# Will Ben Wallace Get Into The Hall of Fame?



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

He's retiring after this season. Tonight, he'll play in his 1,055th career NBA game, setting a record for the most games played by an undrafted player. He's a four-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year (only other person to do this was Dikembe). He has a championship under his belt. 5x First Team All-Defense. 4x All-Star. He has a bunch of franchise records in blocks/rebounds for the Pistons. Here are some other achievements he has:

Only player in NBA history to record 1,000 rebounds, 150 blocks, and 100 steals in 4 consecutive seasons (2001-04).
One of three players in NBA history to record 150 blocks and 100 steals in 7 consecutive seasons (2001-07) (along with Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson).
One of five players in NBA history to lead the NBA in rebounding and blocking averages in the same season (along with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Dwight Howard.
One of three players in NBA history to average 15 rebounds and 3 blocks per game over a season (along with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bob McAdoo). 

So, does he get in?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I think there is a decent chance, Rodman showed that you can make it as a defensive/rebounding specialist, and while wallace wasnt as good as rodman there is a decent chance he eventually gets in


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

He better not.

Rebounds per game is one of the most over-inflated, least understood stats in the game. I remember Barkley explaining once that you should get something like 4-6 rebounds just off missed free throws and lucky bounces. Then you grab a couple with hustle.

If you look at Wallace he had his best rebounding seasons when the next best rebounder on the team was Corliss Williamson at like 5 rebounds per game. His team would box out and let him sweep all the boards. Obviously he was a good rebounder but he wasn't extraordinary or impressive in getting the tough boards and pursuing rebounds like guys like Barkley and Rodman did if you watched them.

He also had a precipitous fall in his prime years. I think he was pretty useless when he was about 29 or 30.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I will say no, for the following reasons:

*1.) Ben Wallace doesn't have enough prime seasons.* In my opinion, Big Ben's prime was from the 2000-01 to the 2005-06 seasons. When you're such a limited player like he was, you have to overcompensate by being an elite player at what you do for an even longer period.

*2.) His offensive game was a major liability.* The comparison is being made to Dennis Rodman, but Rodman was a below-average offensive player early in his career who became disinterested in that aspect as his rebounding and defending skills became more prominent. Wallace was a flat-out horrible offensive player beyond five feet, not to mention one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history (an abysmal .415 for his career).

*3.) While what he did well was top-level, it wasn't so freakish that it could overcome his liabilities.* Rodman was such a dominant rebounder that even someone like Charles Barkley was profoundly behind him in that category. Rodman at one point of his career could guard everyone from point guards to some centers.

Wallace simply does not have those kind of advantages. He wasn't demonstrably ahead of guys like Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan in rebounding and in some years you can argue Garnett and Duncan were better than him. A similar thing can be said in regards to overall defense.

In certain situations and on certain teams, an argument can be made for having a Rodman over a Barkley or a Karl Malone because Rodman's proficiency at rebounding and defense were so pronounced even over other top-level rebounders and defenders. With Wallace, you're basically talking similar to slightly better defensive and rebounding levels of a Duncan or KG but an infinitely worse offensive player. At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

That's my biggest problem with Wallace. He was the third best defensive anchor that won a lot of undeserving DPOY awards in the era when there was no excuse for anyone not named Duncan or Garnett to win one.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Hmm I think he get's the slight edge to get in.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Najee said:


> I will say no, for the following reasons:
> 
> *1.) Ben Wallace doesn't have enough prime seasons.* In my opinion, Big Ben's prime was from the 2000-01 to the 2005-06 seasons. When you're such a limited player like he was, you have overcompensate by being an elite player at what you do for an even longer period.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of this but the one thing wallace has whether deserved or not is his reputation as a defensive "star" in an era where there were not alot of guys known for this.. reputation may play a big roll in helping him eventually get in


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

The typical hall of famer is a fairly rounded player who does some things exceptionally well to brilliantly with, at worst, some mediocre to marginal aspects. In Ben Wallace's case, he is such a horrible offensive player that what he does well has to compensate for that -- meaning when it comes to rebounding and defense, he has to be Rodman-level dominant.

The problem with that is Wallace doesn't come close to that. In fact, you can't argue Big Ben is better than Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan over that span when it comes to rebounding and defense. And when you look at the offensive aspect, there is no way you can consider Wallace over KG and Duncan.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

if only wallace were born in serbia


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I could see this going either way... the basketball hall of fame is easier to get into than people think, but obviously he's not among the absolute elite level of players of his era.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> That's my biggest problem with Wallace. He was the third best defensive anchor that won a lot of undeserving DPOY awards in the era when there was no excuse for anyone not named Duncan or Garnett to win one.


Agree with this.

But with 4 DPOY awards to his name you'd better believe he's getting in.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If he did he'd have the lowest scoring average of anyone in the Hall of Fame as a player at 5.9 pts/game. The lowest now is Buddy Jeanette who played 2 years in the BAA and in the first NBA season (he was 32 years old in his one NBA season). I think it's about 31 Hall of Famers with a higher career rebounds per game average. Overall he's 51st in career rebounds per game, although some of the guys ahead of him will likely end up behind him. You'd think that there are probably more guys in the HoF who were better defenders, so in other words when you compare Wallace to Hall of Fame caliber players he does not really do anything well enough.

Those DPOY awards have never been more than punchlines to me. Wallace was never even close to being the best defender in the NBA. In my opinion he was not even the best defender on his own team. Rasheed Wallace was.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> That's my biggest problem with Wallace. He was the third best defensive anchor that won a lot of undeserving DPOY awards in the era when there was no excuse for anyone not named Duncan or Garnett to win one.


Let's be honest, it's fair to debate whether Ben Wallace was even the best post defender on his own team for the last two of his DPOY awards.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah, it's no accident that his two best years defensively happened when Rasheed Wallace was there to cover his back. He was basically a novelty winner "Hey, look at the 6'8" center!!!!" because Timmeh was the best defensive anchor in the NBA during Wallace's first two wins. It's a disgrace that he and Garnett have exactly one DPOY between them.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

You mother****ers love to rewrite history. Ben Wallace was the best player on those Detroit teams. Now you jack holes want to act like Sheed wasn't a career underachiever until he got to Detroit, same with Chauncey. 

To try and discredit him by saying Duncan and KG were better defenders is just silly. It doesn't mean he wasn't dominating in his own right. Dude totally dismantled opponents attempts at pick and roll offense for a long, long time.

Easy selection for the HOF IMO.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

No, it means Ben Wallace wasn't that good of a defender and rebounder where it can overcome his horrible offensive game. And no, he really wasn't a better rebounder or defender than Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan during that time, or if he was it was only a marginal difference in certain years.

If that is your argument, then Dikembe Mutombo is a cinch to be inducted into Springfield. Mutombo was also a four-time Defensive Player of the Year and his numbers are more than comparable to (and for the most part, better than) Wallace's.

It certainly doesn't mean that you would take Wallace over KG or Duncan. Even in a niche situation where Wallace would be effective (like he was in Detroit), KG and Duncan can give a team what Wallace brings in rebounding and defense in addition to being much better offensive players.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Rasheed really should have been a Hall of Famer. I always thought that he had the ability to be very close to KG and perhaps Duncan at times. He never had the mentality it takes or the focus to do what his teams really needed from him. Ben Wallace isn't even close to Sheed as a basketball player, and Sheed isn't making the Hall of Fame.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Diable said:


> Rasheed really should have been a Hall of Famer. I always thought that he had the ability to be very close to KG and perhaps Duncan at times. He never had the mentality it takes or the focus to do what his teams really needed from him. Ben Wallace isn't even close to Sheed as a basketball player, and Sheed isn't making the Hall of Fame.


The Hall of Fame isn't for potential and what a guy can be at his best though, you get judged based on what you actually did.

With that said, I don't think Ben Wallace accomplished enough and played at a high level long enough to warrant serious HOF consideration.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

No.


----------



## M.V.W. (Apr 2, 2011)

hobojoe said:


> *The Hall of Fame isn't for potential and what a guy can be at his best though, you get judged based on what you actually did.*
> 
> With that said, I don't think Ben Wallace accomplished enough and played at a high level long enough to warrant serious HOF consideration.


I think he means that he was an underachiever.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> The Hall of Fame isn't for potential and what a guy can be at his best though, you get judged based on what you actually did.
> 
> With that said, I don't think Ben Wallace accomplished enough and played at a high level long enough to warrant serious HOF consideration.


The point isn't so much that he believes Sheed should be in the Hall of Fame. He believes that Sheed had the potential to be at that level, but sadly never achieved it. As a fan it is disappointing - but he simply never wanted to be "the man." He made the decision early in his career that he didn't want that role. That isn't too say he underperformed in all aspects of the game though, he was clearly an All NBA First Team level player in the post, and never got any credit. He may have been, for a time, the best help defender down low in the league. Had he chose to, I believe he would have been looked at as on par with KG and Duncan, not just almost there. As a fan it is disappointing to have seen.

As for Ben Wallace - he isn't a Hall of Famer. Usually when someone is close to that level the fans of his team can watch him play and say "He's one of them." I never watched the Pistons play (I watched almost every televised game during Wallace's prime) and had that thought. Ben Wallace failed the eye test. He was an absolute beast, an overperformer if there ever was one - he absolutely maximized his talents.

Come to think of it... talk about two diametric opposites. Ben Wallace with Sheed's level of motivation probably never sees D-League action. Rasheed Wallace with Ben's level of motivation is a first ballot HoFer.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Say what you want about the legitimacy of a one-way player as a hall of famer, but to try to diminish his defensive abilities is retroactive absurdity. If anything he should have 5 DPOY awards and the one that went to Artest was a farce.

