Ben Wallace is overrated

No, defense and offense win championships. Defense is only half of the game as is offense.

yes, but take a look at the previous 2 champs...Detroit & SAS....both had shitty offense, and relied on defense to win games (and generate easy points)

In my mind Phx can't play with the big boys, they can push someone to 4-3, but they don't have enough to win (barring significant injury to SAS). Unless of course they somehow come together and play some excellent D in a series.

Correct me if I'm wrong, even though Phoenix generates a lot of points (and allow a lot of points), don't they have some sort of unorthodox defense that seems to be working for them this season?

I just watched the first quarter of detroit vs. cleveland. ben wallace played onball defence 6 times. there were three times the ball was passed away, one shot that missed, and two turnovers resulted as well.

LOL You have to watch on a consistent basis, OMG Steve Nash forced a TO with his D he's a good on ball defender

Correct me if I'm wrong, even though Phoenix generates a lot of points (and allow a lot of points), don't they have some sort of unorthodox defense that seems to be working for them this season?

Yeah, I feel the same way. Its not about holding the other team to a really low amount of points. Its about playing enough defence to let your offence be effective, which is why I think point differential between opposing teams is much more important than how many one individual team scores.

wow. interesting thread. without ben the pistons would probably give up like 10 more points and have more losses or something

No, defense and offense win championships. Defense is only half of the game as is offense.

yes, but take a look at the previous 2 champs...Detroit & SAS....both had shitty offense, and relied on defense to win games (and generate easy points)

In my mind Phx can't play with the big boys, they can push someone to 4-3, but they don't have enough to win (barring significant injury to SAS). Unless of course they somehow come together and play some excellent D in a series.

They did not have shitty offense. In fact, they both had above average offense. They just had slow pace. Slow pace is not the same thing as bad offense which seems to be the biggest misconception.

I just watched the first quarter of detroit vs. cleveland. ben wallace played onball defence 6 times. there were three times the ball was passed away, one shot that missed, and two turnovers resulted as well.

LOL You have to watch on a consistent basis, OMG Steve Nash forced a TO with his D he's a good on ball defender

you fucking told me to watch a game, i did (part of it anyway...i fell asleep) and then you whinge because he did well?

you idiot...

Correct me if I'm wrong, even though Phoenix generates a lot of points (and allow a lot of points), don't they have some sort of unorthodox defense that seems to be working for them this season?

Yeah, I feel the same way. Its not about holding the other team to a really low amount of points. Its about playing enough defence to let your offence be effective, which is why I think point differential between opposing teams is much more important than how many one individual team scores.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to...

The main reason the Suns give up so many points is because they score so fast, the other team has a lot more possessions... doesn't mean their defense is ineffective though.

If they get Amare back, I think they'll be much improved defensively. Right now they are seriously undermanned on the front line, losing a lot of rebounds and Diaw can't guard some of the elite players like Brand, Duncan, etc.... and still, they are giving up less points than last year, so I think the defense will only get better.

I just watched the first quarter of detroit vs. cleveland. ben wallace played onball defence 6 times. there were three times the ball was passed away, one shot that missed, and two turnovers resulted as well.

LOL You have to watch on a consistent basis, OMG Steve Nash forced a TO with his D he's a good on ball defender

you fucking told me to watch a game, i did (part of it anyway...i fell asleep) and then you whinge because he did well?

you idiot...

Well done you watched one quarter, Watch the whole game, who was he actually marking in those scenario's you mentioned

this is all pure speculation, you cant say that all michael redds would win more, you can only assume they would.
I just just as easily say that the redd's would win less because none of them can play defence, and im just as correct as you are.

According to Rosenbaum, Michael Redd gives up 4.2 points more than the average player. He scores eight more points than an average player. Even assuming the defense to be even worse at 6 points worse, he's still +2. We're talking about a hypothetical where the positions wouldn't cause problems of course.

if a bad team is struggling to score, wouldnt it then help them if they had someone on their team who helped lower the oppositions score?

