Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace?

[oolalaa]

Peak and career, Rodman or Wallace? :confusedshrug:

I'm sure the unanimous choice will be Rodman (for both peak and career), but I certainly don't think it should be UNANIMOUS :no:

[AMISTILLILL]

Rodman and it's not close.

[TaLvsCuaL]

Rodman and it's not close.
This.

[La Frescobaldi]

Rodman and it's not close.

check mark

[DrunkenDave]

Rodman and it's not close.

Why?

[Fudge]

Peak and career, Rodman or Wallace? :confusedshrug:

I'm sure the unanimous choice will be Rodman (for both peak and career), but I certainly don't think it should be :no:
Why's that? Though Ben is a great player, he has no valid argument to be a greater player than Rodman was.

[AMISTILLILL]

Why?

5

[oolalaa]

Why's that? Though Ben is a great player, he has no valid argument to be a greater player than Rodman was.

I agree. I just don't think it should be a UNANIMOUS decision. Let's just say....I don't give much weight to regular season performances.

[AMISTILLILL]

I agree. I just don't think it should be a UNANIMOUS decision. Let's just say....I don't give much weight to regular season performances.

Ben Wallace's career playoff numbers are barely better than Rodman's. 7.2 PPG/11.2 RPG compared to 6.4 PPG/9.9 RPG.

[DrunkenDave]

[QUOTE=AMISTILLILL]5

[AMISTILLILL]

Bolded is Big Ben. I take defense. Btw im quite sure the (rebounding) numbers would be closer if you factor in pace.

Literally nobody picks Ben Wallace in this discussion. If they do, they didn't watch Rodman play or they're just trying to be antagonistic. He impacted the game without scoring in ways very few players have been able to do.

[Teanett]

I agree. I just don't think it should be a UNANIMOUS decision. Let's just say....I don't give much weight to regular season performances.
check 96 finals.
rodman wins the bulls two games with offensive rebounding

[Teanett]

Bolded is Big Ben. I take defense. Btw im quite sure the (rebounding) numbers would be closer if you factor in pace.

if ben played during the primes of olajuwon, shaq, robinson, ewing, mourning and motumbo he would have zero dpoy's, all-star games, all nba-team or all-nba defense award.

...and of course zero rebounding titles.

...and if you factor in pace, the rebounding margin would be bigger.

[Droid101]

Rodman was the greatest rebounder in the history of the league by a big margin. Better than Wilt.

Of course it's Rodman.

[Droid101]

At the age of 38, Rodman was averaging 13.1 rebounds a game starting for the Dallas Mavericks. You could set your watch by Rodman's career rebounding consistency. Frame of reference: Dwight Howard is averaging 15.1 boards a game at the age of 26.
This. Check out Rodman's rebound rate (rebounds per 36 minutes or whatever you want to call it).

It's like a straight line across the board. He only went up or down in RPG due to minutes.

He was a ****ing machine.

[SwooshReturns]

Pre 1996 Rodman could defend PG - C. Rodman could actually move laterally with a PRIME physical Michael Jordan.

Ben Wallace could never do that ... Rodman defended Shaq the best out of anyone. And he didn't have to "roid up" like Ben Wallace to do it, either.

Rodzilla and it isn't even close.

[oolalaa]

Ben Wallace's career playoff numbers are barely better than Rodman's. 7.2 PPG/11.2 RPG compared to 6.4 PPG/9.9 RPG.

Exactly! :oldlol: For whatever reason, Rodman wasn't the same rebounder in the postseason as he was in the regular season. I've never been able to work that one out (his injuries were not enough of an excuse).

[az00m]

Dennis rodmans playoff numbers are bit bad because of his early years when he was a primary wingman defender. You can see how well he guarded shaq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg3BiOw4TWo

I'll go with the Rodzilla. He could guard the 1-5 perfectly.

[CLTHornets4eva]

Big Ben shouldn't even be in the conversation. Rodman was also one of the most intense in your face defenders of all time and probably the best pure rebounder ever.

Ben Wallace was a poor man's Rodman on a worse team. Ben was probably a better blocker but the worm wins everything else by a wide margin.

[CLTHornets4eva]

Exactly! :oldlol: For whatever reason, Rodman wasn't the same rebounder in the postseason as he was in the regular season. I've never been able to work that one out (his injuries were not enough of an excuse).

It's because the Bulls never missed and he had fewer offensive rebounding opportunities. Duh. :lol

[DrunkenDave]

if ben played during the primes of olajuwon, shaq, robinson, ewing, mourning and motumbo he would have zero dpoy's, all-star games, all nba-team or all-nba defense award.

...and of course zero rebounding titles.

How do you know? Maybe he would have been even better with the old rules.

[AMISTILLILL]

Exactly! :oldlol: For whatever reason, Rodman wasn't the same rebounder in the postseason as he was in the regular season. I've never been able to work that one out (his injuries were not enough of an excuse).

