Bulls #7 in playoff seeding (Chandler or Wallace?)

by joemoses on Dec 2, 2006 10:14 AM CST

So I guess all is not bad after all.

On a seperate note, I was so into giving up Tyson and getting Wallace, however, even I am starting to question that wisdom.

When tyson can stay on the floor he is one of those guys who can walk into double figure rebounds consitently. Neither can shoot free-throws or play offense. I also am seeing that Tyson is actually a more mature team player than Wallace. Wallace seems to be a baby who can only motivate himself when he has a "chip on his shoulder" or is loved by his basketball "family". Tyson is also apparently a better locker room presence as he actually talks to his teamates, unlike Ben.

If only Tyson could work out in the off season like Ben does and work on his body like ben does. Finally, what if Tyson just shot from the elbow 1000 times per day. By the time he is 26 or 27 he could be a monster.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hmmm well I watched the game last night

He reminded me of a Steven Hunter type player. But a better rebonder. He was fouling alot.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Dec 2, 2006 11:57 AM CST reply actions

Well you're wrong and here's why

You said a lot of "seems" and "apparently's"...if you're trying to prove something, try using facts:

Fact: Ben Wallace is 4-time defensive player of the year

Fact: Tyson Chandler is uncoordinated

Fact: Last year, we lost the Miami series because no one could even pose a challenge to Shaq

Fact: Wallace has contained Shaq before

Fact: Wallace is a proven winner

Fact: Chandler is a proven draft bust

I realized while watching the game yesterday that someone who doesn't watch Tyson Chandler play as often as we did could really assume he isn't that bad.

He is a good backup center at best. Someone who can fill some space, and play defense.

The only reason we think ANYTHING about Wallace is because the bored NBA media is writing articles through the frame that he is all of these negative things. This is because this is a more interesting story than Wallace as a success.

It is so early, but when we are facing good teams in the playoffs this year, I would rather have Ben Wallace guarding Shaq, Dwight Howard, etc. than Tyson Chandler.

Did he cost more? Sure. But why do we care about cost? The only reason we should care is if down the road the bulls organization fails to re-sign a core guy, or a free-agent BECAUSE of Ben Wallace's contract. Otherwise, it's just a number to us as fans.

Honestly, we all enjoyed Tyson's hustle, energy, and determination. But if you think he could be the starting center on a Championship team (that's what we ARE trying to do here), then you're out of your mind.

And don't say Wallace can't, because he has.

by Othellas Mustache on Dec 2, 2006 3:03 PM CST reply actions

ummm....

I get what you're saying but Wallace against Dwight Howard doesn't sound too good to me after what happened earliar this season.

by Option27 on Dec 2, 2006 3:45 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think you do get what I'm saying

I didn't say Wallace stopped Dwight Howard. I said I trust Wallace GUARDING Dwight Howard more than I would trust Tyson GUARDING Howard.

It was one game, and a great player had a great game.

Each game is different...I don't think the bulls are vulnerable to Rasual Butler everytime they face him

by Othellas Mustache on Dec 2, 2006 4:44 PM CST up reply actions

Rasual Butler

Is the next Jud Buechler, I'll have you know!

Hinrich, Deng, Wallace for All-Star 2007!!!!!

by cubbybear on Dec 2, 2006 11:23 PM CST up reply actions

Buchlear can be imitated, never duplicated

There can only be one "Pizza Man"....that's not fair to Butler. The bar is set far too high

by Othellas Mustache on Dec 3, 2006 1:09 AM CST up reply actions

I'll bite.

Can't let all this ridiculousness go by unchallenged.

Fact: Ben Wallace is 4-time defensive player of the year. He is also 32 years old and has seen his rebounding and block numbers decline the last three seasons. The Bulls have not improved in defensive efficiency from last year. They are allowing their opponents to shoot over 4% higher from the field.

Fact: Tyson Chandler is uncoordinated. Ben Wallace also struggles with basic offensive skills. He is shooting 42% this year to Chandler's 66% and has more turnovers. He is also a career 42% free throw shooter.

Fact: Last year, we (Bulls) lost the Miami series because no one could even pose a challenge to Shaq. Last year the Pistons also lost to the Heat, with Wallace struggling and Shaq playing well.

Fact: Wallace has contained Shaq before. Wallace struggled mightily in the '06 playoff again Shaq and also Ilgauskas. He is only 6'9 and has the most trouble against bigger centers.

Fact: Wallace is a proven winner. If you mean "has played on a lot of winning teams," I can't argue with that. The Bulls certainly haven't won a lot of games so far this year with Wallace.

Fact: Chandler is a proven draft bust. Tyson Chandler is 24 years old. Ben Wallace didn't become a full time starter until he was 25.

Any other "facts"?

by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 3, 2006 10:01 PM CST up reply actions

uh-huh!