I think as defensive metrics get more and more refined the future will look very kindly on Ben Wallace. Basketball reference has defensive rating and defensive win shares metrics that at least pass the smell test, and his 2003-2004 season ranks as the best ever from both metrics (going back to '74, after which the formula changes).

Wallace was the best big man pick and roll defender I have ever seen and an outstanding help defender in the paint. Argue the length of his prime or his total value with respect to offense, but judging from comments here I think his defense was actually underrated.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Oh **** the Hall of Fame stop giving it so much power. You know who votes on that? The same people y'all shit on with every article they write.

Is he a defining player of his era or not?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> You mother****ers love to rewrite history. Ben Wallace was the best player on those Detroit teams. Now you jack holes want to act like Sheed wasn't a career underachiever until he got to Detroit, same with Chauncey.
> 
> To try and discredit him by saying Duncan and KG were better defenders is just silly. It doesn't mean he wasn't dominating in his own right. Dude totally dismantled opponents attempts at pick and roll offense for a long, long time.
> 
> Easy selection for the HOF IMO.


Only thing I don't agree with is the easy selection for the HOF. I think he should get in, just not first ballot material.

As far as everything else, yea, there's a ton of posters around here who feel smart to disagree with previous awards and go against well known history.

Ben Wallace was the defensive anchor to championship teams. In his prime he could guard 3-4 positions, locking any of them down, and rebounding like no ones business. Its funny that guys are now trying to come in and slight him like he wasn't even that good.

He was better defensively thank Duncan, he was better defensively than KG. Hell, he was better than Artest which used to kill me since I loved Ron Ron.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> He better not.
> 
> Rebounds per game is one of the most over-inflated, least understood stats in the game. I remember Barkley explaining once that you should get something like 4-6 rebounds just off missed free throws and lucky bounces. Then you grab a couple with hustle.
> 
> ...


No, actually they aren't. Big surprise you come in having no clue what you're talking about again though.

4-6 rebounds off of missed freethrows? No. I'm not even sure there's 6 missed freethrows a game on the second attempt. And lucky bounces? Oh ok, I guess if its a lucky bounce, it doesn't matter if you're the guy who busts his ass to make sure you're the one who gets it. And you do understand your ridiculously stupid argument would apply to every player in the league right? Meaning its an even playing field, so even if you argument wasn't stupid (it is), that fact in itself would negate it anyways right?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Rasheed really should have been a Hall of Famer. I always thought that he had the ability to be very close to KG and perhaps Duncan at times. He never had the mentality it takes or the focus to do what his teams really needed from him. Ben Wallace isn't even close to Sheed as a basketball player, and Sheed isn't making the Hall of Fame.


I guess Jon Bender should be expecting his induction letter any day now. 

Pretty much all of us saw that Wallace _could_ be as good as KG, Duncan and Webber at times. But he wasn't often. That's what matters. Not the 1 game out of 10 where he'd be one of the best players in the league.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think if he had two 33 point years in the midst of the Pistons' run, it wouldn't be a question, but being the best defender on an all-time great defensive apparently doesn't register. 

You all whine about certain players not playing defense, but then you don't respect defensive superstars. Which one is it


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Oh **** the Hall of Fame stop giving it so much power. You know who votes on that? The same people y'all shit on with every article they write.
> 
> Is he a defining player of his era or not?


I think hes the clear representative for the best defender for the 2000 era.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If you put every player in the NBA during Wallace's career and started picking sides Wallace wouldn't have been one of the first fifty guys picked. He's a roleplayer and there aren't any of those in the Hall of Fame. Let's look at some guys who barely got in, Adrian Dantley and Artis Gilmore being the most recent. Those guys are fringe hall of fame players, marginally good enough to get in after years of failing. Argue that Wallace is a better player than either of them.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I couldn't pick 10 centers over him from 02-06 much less 50 players period


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> If you put every player in the NBA during Wallace's career and started picking sides Wallace wouldn't have been one of the first fifty guys picked. He's a roleplayer and there aren't any of those in the Hall of Fame. Let's look at some guys who barely got in, Adrian Dantley and Artis Gilmore being the most recent. Those guys are fringe hall of fame players, marginal enough to get in after years of failure. Argue that Wallace is a better player than either of them.


So we're dropping the Rasheed argument?

Also, how much of Dantley and Gilmore did you get to see in their primes?

Not to mention there's plenty of role players in the hall.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

If I'm picking a 50 player team during Wallaces prime, I'm glad if hes still on the board when I'm rounding out my team.

Kidd
Kobe
Marion
Wallace
Duncan

No ones scoring on my team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

You can not name 50 players better than Ben Wallace in the 00s. I implore you to do that...since I know you won't Diable, I implore 5 people to list 10 people better than Ben Wallace apiece.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I dont think Ben Wallace should get in till Sidney Moncrief gets in


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

roux2dope said:


> I dont think Ben Wallace should get in till Sidney Moncrief gets in


Lots of guys who should have got in who didn't. 