I'm not getting how Wallace wins the playoff argument between the two simply by posting marginally better numbers. If Rodman wasn't the same type of rebounder in the playoffs (which isn't the only way he influenced games, but that's debatable), what's Wallace's excuse for posting numbers that are barely any higher?

[Teanett]

How do you know? Maybe he would have been even better with the old rules.
i watched him play.

[oolalaa]

This. Check out Rodman's rebound rate (rebounds per 36 minutes or whatever you want to call it).

It's like a straight line across the board. He only went up or down in RPG due to minutes.

He was a ****ing machine.

Okay, now go look at his playoff TRB%....There's a significant drop off from the reg season.

[Clippersfan86]

Ben Wallace. People act as if Ben couldn't defend 1-5 like Rodman but that's a lie. He could defend every position as well, played the passing lanes better than Rodman and was obviously a superior defender of the rim. Rodman was better at staying in front of his man on the perimeter... but Wallace has more value as a defender.

[Teanett]

Exactly! :oldlol: For whatever reason, Rodman wasn't the same rebounder in the postseason as he was in the regular season. I've never been able to work that one out (his injuries were not enough of an excuse).
check his minutes.

[IamRAMBO24]

Big Ben shouldn't even be in the conversation. Rodman was also one of the most intense in your face defenders of all time and probably the best pure rebounder ever.

Ben Wallace was a poor man's Rodman on a worse team. Ben was probably a better blocker but the worm wins everything else by a wide margin.

You obviously have never seen Ben at his peak. He was hands down the greatest defender of this decade; Ben could dunk, unlike Rodman, and he was a true leader of a championship team while Rodman is just a scrub.

PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman

[Droid101]

Exactly! :oldlol: For whatever reason, Rodman wasn't the same rebounder in the postseason as he was in the regular season. I've never been able to work that one out (his injuries were not enough of an excuse).
Rebounds per game is a stupid way to measure it.

Rebound rate is the only way to accurately measure how many rebounds you get when you're on the floor compared to everyone else.

Ben Wallace's best rebound rate was 23.9% of all rebounds grabbed while he was on the floor in the 02-03 season.

Rodman's career rebound rate was 23.4%, and he had SEVEN seasons with a higher rebound rate than Ben Wallace's career high.

And the playoffs? Please.

Ben's career high rebound rate in the playoffs was 23.4%. Rodman had four post-seasons equal to or better than that, and a higher career average (not to mention guarding every position).

Lettuce be realism. Go here and read why Rodman has a case to be the most valuable player to be picked first if you're doing an all-time draft:
http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

[Teanett]

You obviously have never seen Ben at his peak. He was hands down the greatest defender of this decade; Ben could dunk, unlike Rodman, and he was a true leader of a championship team while Rodman is just a scrub.

PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman
:no:

[AMISTILLILL]

We're obviously dealing with some young, confused individuals in this thread.

[Teanett]

Ben Wallace. People act as if Ben couldn't defend 1-5 like Rodman but that's a lie. He could defend every position as well, played the passing lanes better than Rodman and was obviously a superior defender of the rim. Rodman was better at staying in front of his man on the perimeter... but Wallace has more value as a defender.
:no:

[La Frescobaldi]

We're obviously dealing with some young, confused individuals in this thread.

we obviously are. just for example.

using rebound rate as a primary indication of what a player can do is a farce based on an absurdity

[Droid101]

we obviously are. just for example.

using rebound rate as a primary indication of what a player can do is a farce based on an absurdity
Rebound rate is a better indicator of how well you rebound than RPG.

Just go visit that link and get educated. Rodman is better than Ben in every category (including WINNING).

http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

[97 bulls]

I agree. I just don't think it should be a UNANIMOUS decision. Let's just say....I don't give much weight to regular season performances.
Then look at his playoff performances, people always knock karl malone for not commingthrough against the bulls. But never give rodman credit for minimzeing malones impact over the course of those two championships. And its not just malone. Rodman has shut down shaq, jordan, pippen, mourning, worthy, magic, webber, bird, mchale, to name a few. Remember what he did to kemp in the 96 finals? And before someone posts kemps stats, id like to remind you that alot of kemps points were scored with the game well in hand. Phil jackson said rodman was the greatest athlete he's ever seen. George karl said rodman should've been finals mvp and that he single handedly won two of the bulls four games in 96.

Wallace, although great inoverrates his ownaccomplishments right, has been blessed with the good fortune of playing in an era full of terrible bigmen. Which greatly overrates his accomplishments. However, I do feel he belongs in the hall of fame.

[CLTHornets4eva]

You obviously have never seen Ben at his peak. He was hands down the greatest defender of this decade; Ben could dunk, unlike Rodman, and he was a true leader of a championship team while Rodman is just a scrub.

PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman

When does dunking effect who is better?

I lived in Sag nasty when the Pistons won. I have seen both in person multiple times.

Ben was less talented and it's not close. Chauncey was the leader of that team- a much worse team than any of the bulls teams. Rodman on the Pistons was equal to Ben.

Rodman on the bulls in his upper 30's! >>> Ben In his prime

[DrunkenDave]

Rebounds per game is a stupid way to measure it.

Rebound rate is the only way to accurately measure how many rebounds you get when you're on the floor compared to everyone else.

Ben Wallace's best rebound rate was 23.9% of all rebounds grabbed while he was on the floor in the 02-03 season.

Rodman's career rebound rate was 23.4%, and he had SEVEN seasons with a higher rebound rate than Ben Wallace's career high.

And the playoffs? Please.

Ben's career high rebound rate in the playoffs was 23.4%. Rodman had four post-seasons equal to or better than that, and a higher career average (not to mention guarding every position).

Lettuce be realism. Go here and read why Rodman has a case to be the most valuable player to be picked first if you're doing an all-time draft:
http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

Rodman is the better rebounder, no doubt. But Ben Wallace is the better overall defender (dont get me wrong, Rodman was great too). It just comes down to your personal preference, and i pick defense.

[Clippersfan86]

:no:

I'm a huge fan of both and watched both in their prime. Wallace= more valuable defender to a team. Rodman= better man defender.....didn't defend the rim. Wallace not only averaged 2 steals per game and played great man D in his prime but also was the best defender of the rim in the game, averaging 3 blocks a game and intimidating the hell out of people at the rim.

Rodman was a better rebounder but Wallace was elite in that regard too so I didn't want to go down that road. Plus I'm not a believer in using defensive rebounds to argue defense. Rebounding comes AFTER a shot and AFTER defensive play on that shot.

[DrunkenDave]

When does dunking effect who is better?

I lived in Sag nasty when the Pistons won. I have seen both in person multiple times.

Ben was less talented and it's not close. Chauncey was the leader of that team- a much worse team than any of the bulls teams. Rodman on the Pistons was equal to Ben.

Rodman on the bulls in his upper 30's! >>> Ben In his prime

How is that a knock on Ben?

[IamRAMBO24]

When does dunking effect who is better?

I lived in Sag nasty when the Pistons won. I have seen both in person multiple times.

Ben was less talented and it's not close. Chauncey was the leader of that team- a much worse team than any of the bulls teams. Rodman on the Pistons was equal to Ben.

Rodman on the bulls in his upper 30's! >>> Ben In his prime

Dunking is a huge deal. It's 2 points. Rodman had absolutely no offensive game nor can he block. I have never seen a more dominant defender when Ben was at his peak. It says a lot when they won the championship based on his defense and leadership.

Rodman had less of an active role playing next to Jordan and Pippen. He was hardly the face of the bulls, hell some games he didn't show up because he was too busy partying the night before.

There is no way the worm is better than Ben when you look at the both of them in their prime years.

[LALakerFan4Life]

The Worm > Big Ben

[CLTHornets4eva]

How is that a knock on Ben?

It was in reply to someone that said that Ben was a bigger leader on his team. It's a little bit easier to lead more on a worse team. Especially one that doesn't have 2 other hall of famers on the roster.

[AMISTILLILL]

Dunking is a huge deal. It's 2 points. Rodman had absolutely no offensive game nor can he block. I have never seen a more dominant defender when Ben was at his peak. It says a lot when they won the championship based on his defense and leadership.

Rodman had less of an active role playing next to Jordan and Pippen. He was hardly the face of the bulls, hell some games he didn't show up because he was too busy partying the night before.

There is no way the worm is better than Ben when you look at the both of them in their prime years.

Is this real life?

[oolalaa]

I'm not getting how Wallace wins the playoff argument between the two simply by posting marginally better numbers. If Rodman wasn't the same type of rebounder in the playoffs (which isn't the only way he influenced games, but that's debatable), what's Wallace's excuse for posting numbers that are barely any higher?

When did I say Wallace wins the playoff argument :confusedshrug: Like I said, Rodman > Wallace, BUT, Rodman's numbers (particularly rebounding) dropped come playoff time and Wallace's didn't.

[97 bulls]

I'm a huge fan of both and watched both in their prime. Wallace= more valuable defender to a team. Rodman= better man defender.....didn't defend the rim. Wallace not only averaged 2 steals per game and played great man D in his prime but also was the best defender of the rim in the game, averaging 3 blocks a game and intimidating the hell out of people at the rim.

