Kelly Dwyer Says It Best

brgulker,

If Ben Wallace is the "better" player, than everyone should expect to see him as the starting center and playing 25+ minutes a game, yes?

I think not. Kwame and Chris will be doing that.

35 year old Ben Wallace with no spring and still no offense to speak of, I just don't see the fascination.

But make no mistake about it, I hope he can provide something other than warming the bench, but as I've watched over the past two seasons, Ben should not be a part of a NBA rotation.

If the numbers suggest that Ben Wallace is “still one of the top-tier defensive and rebounding big men in the league” then the Pistons should win 50+ games and challenge the Cavs, Celtics and Magic in the East.

You're cherry picking both my comments and the statistics.

The statistics I posted are either 1) per-minute production or 2) per 36 minute totals. In order for Ben to bring the Pistons from a .500 team to a contender, he'd need to play 35+ minutes per game and increase his productivity to pre-Chicago levels.

I've never argued for either of those. Ben won't play that many minutes, and his production won't increase; in fact, it will probably decrease a little more.

I certainly don’t. The statistics/numbers fail to paint an accurate picture and Pistons fans will just have to be satisfied with a 34-41 win team (at best) for the next few seasons.

BS. You're reading the wrong statistics. Try these on for size. Try these on for size. Or perhaps these.. And one more time for good measure. We lost our biggest producer of wins in McDyess; Big Ben won't produce that much, but neither will Wilcox, CV, or Gordon. I've been saying that since we signed them.

About the only statistical metric I can think of that suggests the Pistons will be better off than they were last season is PER, and I don't put a whole lot of stock in PER.

So, although I don't agree with your comment about statistics, I think you're probably right about next season's team: our ceiling is at or just above the .500 mark.

If the numbers suggest that Ben Wallace is "still one of the top-tier defensive and rebounding big men in the league" then the Pistons should win 50+ games and challenge the Cavs, Celtics and Magic in the East.

Do you really think there is any possibility that will happen with a three-headed monster of Brown, Ben and Wilcox at center?

I certainly don't. The statistics/numbers fail to paint an accurate picture and Pistons fans will just have to be satisfied with a 34-41 win team (at best) for the next few seasons.

I think Hayes basically sums up what I think:

His last two seasons in Detroit, per 36 minutes, he averaged 11.7 rebounds and 2.2 blocks per game. In the three seasons since he left Detroit, per 36 minutes, he's averaged 10.2 rebounds and 2.1 blocks per game.

Last season, his defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions) was 98 for Cleveland. He played in only 56 games due to a broken leg last year, a few short of qualifying for league leaders, but if he did, his 98 rating would have put him fourth in the league. His 16.4 rebound percentage last year would have put him tied for 12th in the league had he qualified.

The disagreement we have is a common one in sports. On the one hand, there are those who argue that if you just watch the game, a player's value is obvious. So Ben is older and slower, and it appears that he might be a liability for that very reason. I hear where you're coming from, and intuitively, I might agree.

On the other hand, there are some statistics, which are an attempt to track and record what players are doing on the court -- beyond just an eye-witness impression.

Before Ben's signing: we have one of the worst defensive and rebounding front courts in the entire league; that's what Joe assembled for us.

After Ben's signing: the numbers suggest that Ben is still one of the top-tier defensive and rebounding big men in the league.

Obviously, he can't still play 35+ minutes per game, obviously; so, his impact won't be nearly what it was in his prime. That said, I would much rather play Ben for 20 minutes per game than Wilcox for 20 minutes per game.

My reasoning? The only thing that Wilcox is better-than-average at is scoring. He doesn't block shots, and his rebounding numbers are meh. Ben Wallace doesn't score -- but we've added several potent scorers; that's not our primary need. He still rebounds, defends, and blocks shots, however, which is the immediate and urgent need of our front court.

So is Ben "better" than Wilcox? Defends on how you define "better." Wilcox has more talent on offense. Ben has more talent on defense (in every possible category). We need the latter a lot more than the former. So yes, I think Ben is better.

brgulker,

I know you're a very knowledgeable b-ball fan, but do you seriously believe that an old Ben is better than Chris Wilcox?

And as for the stats, I'll admit that they do tell a bit of a different story.

HOWEVER, I've come to realize that lots of times people use stats to make their arguement instead of actually watching the action out on the court. Clearly Ben Wallace is a huge liability on the court now that he doesn't block shots and doesn't have that lift. Box scores don't tell the whole story.

Dwyer offers up very valid analysis when he talks about Ben's defensive mindset and the way he's not nearly as effective now because of his loss of foot speed. Calling him a selfish defender might seem harsh, but it's true. He'll be taking more chances at making the big play instead of staying home and playing team D. He could get away with that earlier in his career because he was spry, now he's injured and bruised. Nobody wanted him except Detroit. Nobody! Joe is making a great business decision, this will sell more TIX!

And him being a leader BS is laughable, Ben's never been known as a vocal leader. He led by example, but there's no example anymore!

The worst part about Dwyer's article is that he doesn't give one statistical reason that Ben Wallace will hurt rather than help the Pistons.

On the other hand, Patrick Hayes actually gives some statistics that clearly, indisputably demonstrate what Ben Wallace can still do on the court: http://blog.mlive.com/its-just-sports/2009/08/in_d...

On top of that Dave Berri breaks down Big Ben's per minute production, which is better than any of the other bigs on our roster: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/are-the-cav...

And by Berri's metric, Kwame is a heckuva lot better than you and Dwyer are giving him credit for.

For those, like yourself, who hate the signing, you're free to your opinion; but sheesh, at least offer a single shred of evidence or an argument other than, "He's not as good as he used to be." Because right now, an old Ben Wallace is better than a young Chris Wilcox, in spite of what we may or may not see in the scoring column.