RealGM

DeJ1 wrote: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?

Nothing, but he was significantly better than Green in either of those categories. I mean Ben Wallace is a true premium in what he does well. Nic Batum might do more things than Dennis Rodman, but I'm still taking Rodman if I'm trying to win games.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

DeJ1 wrote: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?

Nothing, but he was significantly better than Green in either of those categories. I mean Ben Wallace is a true premium in what he does well. Nic Batum might do more things than Dennis Rodman, but I'm still taking Rodman if I'm trying to win games.

I agree that Ben Wallace was a much better rebounder and defender but Draymond was no slouch when it comes to those attributes. Plus, Draymond is also producing with his scoring at a level Wallace couldn't and he can playmake and run a team offense A LOT better as well

Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Jaivl wrote: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.

Tristian Thompson had a similar role on offense last year play off, basically doing nothing but grab rebounds and finish put back, had ORtg 124 and DRtg 104 with .582 TS%, Ben Wallace in 05 (I didn't look at 04 since I am at work ) had an ORtg of 106 and DRtg of 93 with .489 TS& . I guess we can say Tristian was way more competent that Big Ben offensively, but it did not stop the warriors team to help on LeBron once he drives, thus limited LeBron to take tough jumpers.

My point is that, Big Ben's inefficiency on offense does not totally reflect his incompetence on that end, because it does not show how much pressure he created for his teammates to score 4 on 5, which I think would not work in this pace and space era. Of course, the argument that his defensive impact makes up for his offensive inefficiency, but I think the trend right now we are seeing in NBA is that, everyone has to be somewhat competent on the offensive end in order for the offensive to flow, a sub .450 TS% (3 years play off for Wallace from 04-06 were .489, .46, .42 TS%) finisher''s detriment on modern offense is just too big. I cannot think of a top team recently in NBA played like that besides the injured Cavs with no other choices.

To win with big ben, instead of Green, you have to go all out on defense like Detroit did, and I just think it left too little margin for errors, like Memphis vs Warriors last year.

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Seriously? This is a top 3 defensive GOAT peak we're discussing here. Do you really believe Dray is even worthy of being in a dicussion for top 30?

I'd go with Draymond Green by a slight margin. While Ben was one of the greatest defenders of all time, he was also a considerable negative on the offensive end. Draymond is nowhere near Wallace as a defender but still top 5 in the league in his own right and light years more effective on offense.

AceofSpades69 wrote:

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Seriously? This is a top 3 defensive GOAT peak we're discussing here. Do you really believe Dray is even worthy of being in a dicussion for top 30?

I think the guys taking Dray over Ben don't think the latter is a top 3 defensive peak. More like -fringe- top 10.

wutevahung wrote:

Jaivl wrote: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.

Tristian Thompson had a similar role on offense last year play off, basically doing nothing but grab rebounds and finish put back, had ORtg 124 and DRtg 104 with .582 TS%, Ben Wallace in 05 (I didn't look at 04 since I am at work ) had an ORtg of 106 and DRtg of 93 with .489 TS& . I guess we can say Tristian was way more competent that Big Ben offensively, but it did not stop the warriors team to help on LeBron once he drives, thus limited LeBron to take tough jumpers.

My point is that, Big Ben's inefficiency on offense does not totally reflect his incompetence on that end, because it does not show how much pressure he created for his teammates to score 4 on 5, which I think would not work in this pace and space era. Of course, the argument that his defensive impact makes up for his offensive inefficiency, but I think the trend right now we are seeing in NBA is that, everyone has to be somewhat competent on the offensive end in order for the offensive to flow, a sub .450 TS% (3 years play off for Wallace from 04-06 were .489, .46, .42 TS%) finisher''s detriment on modern offense is just too big. I cannot think of a top team recently in NBA played like that besides the injured Cavs with no other choices.

To win with big ben, instead of Green, you have to go all out on defense like Detroit did, and I just think it left too little margin for errors, like Memphis vs Warriors last year.

Good counterpoint

first spot in a dream team or first spot in an actual nba situation

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

cpower wrote:

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

The-Power wrote:

cpower wrote:

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

Aren't you using the same logic for both of the bold claims? You're essentially saying that there isn't a big gap between Green and Wallace because they're both the best defenders on elite defensive teams.


There is a clear gap, I mean the stats are as plain as day. Green is one of the best defenders today, that doesn't mean he is the best defender of all time or close to it. I mean do you think Draymond Green's defense is close to David Robinson, Bill Russell, Kevin Garnett?

In fact using some of the logic you've produced, I get a scary feeling that you think Draymond Green is a comparable player to Bill Russell...

Quotatious wrote: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.

Ben was outstanding...in close doing D,Rebounding. HOWEVER.....His range was about his wingspan. Never had real handles. Not a top passer. Dray is quite good at what Ben is good at.. but.....Dray does point F and Stretch 4... and Ben can't do ANY of that. I really liked Big Ben.. but Dray is just such a rare bird.....and he's actually pretty good at stuff Ben did. The stuff Dray does so well ...and Ben does NOT do... That's big.

The-Power wrote:

cpower wrote:

The-Power wrote:Can someone explain to me why Big Ben is supposed to be a clearly (!) better defender than Green? Preferably without using the words 'true' or 'traditional', because these adjectives alone don't constitute a good argument.

Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

The thing is, Green is not the best defender on this team for the last 2 years. Bogut still has a sizable lead. Even Green being more versatile is such a big plus to today's NBA, he does have problems against much bigger offensive players. Bogut/Elize is so important if you want to win games against Duncan/LMA, and Green just cannot protect the paint like the way Motombo/Big ben used to. Green 's value mainly comes from running fast break/ PnR with Curry, I would say his O impact has surpassed his D impact at this point.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

The-Power wrote:

cpower wrote:Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

Aren't you using the same logic for both of the bold claims? You're essentially saying that there isn't a big gap between Green and Wallace because they're both the best defenders on elite defensive teams.


There is a clear gap, I mean the stats are as plain as day. Green is one of the best defenders today, that doesn't mean he is the best defender of all time or close to it. I mean do you think Draymond Green's defense is close to David Robinson, Bill Russell, Kevin Garnett?

In fact using some of the logic you've produced, I get a scary feeling that you think Draymond Green is a comparable player to Bill Russell...

It is 2016. NOW.....Team D? Defending INSIDE, at the Arc, in Transition, is more important. It ain't the era when post up,ISO drives were the main thing. I missed where it's supposed to be just about DEFENSE. Overall? Dray is a RARE guy. Defense? Ben is GREAT inside. Dray is great anyplace.

cpower wrote:

The-Power wrote:

cpower wrote:Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

The thing is, Green is not the best defender on this team for the last 2 years. Bogut still has a sizable lead. Even Green being more versatile is such a big plus to today's NBA, he does have problems against much bigger offensive players. Bogut/Elize is so important if you want to win games against Duncan/LMA, and Green just cannot protect the paint like the way Motombo/Big ben used to. Green 's value mainly comes from running fast break/ PnR with Curry, I would say his O impact has surpassed his D impact at this point.

I am not saying Green's offense has not improved; it has, especially passing, and finding the right man off PNR with Curry. However, the reason that allowed his offense to develop to this level is his defense. If he did not possess his versatility on defensive end, he would not be able to create the mismatches he enjoyed on the offense.

Let's imagine Green as a regular defender, he probably plays the 3 most of the time. Warriors would be forced to keep one of the centers on the court the whole time, or maybe still had David Lee. Warriors can no longer set up the PNR with green at center, so their most effective line up can no longer be played. He can still shoot the 3s, but his options are more limited, so teams are better prepared, and the paints are more clogged. He will be probably be used as a spot up shooter in a traditional offense instead of setting picks and facilitating offense off PNR.

Green's offense is good, but it all started with his defense ability.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

The-Power wrote:

cpower wrote:Better rebounder, better help D, better man D, better shot blocker, pretty much everything related to D he is better. And did I mention he was the best player on that championship team?

Well, given that the data available backs up that Green is - just as Wallace - the clear-cut most impactful player on a great defensive team, I have yet to see the 'clear' part. I'm not saying he must be at Big Ben's level, nor am I saying that the Warriors have been equally good on defense as the Pistons. But I don't consider him to be clearly better defensively than Green to any extreme extent - i.e. the gap on defense is bigger than the gap on offense.

Especially in today's league, Green's ability to switch on everyone is extremely valuable and impactful and this is an area Wallace couldn't match Green. Green is one of the 2-3 most impactful defenders in the current league, and people act like a legit DPOY candidate for the second consecutive year would be embarrassed in such a comparison. I guess many people still haven't caught up on the shifts we can see these days so that they still cannot fathom someone like Draymond being as impactful as he actually is.

By the way, being the best player on a championship team doesn't prove that you're superior to anyone who isn't or hasn't been. It's a team game after all and this is what teams like Detroit or the 2014 Spurs have proven, so pardon me for not really caring about this "argument" all by itself.

Aren't you using the same logic for both of the bold claims? You're essentially saying that there isn't a big gap between Green and Wallace because they're both the best defenders on elite defensive teams.

I'm not saying that, not even 'essentially'. What I implied was that we shouldn't throw out phrases like 'cleary better' so nonchalantly when it isn't being backed up any further. When we look at on-off data, we see that Green's impact on the Warriors' is tremendous because they aren't even close to sustain elite defense without him on the court for the second consecutive year. Last year only Bogut was close but didn't have the same overall impact (he helped to made the defense elite when he shared the court with Green, but his absence wasn't felt as much in comparison) and this year only Curry comes close which is basically the same effect we can witness on the other side of the court - both simply share a lot of minutes together.

Wallace led a superior defense and please note that I'm not saying that what I wrote above is sufficient to make a profound case for Green. But considering all the above I stick to my stance that a clear separation is anything but obvious by the numbers. If anyone wants to leave out the data we have and prefers a more video-based analysis: you're very welcome, go ahead! Of course this means more than throwing out some fancy words. As for the second part: when Wallace left the court, we see a noticeable drop-off but their defense remains at a very high level. Overall, we cannot see the usual discrepancy among players in the on/off numbers we would expect from a top-heavy team. One could easily argue that Wallace's less impressive numbers are based on a more balanced/superior/whatever supporting cast and that it doesn't diminish what Wallace could actually do and what he actually did to lift his team's defenses. However, in this case the 'best player' argument carries little weight in itself. Hopefully nobody wants to suggest that the Bad Boy Pistons were some historically great team with multiple absolute top-tier star-players because it wouldn't be anywhere close to the truth, of course.

To put it a little shorter: when we look at two very good defensive teams - albeit they're not equal - with a good defensive supporting casts next to two clear defensive anchors, then we should pump the brakes and not call one player clearly superior to the other without a very convincing reasoning. Sure, one player can possibly be clearly superior to the other depending on the definition of 'clearly superior' - but it's far from a given. At this point, let me re-emphasize that in this particular discussion Wallace must be so much better on defense that it outweighs the offensive discrepancy in order to vote for Big Ben as the overall player - which is what I was referring to initially - unless there some special reasoning behind the vote which would have to be provided in detail to be constructive. I'm by no means saying that both players must be equals because they are both the best players on good defensive teams, that's not the point.

The second part, well, should be evident. Championship teams are constructed in many different ways and are also embedded in vastly different contexts. Being the best player shouldn't be seen as a valid argument in comparisons unless the one who claims it digs deeper into and elaborates on it - and then we're not talking about this statement any longer but instead we're able to focus on the actual analysis and/or argument, which would be vastly different and absolutely great because it would be insightful. Without the elaboration, though, it's nothing more than a cheap trick to make up an argument that isn't an actual argument.

cpower wrote:The thing is, Green is not the best defender on this team for the last 2 years. Bogut still has a sizable lead.

