johnmarchii

Rasheed Wallace was still able to contribute despite foul trouble. He
basically won game 4 in the 2004 finals by scoring 26 points and had
13 rebounds. Wallace also averaged Wallace averaged 9.3 points and
8.5 (which is very effective at power forward) in 29 minutes through
the first three games of the Finals. So give me a break about Rasheed
Wallace and foul trouble. The Pistons wouldn't have beat the Lakers
without Rasheed Wallace. This says nothing about his contributions
against the Indiana Pacers. Rasheed Wallace had 14 points 8 rebounds
and a blocked shot in game 1 of the finals. Rasheed Wallace had an
impact on this finals series and without him the Piston's wouldn't
have gotten as far in the playoffs. Remember Jermaine Oneal sprained
his knee in the conference finals against Detroit and you know that
Rasheed Wallace had his contributions.

2004 Detroit was not as good as the Bad Boys. The Bad Boys gave
Scottie Pippen stitches. They would also injure players (as in when
Isaiah Thomas gave Paxson a concussion) and were much much more
physical than the Detroit Piston's of 2004. Scottie Pippen probably
got migraines playing the Bad Boys. The New Jersey Nets have never
won a championship and the Indiana Pacers still haven't won a title.
Even the San Antonio Spurs with Tim Duncan and David Robinson were
better. Detroit never really competed against stiff competition in the
playoffs.
Neither New Jersey or Indiana were strong scoring teams. Scoring has
been declining for the past decade so this isn't any revolution in
defense.

Ben Wallace is a power forward and not a true Center such as Hakeem or
Patrick Ewing or Moses Malone. A team with a dominant center and
power forward such as Tim Duncan and David Robinson would rate higher
in defense than Detroit of 2004. The 83 Philadelphia 76ers also beat
both the Boston Celtics and the L.A. Lakers which were two
championship teams and better yet they swept the 83 Laker's in the
finals. Detroit 2004 could never sweep the 83 Lakers with Kareem, Magic, et al.

Sam Cassell doesn't really count here because Sam Cassell is
overrated. Sam Cassell is no Karl Malone anyway and won all his
titles because of Hakeem. Cassell was injured but that still might
not have mattered as much as Karl Malone. Sam Cassell also
accomplished nothing in Milwaukee and has achieved 0 titles since
Houston. The reality is Rasheed Wallace - Detroit = NO CHAMPIONSHIP


Wrong Rasheed Wallace still was able to play against the the LA Lakers
and your minimizing his impact against the Indiana Pacers and in the
playoffs. You are Ignoring Rasheed Wallace's contributions in game 4
of the finals and against his contributions against the Indiana
Pacers. Rasheed Wallace averaged 13 points 7.8 rebounds and 2 blocks
in the 2004 playoffs and that alone proves that he was instrumental in
getting them to the finals and helping beat the Lakers. 13 points and
7.8 rebounds would be a big loss for the Piston's and if they didn't
have his defense they would have lost sooner in the playoffs. Rasheed
Wallace had 20 points in game 3 against the Indiana Pacers in the
playoffs. Rasheed Wallace also had 22 points in game 5 against the
Indiana Pacers to go along with 8 rebounds and 3 blocked shots.
Rasheed Wallace also helped hold Jermaine Oneal to 11 points in game
5. Without Rasheed Wallace Detroit would have to put Ben Wallace on
Jermaine Oneal or they would have had fewer options.

sébastien poitras

I agree that Rasheed was an important part of the team, but I'm not sure he
would have scored as easily if Phil had benched Malone. I remember I thought
Malone was unbelievably pathetic, and Phil also said that his biggest
mistake during last year's playoffs was probably playing Malone way too
much.

