http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/SPORTS08/606010436/1004/SPORTS

Stern's edict haunts Pistons

Advertisement
GET FREE HEADLINES BY E-MAIL

Related Articles


AUBURN HILLS -- Before you realize why Joe Dumars did the right thing in hiring Flip Saunders last summer and installing a more offense-driven approach to the team, understand this isn't about conspiracy theories or plots to undermine Pistons basketball as you've come to know it.

The plain truth is NBA commissioner David Stern wanted the game changed after the Pistons won the title in 2004.

He tweaked the rule book to facilitate more offensive flow. He stopped all the bumping and grabbing on and off the ball. He opened the floor up for quick and powerful players such as LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and countless others who will carry the league's marketing banner into the future.

He did it because he felt the game had grown stagnant, and that oppressive defenses such as the Pistons' choked the life out of it. He hated the isolation plays that were bringing action to a standstill. More importantly, he noticed fans -- who filled the arenas and watched on television -- were starting to hate it, too.

Scoring sells, and Stern set out to loosen the shackles on offense. In so doing, he essentially legislated against lockdown, physical defensive teams such as the Pistons and Spurs.

To this day, he does not apologize for it, nor will he undo the changes.

"I think it is fair to say that we went through a period where it became fashionable to get a piece of a player (on his way through the lane), and if you didn't stop him, you at least slowed him up," Stern said in Miami before Game 4 on Sunday.

"We made a decision to say we wanted to try it the other way. I think our fans and our players are responding beautifully to that. It's giving people a chance to see how talented our players really are. We are pretty excited about that."

The Spurs, last year's champion, have been eliminated from the playoffs by the Mavericks' high-octane offense. The Pistons, unable to thwart a relentless Wade, might join the Spurs.

The Pistons' loss in Game 4 was a perfect illustration of how the new NBA is going to be played.

Once Wade or Shaquille O'Neal got their momentum turned toward the basket, there wasn't much the Pistons could do to repel them.

"If we breathe on him it's a foul, if we lay off, he scores," Pistons forward Antonio McDyess said.

Five Pistons were in foul trouble in Game 4, paying the price for playing old-school defense.

Wade, meanwhile, was shooting an incredible 69.5 percent in the series.

"Rule changes were basically made to create more offense, and sometimes when you're not allowed to touch people, either in the post much or in the perimeter, what it does is it gives more opportunities for your star-type players," Saunders said.

"I don't think anyone envisioned San Antonio would get into a series and give up over 100 points as they did against Sacramento and against Dallas.

"The way the rules are stated, where you can't touch people, sometimes it becomes difficult to contain guys who can put it on the floor and create."

That's exactly what Stern wants, and apparently the fans agree because television ratings are on the rise.

And that puts the Pistons in an adapt-or-die situation.

Dumars already saw this shift coming. That's one of the reasons he hired Saunders. And it's the main reason Dumars won't fire him.

As much as it runs counter to his own philosophy, Dumars knows if the Pistons are to continue among the elite they have to alter their identity.

Does that mean trying to reinvent themselves as an Eastern Conference version of the Suns?

Obviously not.

Does it mean the Pistons stop playing defense?

Of course not.

Actually, the Pistons, for most of the season, had the right balance, the right approach. They were an open, flowing offensive team that had enough length and size to lock teams down when it mattered most.

Things have changed recently.

The offense has ground to a halt, and the Pistons' two main basket protectors are playing at diminished capacity -- Rasheed Wallace with a bad ankle and Ben Wallace with what appear to be dead legs.

A bad stretch, even though it has come at the worst possible time, isn't cause to blow up the team and start over. But Dumars knows some alterations must be made.

And, as unthinkable as it might have been a month ago, one of those alterations might involve Ben Wallace. In this new NBA, his defensive prowess is weakened and his offensive limitations are more exposed.

Not signing him would be drastic, dangerous and immensely unpopular, but it might be necessary.

But clearly, the old way isn't going to work. This series, as well as the Cleveland series, proved that.