(I will not place 'fact' in front of any facts. The readership is smart enough to distinguish fact from opinion, and placing 'fact' in front of facts is annoying and pretentious. Especially when in response to a 'fact' post. I also have to mention that the simple submission of facts isn't a very effective method of debate.)

Ben Wallace isn't solely responsible for the Bulls' opponent FG%. And considering the sample size, it shouldn't take very long for the Bulls to be one of the league leaders. The Bulls are 24th in OPP FG%, and the Knicks are 11th. I'm going to guess neither of those two teams has a stranglehold on their rank in that category.

Flip Saunders is a bonehead and the Pistons never double-teamed anyone in the playoffs. Wallace isn't a player who can go 1-on-1 against skilled and bigger bigs, but if you think a featherweight foul-machine like Tyson Chandler is a more capable individual defender please continue to make a fool of yourself.

Your coup de grâce:

Fact: Chandler is a proven draft bust. Tyson Chandler is 24 years old. Ben Wallace didn't become a full time starter until he was 25.

Considering the pick Chandler was taken at (as well as who was traded for that pick), and that Wallace went undrafted, well that's a meaningless, misleading fact.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 3, 2006 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

You know what's meaningless?

Saying someone is a draft bust. It makes absolutely no difference when a player was drafted (and I obviously didn't bring it up). The only thing that matters is how they play now. Whether or not Tyson lived up to expectations, he's outplayed Wallace so far this season. I don't necessarily expect that to continue, but it's the truth.

And please don't give me a hard time for the "fact" stuff. I just reposted and added my responses. The absurd posting of opinion as fact was what got me started in the first place. I think I stuck a lot closer to factual information that the original post.

by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 3, 2006 11:42 PM CST up reply actions

Wallace didn't

show up for some of the Bulls' games, but I have to question whether or not you have actually viewed the majority of Chandler's minutes. I know I haven't been watching, so it's tough to make a Wallace/Chandler judgement (it's early December too). Considering the 18.4 PER opposing centers are putting up against Tyson, and his 4.5 PF per 40, I have to question his defensive effectiveness. It's still up for debate on who is having a better season, but you did call into question entire careers - and there is no argument there. Tyson would be extremely lucky to achieve what Ben Wallace has, and it would be difficult to compare any current defenders to Ben in his prime.

'Draft bust' and 'proven winner' have a whiff of subjectivity, but Othella's Mustache was pointing out Wallace's reliability (hope it's here to stay!) is preferable to Chandler's maddening inconsistency. It's not a proven fact this season, but it isn't an absurd thought, and really a minor point in the original comment.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 4, 2006 2:26 AM CST up reply actions

Haven't seen any of Chandler this year.

Of course I watched him with the Bulls and was as frustrated as anyone, especially last year. What I see numbers wise this year doesn't seem out of line from what he's shown before though. Rebounding like crazy, good field goal percentage, but creating very few shots and still fouling too much. Chandler's turnover and foul rates have stabilized from last year, when they were both terrible. NO/OKC's team defense has also improved quite a bit this year, some of that credit has to go to Chandler.

I give Chandler almost no chance to match Wallace's accomplishments over a career. Considering their relative ages though, it wouldn't be surprising for Chandler to outplay Wallace going forward. That's pretty much my point.

by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 4, 2006 9:14 AM CST up reply actions

dwight howard is unstoppable

and even though wallace was not able to stop howard i dont think anyone has, be that a 20 year old or a 30 year old. it is like fifteen games into the season and and the bulls putting it together and we are talking about wallace. i would have kept chandler because i do think that he is a good player but his contract would have killed us along with wallace if we had the two of them. by the time wallaces contract is over we will have decided who in the core to keep(deng, noc, gordon if he does not get greedy) and will have gotten a championship(hopefully) and will be the team that everyone wants to come to. i think that the rookies should ride the bench this year especially tyrus unless we are really deperate or we need to stop a kobe or mcgrady and let the core who got us this far as of two years lead us to the next level with help from wallace. i would rather see kryapa off the bench over tyrus first. he really has no skills yet except for athleticism. sefolosha should be i would say the third off the bench on the gaurd end of things. i mean i broght alot of tickets this year not to watch the rookies learn at the expense of losing. the starting linuup is working as of yesterday and lets leave it at that

by glycen on Dec 2, 2006 4:37 PM CST reply actions

The Real Question

People shouldn't be asking about Wallace vs Chandler. It should really be Wallace or Chandler vs. Brand.

by bullshooter on Dec 4, 2006 11:17 AM CST reply actions

How about Jordan vs. Bowie?

It's universally accepted that the Chandler for Brand trade was a huge mistake, which it was, assuming Brand would have resigned with the Bulls.

Wallace vs. Chandler, next four years, is still an open question though.

by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 4, 2006 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

The biggest flaw in this debate

is whether or not Tyson would continue to flounder with the Bulls. Ben has had too many problems already, but still gets more playing time than Skiles gave Chandler. Tyson's rebounding this season is also aided by the Hornets not having any other capable players crashing the boards.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 4, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions