he never was able to do it and I fail to see how his team-oriented game translate to a talent he never exhibited before.