Not if that player can't score. As we noted if Wallace holds opponents to 6 points less, but he himself is 8-10 points worse, the team is missing out on two points overall. Wallace would have to every single night hold teams to 12-15 points less to be a major impact on a bad team. This is entirely unrealistic.

and yet defense wins championships....which is why the Kings (of past, 1 season aside), Mavs & Suns have never been a real threat to win a championship

No, it doesn't win championships anymore than offense. The same amount of teams that are better on offense than defense as vice versa have won titles.

And enough of this Kings not playing defense myth. The team ranked 7th, 6th and 2nd in defense from 2001-2003. (Mavs finished 9th in 2002 and again currently ninth just like last season, Suns are currently 10th)

yes, but take a look at the previous 2 champs...Detroit & SAS....both had shitty offense, and relied on defense to win games (and generate easy points)

Spurs were 8th on offense in 2005, 6th in 2003.

Detroit was 18th for the season in 2004, but their offense after the Sheed/James deal was far better and would've been in the top ten for the season. A more realistic judge of the Finals teams offensive prowess.

The 1994 Rockets are the last team to win with a below average offense.

without ben the pistons would probably give up like 10 more points and have more losses or something

I don't believe this. From 2000 to 2001, Wallace only improved the defense from 105.7 to 102.5, 19th to 9th. (From +1.6 to -1.3 compared to the league.) And that was without any real good defenders. Now the Pistons also have Sheed, Prince and Billups. (Replacing Smith, Curry and Atkins) They obviously would have more losses if they lost one of their best players. I could state the Pistons would probably give up fewer points and have more wins or something if they added Duncan and LeBron for Carlos Delfino.

Quote:
and yet defense wins championships....which is why the Kings (of past, 1 season aside), Mavs & Suns have never been a real threat to win a championship

No, it doesn't win championships anymore than offense. The same amount of teams that are better on offense than defense as vice versa have won titles.

I have to agree with Matt here since over the last couple of years , defense has won championships. As he points out , the last 2 champions have played tough defense. Teams with outstanding offense like Phoenix last year and Miami last year failed to win it all for a reason : they couldn't play defense as well as the Spurs / Pistons respectively. That being said , I would not be surprised if the trend continues and another defensive-minded team won the championship. Sure , there are teams that have won the championship with crazy offense , it's just that this era right now in the NBA is the age of defense in basketball (and football and baseball)

you agree with matt?! oh boy

don't encourage him

gotta have a little bit of both to win

I have to agree with Matt here

Saying "defense wins championships" or "offense wins championships" is stupid. As we've all established, you need both. Defense doesn't win more titles than offense and vice versa. We've gone over this.

Let's take a look at the 2001 and 2002 Lakers.

2001: 2nd on offense, 21st on defense.
Yet the Spurs (4th and 1st) and Kings (10th and 7th) couldn't beat them. Sixers couldn't (13th and 5th).

2002: 3rd on offense, 7th on defense
Again, the Spurs (9th and 1st) and Kings (5th and 6th) couldn't beat them. Nets couldn't (16th and 2nd).

In 2004 the Spurs led the league in defense, but their offense was below average. They didn't win. Pistons were third on defense, 16th on offense in 2005 and they didn't win. In 2003 the Nets were 21st on offense, tops on defense. Didn't win. Of course that year the Kings were 2nd on defense, 6th on offense and didn't win either.

What if the Pistons win the title this year? They are 4th on defense, so we'd say they're defensive minded right? But, they're second on offense. Their offense 6 points better than the 15th ranked team, their defense only 2 points better than the 15th ranked team.

I don't know what we're blabbing about though. Nobody here is contending a no offense team can win a title, or that a no defense team can win a title. Some people are contending that defense is more important than offense I guess which is just wrong. What matters is point differential (and luck), nobody wins titles with terrible offense, and nobody wins titles with terrible defense.