Its a shame, but the HOF is a flawed list.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm still irked that a great defensive player has a better chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than a player who was better overall but spread his talents more evenly. Don't like that Rodman is in and Mullin isn't and this would just make me more upset.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

kbdullah said:


> I'm still irked that a great defensive player has a better chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than a player who was better overall but spread his talents more evenly. Don't like that Rodman is in and Mullin isn't and this would just make me more upset.


I'm not sure I'd argue Mullin had a bigger overall impact to the game than Rodman had. A Rodman or Wallace are key to a championship team that isn't built around a superstar big man, and its not like they're a dime a dozen. I'd say Rodman and Wallace are in a league of their own for defensive forwards outside of the superstar bigs.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

kbdullah said:


> I'm still irked that a great defensive player has a better chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than a player who was better overall but spread his talents more evenly. Don't like that Rodman is in and Mullin isn't and this would just make me more upset.


All due respect that's stupid.

It's not about who can fill up a checklist more with their abilities, it's about who's impact meant more towards a win for their team.
Mullin was obviously multitalented, but his overall impact across the board wasn't there with Rodman's as a defender and rebounder. He was like the only one doing 1970 rebound numbers in the 90s.

What wins titles? Rebounding and defense. He was the best rebounder and either best or close to best defender on 5 title teams. Get over the lack of points.

Grant Hill's, prime McGrady's, Dirk's skillsets....those are examples of a myriad of skills coming together to make a huge impact...Mullin is close but wasn't.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

People do realize that Detroit had lowest opposition points per game and the 4th best defensive rating the year before Rasheed came on board. Love Sheed but Ben Wallace was a great defender


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

kbdullah said:


> I'm still irked that a great defensive player has a better chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than a player who was better overall but spread his talents more evenly. Don't like that Rodman is in and Mullin isn't and this would just make me more upset.


If you're talking about Chris Mullin, he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2011.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> The point isn't so much that he believes Sheed should be in the Hall of Fame. He believes that Sheed had the potential to be at that level, but sadly never achieved it. As a fan it is disappointing - but he simply never wanted to be "the man." He made the decision early in his career that he didn't want that role. That isn't too say he underperformed in all aspects of the game though, he was clearly an All NBA First Team level player in the post, and never got any credit. He may have been, for a time, the best help defender down low in the league. Had he chose to, I believe he would have been looked at as on par with KG and Duncan, not just almost there. As a fan it is disappointing to have seen.
> 
> As for Ben Wallace - he isn't a Hall of Famer. Usually when someone is close to that level the fans of his team can watch him play and say "He's one of them." I never watched the Pistons play (I watched almost every televised game during Wallace's prime) and had that thought. Ben Wallace failed the eye test. He was an absolute beast, an overperformer if there ever was one - he absolutely maximized his talents.
> 
> Come to think of it... talk about two diametric opposites. Ben Wallace with Sheed's level of motivation probably never sees D-League action. Rasheed Wallace with Ben's level of motivation is a first ballot HoFer.


Repped for being objective and separating fan allegiance.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> You all whine about certain players not playing defense, but then you don't respect defensive superstars. Which one is it


The problem is that a large group of the players in the Basketball Hall of Fame were good at offense AND defense, or at least competent enough in defense not to be a major distraction. So if a player is going to be a one-way guy, then their deficiencies cannot be so great that even their strengths cannot overshadow them.

That's the problem I have with Ben Wallace -- he was a top-level defender, but it wasn't so pronounced that you could not overlook his horrible offensive game. Moreover, his defensive skills and rebounding skills were not so superior to his peers (see Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan) that it would put him in the same conversation as those players overall.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dre said:


> You can not name 50 players better than Ben Wallace in the 00s. I implore you to do that...since I know you won't Diable, I implore 5 people to list 10 people better than Ben Wallace apiece.


*PF/C I'm absolutely taking over Big Ben*
﻿
Timmeh
Garnett
Shaq
Dwight
Elton Brand
'Sheed
Shawn Marion
Jermaine O'Neal
Marcus Camby

*PF/C I'm probably taking over Big Ben*
﻿
Dirk
Amar'e
Gashole
Lamar Odom
EDIT: Forgot Yao and Deke

That's before addressing the PG/SG/SF spots. The number might not reach 50, but it's going to be awfully big.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Diable said:


> If you put every player in the NBA during Wallace's career and started picking sides Wallace wouldn't have been one of the first fifty guys picked. He's a roleplayer and there aren't any of those in the Hall of Fame. Let's look at some guys who barely got in, Adrian Dantley and Artis Gilmore being the most recent. Those guys are fringe hall of fame players, marginally good enough to get in after years of failing. Argue that Wallace is a better player than either of them.


