<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Five days have passed since Ben Wallace pouted instead of played. Pistons coach Flip Saunders asked Wallace to go back in a game at Orlando. Wallace, apparently upset about the Pistons' offensive approach, refused. It was, by any sober analysis, a selfish act. Based on his 2005-06 salary of $7.35 million, Wallace was paid more than $89,000 for that game. The least he could do was, you know, play. And the Pistons' reaction was ... nothing. No suspension. No fine. Nobody is even acting upset. Scottie Pippen refused to re-enter a playoff game once. Twelve years later, that is still among the top five things people remember about Pippen's career. In January, Magic guard Steve Francis refused to re-enter a game. Francis was suspended for the next game. And Francis' transgression was not as bad as Big Ben's; the Magic trailed by 16 in the final minutes when Francis held his sit-down strike, while the Pistons were very much in the game when Wallace did the same. What happened? Are the Pistons softer on their players than the Magic? The answer is obvious, yet somehow forgotten: Pro sports are all about winning. Not "life lessons" or "building character" and absolutely not about "setting an example for America's kids." That's why we have youth sports. We say we understand this. But then Ben Wallace refuses to go back in a game and the talk-radio lines light up. The Pistons made a calculated decision. They decided that ignoring the transgression would be best for the team's title hopes. If Carlos Delfino (or some other young backup) refused to re-enter a game, he would be suspended. If the Pistons were 15-61 and any player refused to re-enter a game, that player would be suspended. But in both cases, the reason would be the same as for not suspending Wallace: winning. Young players need to be shown how to win; Ben Wallace does not. Losing teams need to develop a winning culture; these Pistons do not. If the Pistons suspended Wallace, they would antagonize one of their best players. And as we say in the media business, the story would have "legs" -- it would get national play, and we'd be talking about it into the playoffs. So the Pistons let it go. They are betting that the story will die, the team will move on, and their chances of winning a championship will be higher this way. And you know what? They're right. "In pro sports, you want to win, not only now but down the road," Saunders said Tuesday. "If somebody does something, is it going to affect your ability to win down the road? You make your decisions based on that." In this case, the road goes into the off-season, when Wallace will be a free agent. Is there a risk? Of course. Wallace might conclude that it's OK to defy his coach. But nobody who knows him can imagine that. "I don't judge somebody that's had five years of stellar work -- not only with the team but in the community, and how he has been in practice -- and judge him by one incident," Saunders said. "You judge him on the long haul." The other risk is more severe: The Pistons' young players might see Wallace get away with this and decide they can, too. That is precisely the sort of star culture that Pistons president of basketball operations Joe Dumars loathes. As for Ben not apologizing ... "There is a lot written that there were no apologies," Saunders said. "I talked to Ben. Ben talked to me. Ben talked to his teammates." In other words, there were apologies, just not public ones.</div> Source