Teams can no longer get away with playing four-on-five at the offensive end. Don't be surprised if the Pistons try to work a sign-and-trade deal with Wallace this summer to obtain a younger, more offensive-minded forward -- someone such as Toronto's Charlie Villanueva.

The game has changed.

The Pistons must change with it.

Adapt or die.

Once the playoffs are over for us aka Friday, I will share what I have heard in regards of Ben's future. I will say this it is rather transparent as to whether or not Ben will be back especially if McCosky is basically suggesting a sign and trade. McCosky is a company man he does not venture out onto limbs on his own.

(article edited out)


When I read between the lines, I see that the Pistons NEED a swingman who is a slasher. That's where we don't stack up to the opponent. They install these new rules that allow slashers to drive to the hole under the witness protection program, and we have no one to do that. As a result, less scoring chances, less free throws, and less opponents in foul trouble.

As I stated in another thread (or two) trade Sheed to NY for a swingman and a young big.

No offense TayMelo...just didn't see the need to quote the whole article - WTFchris

wow, very interesting article. thanks for posting it, TayMelo.


And, as unthinkable as it might have been a month ago, one of those alterations might involve Ben Wallace. In this new NBA, his defensive prowess is weakened and his offensive limitations are more exposed.

Not signing him would be drastic, dangerous and immensely unpopular, but it might be necessary.

<snip>

Teams can no longer get away with playing four-on-five at the offensive end. Don't be surprised if the Pistons try to work a sign-and-trade deal with Wallace this summer to obtain a younger, more offensive-minded forward -- someone such as Toronto's Charlie Villanueva.
after all the certainty about Ben being a Piston for life.....this little nugget by McCosky is interesting....

I gotta agree, it's no longer a sure thing that Wallace must be re signed. Not that I want him gone. I'd much rather have the NBA allow some small degree of body contact. I think it's stupid to call a foul on a defender because the man with the ball jumps on him and their legs touch.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/SPORTS03/606010462/1051

"The game should be tinkered with the least amount possible," Stern told Bloomberg News.

Gotta love Stern... not!

I merged these two threads that were based on the same article.

Alright, someone please tell me why this isn't the league punishing the Pistons for playing (and winning with) defensive basketball. Tell me how I was wrong when I thought it seemed the Pistons weren't getting a fair shake by the refs/league.

Stern and his fucking ratings. Money-hungry bitch. What's wrong with letting the fucking game evolve naturally and making fans evolve with it? While we're at it, why don't we not play defense at all? We can call it Arena Basketball! Yeah! Oooooh!! How about a dunk contest between two teams for 48 minutes? Brilliant! Neither team crosses half court, takes turns dunking, and the FANS vote on the winner! Gee, that'd be AWESOME!!!! How else can we pussify the game??? Let's think people! We need ratings!!!

Once again, fuck a Stern.

If they played 3 on 3, I think scoring would increase too, but since they'd sell fewer jerseys, I don't think we'll be seeing that change.

I wonder why they didn't makes these changes when the Knicks were winning games with scores in the 70's-80's? Wait, nevermind.

the NBA is worried about their so called ratings, and they would love to see us break up the starters and get a poster boy star in detroit. of course defying them and winning is the greatest thing on earth for me. personally, at this rate i may be done with the nba if they force us out with more and more rule changes every year. if we conform, i dont really see us standing a chance unless we go back to the grant hill era ways of pistons basketball and pick up slashing scorer like wade and lebron.

I gotta agree, it's no longer a sure thing that Wallace must be re signed. Not that I want him gone. I'd much rather have the NBA allow some small degree of body contact. I think it's stupid to call a foul on a defender because the man with the ball jumps on him and their legs touch.
Give us hell luniz!


Seriously though, Stern fucked up. I've been saying it since the rule changes.
We aren't watching flashy, quick games with high scoring. We're watching a
freethrow contest in a slower game, stopping the clock, thus raising the scores.

