PDA

View Full Version : Starting From Scratch: Chris Webber vs Amare Stoudemire



Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 06:41 PM
If you were starting a team from scratch, which player would you favor and why?

JesusNYY_Savior
09-10-2016, 06:49 PM
Webber and it's not even close for me, injuries ruined Amare.

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 06:53 PM
Webber and it's not even close for me, injuries ruined Amare.

Amare played 14 seasons and totaled 846 games, 26,254 minutes.
Webber played 15 seasons and totaled 831 games, 30,847 minutes.

It's not that big of a difference (6mpg difference for their careers). Amare still had a great 8 year prime, Webber's was longer but i don't think it was much more productive which is why i think it's a debate.

Webber's defense and passing offsets the scoring edge that Amare had. So to me, give me Webber.

Federal Reserve
09-11-2016, 02:04 AM
Amare in his prime consistently scored 40+ points in the playoffs against Duncan. That's clear proof that he would thrive on any team, as long as he is healthy. Chris Webber was never able to display such dominance at any part of his career.

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 02:16 AM
Amare in his prime consistently scored 40+ points in the playoffs against Duncan. That's clear proof that he would thrive on any team, as long as he is healthy. Chris Webber was never able to display such dominance at any part of his career.

as a scorer, Amare is definitely the better player. But Webber was a far better rebounder, defender, playmaker.

Federal Reserve
09-11-2016, 02:28 AM
as a scorer, Amare is definitely the better player. But Webber was a far better rebounder, defender, playmaker.

I am not sure where you are getting this from. Amare was a better rebounder and playmaker than Webber was. Check their career rebounding and assist stats. The only thing Webber had going for him was being a better defender, but that's not enough to make a case.

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 03:10 AM
I am not sure where you are getting this from. Amare was a better rebounder and playmaker than Webber was. Check their career rebounding and assist stats. The only thing Webber has going for him was being a better defender, but that's not enough to make a case.

Here's a comparison of Webber's and Stat's primes, through age 30 (11 seasons for both)

Chris Webber Regular Season
RPG: 10.2, Per36: 9.6, Per100: 13.4
APG: 4.4, Per36: 4.2, Per100: 5.9
TOV: 3.0, Per36: 2.8, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.6%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 20.5%, Tov% 12.3%

Amare Stoudemire Regular Season
RPG: 8.6, Per36: 9.1, Per100: 12.8
APG: 1.4, Per36: 1.5, Per100: 2.1
TOV: 2.6, Per36: 2.7, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.3%, ORB: 8.9%, DRB%: 19.5%
Assist%: 7.1%, Tov% 12.7%



Chris Webber Playoffs
RPG: 9.6, Per36: 8.8, Per100: 12.6
APG: 4.3, Per36: 3.9, Per100: 5.6
TOV: 3.2, Per36: 3.0, Per100: 4.2
TRB%: 13.3%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 20.7%, Tov% 13.2%


Amare Stoudemire Playoffs
RPG: 8.5, Per36: 8.8, Per100: 12.7
APG: 1.0, Per36: 1.0, Per100: 1.4
TOV: 2.6, Per36: 2.7, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.0%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 4.9%, Tov% 12.2%


Over their entire careers, Webber was a slightly better overall rebounder than Stoudemire was, based on rebounds per game, per36, per100, total rebound rate, and defensive rebound rate. Now, they are REALLY similar rebounders, a lot closer than i thought (based on rebound rates). However, no way in hell was Amare a better passer.

I think you just never looked at their assist numbers. Look at those, i bolded them for you to show you the difference between the two guys. Amare barely averaged 1 assist, Webber had 4 times the number of assists. What's worse, is that Webber and Amare turned the ball over at damn near identical rates.

Which means, that Amare was never passing the ball. But still turning it over. Webber was utilizing his passing in the low/high posts a lot.



So, Amare is the more efficient scorer. Webber is the far better defender and passer. They are equal rebounders.


I also want to add, that Amare had the best pick & roll point guard of all time. Which definitely contributed to his numbers. I'm not saying Amare gets zero credit. But, if Webber had the opportunity to play with a point guard like Nash, his numbers would be better scoring the ball and being more efficient at it.

mngopher35
09-11-2016, 03:35 AM
I would go Webber as well due to defense and playmaking. I think Amare was in a better spot for his numbers/efficiency next to Nash and not needing to do much for others.

MTar786
09-11-2016, 08:05 AM
webber and its not even close. whoever thinks amare should quit this forum

KnicksorBust
09-11-2016, 08:19 AM
I am not sure where you are getting this from. Amare was a better rebounder and playmaker than Webber was. Check their career rebounding and assist stats. The only thing Webber had going for him was being a better defender, but that's not enough to make a case.

Amar'e a better playmaker than Webber? Yikes. Maybe you are using playmaker differently than most people and combining scoring/passing but in terms of pure passing Webber was on another level. One of the best passing PF's of all-time.

KnicksorBust
09-11-2016, 08:25 AM
webber and its not even close. whoever thinks amare should quit this forum

How is it not even close when Amar'e was significantly more efficient as a scorer and Webber was a notorious choke-artist in the playoffs?

Federal Reserve
09-11-2016, 11:06 AM
Here's a comparison of Webber's and Stat's primes, through age 30 (11 seasons for both)

Chris Webber Regular Season
RPG: 10.2, Per36: 9.6, Per100: 13.4
APG: 4.4, Per36: 4.2, Per100: 5.9
TOV: 3.0, Per36: 2.8, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.6%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 20.5%, Tov% 12.3%

Amare Stoudemire Regular Season
RPG: 8.6, Per36: 9.1, Per100: 12.8
APG: 1.4, Per36: 1.5, Per100: 2.1
TOV: 2.6, Per36: 2.7, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.3%, ORB: 8.9%, DRB%: 19.5%
Assist%: 7.1%, Tov% 12.7%



Chris Webber Playoffs
RPG: 9.6, Per36: 8.8, Per100: 12.6
APG: 4.3, Per36: 3.9, Per100: 5.6
TOV: 3.2, Per36: 3.0, Per100: 4.2
TRB%: 13.3%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 20.7%, Tov% 13.2%


Amare Stoudemire Playoffs
RPG: 8.5, Per36: 8.8, Per100: 12.7
APG: 1.0, Per36: 1.0, Per100: 1.4
TOV: 2.6, Per36: 2.7, Per100: 3.9
TRB%: 14.0%, ORB: 8.6%, DRB%: 20.6%
Assist%: 4.9%, Tov% 12.2%


Over their entire careers, Webber was a slightly better overall rebounder than Stoudemire was, based on rebounds per game, per36, per100, total rebound rate, and defensive rebound rate. Now, they are REALLY similar rebounders, a lot closer than i thought (based on rebound rates). However, no way in hell was Amare a better passer.

I think you just never looked at their assist numbers. Look at those, i bolded them for you to show you the difference between the two guys. Amare barely averaged 1 assist, Webber had 4 times the number of assists. What's worse, is that Webber and Amare turned the ball over at damn near identical rates.

Which means, that Amare was never passing the ball. But still turning it over. Webber was utilizing his passing in the low/high posts a lot.



So, Amare is the more efficient scorer. Webber is the far better defender and passer. They are equal rebounders.


I also want to add, that Amare had the best pick & roll point guard of all time. Which definitely contributed to his numbers. I'm not saying Amare gets zero credit. But, if Webber had the opportunity to play with a point guard like Nash, his numbers would be better scoring the ball and being more efficient at it.

I accidentally looked at the wrong stats for Webber. You're right, Webber is clearly the better playmaker. I think an easy way to separate the success of both men is to look back to their playoff success or lack thereof. Webber didn't do anything in Washington and spent the early half of his days on the Kings getting eliminated in the first round. His most successful playoff season was in 2002, when he lost to the Lakers in a fixed game. After that one year, the Kings became the curent Clippers of the NBA. They certainly had the talent to compete, but not the will and desire. It was Webber's responsibility to take the Kings to the next level, something he failed to do. I don't have to talk about how many dominant seasons Amare had on the Phoenix Suns in the playoffs. Hardly any of the blame can be attributed to Amare for not doing more. He dominated every big he went up against. At the end of the day, scoring points is what wins games and championships, and the difference between Amare and Webber is light and day.

