Ben Wallace is overrated

[BOSS]

...

this doesnt even warrant an arguement

Double eye roll .

Triple eye roll

Ben Wallace aint overrated.

[Colin]

only taking 6points away? youve got to be kidding... the amount of times a player will get worried out of a shot simply because he is standing in the paint is uncanny (probly like 1-3 a game... but still Laughing) and he doesnt score 5-6 points less than an average player. He scores about 1-2 points less. (He scores around 7-9 a game, average is 9-point-something)

Don't question Ben's stats. He probably uses some kind of stat that only considers players that get regular plpaying time, or starters, or just the top 7 of a team, or something. But trust me, he's always right when it comes to stats. The man could probably tell you Matt Bullard's Efficency rate from the 1997-98 season off the top of his head.

[Laxation]

only taking 6points away? youve got to be kidding... the amount of times a player will get worried out of a shot simply because he is standing in the paint is uncanny (probly like 1-3 a game... but still Laughing) and he doesnt score 5-6 points less than an average player. He scores about 1-2 points less. (He scores around 7-9 a game, average is 9-point-something)

Don't question Ben's stats. He probably uses some kind of stat that only considers players that get regular plpaying time, or starters, or just the top 7 of a team, or something. But trust me, he's always right when it comes to stats. The man could probably tell you Matt Bullard's Efficency rate from the 1997-98 season off the top of his head.

well im sorry, but i saw yesterday the average NBA players score was something around 9-10. Ben Wallace gets about 8.

[Matt]

overrated or not, who cares, his strength is TEAM defense. Rasheed likewise is probably the best (top 3 for sure) man to man defenders @ the PF spot. Who else can handle Duncan AND score on him better than the Weedman...not KG.

[magius]

overrated is such a hard word to define. everyone rates differently. i think its common knowledge that ben's on-ball d is average-good and that his strength is team/help d. but i don't know if its universal common knowledge. so i'd say, yes, if you think he's winning dpoy based on his on-ball d you are vastly overrating him. if you think he's overrated as a defensive player overall, you're vastly underrating him. just because bowen and artest can't play interior team help d as well as ben doesn't ovverrate their defense.

[Andrew]

As far as historical debates are concerned he's been compared to Bill Russell before which I think is overrating him a little bit, even if you just take defense into account. But that's only been a couple of discussions that have come up here at the NLSC, I don't think that's a really widely accepted point of view.

[Its_asdf]

He isn't overrated, but I don't think he'd thrive defensively as he had if he was playing in another team

[benji]

No, Wallace would certainly not be as useful on most other teams. And he would be worthless on a bad team.

Rosenbaum's work: http://www.82games.com/rosenbaum3.htm
Indicates Wallace is worth about six points more on defense than the average player.

The overall rating tells us, for example, that if we replace an average defender with Ben Wallace, defense should improve by about 5.8 points per 40 minutes.

The average player gets 16 points per 40 minutes, Wallace gets around 9-10.

Defensive impact is really less than one thinks. You think of a great defender like Artest or Bowen having a great game and taking 10 points off of Kobe or Wade but those guys still get 20 points. Most of the time the impact is even five points or less once taken over an entire season.

From 1974-2002 only three teams held opponents to 6.5 points per 100 possessions or more below the league average. But 15 teams scored 6.5 points per 100 possessions or more than the league average.

Only eight teams did 6 or more on defense, 21 did 6 or more on offense.
(Modern day Spurs and Suns would join those teams btw)

I didn't contend that Wallace's offense was overrated, but that his terrible offense is ignored and this tends to overrate his total impact on a game.

I mentioned the franchise player/Duncan thing because we were discussing how/if Wallace is overrated and I remembered a number of media types and GMs stating they'd take Wallace to build around first. I see that as example of overrating him.

Yes, Wallace is undoubtly the heart and soul of the Pistons, and you did a fine job eliminating context from the Billups statement, that he, Wallace and the others are no more important than each other in the context of the Pistons. Billups is the better overall player however.

He's overrated in that he's not one of the ten best players in the league, his on-ball defense isn't as good as his overall defense, and a team full of Wallaces would lose every single game. He's overrated if he lands a max contract after this season like some people say he should get. There's also those who would say replacing Ben with Duncan or KG would not make the Pistons better when it clearly would. As magius said, and I figured we shouldn't have to say, overrated/underrated is all about perception. I base "overrated" and "underrated" on how the media and generally how forums seem to basically talk about only a few guys, and until this year the Pistons were basically only talked about as Ben Wallace. He was the focus of the powers that be when the Pistons were discussed.

As for Matt Bullard, 1997-98 was his best season by a hair over 1992-93...and he is most certainly not as good of defender as Ben Wallace.

Regarding the Bill Russell comparison and Wallace's defensive impact, the Pistons have never led the league in defense with Wallace. Never. If he really is the best defensive player of his era I would think the Pistons could've done it, especially with Sheed and Tayshaun forming a wall of defense with him. Russell's Celtics often led the league in defense, and the 1964-65 team might be the best defensive team in league history.

