daddyfatsax wrote:
Oscar Robertson could also be added. A few more of course.

I put 10 seconds of thought into it, hence why I left Shved off the list. Not sure how I overlooked him. Total brain fart. Although Adelman will probably bury him behind Ricky Rubio and Brandon Roy which will hinder his developmental minutes.

I get what you're saying on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but there are a few points of the game that I see as absolutely essential and inexcusable to ignore: defensive effort, care with the ball, and free throws. You can be a sh*tty defender but if you play hard, okay. If you turn the ball over a lot because you're aggressive, okay- as long as you aren't being lazy/sloppy. If you aren't the best FT shooter ever, fine- but if so you better have good form and shoot 60-65% and practice like hell.

The first two are mental, and the last is purely a matter of practice. I subscribe to the "anyone can shoot 65% on FTs if they spend a couple hours a day doing nothing but shooting FTs" school of thought.

Let's face it. At some point it's a matter of mechanics. If your mechanics are right on and you have the muscle memory of 1,000+ hours of shooting the same shot over and over, you'll shoot 65% at least.

You can easily acquire 1,000+ hours of practice in 2 years, even playing an NBA schedule.

I love Ben Wallace for his D, but he drove me absolutely frickin nuts at the line.

Practice, man. Just sit there and pay some kid $6/hr to rebound and pass to you and shoot over and over again until your arm can move without your brain telling it to.

It is unreal to me that someone could justify making millions of dollars at their job and simply not do their prerequisite training in a simple but important area.

Looking back, I can justify Ben Wallace over Jamison. I guess it's the old "2 on Off/10 on Def" vs. "8 on Off/4-5 on Def" question. I love D and can justify Wallace.

Just stop killing me on those free throws.

I totally agree that poor free throw shooting is unacceptable for professional ball players.

Luckily Ben rarely went to the line, unlike Shaq, so the liability was much less of an issue. Ben is easily one of the best defenders of this generation. A. Jamison-types are a dime a dozen. Ben possessed a skillset so very few players do and he was the absolute best at it. That's the thing.

WallyWorld wrote:
Exactly. Which puts him in the Rodman class of players who are only NBA quality at one or two things, which they are elite at. I find it tough to compare career success with successful 2 way players in such cases. The Pistons effectively played 4 on 5 every game on offense, even though he more than made up for it on D. Do we give the same pass to someone who can score 35 ppg and is an absolute sieve on D?

I agree with what you're saying but it's tough to put him up there even with Mutombo, because Mutombo could make an awkward gangly post move and shoot 60% from the line. How do you rank a guy who's Bill Russell on defense and Bill Murray on Offense?

wolfenstein wrote:

Ahhhh how often people label defensive specialists to use as a "one trick pony" argument and not offensive specialists. One of many hypocrisies among fans and media.

So since it doesn't seem like you are fully versed on Ben Wallace let's use Rodman as an example. Do you honestly take Jamison over Rodman?

I fear your answer.

wolfenstein wrote:
A heck of a lot higher than Antawn Jamison, who has perhaps the least dignified career of a 20+ ppg scorer I can think of.

Put it like this, would the Pistons have won the 2004 championship with Jamison in his prime inserted for Wallace? Absolutely not.

BonK wrote:
You're probably right. But I still can't fully accept that being outstanding at half the game (albeit the more important half) somehow makes up for being well below average at the other half of the game- at least in the grand scheme of "greatest of all time" type of comparisons.

There is just no way you could ever take Jamison over someone like Rodman or Wallace. Never.

That is all.

Jamison racked up 24.9 ppg and 8.7 rpg in his best season. That's comparable to Dirk's average season (only Dirk maintained that average over a longer time, and won a ring, and is qualitatively better than Jamison). Granted, he leveled off around 19/8 for his career but still...? 19/8 for a long ass career is nothing to sneeze at.

Again, CW you are totally underrating Jamison because all you remember is broken down old Jamison.

If you already had your scorers then of course you plug in guys like Rodman and Wallace to get you over the top. But I feel like Jamison had the ability to be the second best player on a competitor (although he never was), whereas Rodman and Wallace were elite level role players. I'm just questioning which is "better" in the grand scheme of things.

Who was more central to the Pistons' first championship? Dumars or Rodman? (maybe bad example since it was the young, not quite as effective, not nearly as crazy Rodman but you get the point). Was Wallace more critical to the Pistons second championship than Rip Hamilton?

P.S. Basketball-reference.com is awesome. Did you guys know Adrian Dantley scored over 30 ppg 4 years in a row in the early 80s???

I remember Jamison, and I remember Ben Wallace. Defense wins championships. PF's like Jamison are much easier to find than one of the best defending big men ever.

College Wolf wrote:
That's it. One has an elite skill limited to one position, the other has usually one set of skills that every team has nearly every year (only a bit better). 20+PPG scorers are a dime a dozen. If you want to look at it differently, think about this as a Vince Carter vs. Ben Wallace discussion.

Vince Carter is a good comp. I was looking for that guy.

Only problem is that VC has the same issue that Jamison had (played well beyond his usefulness) and some other issues that Jamison didn't have (he's a selfish, team-killing son of a bitch).

But talent-wise you're telling me if 2004 Detroit gets a call from 2004 Toronto and Toronto says "Vince for Ben Wallace, straight up," that Detroit is hanging up the phone? ONLY if they knew the outcome of the playoffs in advance. Which I guess is fair to include in Wallace's legacy.

But it's not that it isn't a close call, my opinion.

Rudy Gay for Ibaka (pretending Gay didn't play the same position as Durant). Who says no? It's that discussion, only not even since Ibaka can make free throws and jump shots.

I dont like the Vince Carter comp for Jamison. In his prime Vince was much better than Jamison ever was at any point. Another huge thing that Vince has going for him is that he played SG instead of PF. SG are expected to score, and it's not as big of a deal if they aren't a good defender.

I really don't think the Pistons would have done a Wallace/Vince swap. That team was all about chemistry. Rip Hamilton was perfect on that team and so was Big Ben. Why would they do that trade?

I also don't think it's fair to be ripping on some guys for not being able to shoot free throws. Have you ever seen Shaq holding a basketball? It looks like a normal person holding an orange in their hand. This makes it impossible to shoot the ball in the traditional sense, he had to throw/push it at the basket.

roundhouse wrote:
I can accept your first points but the free throws thing is ridiculous. Shaq looked awkward because HE DIDN'T LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY HOLD A BASKETBALL.

There are plenty of guys who are big who shoot just fine on free throws. Look at Durant. You think he has tiny hands? Kobe? Hakeem? Hell no.

Weak argument. Those guys sucked at free throws because they didn't work hard enough on the easiest shot in basketball.