RealGM

Which player would you rather have for one season?

peak Ben Wallace vs. current Draymond Green

Vote for your choice above.

Voted Wallace, but close. Draymond is obviously a much better all-around player because he's vastly superior on offense, but peak Ben was such a game changer on defense...Gotta give him the edge. Wallace is quite possibly the best defender ever, other than Bill Russell.

What does the rest of your team look like?

penbeast0 wrote:What does the rest of your team look like?

Assume this is the first roster spot being filled. You don't have "the rest of your team" yet.

Based on the fact that this is the first spot being filled, I go Wallace.

He's more established as a defensive anchor, and although he isn't as good offensively, Draymond isn't exactly a first option

The thing about the Warriors small ball unit with Draymond Green playing center is there is no Tony Allen or Ben Wallace that you can cheat off of. You have to defend all 5 guys at the 3 point line which means any of the 5 guys may end up under the rim with a step on their defender and no help defense around.

The small ball unit is great defensively on the perimeter and in the passing lanes so they must be punished with inside scoring and offensive rebounding but the current NBA is not good at punishing the Warriors with inside scoring and offensive rebounding.

Mozgov and Tristan Thompson did about as god a job as anybody at punishing the Warriors inside but the Cavaliers still lost. Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph also did not hurt the Warriors badly enough inside to make the Warriors stop playing small ball but the Warriors had extra defenders to help inside because of the Grizzlies poor outside shooting.

The league has two options to deal with the Warriors small ball unit, put out a small ball unit as good as the Warriors small ball unit or make the Warriors pay for playing small ball by overpowering the Warriors inside.

I vote Wallace as better than Green but maybe that is not true at least for these Warriors versus the current NBA.

Green is a lot more versatile and able to play either forward and fit a lot of systems well. If he continues at the level he played last year and so far this year, I'd choose him over Wallace. And, I love the Fro.

If he continues his play this year Draymond for me, offensive gap is too big

Wallace. The guy is GOAT level anchor.

Midseason bump.

Draymond is the easy choice for me. I don't even think the defensive edge is very big in favor of Wallace.

Quotatious wrote:Wallace is quite possibly the best defender ever, other than Bill Russell.

I vehemently disagree, care to explain? I don't see how he can be better than, for example, Robinson, who's the better help defender and just as quick, while having more length.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Draymond is the easy choice for me. I don't even think the defensive edge is very big in favor of Wallace.

How so? By DBPM, Wallace enjoys a big gap over Draymond.

Jaivl wrote:I vehemently disagree, care to explain? I don't see how he can be better than, for example, Robinson, who's the better help defender and just as quick, while having more length.

I don't think Robinson was a better help defender. I'd say they are about equal. Wallace was absolutely an elite pick & roll defender. Wallace was stronger, Robinson was quicker. Slight edge to Robinson in terms of protecting the rim (slightly better shotblocker), Wallace was a slightly better defensive rebounder. Personally, I always prefer specialists rather than stars, when it comes to defense, and I'll explain why later on.

It's extremely close, and I've never felt comfortable when it comes to ranking the best non-Russell defenders - Olajuwon, Robinson, B.Wallace, Mutombo, Duncan, Garnett, Ewing, those guys are all roughly equal to me. Different styles, but about the same results (for example, Mutombo was the best rim protector among them, Garnett was the best pick & roll defender, Robinson and Olajuwon were arguably the most complete defenders, Duncan and Ewing were tremendous anchors of team defense, with great positioning.

However, I will say this - the way I see it, Wallace has one advantage over Robinson, when it comes to defense - Wallace didn't have to be nearly as cautious about not getting into foul trouble, because his teams never depended on him on offense, like the Spurs depended on Robinson. He could be more aggressive defensively, as a result. In reality, Wallace was extremely smart on D, he averaged less fouls than Robinson, and he was also more of an intimidator, more physical and tougher player than D-Rob. He was phenomenal in terms of being able to find the right balance between aggressiveness and caution, defensively.

I think this is very era depended. In modern era, NBA emphasizes skill, movement, spacing, versatility on both offense and defense. Big Ben's incompetence on offense not only affects himself, but for the rest of the team. Player like Tony Allen, and even Andrew bogut (who is a much better offensive player than Wallace) were exposed in the last year play off to a certain degree, and often had to be kept off court. I cannot see how a team playing Ben Wallace significant minutes can be good offensively. Players like Chandler or Jordan at least finish well off offensive rebounds or lobs, the same cannot be said about Ben Wallace.

I think for 90 to 04, I would go with Big Ben, because that is the era when he could make most impacts and hide most of his weakness. Maybe before the 90s too but I don't have a deep understanding of the era, I assumed Green could do well in the 80s, but if Rodman did well, I see no reason why Big Ben wouldn't fit.

in short, modern day= Green.
Eras before= Wallace.

I think Big Ben would do fine on defense in today's era (KG was the only defender who was better in the pick-and-roll for that time period), but I do wonder about his being an offensive liability. Perhaps on the right team that would be negated to an extent, but I don't think teams would try to turn him into a Deandre Jordan/Tyson Chandler type big, which is what seems to be the preference for bigs without a jumpshot (though, I'd take Wallace over the two in a heartbeat).

I'd like to think that Wallace be a superior version of Nerlens Noel in today's league, which may be just as good as Draymond Green in certain, but I love the Green's versatility, as it is something I'd favor in many cases and I'm finding it hard to ignore...

Uhh...it kinda hurts saying that...Big Ben is my all-time favorite player

Dr Spaceman wrote:Draymond is the easy choice for me. I don't even think the defensive edge is very big in favor of Wallace.

But it is...

I wouldn't say Ben Wallace is a offensive liability. As an example:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2005.html

There you can see good offensive rebounding was a really big part (maybe the biggest) of Detroit's offense, and guess who's the one that's getting, by far, the most offensive rebounds?

Yes, he can create zero offense by himself, and he's a limited finisher (57.3% at rim, career), but he can do other stuff. Certainly a better offensive player than Tony Allen for offensive rebounding alone.

Green. The offensive edge is arguably bigger than the defensive one i mean draymond is not only a better scorer by a fair margin, he's a significantly better playmaker. Green is a bonified top 10 player in the league, Wallace was great but didn't approach that status in a single season.

Draymond Green without hesitation. Much better scorer, better passer/playmaker, better FT shooter. Other than rebounding and defense, what did Ben Wallace really do better than Dray?