Sebastien

fred

That was completely random

bdubya

On 20 Oct 2004 21:06:05 -0700, johnmarchii@earthlink.net (John Stamos)


Thanks for giving us your definition of "better". It's an odd one,
but at least it's clear....Look, I loved the Bad Boys, but the core
of their defense was "no 2-point plays"; they were so effective
because they would foul HARD. You could try for a layup, but you'd be
put on your ass for it. The current Pistons are at least as effective
on defense, but they do it by working harder, contesting every shot,
and playing as a team. The way I see it, that makes them "better",
the same way a Ben Wallace block is "better" defense than a Laimbeer
clothesline. (more snipt)


Everybody in the league knows that. But the reason for that is how he
fit with the team. He sure didn't put up Shaq numbers, but still, in
spite of his foul trouble and his planter fasciitis and all, he was
key. And the number one contribution he made was to the team defense,
not just by allowing Ben and the guards to gamble a little more, but
by communicating on D, calling the action for the rest of the team.
(At least that's what the rest of the team said after he arrived).

The reality is Detroit + Rasheed Wallace = THE BETTER TEAM.

bw

jslater

More on that below, but you don't define what you mean by "better," so
I'm sticking to the idea that a team that wins 4 of 5 and almost 5 of
5 is probably "better."


He was big in game 4, no doubt. But as for the rest, those 9.3 points
and 8.5 board numbers, while not trivial, are significantly below his
career averages in both categories, and about half his averages for
his good years/games.

Look, I'm not saying Wallace wasn't a factor, but the Pistons didn't
win 4 games because of Rasheed picking on a hurt Malone. As you point
out, R. Wallace was in single figures for boards and points in most of
the finals games.

So give me a break about Rasheed


If you read my original post, I said I agreed with you that the
Pistons probably wouldn't have GOTTEN to the finals without Rasheed.
And sure, Rasheed helped in the finals, but honestly, except for game
4, he had for him a subpar series.

The matchup that killed the Lakers was Payton v. whoever he was trying
to guard.

The 2004 Pistons gave lots of big scorers stitches, including Kobe.

They would also injure players (as in when

Hey, I got a kick out that physical play too, but knocking people down
isn't the *only* way to play good defense. See Tayshaun Prince. No
thug, but excellent defensive player.

Detroit never really competed against stiff competition in the


Ah, that kind of east-bashing doesn't wash anymore. It took Detroit 7
games to beat NJ; 6 to beat the Pacers; but merely 5 to beat LA (and
again, it was almost a sweep). What does that say about LA? From
what I saw, LA would have struggled against NJ or Indy.

Detroit 2004 could never sweep the 83 Lakers with Kareem,


If you're old enough, you probably thought the Bad Boys could never
sweep the Lakers either. Wait, stop--injuries to Magic and Scott, I
know. Because injuries should only count when they happen to the
Lakers.

Indiana had an over the hill Reggie Miller


Says you. Most folks think he was one of the three really good
players on that team.

The reality is Rasheed Wallace - Detroit = NO CHAMPIONSHIP

That's probably right, in the sense that Detroit wouldn't have made
the finals without him. But in the finals, the guards were more of a
factor, as was the fact that NOBODY ON LA COULD SCORE BESIDES SHAQ AND
KOBE. If I remember correctly, the third-leading scorer for the
Lakers in the finals averaged under 7 points a game.

Bottom line: a team like that was not "better" than Detroit. And
that's really the main point of this thread. The point isn't whether
Rasheed was the main thing that killed the Lakers (your argument) or
just one of many things (my argument). The point is whether Shaq was
right to say that Detroit wasn't a "better" team. And I still say
Shaq was wrong, however you value Rasheed (and again, I love the
guy).--Joe

grey matters

In the end, I think "better" only makes sense in some kind of nostalgic,
wistful sense, where you're not matching up the guys on the 2004 rosters up
against each other.

In this version, "The Lakers" aren't the team that got beat 4-1. No, "The
Lakers" is some sort of composite consisting of the better squads of the
past few years, of a happier O'Neill and Bryant, of a bench that includes
the best guys to have circulated through the Forum.

Meanwhile, "The Pistons" aren't the squad that dissected the Lakers 4-1,
but are instead some earlier version struggling to make .500, still
smarting from the defection of Grant Hill and trying to get Richard
Hamilton into the rotation. By this standard, of course, Lyndsey Hunter
isn't a Piston but a Laker.

