nate33 wrote: Kanyewest wrote:
nate33 wrote:I concur with bball reference.
Webber always seemed overrated to me. His stats didn't translate into playoff wins and he wasn't so great at the things that didn't show up in the box score. He was "talented" without necessarily being "great". His team only got past the 2nd round of the playoffs once.
Wallace is the opposite. He was arguably the best player on a championship team (and a team that made the ECF's 4 years in a row). He didn't score, but his rebounding and defense were monstrous. He may be the best pick-and-roll defender of all time and is a top 5 overall defensive player of all time.
When you look at their respective career achievements, Wallace has Webber beat. Each guy was a 5-time All-NBA player, and hung around the 5-10 range in MVP voting for a few years. The big difference is that Wallace was also a 5-time All Defensive 1st teamer, and a 4 time DPOY. And of course, Wallace has a ring.
Getting to the Conference Finals in the West is like getting to the NBA Finals. Plus that series was rigged for anyone who watched and Webber and Bibby should be NBA champions. They were also on their way to beating the Mavs in 2003 in the 2nd round before Webber suffered his career altering injury.
The East/West disparity wasn't quite so large back then. During Webber's 6-year run with Sacramento, the West's winning percentage versus East teams was 51.8%. To be fair, in the 2001-2002 season when Sacramento made the WFC's, the West was indeed unusually strong, with a 54.3% winning percentage over the East.
Webber getting hurt isn't a caveat. Staying healthy is a skill. Webber often had injury issues. It's another reason I rank Wallace above him. In Wallace's 6 year run with Detroit, he missed a grand total of 22 games.
The Kings lost to the Lakers 3 times in a row who ended up winning the championship 3 times in a row. As an 8th seed, the Kings won as many games as the 2000 Indiana Pacers in a 5 game series while the Pacers got to play in a 7 game series. The Blazers took the Lakers to 7 that season. Webber averaged 26, 9.6, and 5 against the Lakers.
In 2001, the 76ers did manage to sneak a game off the Lakers- more than the entire West. Maybe you could argue that there was a layoff. Also the Kings had 55 wins that season, 1 less than the 76ers who made it to the Finals. If the Kings played in the East, they could have made it to the finals especially since they would have been the #1 seed like the 76ers.
In 2002, the Kings took the Lakers to 7 games. The Nets didn't take a single game from the Lakers. Again the West was stronger. Plus the Kings should probably have a ring if the series was officiated fairly.
Also, Webber made it to two conference finals- one with the Pistons- although he wasn't the same player but he was a certainly was a positive factor with a ws/48 of .134. Hell Webber even put up 20 and 7 in game 5 in the game where LeBron James went off against the Pistons.
But then again, I think the injury against the Mavericks was an unfortunate where Webber got injured. I guess we have to agree to disagree that it was bad luck rather than the ability to stay healthy. And also the fact that Webber played 37 minutes per game and played essentially the same number of minutes as Wallace when they were both 34. Also the Kings were the favorites that year
Both Ben Wallace and Chris Webber deserve to be in. I will say I'm not even sure if Wallace is more durable given that they played the same amount of minutes when they were both 34. Webber had to carry a much bigger load, I'm not sure if Ben Wallace would have been healthy playing 37 minutes per game like Webber.