Once again, Stern is actually RUINING basketball, not fixing it.

Fuck a stern and his rules


Basketball is a mans game, if teams cant take the pounding defense, they can get the fuck out.

Fuck a stern and his rules


Basketball is a mans game, if teams cant take the pounding defense, they can get the fuck out.

...or they can wait until their fag of a commissioner changes the rules.

What are these Pistons without Ben Wallace?

What are these Pistons without Ben Wallace?

Or better yet what will they be if they continue with Ben? Dumars is a visionary and makes changes based on this rather than reactionary moves.

What will the Pistons be without there heart and Soul and vocal leader Jerry Stackhouse?

If Dumars sees the game changing and going more offensive than he may no longer be able to keep an an offensive liability and an aging defensive stalwart on the team. The team is yet again mired in the same offensive funk that has plagued them for 4 years now. Kudos to Dumars for always making ballsy decisions. They may not always work but he will never make a desperate move. I back whatever move Dumars makes this off-season.

Joe saw this shit coming, which is why we have an offensive Coach.

We need a slasher and a big man that can actually score the fucking basketball. If trading Ben or Sheed gets us both those things do it.

I supported this team before they arrived and will support this team long after they're gone.

Do whatever is best for the franchise.

Ben is fine. We need his defense. Period. The problem is with Sheed playing like he is this team turns into 3-on-5 on offense. And they're ALL perimeter scorers. We need a PF that won't disappear for games at a time. It also wouldn't hurt to have a PG who would push the damn ball and get the ball moving instead of just standing there with it waiting for someone to be open.

Then again, if we could find someone who is capable of about 75% of his defense but can occassionally score the ball (and hit some FTs), i'd be all for that too. But I'm sure you guys see what the interior D is like with Dice and Sheed in the frontcourt. Ugly.

I don't have the TV ratings but I would imagine the Spurs Pistons series was not close to being all time ratings leader. Its all about money to these bastards. Not the true sport, not that a team could win on good defense.

JoeD built a team on defense then the rules were changed on him. Bastards


Good post K

Joe saw this shit coming, which is why we have an offensive Coach.

We need a slasher and a big man that can actually score the fucking basketball. If trading Ben or Sheed gets us both those things do it.

I supported this team before they arrived and will support this team long after they're gone.

Do whatever is best for the franchise.

Of course I agree with this. I didn't stop watching after Allan Houston bolted (I loved Allan Houston), or after Hill, or Tree Rollins (that's a joke) or anyone else. But this is the first Piston team I got to see grow from the begining into a champion (the Bad Boys were already pretty good by the time I was old enough to get interested in basketball) and a lot of that was due to Ben. If he's gone, it would be a huge adjustement and I'd probably be cheering for him to bust our asses during the regular season for a while (Not saying I'd root for his team over the Pistons, that would never be the case. But I'd definately be rooting for Ben to get his.).

It would just be weird, especially if most of the current team is still here and just Ben's gone. It'd just be weird is all.

Getting rid of Ben would be a huge mistake. He is the pistons. Fuck the new NBA. The way Ben plays defense has nothing to do with the new NBA. Ben is a shot blocker and the best weak side helper in the NBA. If anything, we'll need his ability to cover the basket more so than we'll need an offensive Center. If Sheed wasnt hurt, we whouldnt be having this conversation.

I think the question we must ask ourselves is who is expendable? I mean regardless of the love we have for Ben, the fact is next season his contract will be bloated. He will no longer be steal in terms of the cap. So is it logical that we move him just on that fact? I don't know. Or is it better to attempt to trade Tay , who now has a bigger deal now but is perhaps one of the best two way players and still has huge upside? Or lastly do we trade Sheed? If we trade Sheed what is fair value? Is a guy like Odom enough or too much? Would the Knicks be willing to part with Frye and filler for Sheed ?

There are a lot of questions and a lot of possibilities not all are appealing to fans on the surface.

