Was the 2004 pistons the only team to win a championship without....

[INDI]

A top 100 player???? The closest of course would be billups, but truthfully he is not a top 100. That is remarkable if that's the case and that team truly needs to be examined for formula for success.

They might actually be in the consideration for best TEAM of all time. There's noooooo way they could've pulled that off without playing Like a true unit

[mrbigshot1]

Their unity on defense helped them become one of the greatest teams.

[Punpun]

The Wallaces is a top 100 player.

[AMISTILLILL]

Rasheed Wallace is currently ranked #95 all-time on basketball-reference.com. Just saying.

At Sheed's peak, he could have been confused for a future Hall Of Famer.

[lilgodfather1]

No top 100 player ever, but 4 top 200 players certainly helped.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Ben Wallace & Rasheed. IMO Ben Wallace easily cracks that 90-100 range.

He had like 5-6 years of being a GOAT defensive player

[ProfessorMurder]

According to GOAT:

Ben Wallace is #69 all time and Mutombo isn't in the top 100
:durantunimpressed:

[AMISTILLILL]

According to GOAT:

Ben Wallace is #62 all time and Mutombo isn't in the top 100
:durantunimpressed:
http://i52.tinypic.com/wt93ic.jpg

[Punpun]

That's because Ben Wallace is a better player than Mutombo though.

[gasolina]

A top 100 player???? The closest of course would be billups, but truthfully he is not a top 100. That is remarkable if that's the case and that team truly needs to be examined for formula for success.

They might actually be in the consideration for best TEAM of all time. There's noooooo way they could've pulled that off without playing Like a true unit
If you want to examine the formula for future use then I'd disagree. The fact that this is the only team of recent memory to pull it off backs that up. The usual formula for success was 2 (now 3) superstars+good role players.

But they were a hella great team with good D.

I don't think it can be duplicated anymore. Their back to back finals appearances made sure David Stern revamp the rules to create manufactured superstars.

[Tenchi Ryu]

They didn't have a superstar, but they had legit pieces and a closer, thats all you need to win.

[Punpun]

If you want to examine the formula for future use then I'd disagree. The fact that this is the only team of recent memory to pull it off backs that up. The usual formula for success was 2 (now 3) superstars+good role players.


The Mavs in 11 only had one star. And a ****loads of roleplayers stepping it up.

[ProfessorMurder]

That's because Ben Wallace is a better player than Mutombo though.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/31864491/tumblr_m5qj9oWfgy1qe8tg3_large.gif

Literally the only thing Wallace did that Mutombo didn't do (or do better) was win 1 championship.

[francesco totti]

There main strength was there defence. You had rasheed wallace, and ben wallace there.. wallace house..

The rasheed wallace trade changed everything for them.

[Punpun]

http://data.whicdn.com/images/31864491/tumblr_m5qj9oWfgy1qe8tg3_large.gif

Literally the only thing Wallace did that Mutombo didn't do (or do better) was win 1 championship.

That's enough.

[Rake2204]

They didn't have a superstar, but they had legit pieces and a closer, thats all you need to win.
I think there's a lot of ways to build a championship team, but I think it's a very fortunate position to be in when a team finds themselves to be as deep as Detroit was. It seemed as if they had 10 players who all provided something significant. That's not to say they all always performed to their maximum abilities, but a lot of times they did.

One of my favorite moments watching that team came when Mike James and Lindsey Hunter would come off the bench. Then, as if he was still at Kansas, head coach Larry Brown would call for a half-court trap and James and Hunter would succeed in creating a turnover. It was not something I was accustomed to seeing out of an NBA club.

As always, I'm glad to see the legacy of this Pistons team live on. They caught an awful lot of flak back then. The low scores often led to charges of Detroit being a boring team. And in truth, I suppose they could have been, for I'm fully aware how teams are never boring when they're your team (and the Pistons were my team). But even then, I still feel like there was a lot of excitement. A lot of that defense came in the way of emphatic blocks or rebounds, leading to a fair share of transition buckets at the other end. Like so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zI37g_7OWQ. I wish more full-length 2004 Pistons games were out there. I remember one particular contest against Denver (in Denver) that year where they seemingly had 20 dunks.

