RealGM

Who was the better Piston?

Ben in his top 3-4 years was better I would say. Probably a top 10 player in the league. Overall, Laimbeer might have him due to longevity.

Wallace. He's one of the best defensive players of all-time.

Not sure how good he'd be in today's NBA with his poor offensive game though.

Ben was better, Bill had the better career as a Piston (6 vs 12.5 seasons), not certain on which way to answer.

Wallace does have end-of-season accolades while Laimbeer's only accolades are a handful of All-Star selections. Wallace is the better defender, although Laimbeer was by no means a slouch at that end. They were both good rebounders although Laimbeer was a better passer.

Laimbeer is probably a better fit for the modern era due to his floor spacing abilities. Then again, Rudy Gobert is almost exclusively a defensive guy who only scores inside, and he's lasted pretty long so maybe Wallace would still manage in today's game.

I probably have to go with Ben Wallace, though it is debateable depending on exactly WHAT question you're truly asking.....

If you're asking who peaked higher [in a Piston uniform], I'd say Ben Wallace.

If you're asking who I rank higher all-time overall, I'd say Ben Wallace.

If you're asking who accumulated more career value while wearing a Piston uniform.......idk, that one is debateable, imo.

Laimbeer played approximately 11.5 seasons for the Piston franchise (including ALL of his prime [~8-9 years]).
Wallace played only 9 years for the Pistons, and only 5-6 [probably 6] of them can be called prime years.

That makes it debateable to me, as it's mostly the additional career value added in his non-Piston years that pushes Wallace ahead in an all-time sense. For specifically what occurred in Detroit ONLY......idk.

I do think Bill Laimbeer is a VERY underrated player historically (at least in mainstream circles).

Ha, I'd totally forgotten Ben went back to Detroit at the end. I'll give Ben my vote, he was still decent in '10 for certain.

trex_8063 wrote:I do think Bill Laimbeer is a VERY underrated player historically (at least in mainstream circles).

How so?

tsherkin wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I do think Bill Laimbeer is a VERY underrated player historically (at least in mainstream circles).

How so?

If you so much as tentatively suggest that Bill Laimbeer may have been nearly as important to several of those Piston squads as Isiah Thomas, you would likely be openly ridiculed by the typical casual fan (who might then go on to tell you that Isiah actually "carried" those teams).

If you attempted to suggest in casual/mainstream circles that Bill Laimbeer may have had a top 125 career of all-time, or that was better than and/or that his career was arguably better than any ONE (much less most/all) of.......

Pete Maravich
Earl Monroe
Tom Heinsohn
Dennis Johnson
Jerry Lucas
Bill Walton
Tiny Archibald
Lenny Wilkins
Bernard King
(just to throw a few names out there)

....you will be told by mainstream fans that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I'll perhaps have someone do that to me here, simply for daring to imply it.


Laimbeer was a high IQ team defender---with much better pnr defense than his frame/athleticism would suggest, too---whose defensive imprint is much larger than his bpg figures. He provided excellent rebounding and middling volume scoring on decent efficiency while providing some spacing by latter half of career, being a prototype stretch big by late in his career (before that was even a thing).
He was productive and useful---and very durable---for ALL of a career that lasted just over 13 years in a pretty competitive era [a solid 8-9 year prime therein], and was a key cog in a multi-year contender.
It's a very nice player and nice career, not at all out of line to argue against any one of the above [pending criteria specs]. But I'd wager a typical casual fan would dump soup on my head for suggesting such a thing, instead labelling him a barely relevant footnote in the league's history.

trex_8063 wrote:If you so much as tentatively suggest that Bill Laimbeer may have been nearly as important to several of those Piston squads as Isiah Thomas, you would likely be openly ridiculed by the typical casual fan (who might then go on to tell you that Isiah actually "carried" those teams).

Ah. I see the first issue: casual fans. They shouldn't be a benchmark of anything, because they rarely debate in good faith, with legit info or generally from a foundation of knowing what they're talking about.

Top 130 or 125 or whatever doesn't seem unreasonable for a dude who was a critical part of Detroit's defense, was a former league-leader in rebounding and was an early stretch big who was developing some 3pt range by the time the Pistons were contending. Not too many 89% FT shooters in the frontcourt in the 80s and early 90s. He was never a 20 ppg scorer, which is a big reason a lot of casuals dismiss him, because volume is all to a lot of such fans.

Isiah is also heavily overrated on the contending versions of the Pistons, as he was well past the point of high-end offensive contribution by that point, with a few notable games as exceptions. The Pistons were a solid bottom half of the top-10 offense during that first title, but people do tend to overrate him a bunch.

Laimbeer was also a brick wall as a screener, and a sneaky, dirty bastard about it, as most of the best screeners are. I remember when the 05 Sonics were flexing, they had Danny Fortson and Reggie Evans, and both of those broad-shouldered bastards reminded me of Laimbeer in that regard as far as how they created space for Ray Ray when he was running around off screens.

I love Ben Wallace as much as anyone but I think peak play is debatable. Laimbeer was a much better offensive player (near all-star level on O) and still a very good defender. I'm not sure that Ben's edge on defense gives him an overall edge. It might but I'm just not sure.

tsherkin wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:If you so much as tentatively suggest that Bill Laimbeer may have been nearly as important to several of those Piston squads as Isiah Thomas, you would likely be openly ridiculed by the typical casual fan (who might then go on to tell you that Isiah actually "carried" those teams).

Ah. I see the first issue: casual fans.

Well yes; I did say [in the post you originally quoted] "in mainstream circles". I assumed it was understood I was talking about your casual basketball fans (as apposed to the nerdy analytics or "deep-dive" crowd).

trex_8063 wrote:Well yes; I did say [in the post you originally quoted] "in mainstream circles". I assumed it was understood I was talking about your casual basketball fans (as apposed to the nerdy analytics or "deep-dive" crowd).

Yes, that wasn't meant as a criticism of your post, but an acknowledgement of the issues with casual fans. Sorry if that came off otherwise.