Rodman was a better rebounder but Wallace was elite in that regard too so I didn't want to go down that road. Plus I'm not a believer in using defensive rebounds to argue defense. Rebounding comes AFTER a shot and AFTER defensive play on that shot.
But who has wallace ever shut down? Just about every center he played against was utter garbage. Its easy to get blocks when the man your guarding is whack

[IamRAMBO24]

It was in reply to someone that said that Ben was a bigger leader on his team. It's a little bit easier to lead more on a worse team. Especially one that doesn't have 2 other hall of famers on the roster.

In overall talent, Ben can do a lot more than Rodman since he doesn't need to irritate the f*ck out of someone to get them off their game.

[97 bulls]

Dunking is a huge deal. It's 2 points. Rodman had absolutely no offensive game nor can he block. I have never seen a more dominant defender when Ben was at his peak. It says a lot when they won the championship based on his defense and leadership.

Rodman had less of an active role playing next to Jordan and Pippen. He was hardly the face of the bulls, hell some games he didn't show up because he was too busy partying the night before.

There is no way the worm is better than Ben when you look at the both of them in their prime years.
Rodman led the league in FG% one year. And he shot 32% from 3 the one year he decided to shoot. There's no doubt in my mind rodman could score. It just wasn't needed.

[97 bulls]

In overall talent, Ben can do a lot more than Rodman since he doesn't need to irritate the f*ck out of someone to get them off their game.
Lol is that a bad thing?

[DMV2]

lol ...I can't believe this is even a topic.

Not only did Rodman beast on the boards and defensively in two different eras(late 80's and 90's) but he also was getting it done during an era(90's) known by many as the best decade of centers.

[IamRAMBO24]

Is this real life?

How generic do you have to be to just look at rebound numbers and say this guy is better than the other guy? You have to take in offense, blocks, leadership, value, etc. and Ben by far beats Rodman in all those categories.

Saying Rodman is better because he is more annoying is not much of an argument.

[AMISTILLILL]

When did I say Wallace wins the playoff argument :confusedshrug: Like I said, Rodman > Wallace, BUT, Rodman's numbers (particularly rebounding) dropped come playoff time and Wallace's didn't.

By arguing against Rodman's performance you're indirectly propping up Wallace's game.

[97 bulls]

How generic do you have to be to just look at rebound numbers and say this guy is better than the other guy? You have to take in offense, blocks, leadership, value, etc. and Ben by far beats Rodman in all those categories.

Saying Rodman is better because he is more annoying is not much of an argument.
Do you know how big it is to be able to take a player, even more a great player, out of their game?

[La Frescobaldi]

Rebound rate is a better indicator of how well you rebound than RPG.

Just go visit that link and get educated. Rodman is better than Ben in every category (including WINNING).

http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

No it isn't. A game is 48 minutes long, and what you do in those 48 minutes reflects your performance. If you sat the bench for 10 minutes that means you weren't on the court and any other view of that is wrong. Saying for example Rodman was a better rebounder than Chamberlain - LOLOLOLOLOL! obviously a viewpoint based on looking a statistic spreadsheets and not watching Wilt play

Make no mistake, I think Rodman was a LOT better than Wallace.

[AMISTILLILL]

How generic do you have to be to just look at rebound numbers and say this guy is better than the other guy? You have to take in offense, blocks, leadership, value, etc. and Ben by far beats Rodman in all those categories.

Saying Rodman is better because he is more annoying is not much of an argument.

When was I strictly using rebounding rate to argue in favor of Rodman? Get back to me on that.

Rodman over Wallace is a no brainer. The caliber of talent Rodman was trusted to match up with on any given evening and his career consistency speaks for itself. Wallace hasn't even had a Pistons era Ben Wallace like season since 2007. He's a shell of his former self and has been for some time.

I think it's just easier for people in their late teens and early twenties to argue in favor of Wallace because it's something they were able to experience firsthand, as opposed to highlights and second/third parties conjecturing about Dennis Rodman in his playing days.

[oolalaa]

By arguing against Rodman's performance you're indirectly propping up Wallace's game.

WHAT? :wtf: No. I'll repeat....Wallace's post season play was consistent with the reg season (you could argue that he got slightly better). Rodman's was not. It's really that simple.

[Droid101]

No it isn't. A game is 48 minutes long, and what you do in those 48 minutes reflects your performance. If you sat the bench for 10 minutes that means you weren't on the court and any other view of that is wrong. Saying for example Rodman was a better rebounder than Chamberlain - LOLOLOLOLOL! obviously a viewpoint based on looking a statistic spreadsheets and not watching Wilt play

Make no mistake, I think Rodman was a LOT better than Wallace.
You clearly didn't read the link.

Rodman is a better rebounder than Wilt.

[Bigsmoke]

Rodman didn't play Ben Wallace level defense when he was in the Spurs. At least in the playoffs.

[IamRAMBO24]

Do you know how big it is to be able to take a player, even more a great player, out of their game?

