↓ Login/Logout ↓
↓ Roster ↓
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Ben Wallace doesn’t want to coach in NBA

Ben Wallace, via Eric Lacy of The Detroit News:

"Yeah, if I decided to coach it will be for ages 6 to 10," he said, smiling.

Wallace has made it clear he doesn’t plan to pursue coaching after his imminent retirement. His passion lies with law school and becoming an attorney.

I’m not convinced Wallace would make a good coach, anyway. He certainly knows the game well enough, but his reputation has always been that younger players must seek his advice and demonstrate they’ll work hard before he takes them under his wing. That works well as a veteran, but as a coach, he couldn’t be as choosy about his mentees. It’s not automatic he could make that shift successfully.


  • Feb 15, 201211:32 am
    by RyanK


    Maybe you trade the guys who don’t demonstrate hard work.   If Wallace wouldn’t take them under his wing because they’re lazy, then they are not the type of guys we want anyways.

    • Feb 15, 20123:04 pm
      by tarsier


      Obviously, this is a continuum and not a dichotomy. And if a player is talented enough, you want him whether he is relatively lazy or not. It’s all about how well he will produce, whether he gets there through hard work or natural talent. A good coach has to be able to make the most of both.

      • Feb 15, 20123:36 pm
        by RyanK


        You tell me you want a guy like TMac on the team in his prime?  Yeah, 30 points per game, but zero playoff series victories.  I just don’t understand where you’re coming from with this statement.  A player who doesn’t work hard in practice or on the defensive end isn’t a player we want.  Great players; the ones who win championships are the hardest working guys in the gym.  There haven’t been any exceptions to that rule.
        Lazy but talented = an underachiever, a playoff disappointment, a waste of payroll.

        • Feb 15, 20125:25 pm
          by tarsier


          TMac wasn’t lazy. And look at his playoff stats. He stepped up and dominated. But his team never did. He had home court advantage once. And that year he was really the only guy on his team who played worth a damn. So yeah, I’d love to have TMac in his prime. He’s not a Lebron type who can carry a team all on his own. But he coulda easily been the first option on a championship squad.

          • Feb 15, 20126:18 pm
            by RyanK

            Van Gundy said Tmac was lazy.  As great a Tmac was as a natural talent, his laziness kept him from taking it to the next level.  He never won a single playoff series!  Plenty of individual accolades sure…but not a single accomplishment that matters for a basketball team.
            Tmac in his prime jacking up all those shots, dominating the ball, and playing no defense is a cures!  He won’t win anything for you and you have to pay out the nose for him.  He’s not a franchise player…he’s a franchise killer.

          • Feb 15, 201211:47 pm
            by tarsier

            “his laziness kept him from taking it to the next level”

            career stats: 20.1 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 4.5 apg, 5.7 fta
            playoff career stats (when he took it to the next level): 28.5 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 6.2 apg, 8.8 fta

            Give me one example of a player who ever put up playoff stats close to those who wasn’t a franchise player (min sample size of 10 games, less than that is just too small, TMac had 38 by the way). I understand that stats aren’t everything, but they are a significant part of everything. And if no non-franchise players can come close, there is a reason why.

      • Feb 15, 20126:00 pm
        by gerdz


        it is like choosing between Wilt chamberlain (lazy and took his talents for granted) and Bill Russell (humble and hard worker). obviously i’d choose the guy with 11 rings than the one who scored 100.

        • Feb 15, 20126:23 pm
          by RyanK


          Absolutely!  Basketball is a team sport.  Russell was a star and could have hogged the ball…instead he led by example, hard work, hard defense, team concept.  Put Wilt on the Celtics in place of Russell they wouldn’t have won as many championships.  Wilt was the post version of Tmac.

        • Feb 15, 201211:39 pm
          by tarsier


          Wait choosing between TMac and whom is like Wilt or Russel? Also, put anyone on those Celts and they don’t win as many titles. Put Russel back on them and play it out all over again and they don’t win as many. Russel was a great player, greater than his stats imply (and they aren’t shabby), but not as great as his 11 rings imply.

          Also, I love how RyanK both said that Wilt was the post version of TMac and that TMac wasn’t a franchise player. Even if you like Russel better than Wilt, 100 times out of 100 you take Wilt if you can get him. Which was pretty much my point in the first place. Even if Wilt was lazy, you still want him on your team because he is that good. He might not do as much for your team as he possibly can, but he will make you better. And that’s why any good coach has to be able to work well with lazy players.

          So while I may disagree with both of you on some details, thank you guys for making my point for me. Unless you are also claiming that you would rather not have Wilt than have Wilt without any other loss or gain attached.

  • Feb 15, 20125:53 pm
    by Mark


    I never thought Ben would make a great coach. He seemed to be a lead by example on the court type of leader. One of the best ever at making 1 defensive play and suddenly all of his teammates are trying to follow his lead on the defensive end – the hardest end to get players to play hard on.

    That wouldnt be possible to do as a coach. But I think a strength/conditioning coach could be a good move. As the players COULD follow his lead by example in the gym and let his work ethic be contagious. Still, at almost 40, idk how long he’s going to keep up that crazy workout regimen.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here