I could argue that Adrian Dantley and Artis Gilmore should have been in the Basketball Hall of Fame years ago and are considerably better overall players than Ben Wallace, but that is besides the point.

I would say this is the more appropriate question: What makes Wallace a better Basketball Hall Of Fame candidate than Dikembe Mutombo? Some of the pro-Wallace people are basing it on Wallace's four Defensive Player of the Year awards -- Mutombo has four as well. Mutombo twice led the NBA in rebounding, like Wallace. Mutombo led the NBA in blocked shots for five consecutive years, compared to Wallace's one.

However, Mutombo was a better player for a longer period than Wallace. Mutombo could match Wallace overall as a defender and rebounder and was a considerably better offensive player than Wallace. I don't see Mutombo being inducted, but between the two players I can't see the argument that Wallace is more worthy than Mutombo.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> You can not name 50 players better than Ben Wallace in the 00s. I implore you to do that...since I know you won't Diable, I implore 5 people to list 10 people better than Ben Wallace apiece.


Because Ben Wallace is such a specialized player, where I pick him is going to be greatly impacted by what other players I have on a hypothetical team. Picking players out of a vacuum, I can see him going down the list much farther than picking a player out of need for a position. 

But the fact you need a berth that large to accomodate Wallace, that is enough logic for me to infer that he is not hall of fame worthy.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Najee said:


> That's the problem I have with Ben Wallace -- he was a top-level defender, but it wasn't so pronounced that you could not overlook his horrible offensive game. Moreover, his defensive skills and rebounding skills were not so superior to his peers (see Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan) that it would put him in the same conversation as those players overall.


There is a strong argument that Tim Duncan is the best defensive player of the last 40 years, so it would be hard for any player ever to rise significantly above that level, but Ben Wallace was better in his prime.

To me, the only real problem with Wallace is that his prime was short. His prime only lasted about 6 years, and he was only truly HOF level elite for 3 or 4 of those. I think he probably would have gotten in if he had stayed with Detroit, but right now I think he probably won't. If we are talking about just those 3 or 4 years though, there is no doubt he was HOF level good.



Najee said:


> Because Ben Wallace is such a specialized player, where I pick him is going to be greatly impacted by what other players I have on a hypothetical team. Picking players out of a vacuum, I can see him going down the list much farther than picking a player out of need for a position.
> 
> But the fact you need a berth that large to accomodate Wallace, that is enough logic for me to infer that he is not hall of fame worthy.


Detroit won 50 games in 2002 with Chucky Atkins, Jerry Stackhouse, Michael Curry, and Cliff Robinson starting alongside Wallace. That was a horrible team that won 50 games and a playoff series with Ben Wallace as far and away its best player. He was much, much better than you guys are giving him credit for.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Repped for being objective and separating fan allegiance.


Yep. Because this is a board well known for being jam packed with Piston fans.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> *PF/C I'm absolutely taking over Big Ben*
> ﻿
> *Timmeh
> Garnett
> ...


Bolded yep. Not bolded nope. Terrible list. Jermaine? Before he went to the Celtics you made a career of bad mouthing him. Elton Brand? Shawn Marion and Camby? Lamar ****ing Odom? Come on. 

Healthy Yao for sure. Deke? Deke was like 87 years old at the start of 00 season. No ones taking a 2000's Deke over a 2000's Wallace.

Point blank is you're wrong, but I've never once seen you admit to being wrong on this forum so I don't expect it to start now.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Mrs. Thang said:


> There is a strong argument that Tim Duncan is the best defensive player of the last 40 years, so it would be hard for any player ever to rise significantly above that level, but Ben Wallace was better in his prime. ... He was much, much better than you guys are giving him credit for.


You seem to be under the impression I do not think Ben Wallace was a top-level defender. I've never slighted him as a defensive player.

However, it is very clear I have explained why he is not going to be a hall of famer. As great of a rebounder and defender he was overall in his first stint in Detroit, the fact remains he had major deficiencies in too many aspects of his game that even his defense cannot overcome them.

There are plenty of players in the Basketball Hall of Fame who were elite defenders like Wallace in their own manner, so Wallace is not exclusive in that category. The difference is that most of them also were competent to elite on the offensive end, where Wallace was nothing short of horrible. And unlike a Dennis Rodman, Wallace's skill set as a defender was not so unique that it separated him from other defensive-minded players (not to mention Wallace may have been an even worse offensive player than Rodman, and not nearly as good of a rebounder).

Wallace is not that elite of a defender that you would entertain the idea of taking him over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett under any circumstance -- they are as good as defenders as him and infinitely better offensive players. The same thing can be said about Dwight Howard. 

Wallace is a better defender and rebounder in his prime than Shaquille O'Neal, but you're not even going to entertain the idea of taking him over Shaq in any instance. 