Yea, but when you have someone like Wallace who can TAKE THE WHOLE team out of their game.

That's something.

Go watch the Pistons in their prime and see how dominating he was on the floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V64HbE1njU

He won 4 defensive titles and 1 ring BEFORE he hit his peak. He went down with an injury and was never the same again.

Had he been healthy, we would be comparing him to Bill Russell and not a scrub like Rodman.

So again, PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman

[oolalaa]

You clearly didn't read the link.

Rodman is a better rebounder than Wilt.

Don't be silly now.

[AMISTILLILL]

Yea, but when you have someone like Wallace who can TAKE THE WHOLE team out of their game.

That's something.

Go watch the Pistons in their prime and see how dominating he was on the floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V64HbE1njU

He won 4 defensive titles and 1 ring BEFORE he hit his peak. He went down with an injury and was never the same again.

Had he been healthy, we would be comparing him to Bill Russell and not a scrub like Rodman.

So again, PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman

You've officially stepped into troll territory.

[IamRAMBO24]

There is no way Rodman can be compared to this dominance on defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkMa5H2rSzE

[Droid101]

Don't be silly now.
Go read the article, then respond.

When there are 130 possessions in a game vs 80 or so (not to mention shooting percentages about 10 points worse), there are going to be a lot more rebounds to grab.

Look at rebound rate, not rebounds per game.

[IamRAMBO24]

You've officially stepped into troll territory.

Haha you're like the king of trolls, so stop hating. You know what I am saying is true: Rodman can't score, defend, lead, etc. like Ben. Hell, he wasn't even top 3 on his team.

Ben was the leader and face of the Pistons team that won the championship.

All I hear is "Rodman likes to irritate the f*ck out of players so he is the greatest." Do you know how stupid that argument sounds?

[Clippersfan86]

Go read the article, then respond.

When there are 130 possessions in a game vs 80 or so (not to mention shooting percentages about 10 points worse), there are going to be a lot more rebounds to grab.

Look at rebound rate, not rebounds per game.

Definitely pace should be factored. People here don't understand that 80's and 90's teams played at an insane pace compared to now. Like you said... way more rebounds to grab.

[Cowboy Thunder]

Where is Rodman living these days?

[rodman91]

At the age of 38, Rodman was averaging 13.1 rebounds a game starting for the Dallas Mavericks.


Actually it was 14.3 rebounds per game in 32.4 minutes per game.

38 years old Rodman had 16.0 rebounds when he played more than +30 minutes (34.6 minutes per game.)

26 years old Dwight Howard has 15.4 rebound in 38.3 minutes per game.

GOAT rebounder.

[Bigsmoke]

I think a bad defensove team would improve more from Ben Wallace becauae of his ability to lock down the paint and provide leadership.

Rodman is the guy u should have when u already have a championship team or a team that's already succesful on defense.

[oolalaa]

Go read the article, then respond.

When there are 130 possessions in a game vs 80 or so (not to mention shooting percentages about 10 points worse), there are going to be a lot more rebounds to grab.

Look at rebound rate, not rebounds per game.

lmfao, that's insulting.

You clearly didn't see my post to you earlier in this thread, asking you to do just that :roll:

[97 bulls]

Definitely pace should be factored. People here don't understand that 80's and 90's teams played at an insane pace compared to now. Like you said... way more rebounds to grab.
The 90s pace was nowhere near the 80s. Now how bout you factor in the terrible bigmen wallace went up against.

[AMISTILLILL]

Haha you're like the king of trolls, so stop hating. You know what I am saying is true: Rodman can't score, defend, lead, etc. like Ben. Hell, he wasn't even top 3 on his team.

Ben was the leader and face of the Pistons team that won the championship.

All I hear is "Rodman likes to irritate the f*ck out of players so he is the greatest." Do you know how stupid that argument sounds?

I'd love to hear some insight into how I'm the "king of trolls". Particularly because I don't even recall seeing you post before this thread. And yes, there's a wealth of people saying Rodman is the best because he annoys players... you're right. :sleeping

[rodman91]

Rodman was one of the best lock down defenders ever. Also him being versatile makes him better defender than Wallace in my opinion.Rodman guarded guys Magic, Jordan and then guys like Malone,Shaq. And he did good to great job on them.

Wallace was great rim protector and good at stealing.

Actually i wonder what do you guys think Mutombo vs Wallace?...

[CLTHornets4eva]

Rodman was one of the best lock down defenders ever. Also him being versatile makes him better defender than Wallace in my opinion.Rodman guarded guys Magic, Jordan and then guys like Malone,Shaq. And he did good to great job on them.

Wallace was great rim protector and good at stealing.

Actually i wonder what do you guys think Mutombo vs Wallace?...


Not even close.:no:

[97 bulls]

Yea, but when you have someone like Wallace who can TAKE THE WHOLE team out of their game.

