Who do you think was the better player in their prime, Amar’e Stoudemire or Chris Webber?

Interesting comparison but I’ll take Chris Webber.

Stoudemire in his prime don’t get me wrong – was no joke. He was giving Tim Duncan and KG a hard time in the playoffs. He was averaging 30 and 11 in the 2005 playoffs, and IMO Stoudemire should be in the Hall of Fame, he’s a 5x All-NBA and was fairly dominant in his prime.

Now, the reason I’m still taking Webber is that I felt as dominant as Stoudemire was in his prime, he had a lot of help from Steve Nash. This comparison is actually fairly similar to Malone vs Barkley in that Malone, like Stoudemire, had help from an all time PG to get his looks at the rim. Malone has a much better midrange game than Stoudemire though. Stoudemire, when he’s rolling to the rim, was near unstoppable, but he wasn’t very offensively skilled other than that. Didn’t have any post moves, or a midrange game. He was just a perfect pick and roll partner for Nash.

Webber on the other hand, was much like Barkley. He was the team’s entire offense and very polished on offense. Webber could post you up, back you down, hit a midrange, a hook, a fadeaway, or dunk on you. He could also rebound very well and was one of the best passing PFs of all time. Webber in his prime was giving you 27/11/5 a game. He was a complete offensive player. On defense he wasn’t that much better than Stoudemire (although both were decent defenders) but on offense, I felt Stoudemire was a one trick pony – set a pick for Nash then roll to the rim. Granted, He was very very good at this, but still. Webber could just punish you in so many ways without the help of any great PGs around him.

So overall, I’m taking Webber.