I think the question we must ask ourselves is who is expendable? I mean regardless of the love we have for Ben, the fact is next season his contract will be bloated. He will no longer be steal in terms of the cap. So is it logical that we move him just on that fact? I don't know. Or is it better to attempt to trade Tay , who now has a bigger deal now but is perhaps one of the best two way players and still has huge upside? Or lastly do we trade Sheed? If we trade Sheed what is fair value? Is a guy like Odom enough or too much? Would the Knicks be willing to part with Frye and filler for Sheed ?

There are a lot of questions and a lot of possibilities not all are appealing to fans on the surface.


Keeping Ben, with or without a bloated contract, is appealing to me. Is it to Davidson?

I think the question we must ask ourselves is who is expendable? I mean regardless of the love we have for Ben, the fact is next season his contract will be bloated. He will no longer be steal in terms of the cap. So is it logical that we move him just on that fact? I don't know. Or is it better to attempt to trade Tay , who now has a bigger deal now but is perhaps one of the best two way players and still has huge upside? Or lastly do we trade Sheed? If we trade Sheed what is fair value? Is a guy like Odom enough or too much? Would the Knicks be willing to part with Frye and filler for Sheed ?

There are a lot of questions and a lot of possibilities not all are appealing to fans on the surface.

Sheed and Ben are the only expendable players in my opinion. Which one would bring more interest in the open market I think is a good debate. I could make a case for and against each one.

Ben - works hard, plays hard, gets dirty, plays D, lives and loves the Pistons.

Sheed - doesn't work, whines, plays like a situational 2 guard(Steve Kerr-esque) and his defense isn't what it has been, IMO.

Trade Sheed.

Not sure for who/what, but he would be the one I would trade if the return is even close to similar.

keep Ben and dump Sheed for a low post offensive threat.

wow, i didnt know david stern could change the rule on us just becuase we went up 2-0 on lebron.... oh wait, he made these rule changes 2 years ago, before we made it to game 7 of the finals?!?! oh shit, guess that kind of shoots down mcworthless's article, huh?

hes full of shit (not saying he's wrong about ben). last year we were fine playing D. this yaer we were fine playing D--till the pistons crapped the bed. all of the sudden the rules are the problem? please.

and since when do people agree with mccosky on this board? i though he was universally considered a joke.

oh yea, if you want to blame a rule, blame the tech count rule. thats why the pistons are playing like theyre neutered. because sheed cant get fired up anymore.

wow, i didnt know david stern could change the rule on us just becuase we went up 2-0 on lebron.... oh wait, he made these rule changes 2 years ago, before we made it to game 7 of the finals?!?! oh shit, guess that kind of shoots down mcworthless's article, huh?

hes full of shit (not saying he's wrong about ben). last year we were fine playing D. this yaer we were fine playing D--till the pistons crapped the bed. all of the sudden the rules are the problem? please.

Having Rasheed for a full season, most folks expected the Pistons to crack 60 wins for the 2005 regular season. While there were other factors (brawl, LB), one big factor was being called for bullshit fouls relentlessly during those first couple months owing to new defensive calling by the refs. LB had the same complaints. We adjusted to some degree, but we've rarely been allowed to apply the 48 mpg constant defensive pressure that used to be commonplace. Some other teams never really adjusted. Flip's Minny team went from being a better defensive team to mediocre once Trenton Handcheck stopped being useful under the new rules. We didn't see nearly as much of the "no tight D" stuff in the 2005 playoffs as we have in 2006. "Playoff basketball" used to be more physical.

ok, well we still made it to the finals last year. maybe it hurt us, but we went from a dominant team (when we wanted to be) last year, to what appeared to be an alltime great team this year, to complete shit 3 weeks ago. but fine, its the hand check rules.

Joe may be a visionary. But if he knew he was gonna unload a Wallace, he would have hung on to Darko.

ok, well we still made it to the finals last year. maybe it hurt us, but we went from a dominant team (when we wanted to be) last year, to what appeared to be an alltime great team this year, to complete shit 3 weeks ago. but fine, its the hand check rules.