Even big men who were noticeably weaker in rebounding and/or defending -- like Dirk Nowtizki and Chris Webber -- would be better choices than Wallace, because they're quite as good as Wallace in those aspects but they are incredibly better offensive players than Wallace. The same with Yao Ming.

You really can't argue Wallace is better than Dikembe Mutombo, who can give you what Wallace can give you and you actually can throw the ball in the paint to Mutombo for some occasional offense. Not to mention Mutombo's prime was longer than Wallace's.

Wallace worked well in a system in Detroit where a team of complementary players had specific roles and relied on chemistry and teamwork. Outside of that system, he would be and was exposed. You simply cannot overlook the fact that he was a horrible offensive player and, while an elite defender and rebounder for a stretch of his career, what he did well is not so special that it deflects from the total picture.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Elton Brand was an MVP candidate before he got injured. Best player on the only Clippers team to get out of the first round. He's better than Ben Wallace by a ton. Sheed was without the slightest doubt a better player. He was at a minimum just as good on defense and a lot of people think he was better. There were literally dozens of Ben Wallace's contemporaries who were straight up better than him and who will never sniff the Hall of Fame. 

If you pick out the five worst players to get into the Hall of Fame in the past 25 years all of them will be better than Ben Wallace. That's something like James Worthy, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley, Artis Gilmore...All of them are a lot better than Wallace. Worthy shouldn't have made it of course and he's the only one you could plausibly argue. Dumars is mostly in because he was a really likeable guy. If he'd been an asshole to all of the writers he'd not have made it. He's still better than Ben Wallace.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

R-Star said:


> Terrible list. Jermaine? Before he went to the Celtics you made a career of bad mouthing him. Elton Brand? Shawn Marion and Camby? Lamar ****ing Odom? Come on.


If you're talking about Jermaine O'Neal from 2001-02 to 2006-07, I can see that argument being made. You're talking about a solid rebounder and defender (though comparatively worse than Ben Wallace) but a decidedly better offensive player. Sometimes in looking at the carcass that is playing now, it is a little difficult to remember when O'Neal was a legitimate All-Star level player.

I can see a similar argument made for Elton Brand through 2006-07. IMO, Brand was a better defender and rebounder than O'Neal (though still worse than Wallace) but you're getting a much better offensive player than Wallace was. In fact, Brand was a legitimate MVP candidate in 2005-06. 

I don't know what is the issue some people on this board have with Shawn Marion, but this was a small forward who was a consistent 20-10 caliber guy during his time in Phoenix. Again, I can see the argument of choosing Marion, particularly if you're selecting The Matrix from 2000-01 through 2006-07.

If anything, E.H. Munro left off Chris Webber's name -- who was in his prime in Sacramento in the early part of the decade before his major injury slowed him down.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

Dre said:


> I think if he had two 33 point years in the midst of the Pistons' run, it wouldn't be a question, but being the best defender on an all-time great defensive apparently doesn't register.
> 
> You all whine about certain players not playing defense, but then you don't respect defensive superstars. Which one is it


go put your starting 5 best defenders against the best 5 offensive players and see who wins.


dont let this defense shit go to your head. its good, but a great scorer will always beat a great defender


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

You ****ed that logic good


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

ChosenFEW said:


> go put your starting 5 best defenders against the best 5 offensive players and see who wins.
> 
> dont let this defense shit go to your head. its good, but a great scorer will always beat a great defender


Not to mention a good portion of the best players in the league play offense AND defense (see Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, etc.).


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

In practical terms the only way that Ben Wallace could get enough votes would be if he were up an extremely weak field of candidates. No one could plausibly argue that he was a really great player, nor vote for him over anyone who really was. So in order for him to make it in he'd have to be running against the GOP presidential field of Hall of Fame candidates. Of course there have been a couple of recent years where no players were inducted, so even if he was running against air he might not get voted in.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Diable said:


> If you pick out the five worst players to get into the Hall of Fame in the past 25 years all of them will be better than Ben Wallace. That's something like James Worthy, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley, Artis Gilmore...All of them are a lot better than Wallace. Worthy shouldn't have made it of course and he's the only one you could plausibly argue. Dumars is mostly in because he was a really likeable guy. If he'd been an asshole to all of the writers he'd not have made it. He's still better than Ben Wallace.


Really, you think those guys are worse than K.C. Jones? Satch Sanders? Drazen Petrovic? Those three have been elected in the past 25 years. I'm sorry, but James Worthy, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley and Artis Gilmore were better than those guys. Particularly when comparing them to Petrovic, who I saw play as well as Worthy, Dumars, A.D. and Gilmore.

But I digress and don't want to move away from your general point, which is these guys are considerably better overall players than Ben Wallace. The only way Big Ben is getting into the Basketball Hall of Fame is the same way you and I will get in -- buying a ticket.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Jermaine? Before he went to the Celtics you made a career of bad mouthing him.