So I guess, the only thing to agree with Matt on is that the Kings, Mavs and Suns are/were "no defense" teams, when the Suns and Mavs are both top 10 defensive teams currently, Mavs were top 10 last year and in 2002, while the Kings had a stretch as a top ten defensive team and even finished second once. Though I don't know if I'd agree with someone that up is down.

Unless you're accusing Matt of believing that defense is more important than offense...and that's just mean...

rongotai, you are an idiot. Ben, you are the smartest person evah. I mean the guy know everything basketball you cant argue with him.

i'd say most anyone would prefer good defense over good offense because its generally more consistent regardless of the opposition. and also good defense = more fast break. such a cliche but the best offense is a good defense.

I don't believe this. From 2000 to 2001, Wallace only improved the defense from 105.7 to 102.5, 19th to 9th. (From +1.6 to -1.3 compared to the league.)

thats a load of crap. you cant measure this stuff with stats. every team (probly) changed from 2000-2001, so their offence and defence changed. this would have changed the amount of points detroit scored even without Ben.

maybe without ben, they would have given up 120ppg... maybe they would have given up 80... its just a story stats cant tell

Wow, that's even more unbelievable. You are actually arguing that looking at how many points a team allowed is not how to measure defense. Wow. I think this thread is over now. (For reference, the Pistons were the only team to move from below average to top ten...their 3 point defensive improvement was third in the league, really second as the Clippers improved from 29th to 20th simply because it was impossible for them to defend as bad as they had in 2000...the Lakers fell a whopping 7.2-7.5 points on defense, from 2nd to 21st...only Sacramento (11th to 7th) moved into a top ten position other than Detroit...Seattle, Cleveland and Chicago's drops were matched by Dallas, Milwaukee and the Clippers rises...19 teams moved less then five places...the points per 100 poss average for the league changed from 103.8 to 104.1...a .3 difference which would amount to 0.28 point per game difference at today's pace...)

ALSO for reference. Adding Duncan, Jaren Jackson and David Robinson to the Spurs (while removing Nique and Vernon Maxwell and eventually Vinny Del Negro due to injury) in 1997 improved them from 29th to 2nd...from +5.6 to -5.8. So if we're contending that Ben Wallace is worth ten points defensively, we're contending that removing Duncan, Jackson and Robinson, and adding Ben Wallace to those 1997-98 Spurs they would be just as good defensively. Their offense would still stay 27th probably. So an offense of 99.1-100.0. A defense of still 99.2. That means we're contending that Ben Wallace alone would've improved the Spurs from 19-63 to 41-43 wins. Just ten short of adding BOTH Duncan and Robinson did. But if Wallace is worth 20+ wins, then why did the Pistons fall from 42 to 32 after getting him? Would the 2004 Pistons really be a 31-51 team without Ben Wallace and would that team after adding Sheed and Mike James only improve to a 39 win team? Just some questions to consider since we're getting into people overrating Wallace...some of this stuff is unfathomable if you stop to think about it.

i'd say most anyone would prefer good defense over good offense because its generally more consistent regardless of the opposition.

I wouldn't. It's harder to get players to assemble a great offensive team. If you can motivate guys to work hard and you have a good system you can have a good defense (see Nuggets, 2003) even with mediocre players. Which is why the Spurs and 60s Celtics aside, teams with great offenses have tended to have longer runs near the top of the standings.

Anyway, it's been fun, but I'm seriously done with this thread after what Laxative just pulled out of his ass. If someone is going to argue that you can't measure defense by looking at how many points a team allowed then you can't seriously discuss anything with them. It just makes you want to quote a wise Russian again...

...that is almost as stupid as saying that Team A should have gotten the win despite scoring less points than Team B, because it looked better in the game or because it had better players.

@ laxative

magius, you gave me an idea. in the near future i'm going to make a post with as many cliches as i can AND still be on topic

If someone is going to argue that you can't measure defense by looking at how many points a team allowed then you can't seriously discuss anything with them.

we are talking hypotheticals here... and you cant measure hypotheticals with stats

get what im saying now?

what Laxative just pulled out of his ass.

