ZeppelinPage wrote:
Yes, absolutely. Wallace is underrated on offense and I've done a lot of film study for him. He was a better passer and lower turnover player compared to Eaton (he always had more assists than turnovers), a great screener, and more importantly he was a massive threat with his athleticism and offensive rebounding. Teams couldn't just sag off on Wallace and not defend him because he was always going for rebounds with his non-stop motor that Eaton didn't have. In the 2003 series against the Nets, for instance, two players at once were having to box him out because he had relentless effort around the rim. Even Derrick Coleman said that "You always have to make sure you know where he is at" after one of the games. I think this playstyle would really wear teams down and, much like a player can provide gravity with shooting or slashing ability, one can also do so with rebounding to bring defenders towards him and provide openings for teammates.
Ah, Ben Wallace. A well-earned HoFer. I hated him during his career because I hated the Pistons, but it's mostly because he, and they, were quite good.
Yeah, he gets crapped on because he had no range, couldn't hit free throws, wasn't a good post scorer and couldn't dribble well, but he contributed with screens, offensive rebounding and such. His Detroit TOV% is about 6% lower than Eaton's, too. He didn't have sticky hands with the ball either, he did pass pretty well. Wallace was never going to be outworked. Anything that you could do with just pure effort, he went HAM at. Eaton did not stun at offensive rebounding and was not the same caliber of passer, nor did he take care of the ball as well.