Who was better? (Chris Webber v Rasheed Wallace)

[GeorgeMarcus]

That is a TOUGH one. But with everything taken into consideration, I’ve gotta go with Rasheed by the thinnest of margins.

I've mostly been a Webber defender but it's amazing how impactful Sheed was over his career. More so than I ever gave him credit for at the time.

Sheed is my answer.

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, with every player you get after that being lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

If the basis of your question is that each subsequent player is a worse scorer, and therefore would need to rely on Webber/Sheed as the sole volume scorer, then I would probably take C Webb

[Big J]

The one with the ring.

Webber would have a ring if the refs didn't screw him in 2002 though

The answer here is Webber

Refs have screwed a lot of guys. The great ones don't make excuses.

[LAL1947]

That is a TOUGH one. But with everything taken into consideration, I’ve gotta go with Rasheed by the thinnest of margins.

I've mostly been a Webber defender but it's amazing how impactful Sheed was over his career. More so than I ever gave him credit for at the time.

Sheed is my answer.

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, with every player you get after that being lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

If the basis of your question is that each subsequent player is a worse scorer, and therefore would need to rely on Webber/Sheed as the sole volume scorer, then I would probably take C Webb

Well, I only mean they will always be your #1 option. Lower in quality need not necessarily mean a worse scorer, although it usually is. I'm just asking the question to see what your replies will be and if they change. So you need not change your answer if you think Sheed would make a better #1.

[GeorgeMarcus]

That is a TOUGH one. But with everything taken into consideration, I’ve gotta go with Rasheed by the thinnest of margins.

I've mostly been a Webber defender but it's amazing how impactful Sheed was over his career. More so than I ever gave him credit for at the time.

Sheed is my answer.

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, with every player you get after that being lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

If the basis of your question is that each subsequent player is a worse scorer, and therefore would need to rely on Webber/Sheed as the sole volume scorer, then I would probably take C Webb

But to follow that up, I would still prefer Sheed over C Webb on the 04 Pistons, who didn't exactly have a volume scorer to count on either. Ultimately it depends on the team makeup. If you have 4 Tony Allens that can't do squat on O, you gotta go with Webber. If there's enough scoring (even if 'secondary scoring' or whatever) then Sheed is my choice

[GeorgeMarcus]

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, with every player you get after that being lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

If the basis of your question is that each subsequent player is a worse scorer, and therefore would need to rely on Webber/Sheed as the sole volume scorer, then I would probably take C Webb

Well, I only mean they will always be your #1 option. Lower in quality need not necessarily mean a worse scorer. I'm just asking the question to see what your replies will be and if they change. So you need not change your answer if you think Sheed would make a better #1.

In that case then Sheed, final answer

[tsherkin]

Rasheed was as talented as anyone during that era, it was just a matter of if he felt like being engaged in the game.

Webber is one of the best power forwards of all time, and what hurts his case is that he doesn't have a ring which might be due to some very bad officiating in the '02 WCF.

If you're looking at it from an "All Time" perspective, the answer is easily Webber.

Sheed is an interesting one. He had talent, he just... stopped using it at some point for things other than post defense. Dude was wired a little different upstairs. Great wingspan, very strong, very skilled defender. Developed a 3, didn't mind low primacy on offense, moved the ball well. Just... "both teams played hard." You know what I mean?

Webber... I feel like Webber is overrated to some degree because of his volume scoring numbers and because Sacramento was good. They replaced him capably with Brad Miller. He was a solid-ish rebounder and through 02 he was certainly a good player. Never really the same after the 96 season in terms of his athleticism, which was the driving force behind him being a worthwhile scoring threat. Jump-shooting C-Webb who feared the post and didn't have the burst to slash was a lot less effective, though his passing was always really, really nice. Not a particularly good defender. Top 7 in the league in oRAPM in 2002. OBPM on b-ref doesn't like him too much, puts him in the +3 to +4 range from 00-02. +4.2 career WOWYR, which isn't amazing. Not good in the playoffs, definitely didn't have resilient scoring come the postseason.

Does Webber have to rank above someone like Sheed on an ATG list. He's got a rebounding title, 5 vs 4 All-Star appearances. He was ROY. He made 5 All-NBA teams, including one 1st team selection in 2001. Sheed was All-Rookie 2nd team and never made an All-NBA team, though given the dominant 4s of that era, it isn't surprising. Very hard to work against Dirk and Garnett and Duncan, particularly as a lower-volume scorer.