This is actually nowhere to be found in the numbers and your statement doesn't make it true. I don't care about your - or in fact any - opinion unless it's being backed up by something.

Interesting question.

My answer is Green. Gives me more flexibility and is in general a more dynamic player, less limited.

Wallace would still be pretty damned good today. Even though he was a total boob if he ever had to dribble the ball and he had no range, others have it right: he was able to hit the offensive glass and move the ball at least enough that he didn't get in the way of the post-title Pistons teams from producing reasonable to good team offense. In Rip's first peak season, they were 4th (110.8). Then they got rid of him for the 06-07 season and they were 6th (108.9) and then 6th (111.4) the year after in terms of team offensive ranking, clearly indicating that at least in the REGULAR season, the Pistons were able to work around his lack of creation or dominance on offense, on average.... and didn't miss a beat once he was gone.

They were also -4.6 in terms of team defense relative to league average in 2008, two years after he left... which is as good as they were in 04-05 (their second Finals appearance) while he was there, and better than in 03 or 06, right? Relative to league average, yes, but the 102.9 team DRTG was damned good. The league environment was a little different earlier than 05, of course, so the specific DRTGs become less important, but that's a solid deal. 04 was an outlier year for them in the sense that they never really approached that ever again even with Wallace.

The reason I mention this stuff is that I believe his total level of impact is often overstated. Not that he wasn't a DPOY-level player, I mean he was clearly a high-end, elite defender who earned most of his DPOYs (and maybe if he didn't really deserve it in one or two of those years, he was also robbed once or twice as well).

But I think when we start talking like he was a BETTER defender than someone like David Robinson or whomever, especially as we get into "the best defender other than Russell," that to me is hyperbole and lacking in sufficient context. He was epic, but not so much so that he was doing things other guys hadn't already accomplished before. I don't see him as hugely different on D than Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, Mutombo, etc, at least as far as impact.



With Green vs Wallace, I don't think this is an easy sell in either direction. I did accidentally click on "Green and it's not close," so the specific poll results are skewed, but I think it's Draymond Green and I think it's a close debate. I like the different options with Green, especially in the modern salary environment, if only because it gives me more ways to build a team, while Wallace really still requires you to find multiple guys who can do more than be Reggie Evans on the glass and a liability at the line, which is essentially Wallace on O. I'm using some hyperbole of my own here, but he was wicked limited on offense and that's not news. He was not an anchor, a second scorer, even a particularly useful tertiary offensive player. He was definitely the fourth or fifth guy on the floor offensively whenever he played, and for one of your highest-paid players, that's a problem a lot of the time. It would be easier if, like Mutombo (who was no great shakes on offense himself in terms of generating it for himself/others), he was at least competent at the line, though.

For me, while Green isn't an anchor, he's efficient, he's a floor-spacer, he's a facilitator, he can handle the ball in transition to initiate the break if he has to, he can do enough different things on offense to make of himself a dynamic, multi-angle threat to the opposition and that makes him more broadly valuable. Couple that with him being an excellent defender in his own right and now we're talking about a player who brings more to the table (in my mind) than someone like Wallace.


Very interesting question and line of thought, though, I must admit.

This is like asking what do you want: the anchor or the chain?

They're both useless without the other.

The High Cyde wrote:This is like asking what do you want: the anchor or the chain?

They're both useless without the other.

This isn't particularly accurate, no. You can assemble a high-quality defense without a unipolar setup. We saw it in Chicago, and that even included a setup where they had a brutal waste of skin "defending" the PF spot in Carlos Boozer. Joakim Noah was a very good defender, surely, and they had some other guys like Thabo who were pretty good, but Noah also missed half of the season and Derrick Rose was no Jason Kidd, you know? That was all about dedication to following the system, and didn't require anything like a Ben Wallace-level defender. We've seen similar setups elsewhere in the league before and since, as well.