You may be confusing me with someone else. He broke in 2005, but my biggest criticism of him is the fact that he can't stay healthy anymore. Which really can't be argued. But early in the last decade? A dominant defender and a competent offensive player. There's no question I'm taking the young healthy Jermaine over a defensive roleplayer.



R-Star said:


> Elton Brand? Shawn Marion and Camby? Lamar ****ing Odom? Come on.


Camby was a great defensive roleplayer and competent offensive one. Lamar Odom, when he's focused (which has admittedly been his biggest weakness and why he's on the second list) is a great defensive player and versatile offensive one. Before he broke Brand was a fantastic help defender and pretty damned good offensive one. Matrix? He defended four positions on the floor at all-NBA levels while being one of the best garbagemen in the NBA.



R-Star said:


> Healthy Yao for sure. Deke? Deke was like 87 years old at the start of 00 season. No ones taking a 2000's Deke over a 2000's Wallace.


The problem is that Wallace's prime was incredibly short. If your timeframe is 1995-2005 Deke is head & shoulders over Wallace. And he was damned good up until 2002 or 2003. But that's also why he's on the second list. He only two or three good years last decade, unlike Wallace's five years. Yao is similarly in the second group because he broke so quickly.



R-Star said:


> Point blank is you're wrong, but I've never once seen you admit to being wrong on this forum so I don't expect it to start now.


I think you may be confusing me with yourself here.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Najee said:


> If anything, E.H. Munro left off Chris Webber's name -- who was in his prime in Sacramento in the early part of the decade before his major injury slowed him down.


You're right. I can't imagine how I forgot Webber.



Najee said:


> Really, you think those guys are worse than K.C. Jones? Satch Sanders? Drazen Petrovic?


KC & Satch are in there because they played with Russell, obviously. Petrovic is in there for his international career, though.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Webber is eligible next year isn't he? It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to get in.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Najee said:


> You seem to be under the impression I do not think Ben Wallace was a top-level defender. I've never slighted him as a defensive player.
> 
> However, it is very clear I have explained why he is not going to be a hall of famer. As great of a rebounder and defender he was overall in his first stint in Detroit, the fact remains he had major deficiencies in too many aspects of his game that even his defense cannot overcome them.
> 
> ...


Most of those guys you mentioned are sure fire hall of famers and among the best players ever, so really, the fact that nobody would take Ben Wallace over guys like Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, and Dirk isn't much of an argument against him. There is definately room for somebody to be not close to as good as those guys and still be a hall of famer. 

I think Wallace's offensive shortcomings are also a bit overstated due to the stark contrast with his defensive abilities and his horrible free throw shooting. He would score 8-10 ppg in his prime by running the floor and getting put backs which isn't drastically different than what guys like Tyson Chandler and Deandre Jordan do; plus there are hidden offensive benefits to having a guy that gets a lot of offensive boards and creates a lot of turnovers (and he was always a willing and surprisingly able passer).

Ultimately, I don't think that it's valid to simply combine the realtive offensive and defensive contributions of a player when trying to determine their value. Having a guy that is a 10 on defense and a 2 on offense is not the same as having a guy that is a 6 on offense and a 6 on defense. If a guy is a 2 on offense, the other 4 players can just take most of the shots, but the defensive contributions affect every possession. You can mask weakness with other players, but you can't coble together an elite unit (on either side of the ball) with average pieces. Five plus five does not equal ten. That elite ability is rare, whatever shortcomings come with it can be built around.

Like I've said, I think the Wallace is probably on the wrong side of the fringe of the hall of fame, but if Dennis Rodman can get in it's not out of the question that Wallace could. I think Wallace was a better player at his peak than Rodman was, but again, it all goes back to longevity.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I know why Satch Sanders and KC Jones got inducted, as well as Drazen Petrovic. I was merely pointing out there were worse players in the past 25 years inducted than the likes of James Worthy, Artis Gilmore, Adrian Dantley and Joe Dumars (who, ironically, I thought should not have been inducted, much less on the second ballot).

Moving away from that, R-Star should look at the following players in their respective primes:

Ben Wallace, 2000-01 to 2005-06
Elton Brand, 1999-2000 to 2006-07
Shawn Marion, 2000-01 to 2006-07
Jermaine O'Neal, 2001-02 to 2006-07

I have to agree in taking Brand, Marion and O'Neal over Wallace. Wallace is the better defender and rebounder, but the gap between him and the others offensively is so much greater. And it's not like the others are slouches at rebounding and defense, so Wallace's advantage is relatively marginal.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Most of those guys you mentioned are sure fire hall of famers and among the best players ever, so really, the fact that nobody would take Ben Wallace over guys like Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, and Dirk isn't much of an argument against him. There is definately room for somebody to be not close to as good as those guys and still be a hall of famer.