That's something.

Go watch the Pistons in their prime and see how dominating he was on the floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V64HbE1njU

He won 4 defensive titles and 1 ring BEFORE he hit his peak. He went down with an injury and was never the same again.

Had he been healthy, we would be comparing him to Bill Russell and not a scrub like Rodman.

So again, PRIME Ben > PRIME Rodman
He wouldn't have any dpoy awards if he played in the same era as mutombo, mourning, olajuwan, jordan, pippen, payton, duncan, shaq, ewing, robinson, eaton to name a few.

I remember the pistons of the 00s. I alos remember how bad the east was at the time as well as the bigs overall. Wallaces biggest competiton on defense was howard, artest, and duncan. Mourning would've been but he had the kidney trouble.

[97 bulls]

Take a look at what some of the greatest ever said about rodman.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Dq0id4LESME

I think it also should be noted that wallace seemingly mimicked rodman. Rodman had the tattoos wallace eventually got them, rodman had the crazy hair, so did wallce. I have a feeling wallace would say rodman was better

[rodman91]

Howard will have most DPOYs.. Does it makes him best defender of all time?

[rodman91]

Not even close.:no:

Not even close for Mutombo or Wallace?

I think Mutombo was better.

[LJJ]

Dennis Rodman seems to become more and more overrated since becoming retired, due to his statistical prowess.

One of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time in his prime, arguably the greatest rebounder of all time. But let's not act like his importance to the Bulls success was as important as Ben's to the Pistons success.

[RidonKs]

rodman takes career consistency and duration by a solid margin but in their primes, it's very close, certainly much more so than posts in this thread would lead you to believe. the x-factors that make me lean towards worm are his dribbling/passing abilities as compared to Ben's total and utter uselessness on that end, the liability of having ben on the floor during close games, and probably most importantly, Rodman's psychological impact on the other team's best player. just the tangles, grabbing, bumping that he'd subtly initiate provoking retaliation was huge. and every so often he'd get really under the skin of ewing or robinson or malone... it'd be easily as much of a game changer as ben's shotblocking.

but never underestimate the importance of a defensive anchor and few in the history of the game have ever been as good as ben during his 2-3 year peak. though it also helped that he was paired with sheed, whereas Rodman in those bulls runs had to do his thing alongside... luc longley? lol

[Clippersfan86]

The 90s pace was nowhere near the 80s. Now how bout you factor in the terrible bigmen wallace went up against.

KG, Duncan, Dirk, Shaq, Mutumbo are just a few of the HOF bigmen Wallace has had to contend with. Not only that but he guards the best player. He's guarded plenty of 3's and even 2's as well.

[jstern]

Don't forget that even though Rodman never scored much, he was a good offensive player, he wasn't a liability on offense. Just a really high basketball IQ person. Really high.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'd love to hear some insight into how I'm the "king of trolls". Particularly because I don't even recall seeing you post before this thread. And yes, there's a wealth of people saying Rodman is the best because he annoys players... you're right. :sleeping

So if I play dirty and take cheap shots, talk about their mommas, wet my pinky finger and give them a wet willy, stick my thumb up their ass when they are backing down, rub my crotch up their left butt cheek, and doing whatever it takes to irritate them makes me a good player?

No that makes me annoying as f*ck. Being annoying requires no skills. Now if I did something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuivG44plqQ

That requires mad skills. Rebounding doesn't win games alone, defense and leadership does.

You can't sit there with a straight face and say Rodman can do what Ben did after watching that video. He did that night in and night out. He was 1 man, against 1 team, and he shut down their star players and entire inside game by HIMSELF.

People who say Rodman is better is only look at the stats and not truely seeing what Ben is capable of doing when he's healthy.

[copper]

Literally nobody picks Ben Wallace in this discussion. If they do, they didn't watch Rodman play or they're just trying to be antagonistic. He impacted the game without scoring in ways very few players have been able to do.
Ive been a Piston fan since they drafted Thomas out of indiana. I have had the privledge of watching both players grow up and play out their respective careers and I am not bias towards either. Rodman is the Better of the 2 in pretty much every catagory we measure, although I wouldnt say its any landslide except maybe the rebounding and head games . Ben did make opponents alter their gameplans also. Ben was a better help side defender but Dennis had him and pretty much anyone else with his man to man coverage.

[Rake2204]

As a Pistons fan, I feel honored to have had both players be very important members of our franchise. I hate having to talk down one to talk up the other. They were both tremendous in their own ways. I certainly don't think it's just absolute lunacy to suggest Ben Wallace was better at certain things than Dennis Rodman was. While Rodman seems to be getting all the gritty details of his exploits in this thread (full with testimonials), Ben Wallace seems to be getting the "Yeah, he protected the rim I guess" treatment.