Yeah, I mean, you gotta take Webber AT over Rasheed. I'd take Sheed on my team over Webber, though, despite all of his oddness.

[xinxin]

The one with the ring.

Webber would have a ring if the refs didn't screw him in 2002 though

The answer here is Webber

Refs have screwed a lot of guys. The great ones don't make excuses.

Those ‘02 Kings had their chance to wrap it up in game 7, at home… but they didn’t ….since they crapped in their pants ..

I Can still remember all those bricked 3s and FTs…. No excuses , if you’re really a great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeanieWard]

Webber without question for me. The numbers back it and the eye test does as well. Young CWebb was much more athletic, stronger, much better passer and better scorer to me. Rasheed was a better shooter from long range and was pretty good in the post too but Webber is a notch above him imo

[cupcakesnake]

That is a TOUGH one. But with everything taken into consideration, I’ve gotta go with Rasheed by the thinnest of margins.

But Sheed was a more effective basketball player.
- Very strong defender while Webber topped out of average.
- Better shot selection? This is debatable since Sheed is the rare bad shot selection who wasn't aggressive enough.
- Better shooter. They both loved to shoot the long 2, but Sheed was better at it.
- More durable. Webber stopped helping basketball team the second he turned 30 (due to injuries). Sheed made an all-star team at age 33, and unretired at age 38 to **** around on the Knicks.

I've mostly been a Webber defender but it's amazing how impactful Sheed was over his career. More so than I ever gave him credit for at the time.

Sheed is my answer.

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, and every player made available to you after this choice is lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

Hmmm. There's an appeal to Webber in this scenario because it's easier to project him as an offensive fulcrum. You'll put Webber in the high post and let him create and feel good about that to some extent.

But at the end of the day I'd probably still go Sheed. Neither of these guys scream best player on a title team unless your team is absolutely STACKED. We got to see both of these teams as the best player on an absolutely stacked roster. Both of them lost in 7 games in the Western Conference Finals to a historic Lakers squad. Both of them came close to beating Shaqkobe, but the Kings were undone by questionable officiating, and the Blazers went on a freaky cold shooting streak.

I get that Webber piled up more points/rebounds/assists. The box score says Webber is the bigger star. The impact stats call bull on that though and we got big samples of the Kings with and without Webber to prove the theory. I'm choosing Sheed's defense and shooting as the easier thing to build around.

I don't think it's a whopping gap though. I understand someone taking Webber, and not even in a dumb fan (LOOK AT THE PPG) way. Sheed wasn't thaaat good. I'd just rather build with Sheed and his defense and pair him with some scoring guard types, rather than be hamstrung with Webber ugly shot selection and higher usage playstyle (not to mention the mediocre defense). Knowing what I know now, I like that Sheed doesn't get hurt. Webber is done at 30 where Sheed kept doing a pretty effective job.

[SeanieWard]

The one with the ring.

The one in the Hall of Fame

[BoatsNZones]

To illustrate their standing in the league at the time, C Webb was a 5X All NBA player and All NBA 1st teamer over KG/Dirk in '01 (multiple 2nd Teams). Sheed was a 0X All NBA player.

[vital_signs]

Webber would have a ring if the refs didn't screw him in 2002 though

The answer here is Webber

Refs have screwed a lot of guys. The great ones don't make excuses.

Those ‘02 Kings had their chance to wrap it up in game 7, at home… but they didn’t ….since they crapped in their pants ..

I Can still remember all those bricked 3s and FTs…. No excuses , if you’re really a great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish there was a way to block Lakers fans from talking on this subject. They shouldn't have had to wrap it up in 7, just admit it for once.

[Roscoe Sheed]

As mentioned, it depends on the needs of the team. Sheed allowed that Pistons team to transform from very good to great- especially on defense.

I doubt the Pistons win the title with Webber instead of Sheed.

If Sheed was more focused and selfish, you'd have to favor him for sure- he had a great post up game when he was focused- too bad he didn't use it enough. He could also stretch the floor further and was a far better defensive player than Webber.

[NZB2323]

CWebb made an all-NBA 1st team and 3 all-NBA 2nd teams. Rasheed Wallace never even made an all-NBA 3rd team.

I know Rasheed has a ring, but he was the 4th best player on those Pistons teams. 2 teams traded him away for practically nothing that year. CWebb almost won a ring as the best player on his team, and might have if the refs called the game more fairly.