In this sense, "The Lakers" are better than "The Pistons" for sure.
They're the idealized Lakers team compiled out of years worth of SI covers
and highlight clips from ESPN, of special sections in the LA Times.

The Karl Malone and Gary Payton in this idealized "Lakers" squad aren't the
aging vets on the downsides of their careers who played in the '03-'04
season, but the versions you might find on an old video game from 10 years
ago.

Like I said, it's a nostalgic viewpoint, the same one that makes Dallas
fans say that the Cowboys are better than the Patriots, which ultimately
turns out to be a statement that the '04 Patriots have less of a legacy
than the Dallas teams of the 90s and 70s, which may be true but is also
irrelevant.

By any reasonable standard the Pistons in the '04 proved they were a much
better team than the Lakers, but I don't think objectivity is what's being
talked about here. It's about nostalgia, legacy, history, and the Lakers
are "better" in this sense.

But even this is starting to get old when it's the present that really
matters, and what a team does in the coming season that counts. I'm
looking forward to seeing what the Pistons can do.

johnmarchii

Actually the 1988 Bad Boys Detroit Piston's didn't have just Bill
Laimbeer. They had Rick Mahorn (7.3 ppg, 6.9 rpg) and John Salley
(7.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg) and James Edwards (7.3 ppg) and Dennis Rodman (9.0
ppg, 9.4 rpg and a league best .595 FG percentage). So the 1988
Detroit had much more depth on the frontline. Comparing Bill Laimbeer
to Ben Wallace isn't a fair comparison anyway and Ben Wallace and
Rasheed Wallace certainly couldn't compete with the depth of the 1988
Detroit Pistons on the frontline so they aren't equal defensively
here. One advantage the 2004 Detroit Pistons also had was being able
to play in a zone defense which inflated some of there numbers.

You could also argue that 1988 Detroit had a better backcourt than
2004 Detroit. It would also be easy to say that Isaiah Thomas is
lightyears better than Chauncy Billups by a long shot. Isaiah Thomas
averaged 18.2 ppg, 8.3 apg, 1.67 spg in 1988 which statistically is
way beyond anything Chauncy Billups could do. Joe Dumars also put up
17.2 ppg and was a good defender. The 2004 Detroit Pistons don't rate
higher in defense than the 1988 Detroit Pistons aka the bad boys.

kenneth demonn

[Cross-posting left untouched. As Mister Zimmerman said, "I used to
care, but things have changed."]

On 19 Oct 2004 11:05:29 -0700, jslater@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)

Actually, your point still stands: Bryant and O'Neal ****ed up all of
LA's cap room, leaving them able to afford only scrubs, or, for one
year, once, a couple of stars who were willing to accept far below
their market value. When said stars failed to deliver, the Lakers
where left with, uh, not much. It's not just that Shaq was
"highly-paid" but quite enormously overpaid, relative to other
players. (We can discuss his salary in relation to his economic worth
some other time.) Allow me to repost some figures from over the
summer, when someone suggested Detroit should trade for O'Neal. (This
was before Okur signed with Utah.)


Yes, that's correct. Shaq made as much as four of the five Piston
starters, and the core of their bench, COMBINED. He's a one-man cap
buster, and the only way to get any talent around him is to hope you
have other good players who come cheap (eg, on a rookie contract, or
LA's unlikely-to-be-repeated situation) or be willing to go way over
the cap, with all the financial penalties and trade restrictions that
result.

The above numbers are also a testament to Dumars' salary cap
management skills, even if said management leads to such things as the
regrettable Corliss for Coleman trade. However much it was necessary
to permit the Pistons to re-sign key players, Williamson is currently
the better basketball player, and better person. (In particular, I'm
not happy about having to share the road with someone with three DUIs;
what's Eldridge Recasner doing these days?)

--
Working email address: <my first name> at <my surname> dot com.