I'll say this for Ben - I certainly love Dennis Rodman, but at least Ben could always be relied upon. Dennis Rodman took a lot of folks out of their games. But he also took himself out of games. He was a wildcard, what folks today would refer to as a headcase. And at times, it certainly did affect his play.

Dennis Rodman was great in that he could guard positions one through five. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, he wasn't perfect at guarding all those positions though. This sort of feels like one of those situations where he was so good at something that someone took how good he actually was and decided to morph it into being other-worldly awesome. I suppose that'd be called overrating.

Meanwhile, Dennis Rodman did not instill fear into those who entered the paint. I'm certain players always had to have their heads on a swivel, watching for a helping Rodman to step in and take a charge. But around the hoop, I'm not sure I feel he affected as many drives and attempts as Ben Wallace did.

Further, in reference to the suggestion that Ben just "stole a lot and blocked", I feel that is clearly doing Wallace a disservice. It sort of feels as if some of us believe Rodman had a sick list of intangibles, but Wallace had nothing outside of his boards, blocks, and steals. He was a 6'9'' behemoth, so did he guard point guards as effectively as Rodman may have been able to? No. But was he able to hedge pick and rolls better than any big man I've seen within the past 15 years? Yes. Was he just as much a threat to step in and take a charge as he was to block or alter a shot? Yep. Did he fill lanes, run the floor, and gather garbage baskets (much like Dennis)? Absolutely. And in reference to the fellow here who gave props to Ben because he dunked, I'm supposing that might have possibly been, somehow, his way of suggesting Ben was able to put the can on his offensive caroms with more consistency (hell of a reach for me to make, right?)

And truly, I don't say any of this as a means of stating that Ben is better than Dennis or vice versa. I'm just saying that I sort of feel Ben is getting a lot of strange dismissals of his services in this thread. Somehow, I suppose that it could be argued Chauncey Billups was the leader of the Pistons in '04, but I'm not entirely sure that'd be accurate. Looking at the Finals MVP trophy, it's an easy conclusion to come to. However, Ben Wallace was undoubtedly the anchor for any and all success that era of Pistons was able to reap.

Also, to address a few other very small details:


Actually it was 14.3 rebounds per game in 32.4 minutes per game.

38 years old Rodman had 16.0 rebounds when he played more than +30 minutes (34.6 minutes per game.)

26 years old Dwight Howard has 15.4 rebound in 38.3 minutes per game.

GOAT rebounder.
Dennis Rodman was able to spend a large part of his career collecting a record number of rebounds while contributing in many other aspects of the game. However, I would not use his time with the Dallas Mavericks as any sort of example for his longevity. This is a tough comment to make, but, if someone were to forget about every other aspect of basketball and attempt only to grab rebounds, those numbers are likely going to look more impressive than they normally would, right? Well, while in Dallas, that is essentially all I remember Dennis doing. There's a reason he only played 10 or so games with them, and that's because he was an unwilling teammate and wasn't interested in many other parts of the game aside from snaring boards.

Another stupid hypothetical to throw out there, and I know this can be easily rebutted and never discovered, but if Dwight Howard never had to worry about putting the ball in the hole, do you guys believe his rebounding numbers might spike as well? Because I have to be real, during my years of playing the game, if I stopped thinking about how I might score each trip down the court, and only worried about rebounding the ball, I feel there'd be a huge spike in those numbers.


I think it also should be noted that wallace seemingly mimicked rodman. Rodman had the tattoos wallace eventually got them, rodman had the crazy hair, so did wallce. I have a feeling wallace would say rodman was better
Again, this is not to say one is better than the other, but I find this small portion of your argument to be invalid, with respect. There's a lot of other directions to go with the advantages Dennis Rodman had over Ben Wallace. However, suggesting that Wallace mimicked Rodman because Ben had a tattoo of London's Big Ben on his bicep while also growing an afro that began merely as a bet between he, Chris Webber, and Darvin Ham while they were all members of the Wizards is shortsighted in terms of what it could possibly mean for this discussion.

[RidonKs]

Being annoying requires no skills.
that's not true at all. it's a talent. some guys have it, some guys don't. but in competition, whatever you get away with is legal and no matter how morally degrading it might be, if it helps win games, it's a point in the nuisance's favour. at least from the perspective of his teammates, his coach, his management, and himself. when guys don't want to go up against you because you piss them off because you're a bitchmade rat.... that just means you're in their heads.

though i think rake makes a good point when he says worm raddled himself almost as much as he raddled his opponents.

[IamRAMBO24]

As a Pistons fan, I feel honored to have had both players be very important members of our franchise. I hate having to talk down one to talk up the other. They were both tremendous in their own ways. I certainly don't think it's just absolute lunacy to suggest Ben Wallace was better at certain things than Dennis Rodman was. While Rodman seems to be getting all the gritty details of his exploits in this thread (full with testimonials), Ben Wallace seems to be getting the "Yeah, he protected the rim I guess" treatment.