[fsvr54]

It wasn't a one time fluke though, they made it to the conference finals like 6 times in a row and made it to Finals Game 7 in 2005, which they should have won.

[D.J.]

Ben Wallace averaged over 12 RPG, 3 BPG, and was runner up for DPOY. How is that not top 100???

[Xiao Yao You]

Kobe's top 100 and his selfish play was the main reason they won.

[Freedom Kid7]

The '04 Pistons were an excellent team that did everything they did due to good coaching, good defense, good role players, and a pretty selfless environment. You could make a case for either Wallace being top 100 though. Both Sheed and Ben were excellent defenders. Ben was by far superior on defense though, and that makes him a top 100 player to most people.

[Shade8780]

That's because Ben Wallace is a better player than Mutombo though.
:no:

See what I did there?

[Punpun]

Don't use the Finger wave Ibaka uses on me bitch. Don't test me.

[ProfessorMurder]

That's enough.

:no:


Dikembe Mutombo from age 25-35, 1991-1992 - 2001-2002

840 / 870 games. Played in 96.6% of games, starting all of them.

11 season average:
12.4 ppg / 12.3 reb / 3.4 blk / 1.4 ast / .5 stl / 2.3 to
52.2% fg / 67.9% ft
----------------------------
Playoffs:
66 games - 28 wins / 38 losses

12.7 ppg / 12.6 reb / 3.3 blk / 1 ast / .5 stl / 2 to
51.5% fg / 69.9% ft
-----------------------------
8 time all-star
4 time DPOY
NBA all rookie team
6 all-defense (1stx3 2ndx3)
3 all-nba (2ndx1 3rdx2)
4 years grabbing the most rebounds in the league
5 years blocking the most shots in the league

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ben Wallace from age 25-32, 1999-2000 - 2006-2007

628 / 656 games. Played 95.7% of games, starting all of them.

8 season average:
7.3 ppg / 12 reb / 2.5 blk / 1.6 ast / 1.5 stl / 1.2 to
47.4% fg / 42.6% ft
---------------------------
Playoffs:
103 games - 59 wins / 44 losses

8.6 pts / 12.9 reb / 2.3 blk / 1.5 ast / 1.8 stl / 1.2 to
47.8% fg / 42.6% ft
----------------------------
4 time all-star
4 time DPOY
6 all-defense (1stx5 2ndx1)
5 all-nba (2ndx3 3rdx2)
2 years grabbing the most rebounds in the league
1 year blocking the most shots in the league

- Mutombo came into the league as a lottery pick, instantly helping his team.
- Wallace was undrafted, and couldn't get off of the bench for 3 years.
- Mutombo put up better numbers, over a longer period of time, during a tougher era for centers.

Mutombo > Ben Wallace

[Punpun]

And Ben was the pillar of the best Defensive team of all time. :no:

[StateOfMind12]

Ben Wallace is a top 100 player.



Literally the only thing Wallace did that Mutombo didn't do (or do better) was win 1 championship.
Wallace was the better overall defender. Wallace was the better pick and roll defender while Mutombo was the better post defender. They were about dead even when it came to shot blocking but I would give the edge to Wallace due to superior athleticism.

It's close though, Mutombo is better overall probably because he was an above average offensive player while Wallace was just average to above average.

[IGotACoolStory]

And Ben was the pillar of the best Defensive team of all time. :no:

Not even the best defensive team in Pistons history.

[mrbigshot1]

Most people don't realize that Ben Wallace is only 6 feet 9 inches.

[Raz]

I think there's a lot of ways to build a championship team, but I think it's a very fortunate position to be in when a team finds themselves to be as deep as Detroit was. It seemed as if they had 10 players who all provided something significant. That's not to say they all always performed to their maximum abilities, but a lot of times they did.