Vee-Rex
09-11-2016, 11:50 AM
I accidentally looked at the wrong stats for Webber. You're right, Webber is clearly the better playmaker. I think an easy way to separate the success of both men is to look back to their playoff success or lack thereof. Webber didn't do anything in Washington and spent the early half of his days on the Kings getting eliminated in the first round. His most successful playoff season was in 2002, when he lost to the Lakers in a fixed game. After that one year, the Kings became the curent Clippers of the NBA. They certainly had the talent to compete, but not the will and desire. It was Webber's responsibility to take the Kings to the next level, something he failed to do. I don't have to talk about how many dominant seasons Amare had on the Phoenix Suns in the playoffs. Hardly any of the blame can be attributed to Amare for not doing more. He dominated every big he went up against. At the end of the day, scoring points is what wins games and championships, and the difference between Amare and Webber is light and day.

Talk about backpedaling and then trying to cover for it.

:laugh2:

I take Webber 24/7 and twice on Sundays.

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 12:30 PM
Yes, scoring points is what wins a game because you need one more point or more than your opponent. You don't think being a really good passer helps scoring points? What about limiting your opponent- doesn't that make it easier for you to beat him? Not following your logic

Federal Reserve
09-11-2016, 03:22 PM
Yes, scoring points is what wins a game because you need one more point or more than your opponent. You don't think being a really good passer helps scoring points? What about limiting your opponent- doesn't that make it easier for you to beat him? Not following your logic

Big men don't need to be exceptional passers. The point guard is the one who sets up the plays anyway. Webber's assist numbers benefited from having played tiki taka style passing with his point guards (Williams and Bibby). The only true play making for a big is when the big passes from a double team to an open teammate. But Webber was never elite enough to draw double teams.

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 03:30 PM
Big men don't need to be exceptional passers. The point guard is the one who sets up the plays anyway. Webber's assist numbers benefited from having played tiki taka style passing with his point guards (Williams and Bibby). The only true play making for a big is when the big passes from a double team to an open teammate. But Webber was never elite enough to draw double teams.

Just because they don't need to be, doesn't mean having one that is phenomenal at it is pointless. Webber's passing helps tremendously. And the bolded, what does that even mean? You're saying that Webber's assist numbers hold less value because he played with Jason Williams?

Chris Webber absolutely demanded double teams too. Your memory is wrong.
Here's a good example of Webber against a damn good defensive players in Jermain O'Neal, tim Duncan, Ben Wallace, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T6SHhCZSY

JasonJohnHorn
09-11-2016, 07:17 PM
Webber is a better
1. Defender
2. Rebounder
3. Passer


I would concede that Stoudemire was a better scorer, or at least was more efficient, but only marginally so. I would say Webber, between the ages of 20-28 was about as good a scorer, but his percentages dropped quite significantly after that. So STAT gets the edge there.

But give the defense, rebounding, and passing, I'd say Webber has a clear advantage, and I think if he were playing the pick-and-role with Steve Nash, he likely would have had a higher FG% on his career with all those easy buckets. Though in Amar'e's defense (not that he played any), his FG% remained high even without Nash.

FlashBolt
09-11-2016, 10:51 PM
Webber is the easy answer here.

valade16
09-11-2016, 11:21 PM
Webber is an inefficient scorer. Amare is an efficient scorer.

According to the AI principle, Amare has to be better.

Pfeifer
09-11-2016, 11:41 PM
I think Steve Nash needs to be mentioned here. Amare got to play with one of the best offensive primes ever. Webber was the better player all day imo. Amare ran the floor better and was more of an energy guy but Webber was a smooth shooter and seemed very polished. Passed much better. I think prime Amare with knees still was a way better rebounder. Webber was a better scorer.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 12:12 AM
I think Steve Nash needs to be mentioned here. Amare got to play with one of the best offensive primes ever. Webber was the better player all day imo. Amare ran the floor better and was more of an energy guy but Webber was a smooth shooter and seemed very polished. Passed much better. I think prime Amare with knees still was a way better rebounder. Webber was a better scorer.

Not true, their rebounding rates are nearly identical, with a slight edge to Webber, over their entire primes.

Stoudemire was the far better scorer in terms of efficiency.

basch152
09-12-2016, 12:18 AM
People seem to forget how great webber was. If you're talking peak, you can argue webbers was as good as any PF in history. His game was well rounded and his versatility was almost unmatched.