The problem is that we can't easily go back to the defensive grinding ways that got us through good ol' "playoff basketball", ugly crunch-time games, and many 50+ win seasons. We've had good enough offense where we didn't need to, where we could do "defense when we had to" and win 60+ games. But we've definitely "evolved" into a one-dimensional offense readily adjusted to by a decent coach and roster over time. Disrupting our ball movement is enough to break us down. With Rip and Rasheed ankling and Ben sucking offensively, a team doesn't have to do a lot to stifle us. Our 'old reliable' approach, apply hard-nosed D, doesn't play well in Stern's new world most of the time. I had thought we were going back to the '80s, where "defense" was that thing you saw played only in the 4th quarter of close games and more in the playoffs. These 2006 games don't have the feeling of "playoff basketball" with the way the refs are calling things. It's not just us. The Mavs and Spurs were playing prolonged smallball, and Phoenix has had great success with SFs playing at PF and C. No way does that shit happen under the old rules.

Joe may be a visionary. But if he knew he was gonna unload a Wallace, he would have hung on to Darko.


Ding ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.


Tell him what he's won!

although i agree that the rule changes havent helped us at all, it got me to thinking about the bigger picture. hockey changed a TON of rules to make it more offensive. football has changed rules that free up receivers easily now and basically eliminated 'shutdown corners'. baseball, well i dont follow it much but i dont think there have been any rule changes. so theres the USA's four major sports. it makes me think of what i thought when hockey changed their rules after the lockout, and heres my take:

the rest of the world loves soccer. period. plain and simple. whats a good soccer game? 1-0, 2-1. when i applied that to the thinking of USA sports it pissed me off because MY fav hockey games are 1-0, MY fav baseball games are pitcher duels, MY fav football games are 10-7, MY fav basketball games were the Pistons shutting the lakers down and breaking records in the finals. so that leads me to... what the hell is wrong with USA fans? all the commissioners need to realize that 90% of the world population loves defense, and not just defense, but the love of the all so rare score. when everyone is scoring all the time, it takes the thrill out of the score. three years ago, watching a hockey game, i was freakin when the wings scored. now (or at least a couple months ago) im just sayin 'eh' because its not that big of deal, knowing that the game is gonna be 6-4 instead of 2-1 (on a side note are we ever going to see a shut-down goalie ever again?).

any rule change that is for the safety of the players im cool with, but half the flagrant fouls called this postseason probably would have been an iffy call 20 years ago. ive watched all of about three hockey games since the rule changes (lockout), i didnt even care much while i was watching, and i dont want to get that way about basketball too. stern really does care about the player more than the uniform which is never good, your going to end up with 90% of fans being fans of players in 20 years instead of teams. football is not about the players (helmets help im sure) and TEAM fans are TEAM fans for life, regardless of if the saints have reggie bush or whatever. stern needs to think about that and realize that hes laying too much on the next jordan, because there wont be one.

First off, I've found that I don't relate well to teams in "faceless" sports like football and ice hockey. I can watch and appreciate good playing, but it's hard for me to really get into a bunch of dudes in helmets.

With that in mind, the sports I like most are basketball and volleyball. Both are characterized by (relatively) lots of scoring, yet still having good team defense playing a critical role. With sports that have relatively low scores per attempt, you tend to have more "lucky games", less chance for the overall talent to take over in any particular game. If my hoops team scores 3x as much as the other team come 4th quarter, they're gonna win. If my baseball team has a 3-1 or even 6-2 score entering the 8th inning, that's still close enough to talk "upset". Most people like games where teams almost always have that little chance. To me, blowouts lead to their own brand of endgame fun. "Seeing the scrubs after Sheed attempts a three left handed" doesn't have much of an analogy in the other sports.

but it's hard for me to really get into a bunch of dudes in helmets

http://www.granitefallsprcarodeo.com/bareback.jpg

<laughs at self>