One of my favorite moments watching that team came when Mike James and Lindsey Hunter would come off the bench. Then, as if he was still at Kansas, head coach Mike Brown would call for a half-court trap and James and Hunter would succeed in creating a turnover. It was not something I was accustomed to seeing out of an NBA club.

As always, I'm glad to see the legacy of this Pistons team live on. They caught an awful lot of flak back then. The low scores often led to charges of Detroit being a boring team. And in truth, I suppose they could have been, for I'm fully aware how teams are never boring when they're your team (and the Pistons were my team). But even then, I still feel like there was a lot of excitement. A lot of that defense came in the way of emphatic blocks or rebounds, leading to a fair share of transition buckets at the other end. Like so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zI37g_7OWQ. I wish more full-length 2004 Pistons games were out there. I remember one particular contest against Denver (in Denver) that year where they seemingly had 20 dunks.


http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/--a/vomit-boy01-vomit-puke-sick-smiley-emoticon-000652-large.gif

[Raz]

Most people don't realize that Ben Wallace is only 6 feet 9 inches of terror.

Fixed

[Punpun]

Not even the best defensive team in Pistons history.

They played Real Defense. Not the "Bad boys" bullshit where they played dirty in order to hide their shortcomings on Defense.

:kobe:

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

At the time weren't all of the starters excluding Prince All-Stars?

They also happened to face a distracted and unfocused Lakers team. But they won with great defense and toughness.

[D.J.]

Most people don't realize that Ben Wallace is only 6 feet 9 inches.


Ben himself said he's 6'7".

[chips93]

The 79 Sonics (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1979.html)were similarly bereft of star power

[ProfessorMurder]

Wallace was the better overall defender. Wallace was the better pick and roll defender while Mutombo was the better post defender. They were about dead even when it came to shot blocking but I would give the edge to Wallace due to superior athleticism.

It's close though, Mutombo is better overall probably because he was an above average offensive player while Wallace was just average to above average.

Wallace is better on the pick and roll but Mutombo is better in the post and one on one. They're about even in help defense. I'd rather have a 7'2" guy protecting my paint than a 6'8"ish guy. Wallace relied a lot on athleticism while Mutombo played with more skill/positioning.

Why would you give wallace the edge in blocks when Mutombo averaged more, is 2nd all time, and played against real centers?

I'm not saying that either is leagues better than the other, but if one is top 100 the other should be. It's BS to exclude one of the two.

[DatAsh]

And Ben was the pillar of the best Defensive team of all time. :no:

:no:
60s celtics
90s knicks
00s Pistons, in that order

[DatAsh]

Ben Wallace is a top 100 player.


Wallace was the better overall defender. Wallace was the better pick and roll defender while Mutombo was the better post defender. They were about dead even when it came to shot blocking but I would give the edge to Wallace due to superior athleticism.

It's close though, Mutombo is better overall probably because he was an above average offensive player while Wallace was just average to above average.

Mutombo was clearly the better blocker. Ben Wallace may have had better timing/vertical and was probably the more skilled blocker for his size, but Mutombo's extra 7 inches ultimately made him the better blocker.

[StateOfMind12]

I'm not saying that either is leagues better than the other, but if one is top 100 the other should be. It's BS to exclude one of the two.
They're both top 100 players to me.



Wallace is better on the pick and roll but Mutombo is better in the post and one on one. They're about even in help defense. I'd rather have a 7'2" guy protecting my paint than a 6'8"ish guy. Wallace relied a lot on athleticism while Mutombo played with more skill/positioning.
I believe disrupting and defending pick and rolls is a better and a more valuable asset defensively than pure shot blocking. Wallace can impact defenses, not just from the paint but also in the perimeter which makes him more potent defensively whereas Mutombo is solely paint defense.

Ben Wallace was KG-lite while Mutombo was Duncan-lite. I've always thought KG was a better defender than Duncan but then again I believe Duncan was always an overrated defender.

[Collie]

The 79 Sonics (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1979.html)were similarly bereft of star power

I consider DJ a top 100 player of all time though.

[kingmob]

They played Real Defense. Not the "Bad boys" bullshit where they played dirty in order to hide their shortcomings on Defense.

:kobe:

You Sir, just not very bright...Bad Boys were an amazing defensive team, better than 2004 Pistons Team.

In Both Instances, Stern had to change rules BTW. He hates good, defensive basketball.

And Ben Wallace was about 6'6-6'7, 6.85 in shoes. Mutombo was a legit 7-footer and had more opportunity to play from the get go. BenWa had to earn and learn a bit before getting going.

[I LUV KOBE]

A 40 year old Mutombo is better defensively than most of the center in the league now.. Can anyone say the same thing about big Ben.:confusedshrug:

[Punpun]

You Sir, just not very bright...Bad Boys were an amazing defensive team, better than 2004 Pistons Team.

In Both Instances, Stern had to change rules BTW. He hates good, defensive basketball.


>Shoving someone because you aren't able to play proper D. on him
>Somehow better than the 00' Pistons

:yaohappy:

[Rake2204]

http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/--a/vomit-boy01-vomit-puke-sick-smiley-emoticon-000652-large.gif
Haha, oh my god. The horror. What a strange mind-trip on my part. Mike Brown? Really?


Ben himself said he's 6'7".
I think it's safe to say you guys are probably both right. NBA players are listed according to their height in shoes and I believe Wallace's height in shoes would be closer to 6'8'' or 6'9''. If players are anything like me, they'll reference different heights depending upon how it'd benefit them. For instance, barefoot I'm 6'2.85'', for which I mostly claim 6'3'' as my primary height. However, if someone sees me dunk and asks my height, there were times in the past when I'd claim 6'2'', because I thought that'd make my exploits sound cooler. On the other hand, if a normal person basks in wonder about how tall I am, I'll give them height in shoes (6'4'') just because, again, I thought it'd make it sound more impressive.

[Y2Gezee]

That team made hand checking an art form

[CelticBaller]

And Ben was the pillar of the best Defensive team of all time. :no:
08 Celtics


:kobe:

[Bigsmoke]

:no:
60s celtics
90s knicks
00s Pistons, in that order

The 90 knickss?

Loil

[get these NETS]

You Sir, just not very bright...Bad Boys were an amazing defensive team, better than 2004 Pistons Team.

In Both Instances, Stern had to change rules BTW. He hates good, defensive basketball.

And Ben Wallace was about 6'6-6'7, 6.85 in shoes. Mutombo was a legit 7-footer and had more opportunity to play from the get go. BenWa had to earn and learn a bit before getting going.

bad boys were a dirty team

with 2 good defenders......joe dumars and john salley and a great one...young rodman

they just intimidated players from driving to the hoop by fouling them and hitting them after the whistle blew...whatever opposing team shooting %
against them is based on players settling for jump shots after getting (what today is a flagrant1-2) fouled on the way to the hoop..


CHARLES BARKLEY, who has NEVER been called soft...and who NEVER got intimidated....even said the bad boy pistons were a dirty team.

[Rake2204]

bad boys were a dirty team

with 2 good defenders......joe dumars and john salley and a great one...young rodman

they just intimidated players from driving to the hoop by fouling them and hitting them after the whistle blew...whatever opposing team shooting %
against them is based on players settling for jump shots after getting (what today is a flagrant1-2) fouled on the way to the hoop..


CHARLES BARKLEY, who has NEVER been called soft...and who NEVER got intimidated....even said the bad boy pistons were a dirty team.
I won't deny the Bad Boys were dirty. I think that's been well established. However, I dispute the idea that the source of their defensive effectiveness was derived from "just intimidating players from driving to the hoop by fouling them and hitting them after the whistle blew." I think that's similar to saying Michael Jordan was a great player because he "just jumped and dunked all the time." Such conclusions are easy to draw when looking back on just portions of history (i.e. highlights and lowlights) and sure, the Pistons were dirty and Jordan liked to dunk, but ultimately those were not the only two factors important in the success of each.