This isn't even a question - webber, easily.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 12:37 AM
People seem to forget how great webber was. If you're talking peak, you can argue webbers was as good as any PF in history. His game was well rounded and his versatility was almost unmatched.

This isn't even a question - webber, easily.

Webber didn't live up to his regular season scoring in the playoffs. His name doesn't go along with players like Dirk, Garnett, Barkley, Malone. He's also below McHale to me and maybe a couple others i can't recall off the top of my head

Pfeifer
09-12-2016, 01:26 AM
Not true, their rebounding rates are nearly identical, with a slight edge to Webber, over their entire primes.

Stoudemire was the far better scorer in terms of efficiency.

Easy to be efficient when your getting easy layups all game because Steve Nash is your PG. Amare disnt have near the range Webber did. Its honestly not even close imo.

mrblisterdundee
09-12-2016, 02:01 AM
I also want to add, that Amare had the best pick & roll point guard of all time. Which definitely contributed to his numbers. I'm not saying Amare gets zero credit. But, if Webber had the opportunity to play with a point guard like Nash, his numbers would be better scoring the ball and being more efficient at it.

Thanks for putting part of Stoudemire's offense into context. Imagine Webber teamed with Nash. He would have many more opportunities than he did. Conversely, maybe Stoudemire would have had to pass more without a guy like Nash running things.
But Webber was the better all-around player, when you factor in defense and passing. He's like a much better version of Al Horford. He also didn't break down as quick as Stoudemire after major injuries, having about 11 seasons of star-level play to Stoudemire's nine.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 10:55 AM
Easy to be efficient when your getting easy layups all game because Steve Nash is your PG. Amare disnt have near the range Webber did. Its honestly not even close imo.

You're making it sound like Amare's efficiency is strictly because of Steve Nash, and that all of his made field goals were easy layups. Not true.

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 11:07 AM
You're making it sound like Amare's efficiency is strictly because of Steve Nash, and that all of his made field goals were easy layups. Not true.

Meh, there is some partial truth to it. Nash made Amare's life much easier.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 11:14 AM
Meh, there is some partial truth to it. Nash made Amare's life much easier.

oh definitely true, but it's not true that Amare had easy layups and that was strictly the reason for his efficiency. Evidence for that is Amare still remained one of the most efficient players in New York that first year before his injuries really hit him hard, and that was with Raymond Felton who is similar in production to Jason Williams and Mike Bibby as passers whom Webber played with

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 11:21 AM
oh definitely true, but it's not true that Amare had easy layups and that was strictly the reason for his efficiency. Evidence for that is Amare still remained one of the most efficient players in New York that first year before his injuries really hit him hard, and that was with Raymond Felton who is similar in production to Jason Williams and Mike Bibby as passers whom Webber played with

I disagree. Amare in the Phoenix attempted the most shots near the basket. Actually, an impressive amount of his shot attempts came from within 2 feet of the basket. We saw Amare step out of the basket more with the Knicks. It isn't until he became a shell of himself that he essentially became a player who just cleaned up around the rim but wasn't someone you could pass the ball to and score willingly. There is solid evidence that Nash is responsible for Amare being that effective near the basket and his efficiency.

PowerHouse
09-12-2016, 11:43 AM
Like many have mentioned, Webber could do everything Amare could do plus he was the better defender, ball handler, passer and rebounder. Webber had much better VORPs because of this. Amare's effeciency was slightly higher because he took all his shots from within 5 feet of the hoop. Webber would spread the floor and knock down some outside shots.

KnicksorBust
09-12-2016, 11:51 AM
Just because they don't need to be, doesn't mean having one that is phenomenal at it is pointless. Webber's passing helps tremendously. And the bolded, what does that even mean? You're saying that Webber's assist numbers hold less value because he played with Jason Williams?

Chris Webber absolutely demanded double teams too. Your memory is wrong.
Here's a good example of Webber against a damn good defensive players in Jermain O'Neal, tim Duncan, Ben Wallace, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T6SHhCZSY

If you can get confused enough to think STAT was a better passer than Webber because...