[hipn]

WTF is with these *player name* is overated threads?!?!?!?!?!?

[Axel]

Zo is a better defensive player than Big Ben.

[Nick]

Defensive impact is really less than one thinks. You think of a great defender like Artest or Bowen having a great game and taking 10 points off of Kobe or Wade but those guys still get 20 points. Most of the time the impact is even five points or less once taken over an entire season.

I agree with what you said about Benji. However i disagree with this statement. I still believe defense wins games.

Defense isn't all about taking points away, blocks and steals. Great defenders hustle and make it hard for the offense to score, right? A player may not even attempt a shot, and pass it to someone else because a defender has hustled and put doubt in the offensive player's mind. Stats can't record this.

[GloveGuy]

Dennis Rodman >> Ben Wallace

[benji]

Defense can win games, and I never said it can't, but it can't win as many as offense. If you can't score, but still hold the other team to zero points, the best you can do is tie.

Let's say a team full of Michael Ruffins can hold opposing teams to 20...no 40 points below their average. They would still lose 57-30.

This is why a Hassell, Bowen or Wallace is less valuable on a bad team, than on a good team. Luckily for two of them they're on great teams.

Look at the 2002-03 Denver Nuggets. The worst offensive team in NBA history perhaps, the worst since 1974 for sure. They were sixth in the league in defense. 17-65. Dallas ranked 9th (60-22), Sixers were 15th (48-34), Los Angeles Lakers ranked 19th (50-32). How about Golden State that year, worst team in the league on defense, 38-44. With Milwaukee a hair above them at 28th, 42-40.

As the Nets showed, you have to have the best defense in the league in order to win with a crappy offense, and you have to play in a terrible conference full of offensively challenged teams.

Defense is not more important than offense I guess is the point here. Offense wins more regular season games, but only having good offense and good defense wins championships. Remember, of the last 22 champions, only the 1978-79 Sonics won with a below average offense.

[Laxation]

your just talking shit benji
all defence obviously wont win, and all offence wont win either.

what you need is a mix, but having more offence than defence is better than vice versa.

[benji]

If I'm just "talking shit" then you must be too. As I said the exact same thing.

Having all offense does tend to win more games than having all defense. Look at the examples I provided from 2003 alone.

[Laxation]

well what you are saying is that a team of ben wallaces/michael ruffins/whatever will never win, and thats just obvious. Same goes, a team of Michael redds (or some other offensive player without defence) will never win as they would constantly get scored upon. youve got no middle here... its either 1 or the other with what youre saying

i dont agree with what you said abouta good defender being wasted on a bad team, they would be good on any team that suited them, be it a good or bad team.

[benji]

A team of Michael Redd's would win far more games than a team of Wallaces/Ruffins.

A good defender who does not score (Ben Wallace, Bruce Bowen, Trenton Hassell) is wasted on a bad team because bad teams often struggle to score and thus a non-scoring player is only hurting that team. On teams where the other players are good offensive players that defender becomes valuable because of his defensive impact. A lower tier defender who can also score is far more valuable to a bad team.

[Axel]

Phoenix has proven that offense wins more games than defense. Granted, they aren't a horrible defensive team, but they're certainly not intimidating.

Personally, I think Ben Wallace was a better fit in the Larry Brown version of the Pistons. He is definetly a liability on the offensive end, especially when it comes to his horrid free throw shooting. He's worse than Shaq.

[Laxation]

A team of Michael Redd's would win far more games than a team of Wallaces/Ruffins.

A good defender who does not score (Ben Wallace, Bruce Bowen, Trenton Hassell) is wasted on a bad team because bad teams often struggle to score and thus a non-scoring player is only hurting that team. On teams where the other players are good offensive players that defender becomes valuable because of his defensive impact. A lower tier defender who can also score is far more valuable to a bad team.

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.

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?

[gergerjai]

"People talk about Wallace as a franchise player, and some GMs say they'd take him over Tim Duncan"...
I wouldnt if Duncan kept his anger and, most importantly, his fro

[magius]

"People talk about Wallace as a franchise player, and some GMs say they'd take him over Tim Duncan"...
I wouldnt if Duncan kept his anger and, most importantly, his fro

who are these "gm's"? i've never actually heard this anywhere. whatever gm this is should be castrated and have his balls mailed and fed to ben wallace asap. not even isiah is that stupid.

ben wallace isnt half the player duncan is.

[Matt]

Phoenix has proven that offense wins more games than defense

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.

[Axel]

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

Lakers won their championships and had good offense & defense. So did the Bulls.

Personally, I think Phoenix is a real threat to win a championship, if they get Amare healthy.

[Laxation]

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.

[H Rock]

Personally, I think Phoenix is a real threat to win a championship, if they get Amare healthy.

They already are, even without Amare.