The dirtiness of the Pistons has been over blown in the sense of other's beliefs as to how frequently it occurred. It was not as if every trip down the floor was met with a clothesline and an official insisting the opponents "play on". Instead, the majority of Detroit's defensive effectiveness came from playing excellent defense, period. They were very often physical, and I find that term to differ from "dirty". The dirtiness still reared its head, but it was not the same as Detroit's skill and physicality, which both appeared much more often and consisted of playing well within the rules the NBA at the time allowed.

[get these NETS]

I won't deny the Bad Boys were dirty. I think that's been well established. However, I dispute the idea that the source of their defensive effectiveness was derived from "just intimidating players from driving to the hoop by fouling them and hitting them after the whistle blew." I think that's similar to saying Michael Jordan was a great player because he "just jumped and dunked all the time." Such conclusions are easy to draw when looking back on just portions of history (i.e. highlights and lowlights) and sure, the Pistons were dirty and Jordan liked to dunk, but ultimately those were not the only two factors important in the success of each.

The dirtiness of the Pistons has been over blown in the sense of other's beliefs as to how frequently it occurred. It was not as if every trip down the floor was met with a clothesline and an official insisting the opponents "play on". Instead, the majority of Detroit's defensive effectiveness came from playing excellent defense, period. They were very often physical, and I find that term to differ from "dirty". The dirtiness still reared its head, but it was not the same as Detroit's skill and physicality, which both appeared much more often and consisted of playing well within the rules the NBA at the time allowed.

mj was a great player because he had supreme basketball iq, supreme physical tools and supreme killer instinct

he knew where the right shot was, he could get to that spot despite the defense, and he had the balls to make and take the shot


on defense, he knew where the play was going, he could get to the spot at the right time, and could and would make the right defensive play



MJ's (as a bull) career ending 2 threpeat tying sequence illustrates my point

TOOK the ball from karl malone on one end, beat byron russell to the spot and makes series clincher


his iq allowed him to read the play, athleticism allowed him to get to the right spot, his balls allowed him to make the play...

=============================================


bad boy pistons playing the same team that they always beat......got swept..SWEPT... when they could no longer intimidate the bulls


great defensive team would have adjusted and turned off the thug style play and just played GREAT defense


they had no answer when the bulls kept scoring points and not folding like lawn chairs

almost exact same players on both sides if I recall

difference was phil jackson and an offense that the great defensive team couldn't adjust to



bad boy pistons were over rated defensive team

mahorn, rodman, and laimbeer just tried to hurt people...that's all

[Punpun]

I'm freaking amazed people dare to question the 04 Pistons were the top 2 if not the best defensive team ever. They killed every team. In an era where actual defense had to be played. Not in eras where just being though and mean with unpunished elbows to the head etc.

It's pretty clear to me who the best defensive team is. And which player was the wall of that team.

[get these NETS]

Mutombo was a great defensive player..but Wallace was the more versatile defender


Mutombo was basically a very tall man with decent agility ,long arms good defensive instincts and motor


Wallace could literally defend all five positions and I recall in the Finals that year, him being switched out on a lakers perimeter player..and he had the foot speed to draw a charge...against a guard..

quickness, foot speed, lower and upper body strength, defensive iq, body and foot positioning, motor...

Wallace was the ideal defensive player...

interesting footnote.....rodman and wallace were excellent defenders and caused as many bad shots/turnovers or more than guys who led league in blocked shots


blocks are a sexy stat,,but sometimes over rated...kind of like sacks in football

dude might have lot of sacks but be terrible against the run....he will overshadow the more fundamentally sound guy who is good against pass and run