I don't have to go that high, though. I lowered the bar to a player like Dikembe Mutombo and Ben Wallace still comes up short. If Wallace is a hall of fame candidate, then Mutombo is an even better candidate because he was a better player for a longer period than Wallace -- and Mutombo is a longshot to get inducted.

Seriously, Alonzo Mourning -- another considerably better player than Wallace -- likely will not be inducted. And 'Zo was a legitimate All-Star center and MVP candidate before his kidney issues. So if 'Zo is looking on the outside, how can an argument even be made for Wallace?

If people like Chris Webber and Tracy McGrady likely will not be inducted, I don't see how anyone being compared favorably to a better defensive version of Chandler has a chance.



Mrs. Thang said:


> I think Wallace's offensive shortcomings are also a bit overstated due to the stark contrast with his defensive abilities and his horrible free throw shooting. He would score 8-10 ppg in his prime by running the floor and getting put backs which isn't drastically different than what guys like Tyson Chandler and Deandre Jordan do; plus there are hidden offensive benefits to having a guy that gets a lot of offensive boards and creates a lot of turnovers (and he was always a willing and surprisingly able passer).


Wallace only had two seasons where he scored more than 7.6 points per game -- 2003-04 (9.5) and 2004-05 (9.7). But it only tells part of the story about his offensive game.

Wallace had horrible touch, which is why he rarely could score outside of a few feet. He scored mostly on hustle plays running the floor. He was atrocious when it came to foul shooting. Wallace was decent when it came to passing, but it was largely because he knew he was a horrible offensive player and knew he had to get the ball out of his hands.

And if you're comparing his profile to the likes of Tyson Chandler and DeAndre Jordan, that clearly states how limited Wallace was in that respect and how illogical this argument is. Not to mention at least Chandler and Jordan have the height and size to be a little more effective on offensive putbacks. 

The problem is that this is not a sport like football, where you only play one side of the court. In basketball, you play on both offense and defense and a player is going to be evaluated for his play on both sides overall. When compared to any elite or top-level defender, Wallace is going to take a back seat because he's such a horrible offensive player. His offensive play is so poor that he would be behind most good defenders who have offensive skills.



Mrs. Thang said:


> Like I've said, I think the Wallace is probably on the wrong side of the fringe of the hall of fame, but if Dennis Rodman can get in it's not out of the question that Wallace could. I think Wallace was a better player at his peak than Rodman was, but again, it all goes back to longevity.


Sorry, I have to disagree on that. I saw Dennis Rodman's entire career and Wallace's entire career, and Wallace was not the defender and rebounder Rodman was. Rodman was a unique defender, a guy who legitimately could guard point guards to centers when he was younger. A good rebounder when he came into the league, Rodman concentrated on that aspect until he legitimately could be considered the best rebounder in the history of the NBA.

Wallace was a sawed-off post player whose defensive strengths came in manning the post and shot-blocking. He's certainly not on the same level as Rodman when it came to rebounding. Wallace was actually a worse offensive threat than Rodman (who became disinterested in scoring in San Antonio and Chicago, to the point where it was almost a detriment).

Moreover, Rodman showed he could be an effective player in different systems (Detroit, San Antonio and Chicago) because of his skill sets. When his athleticism started waning in Chicago, he became more of a post defender. Wallace was pretty much ueseful only in Detroit's system. When he went to Chicago and Cleveland, he was a spare part (despite being younger than Rodman at comparable stages).


----------



## Joolazoo (Feb 20, 2012)

As someone who watched the early 2000 pistons and watches the horrible pistons teams of now I can say that some of you are definitely under rating him defensively. He manned two great defensive teams BEFORE Sheed was here and he had team mates who had no right to be on a 50 win team. He definitely wasn't an elite man to man defender, but he was one of the best pick and roll defenders I've ever seen (not much since I started watching basketball in the late 90's). He definitely deserved his two first DPOY awards and should have gotten his third in 04 when Artest won, after that it's very debatable.

Wasn't going to reply...but it just annoyed me how people acted as if Sheed was the centerpiece defensively instead of Ben who already manned the best defensive team in Opponents PPG the year before Sheed was there. Not to say it didn't improve after, but it's ben, not sheed, who had the highest defensive win shares since 1972 in 04...actually...if you look at just about any defensive rating system Ben Wallace is one of the best defenders ever from 2002-2005, even more so when you look at how he stepped up in the playoffs.

As far as HOF games...I don't know, but I see how it's very easy to think that Ben Wallace's offense totally negates his defense...he was always a bad finisher with questionable hands, but he set just about as many hard screens as anyone and was a good passer who didn't make dumb turnovers. I think he should get in, but am not adamant one way or the other since I know it's borderline at best.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> That's my biggest problem with Wallace. He was the third best defensive anchor that won a lot of undeserving DPOY awards in the era when there was no excuse for anyone not named Duncan or Garnett to win one.


Agreed.


----------