I accidentally looked at the wrong stats for Webber. .

then you probably didn't follow his career too closely. I wouldn't trust his memory Shammy.

JAZZNC
09-12-2016, 11:53 AM
I also want to add, that Amare had the best pick & roll point guard of all time.

Not to derail the topic but you have forgotten about the PG that dominated the pick and roll game for 2 decades.

On topic though I'd definitely take Webber. He brings more to the table and if he got to play with a PG that was half the caliber of Nash his numbers would be even better. They were a lucky loose ball bounce from beating the damn Lakers. The Suns couldn't even beat the Spurs and let's be real, the Lakers were better than those Spurs teams.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 12:03 PM
I disagree. Amare in the Phoenix attempted the most shots near the basket. Actually, an impressive amount of his shot attempts came from within 2 feet of the basket. We saw Amare step out of the basket more with the Knicks. It isn't until he became a shell of himself that he essentially became a player who just cleaned up around the rim but wasn't someone you could pass the ball to and score willingly. There is solid evidence that Nash is responsible for Amare being that effective near the basket and his efficiency.

Here's Stat's distance breakdown in Phoenix
0-2 feet: 46.7%
3-9 feet: 24.6%
10-15 ft: 12.2%
16+ FT: 15.4%

he was assisted on 60.4% of his made baskets

Webber's distance breakdown in 6 seasons with Sac/Philly (bball reference only has 2000/01 season and later)
0-2 feet: 24.8%
3-9 feet: 22.3%
10-15 ft: 13.2%
16+ FT: 37.0%

he was assisted on 60.3% of his made baskets


So yes, Nash made Amare's life easier. And yes, Amare lived at the rim. However, when looking at how many of their made baskets were of their own doing and how many were assisted on, their % assist rate is, unbelievably, identical.

Now, Webber's numbers above aren't completely accurate because the site doesn't give us distance breakdowns before the year 2000/2001 so we miss Webber's first 7 seasons, which is a great portion of his prime. However, I can't imagine that those first 7 seasons would drastically change the % assist rate his made baskets were on

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 12:17 PM
Not to derail the topic but you have forgotten about the PG that dominated the pick and roll game for 2 decades.

On topic though I'd definitely take Webber. He brings more to the table and if he got to play with a PG that was half the caliber of Nash his numbers would be even better. They were a lucky loose ball bounce from beating the damn Lakers. The Suns couldn't even beat the Spurs and let's be real, the Lakers were better than those Spurs teams.

Stockton wasn't the threat that Nash is as a pick & roll scorer, but good point.

I also take Webber.

I don't like that you say the Kings were a loose ball bounce from beating the Lakers, but then right after say that the Suns couldn't beat the Spurs because that series was tossed to the Spurs because of Stern suspending Amare and Diaw for leaving the bench in 2007, on top of Nash breaking his nose and the trainer unable to get the blood flow to stop making Nash have to exit the game once more in 2010.


I'm sorry but I think giving credit to a team that almost beat a team and then not giving credit to a team for almost beating a team is overkill when comparing these two players because ultimately - those were TEAM failures not individual guys

JAZZNC
09-12-2016, 12:31 PM
Stockton wasn't the threat that Nash is as a pick & roll scorer, but good point.

I also take Webber.

I don't like that you say the Kings were a loose ball bounce from beating the Lakers, but then right after say that the Suns couldn't beat the Spurs because that series was tossed to the Spurs because of Stern suspending Amare and Diaw for leaving the bench in 2007, on top of Nash breaking his nose and the trainer unable to get the blood flow to stop making Nash have to exit the game once more in 2010.


I'm sorry but I think giving credit to a team that almost beat a team and then not giving credit to a team for almost beating a team is overkill when comparing these two players because ultimately - those were TEAM failures not individual guys
Thats fine if you think it isn't afair comparison, very reasonable argument. I think the biggest takeaway from both of those "almost victories" is that the Lakers were a much better team and Webber wasn't playing with the MVP he was the MVP for his team. I mean who was his next best player? It's unfortunate that we didn't get to see Amare be the man because he was ruined by injuries. But I kinda feel the same way with Webber after he became unable to jump over a phone book in Philly. The later parts of each players career they were just a shell of their former selves.