Concerning the new Phoenix defence, you can check out a paper at
http://www.82games.com/pelton14.htm

I'd sum it up, but I'm busy not caring.

I don't think Wallace is overrated. Well not by most people anyway. I haven't seen how good (or bad) an onball defender he is, but I do know that he rebounds and blocks shots very well (and isn't bad at stealing either). He also, in my opinion, has a reputation which effects his opponent into staying away from him on offence which is something I think some people fail to see. I don't think Ben Wallace is overrated at any rate. His stats show that he is a great defender and the 3 DPotY prove that he is. To say he is overrated in my opinion means that the media overrates him, and the media to me (because I live in Australia) is nba.com. And they don't have many articles on him, if at all, he hardly gets mentioned in recaps about what a great defender he is and most of the articles on the site are about freaking Kobe, Peirce, Wade and the rookies.

Maybe Rasheed is a better onball defender, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that Ben Wallace is overrated. Maybe Sheed is underrated?

Ben Wallace is a great shot blocker and that's what he is known for and you can't say he would be useless on a bad team because he bring intencity and ferocity to the paint which bad teams usually are lacking which would help them immensly.

I do believe, that EA overrates Ben Wallace though, giving him a power FFS ability. I mean come on, the guy's highest ppg average is 9.7.

On a final note, a useless fact. He has around the same fg% as CWebb and Sheed. He is 48.2%, Webber is 48.0% and Rasheed is 48.3%.

Ya i do agree tt ben is not overrated.

I mean com'on, he's a defensive player, and tt's his role in the team, the scoring he'll leave to others. In addition, if u ever goin to compare, it's not fair to compare him with his shot blocking with other's scoring. Many player can score in the nba, is a fact. But not any player can block and rebound well. also with him in the paint, the opponent will think twice before penetrating into the paint. Instead they'll force jumpers, which has a lower chance of going into the rim than attacking the paint. This mentality is not shown in stats.

This also can explain y ppl think sheed is a better on ball defender. Becos the defending center is ben, the opponent jus didnt wan to throw the ball to their center, to avoid being forced to turnover the ball by ben. Again i wan to stress tt in basketball, not only the fact, the stats are important, mentality plays a great part. And ben did alot damage in facts and stats on the defensive end, as well as mentality on the defensive end, which is something not many other center can do.

Also i believe he can score more if he force more shoots, but for wat. He's gt teammates who can do tt job better than him. So y bother.

Lastly, to the arguement about detroit's oppnent ppg mentioned above, maybe the addition of ben only reduce by little points. But has anyone consider that is there other player changes that take place in the same time. I didnt check it up, but i believe there might have some other player changes in detroit also. Basketball is a team game. Everyboday plays a part. Ben isn't on the floor for 48 minutes too. He do rest. The oppnent can be scoring while he's resting. What i'm trying to say is that it's not fair to jus look at the oppnent ppg to conclude ben's defense ability. There are many other factors that can affects too.

I believe ben is a great defender, he's not overrated as a defender as far as i'm concern, as for offense, well i don think there is a need to argue.

Good darko.

Yeah.
That.
Come on.
THAT.
You.
Why.
Because.
Just.
Want.
THAT.
What.
Got.
THAT.
Don't.

tt...

I think I just got a brain aneurysm from the consistantly missing letters.

Best defender in the NBA in 04-05.

http://www.82games.com/rosenbaum3.htm

Defensive statistics, votes for the All-Defensive team, and accolades in the press are nothing more than indicators that a player may be a good defender. Plus/minus statistics are not some subjective opinion or some vague statistic that may or may not be correlated with defensive impact. Plus/minus statistics are a record of which players actually have an impact on the defensive end.

We can debate about what plus/minus statistics tell us about future defensive effectiveness (especially if a player changes roles), but there can be no debate about what they tell us about past defensive effectiveness. Like a free throw percentage statistic that records who was the most effective free throw shooter, plus/minus statistics can be used to record who was the most effective defender. The calculation is more complicated, especially when we account for the other players on the floor, but the concept is the same.