Wallace Headed for Immortality?

Post #41 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:19 pm

sporadiclee wrote:New to the board. Been reading for a while. Decided against making an intro thread. Watched every minute of every game for the past four years.

...

Welcome to the board. :wave:

Excellent first post! Hope to see you around and contributing.

TB#1 · Post #42 » by **TB#1** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:52 pm

Now that we have the numbers to officially back it up, I can see clearly why it is so important to put the ball in Ben Wallace's hands late in the 4th quarter of close games. It just makes perfect sense, statistically.

On a happier note, welcome sporadiclee. Nice first post.

Johnston797 · Post #43 » by **Johnston797** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:12 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Why does everyone put so much blame on Ben Wallace ?

I don't think the season is Ben Wallace's fault.

However, there are a few things here:
1) We have replacements behind Wallace who have outperformed him. The players behind our under performing guards are even worse.

2) Wallace is not important to our future. Our under performing guards are still likely important to our future (in trade if not on the roster).

3) The players behind Wallace are important to our future. The players behind our under performing guards are likely not important to our future.

You forgot...

4) To get Wallace, Pax used $20M in cap space which he had been angling for years to get.

5) His signing caused us to give away Tyson Chandler, similar but far superior and 8 years younger.

6) He is taking up a lot of our salary cap for the next 2 years after this one

Post #44 » by **coldfish** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:19 pm

Welcome to the board sporadiclee. Good first post.

......

I have to object to those talking about Rodman and even those saying "we knew Wallace was bad at offense". Neither Rodman or Wallace (up to this point) were on these lists. Wallace is playing much worse on offense than he ever has in the past.

Is Wallace the problem? No, not by himself. Hinrich has been real bad and Gordon pretty bad. Duhon as a starter has been an abject failure but no other guards have stepped up.

However, Wallace is in a league by himself. This guy is playing mediocre to poor defense with worst all time offense and getting 35mpg regularly. His affect of the clubhouse is unknown, but as TB#1 has pointed out, this team has definitely lost its edge and there are reports of Wallace moping.

Post #45 » by **DASMACKDOWN** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:58 pm

Wallace has been downright terrible.

But at the same time also how dumb is our coaching staff.

When looking at the inept number compared to his peers, it also got me thinking.

How many team in the league starts 2 players that are that bad offensively? Guess who. Only us.

Wallace 4.5ppg
Duhon 5.4ppg

In fact as starters we score less than 50ppg as a team. Thats putrid.

So actually we compound the problem of Wallace by now adding Duhon.

tclg · Post #46 » by **tclg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:05 pm

Are we trying to tank or something by starting two guys that dont even get to double digits on most nights

sporadiclee · Post #47 » by **sporadiclee** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:29 pm

I'm glad people reference Rodman. It's true that he wasn't brought in for offense, but he was still better at it. Most importantly, he was still an elite rebounder.

95-96 5.5 pts, 48.0 FG%, 52.8 FT%, 14.9 Reb
96-97 5.7 pts, 44.8 FG%, 56.8 FT%, 16.1 Reb
97-98 4.7 pts, 43.0 FG%, 55.0 FT%, 15.0 Reb

Ben 4.5 pts, 32.6 FG%, 47.1 FT%, 9.1 Reb

At this point last year, Ben had grabbed at least 14 rebounds 8 times and scored in double digits 9 times. This year, he's grabbed at least 14 rebounds 3 times and scored in double digits 3 times. Rodman averaged 15 boards, something Ben has only done once this year. Once. He's also averaging essentially the same amount of offensive rebounds (-.1) that he did last year, in spite of the Bulls now being the worst shooting team in the league.

Mostly, though, Ben doesn't even look like he's trying this year, as evident by his shocking 13% drop in FG%. Some of his one handed tosses in the direction of the backboard are almost disgraceful to the game. Yet, he has those dunks, like his only FG yesterday, where you think he might still be capable.

Thanks for the welcome, everyone. I respect a lot of your opinions, and most of my friends have faded to apathy with this team, making my rants more annoying to them than thought provoking.

Post #48 » by **emperorjones** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:35 pm

Take your percentages and stick em. He's THE BODY. Just look at those biceps. Those when combined with the awesome nickname, the fro and his 7 rebound performances are well worth every penny of that $15 million.

Anyone who disagrees doesn't appreciate the value of having a cancer in the locker room.

JeremyB0001 · Post #49 » by **JeremyB0001** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:04 am

coldfish wrote:I have to object to those talking about Rodman and even those saying "we knew Wallace was bad at offense". Neither Rodman or Wallace (up to this point) were on these lists. Wallace is playing much worse on offense than he ever has in the past.

Exactly. Rodman and the old Wallace, were awful, but weren't anywhere near as bad as Wallace has been this season. That's a critical distinction.