Why Ben Wallace and Chris Webber belong in the Hall of Fame

With the headliners for the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame being announced recently, why are Chris Webber and Ben Wallace still on the outside looking in?

On April 6th, the NBA announced the 2019 Naismith Hall of Fame class. A list whose biggest headliners included the names of Sidney Moncrief, Jack Sikma, and Vlade Divac.

With the James Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame having been around since 1959, it’s no secret that there is an intricate process involved for any player, coach, or referee that is nominated: decisions on an inductee are made not just based off of what the individual did during their NBA career, but internationally, at the collegiate level, and in the Olympics as well.

This is part of the reason why the nod was given to Vlade Divac: his international production combined with his decent NBA career.

More from Sir Charles In Charge

• Dillon Brooks proved his value to Houston Rockets in the 2023 FIBA World Cup
• NBA Trade Rumors: 1 Player from each team most likely to be traded in-season
• Golden State Warriors: Buy or sell Chris Paul being a day 1 starter
• Does Christian Wood make the Los Angeles Lakers a legit contender?
• NBA Power Rankings: Tiering all 30 projected starting point guards for 2023-24

And even then, Divac, along with his fellow 2019 Hall of Fame peers, took several years before finally getting inducted (at least for the Naismith Hall of fame not the FIBA Hall of Fame).

At this point, it has become pretty clear that unless the person is a first ballot Hall of Famer, like the Michael Jordans or Red Auerbachs of the world, there will likely be a substantial waiting period.

Adrian Dantley (retired in 1991 and inducted in 2008) can attest to this.

The most recent examples of this controversial voting process, however, has been with ex-NBA players, Ben Wallace and Chris Webber.

Webber has been consecutively nominated the past seven years and has yet to bypass finalist status, while Wallace has never even gotten the chance to move past the preliminary ballot and convince the Screening Committee to give him seven or more votes.

Though there is a possibility Wallace and Webber might face similar faiths as Dantley (they’ll get in but in due time), I would like to share my thoughts on why I believe this is the wrong approach; prove why they should get in sooner rather than three or four years from now.

Now, let me start off by saying that one of the most glaring observations when it comes to NBA player interest is that there has always been a strong habit of rewarding/favoring offensive ability over defensive ability.

You see it when it comes to player contracts (offensive players are better compensated), media coverage and recognition, and free agency (defensive players are not as prioritized and are often left unsigned for longer periods of time or left unsigned overall).

A common sentiment one often hears is that for the one-dimensional players who are good to great defensively, many of them benefit from playing alongside a great player or great team and thus, their offensive limitations are harder to expose. Take DeAndre Jordan (during his Clipper days) or Jordan Bell for example.

Yet, for the great offensive players who struggle defensively, it’s also vice versa with elite defenders being able to hide their weaknesses on the defensive side of the ball under certain defensive schemes and specific player personnel around them (e.g., Stephen Curry, Kyrie Irving).

This is where Ben Wallace’s Hall of Fame case can come into the picture.

Prior to his Cavs and Bulls stints, Wallace wasn’t just your ordinary good defensive center that you could find overseas or in the free agent market, he was a dominant one.

Serving as the defensive anchor of the Detroit Pistons, Wallace was the main reason why the Pistons had so much success on the defensive end and managed to make the Conference Finals year in and year out.

From 2001-06, the Pistons defense was elite and it showed not just on the court, but through their defensive statistics as well.

In 2001-02, their opposition points per game was  92.2 (6th of 29). For the 2002-03 season, Opp PTS/G: 87.7 (1st of 29), in 2003-04, their infamous championship year, their defensive rating stood at 95.4 (2nd of 29) and Opp PTS/G: 84.3 (2nd of 29), for 2004-05, Opp PTS/G: 89.5 (2nd of 30) and Def Rtg: 101.2 (3rd of 30), and finally, in 2005-06, they held opponents to 90.2 points per game (3rd of 30) and maintained a defensive rating of 103.1 (5th of 30).

Throughout that 2001-06 period, Wallace won the Defensive Player of Year in 2001-02, the 2002-03 season, and then went on to win another set of back to backs in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

To put it into a better perspective, most NBA junkies have witnessed and are aware of how great Hakeem Olajuwon and Sidney Moncrief (a member of this years Hall of Fame class) were on both ends in their primes, but their individual defensive accolades can only further exemplify Wallace’s defensive dominance: Hakeem and Moncrief, who were both all-time great defenders, only won two Defensive Player of the Year Awards in their entire careers, while Wallace won four in the small span of five years.

That being said, I’m not claiming that Wallace ever came close to being the offensive force Hakeem was or even became a respectable 20-point scorer, like Moncrief. I am, however, arguing that there needs to be a deeper appreciation for the impact defense can have on a team.

If there was a player whose career and abilities could be used as a comparison, it would have to be Dennis Rodman: A Hall of Famer who is very popular among Bulls/Pistons fans of older generations, was oftentimes a liability on offense, especially in Chicago and in later years, but his post defense and rebounding ability made up for those limitations.

Chris Webber’s case, on the other hand, leaves even stronger bewilderment.

The irony is that not only did Webber’s former teammate, Vlade Divac, get inducted into the Hall of Fame before he did but the player he was traded for in the 1998-99 lockout season, in Mitch Richmond, did so as well.

In a way, that 1998 trade can allegorically represent the dichotomy between both player’s careers.

Mitch Richmond – who is well deserving of being in the Hall of Fame, if I might add – went on to have great individual success throughout his NBA career by averaging 23.3 ppg in Sacramento, 22.7 ppg in Golden State, 17.8 in Washington, ( all teams Webber played for) and making six-straight All-Star game appearances from 1993 to 1998.

In terms of team success, when he served as the team’s best player for seven years in Sacramento, however, the Kings only had a single playoff appearance in 1996, where they lost to the Sonics in the first round.

On the contrary, with the “non-Hall of Fame player,” Chris Webber, somehow he managed to meet both criterias while playing for the very same Kings organization: team and individual success.

In the aftermath of the 1998 trade, Webber led the Kings to six straight playoff appearances from 1998-05, including a WCF in 2002 against Shaq and Kobe’s Lakers, and a record of 50 or more regular season wins for five straight years, just after his first two seasons there.

As for individual career accomplishments, Webber became a five-time NBA All-Star, was voted into All-NBA selections five times, was placed top 10 in MVP voting five times, won Rookie of the Year in 1994, and even earned the rebounding title in 1999.

Does the Screening Committee take this into consideration when casting their votes? Who knows.

Unfortunately, what might be hurting Webber right now is the scandal still surrounding the Fab five team: the NCAA’s decision to remove Michigan State’s achievements in light of the bribery investigation back in the day.

And since the Fab Five’s final four appearances never happened, at least according to the NCAA record book, Webber’s NBA accolades are trying to stand its ground against opposing players who have a slightly easier path with international play, NBA achievements, plus front office experience (e.g., Vlade Divac) on their side to market themselves.

At this point, one can only hope that Ben Wallace and Chris Webber eventually get the credit they deserve.