When CWebb made an all-NBA team, it was over KG and Dirk. I really feel like 97-2007 was the golden era for power forwards. During that time 6 MVPS were won by power forwards and 5 times the runner up was a power forward. Malone, Duncan, KG, Dirk, CWebb, Rasheed, Amare, Elton Brand, Jermaine O'Neal, ect.

[sp6r=underrated]

Webber isn't a bad guy but there a lot of issues with him that diluted his value. His best position was center and he turned in an ATG rookie season playing it. He hated it and refused to play it the rest of his career.

He had great offensive skills but struggled to apply them effectively. Spending way too much time taking ghastly 18 ft jumpers rather than use his excellent athleticism. As a result his impact was a lot less than you'd expect. Outside of his rookie year his team generally didn't improve much when he was off the court, which was often given how often he was hurt, and after his 03 injury he was a net negative player ala Westbrook now.

Sheed was the opposite. He consistently applied his more limited skills to help his team win. They always played better with him on the court. He was a major contributor on teams that played in 7 CFs. The only real flaw in his game was the childish war on the refs, which did harm his team.

Sheed.

[Reeko]

Rasheed was as talented as anyone during that era, it was just a matter of if he felt like being engaged in the game.

Webber is one of the best power forwards of all time, and what hurts his case is that he doesn't have a ring which might be due to some very bad officiating in the '02 WCF.

If you're looking at it from an "All Time" perspective, the answer is easily Webber.

Sheed is an interesting one. He had talent, he just... stopped using it at some point for things other than post defense. Dude was wired a little different upstairs. Great wingspan, very strong, very skilled defender. Developed a 3, didn't mind low primacy on offense, moved the ball well. Just... "both teams played hard." You know what I mean?

Webber... I feel like Webber is overrated to some degree because of his volume scoring numbers and because Sacramento was good. They replaced him capably with Brad Miller. He was a solid-ish rebounder and through 02 he was certainly a good player. Never really the same after the 96 season in terms of his athleticism, which was the driving force behind him being a worthwhile scoring threat. Jump-shooting C-Webb who feared the post and didn't have the burst to slash was a lot less effective, though his passing was always really, really nice. Not a particularly good defender. Top 7 in the league in oRAPM in 2002. OBPM on b-ref doesn't like him too much, puts him in the +3 to +4 range from 00-02. +4.2 career WOWYR, which isn't amazing. Not good in the playoffs, definitely didn't have resilient scoring come the postseason.

Does Webber have to rank above someone like Sheed on an ATG list. He's got a rebounding title, 5 vs 4 All-Star appearances. He was ROY. He made 5 All-NBA teams, including one 1st team selection in 2001. Sheed was All-Rookie 2nd team and never made an All-NBA team, though given the dominant 4s of that era, it isn't surprising. Very hard to work against Dirk and Garnett and Duncan, particularly as a lower-volume scorer.

Yeah, I mean, you gotta take Webber AT over Rasheed. I'd take Sheed on my team over Webber, though, despite all of his oddness.

So would I. Especially if I'm looking for the missing piece to a championship contender. I think the simplest way of breaking it down is Webber was the better floor raiser, whereas Sheed was the superior ceiling raiser.

[HMFFL]

Chris Webber is the answer.
Rasheed Wallace was more of a talent that plugs a giant hole on a championship winning team. Rasheed always needed to be motivated, so playing for a a system that's focused, and serious like the Pistons sold Rasheed.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[coolness]

Webber was my least favorite tv analyst. Sheed's never done it, but pretty sure he'd be awesome at it.

[CS707]

Wallace could have been great if he could be bothered to put out the effort on a consistent basis.

[TheLand13]

That is a TOUGH one. But with everything taken into consideration, I’ve gotta go with Rasheed by the thinnest of margins.

But Sheed was a more effective basketball player.
- Very strong defender while Webber topped out of average.
- Better shot selection? This is debatable since Sheed is the rare bad shot selection who wasn't aggressive enough.
- Better shooter. They both loved to shoot the long 2, but Sheed was better at it.
- More durable. Webber stopped helping basketball team the second he turned 30 (due to injuries). Sheed made an all-star team at age 33, and unretired at age 38 to **** around on the Knicks.

I've mostly been a Webber defender but it's amazing how impactful Sheed was over his career. More so than I ever gave him credit for at the time.

Sheed is my answer.

Let's say the league adds 2 more teams right now. You are made GM of 1 of these teams with not a single player on your roster. The league lets you pick between Webber and Rasheed as your #1 option, and every player made available to you after this choice is lower in quality than these two. Who you got?

Oh in that case? Neither.