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 01:23 PM
Here's Stat's distance breakdown in Phoenix
0-2 feet: 46.7%
3-9 feet: 24.6%
10-15 ft: 12.2%
16+ FT: 15.4%

he was assisted on 60.4% of his made baskets

Webber's distance breakdown in 6 seasons with Sac/Philly (bball reference only has 2000/01 season and later)
0-2 feet: 24.8%
3-9 feet: 22.3%
10-15 ft: 13.2%
16+ FT: 37.0%

he was assisted on 60.3% of his made baskets


So yes, Nash made Amare's life easier. And yes, Amare lived at the rim. However, when looking at how many of their made baskets were of their own doing and how many were assisted on, their % assist rate is, unbelievably, identical.

Now, Webber's numbers above aren't completely accurate because the site doesn't give us distance breakdowns before the year 2000/2001 so we miss Webber's first 7 seasons, which is a great portion of his prime. However, I can't imagine that those first 7 seasons would drastically change the % assist rate his made baskets were on

Oh, no doubt Webber had some easy baskets but I was just responding to the narrative that Nash didn't have a drastic effect on Amare's game. After his Suns stint, Amare's shots from within the rim decreased. That's because Nash was no longer there to space the floor out and his passes were MIA. Who's the Knicks PG? Exactly. Webber on the other hand was a better defender, rebounder, passer, and scorer. The only issue is that both players are injury prone so who to pick is not a huge change.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 02:03 PM
Oh, no doubt Webber had some easy baskets but I was just responding to the narrative that Nash didn't have a drastic effect on Amare's game. After his Suns stint, Amare's shots from within the rim decreased. That's because Nash was no longer there to space the floor out and his passes were MIA. Who's the Knicks PG? Exactly. Webber on the other hand was a better defender, rebounder, passer, and scorer. The only issue is that both players are injury prone so who to pick is not a huge change.

in addition to that though, Amare was near the end of his prime and was starting to lose his explosiveness. I do agree though, Webber > Stat

KnicksorBust
09-13-2016, 02:28 PM
Healthy/Peak Amar'e would have dominated offensively with any PG. He showed it with Raymond freaking Felton in NY. Marion/JJ/Q-Rich benefited the most from 7sol.

Federal Reserve
09-13-2016, 03:22 PM
I disagree. Amare in the Phoenix attempted the most shots near the basket. Actually, an impressive amount of his shot attempts came from within 2 feet of the basket. We saw Amare step out of the basket more with the Knicks. It isn't until he became a shell of himself that he essentially became a player who just cleaned up around the rim but wasn't someone you could pass the ball to and score willingly. There is solid evidence that Nash is responsible for Amare being that effective near the basket and his efficiency.

This is incorrect. Webber took WIDE OPEN jump shots. He wasn't pulling up like Kobe Bryant was. That is the only time Webber ever shot from 16+ feet. A wide open jump shot is an easier shot to make than a heavily contested shot around the basket. Amare's offense was on a hall of fame level, whereas Webber's jack-of-all-trades-but-a-master-of-none offense was a bit above an all-star level at best.

shep33
09-13-2016, 03:23 PM
Gimme Webber.

Kinkotheclown
09-13-2016, 03:59 PM
Weber for the main reason stated. He was a better playmaker and defender. Stat was horrible on D. I loved him as a player and his work ethic is amazing. He just stinks on D and can't pass.
It's a tough call because if you knew the type of team you were building, I think you could build a great one around either guy.
I just think Webber is the safer bet.

Redrum187
09-13-2016, 04:50 PM
If we are talking peak, I would probably go with Amare... if we are building around a player, probably Webber.

I dislike Webber and his sh***y efficiency to vote for him even though I think I'd rather have him. :P

FlashBolt
09-13-2016, 04:58 PM
This is incorrect. Webber took WIDE OPEN jump shots. He wasn't pulling up like Kobe Bryant was. That is the only time Webber ever shot from 16+ feet. A wide open jump shot is an easier shot to make than a heavily contested shot around the basket. Amare's offense was on a hall of fame level, whereas Webber's jack-of-all-trades-but-a-master-of-none offense was a bit above an all-star level at best.

Where are you getting this from because I never said he was pulling up like Kobe. I'd take Webber over Amare because he was better all-around. Scoring efficiency is misleading. It doesn't take a genius to see that Amare was the most efficient when Nash was around.

YAALREADYKNO
09-13-2016, 05:21 PM
Webber didn't live up to his regular season scoring in the playoffs. His name doesn't go along with players like Dirk, Garnett, Barkley, Malone. He's also below McHale to me and maybe a couple others i can't recall off the top of my head

Well who has said Webber belongs up there with those guys? He's closer to those guys than Amare

YAALREADYKNO
09-13-2016, 05:26 PM
Healthy/Peak Amar'e would have dominated offensively with any PG. He showed it with Raymond freaking Felton in NY. Marion/JJ/Q-Rich benefited the most from 7sol.

What? Joe Johnson left the Suns and became a 7x Allstar lol he was a solid player with or without the system. I hate it when people say Marion benefited from playing in that system. it increased his FG% but Marion was still a 19 & 9 guy even more before Nash got there.

Hawkeye15
09-14-2016, 01:19 PM
Webber pretty easily for me. Insane hands, good passer, just far more skilled as a player.

Hawkeye15
09-14-2016, 01:24 PM
What? Joe Johnson left the Suns and became a 7x Allstar lol he was a solid player with or without the system. I hate it when people say Marion benefited from playing in that system. it increased his FG% but Marion was still a 19 & 9 guy even more before Nash got there.

after he left Phoenix, Johnson really never developed into much more of an impact player, he was just given the usage and shots to increase his baseline numbers. Johnson is the definition of why a multiple time all star doesn't make you a star talent.

His career would have been better (as an impactful player) had he stayed next to Nash

YAALREADYKNO
09-14-2016, 05:01 PM
after he left Phoenix, Johnson really never developed into much more of an impact player, he was just given the usage and shots to increase his baseline numbers. Johnson is the definition of why a multiple time all star doesn't make you a star talent.

His career would have been better (as an impactful player) had he stayed next to Nash

Never said he went on to be an MVP caliber type player but to say that he was a product of the Suns system is not true. He was a solid all star type of player when he left. Still shot a good FG % and Sorta slowly helped turn around the Hawks. He's not a number 1 option on a championship team and would've been better off as a #2 option but he was a good player with or without the Suns system. All I'm saying

Hawkeye15
09-14-2016, 05:17 PM
Never said he went on to be an MVP caliber type player but to say that he was a product of the Suns system is not true. He was a solid all star type of player when he left. Still shot a good FG % and Sorta slowly helped turn around the Hawks. He's not a number 1 option on a championship team and would've been better off as a #2 option but he was a good player with or without the Suns system. All I'm saying

what I mean is, the Suns "system", or the Suns at least, developed him into basically as good as he would get. He didn't grow much at all when he moved on.

Joe Johnson isn't even a #2 on a contender. No way. Look at his playoff numbers, he cratered.

YAALREADYKNO
09-14-2016, 05:20 PM
what I mean is, the Suns "system", or the Suns at least, developed him into basically as good as he would get. He didn't grow much at all when he moved on.

Joe Johnson isn't even a #2 on a contender. No way. Look at his playoff numbers, he cratered.

doesn't change the fact the man still made 7 Allstar teams with the Hawks/Nets. He's not a number one but it's not like he totally fell off the map without Nash and Amare. All I'm saying

GoferKing_
09-19-2016, 03:44 PM
I am not sure where you are getting this from. Amare was a better rebounder and playmaker than Webber was.


Staph bruh. You clearly never saw Webber playing basketball...

Hawkeye15
09-19-2016, 04:18 PM
doesn't change the fact the man still made 7 Allstar teams with the Hawks/Nets. He's not a number one but it's not like he totally fell off the map without Nash and Amare. All I'm saying

and he never really got any better, he just got more shots.

YAALREADYKNO
09-19-2016, 05:28 PM
and he never really got any better, he just got more shots.

But did he become a scrub and fall off without Nash and that system?

europagnpilgrim
09-19-2016, 05:59 PM
Webber

but its close if both were totally healthy, I just feel Webber can adapt to diff. styles like he showed from G State to Washington to Kings and do him and that Fab Five group he led was something for the ages even with his bonehead TO mistake that cost them a ncaa title