I'll say this for Ben - I certainly love Dennis Rodman, but at least Ben could always be relied on. Dennis Rodman took a lot of folks out of their games. But he also took himself out of games. He was a wildcard, what folks today would refer to as a headcase. And at times, it certainly did affect his play.

Dennis Rodman was great in that he could guard positions one through five. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, he wasn't perfect at guarding all those positions though. This sort of feels like one of those situations where he was so good at something that someone took how good he actually was and decided to morph it into being other-worldly awesome. I suppose that'd be called overrating.

Meanwhile, Dennis Rodman did not instill fear into those who entered the paint. I'm certain always had to have their heads on a swivel, watching for a helping Rodman to step in and take a charge. But around the hoop, I'm not sure I feel he affected as many drives and attempts as Ben Wallace did.

Further, in reference to the suggestion that Ben just "stole a lot and blocked", I feel that is clearly doing Wallace a disservice. It sort of feels as if some of us believe Rodman had a sick list of intangibles, but Wallace had nothing outside of his boards, blocks, and steals. He was a 6'9'' behemoth, so did he guard point guards as effectively as Rodman may have been able to? No. But was he able to hedge pick and rolls better than any big many I've seen within the past 15 years? Yes. Was he just as much a threat to step in and take a charge as he was to block or alter a shot? Yep. Did he fill lanes, run the floor, and gather garbage baskets (much like Dennis)? Absolutely. And in reference to the fellow here to gave props to Ben because he dunked, I'm supposing that might have possibly been, somehow, his way of suggesting Ben was able to put the can on his offensive caroms with more consistency (hell of a reach for me to make, right?)

And truly, I don't say any of this as a means of stating that Ben is better than Dennis or vice versa. I'm just saying that I sort of feel Ben is getting a lot of strange dismissal of his services in this thread. Somehow, I suppose that it could be argued Chauncey Billups was the leader of the Pistons in '04, but I'm not entirely sure that'd be accurate. Looking at the Finals MVP trophy, it's an easy conclusion to come to. However, Ben Wallace was undoubtedly the anchor for any and all success that era of Pistons was able to reap.

Also, to address a few other very small details:


Dennis Rodman was able to spend a large part of his career collecting a record number of rebounds while contributing in many other aspects of the game. However, I would not use his time with the Dallas Mavericks as any sort of example for his longevity. This is a tough comment to make, but, if someone were to forget about every other aspect of basketball and attempt only to grab rebounds, those numbers are likely going to look more impressive than they normally would. And while in Dallas, that essentially all I remember him doing. There's a reason he only 10 or so games with them, and that's because he was an unwilling teammate and wasn't interested in many other parts of the game aside from snaring boards.

Another stupid hypothetical to throw out there, and I know this can be easily rebutted and never discovered, but if Dwight Howard never had to worry about putting the ball in the hole, do you guys believe his rebounding numbers might spike as well? Because I have to be real, during my years of playing the game, if I stopped thinking about how I might score each trip down the court, and only worried about rebounding the ball, I feel there'd be a huge spike in those numbers.

:applause:

Best response in this thread. Honest, unbiased, and level headed.

[IamRAMBO24]

that's not true at all. it's a talent. some guys have it, some guys don't. but in competition, whatever you get away with is legal and no matter how morally degrading it might be, if it helps win games, it's a point in the nuisance's favour. at least from the perspective of his teammates, his coach, his management, and himself. when guys don't want to go up against you because you piss them off because you're a bitchmade rat.... that just means you're in their heads.

though i think rake makes a good point when he says worm raddled himself almost as much as he raddled his opponents.

So you think Rodman looking at himself in the mirror and saying to himself, "Ok how can I get on Malone's nerves in this game?" Let's see, he hates it when I put my d*ck up his ass, so I'm going to do that. He doesn't like it when I talk about his daughter, so I'm gonna call her a whore throughout the whole game.

I really don't understand how many are now calling this a skill. Sure it can be effective, I'll give you that, but to say he is a great over Ben because he can do that when Ben has him beat on blocks and leadership is retarded since those 2 factors are way more important than being an annoying little brat.

[Rake2204]

that's not true at all. it's a talent. some guys have it, some guys don't. but in competition, whatever you get away with is legal and no matter how morally degrading it might be, if it helps win games, it's a point in the nuisance's favour. at least from the perspective of his teammates, his coach, his management, and himself. when guys don't want to go up against you because you piss them off because you're a bitchmade rat.... that just means you're in their heads.

though i think rake makes a good point when he says worm raddled himself almost as much as he raddled his opponents.
You guys will laugh and scoff and assume all sorts of things, but a significant part of my organized basketball history (i.e. not rec league, not streetball) was based on Dennis Rodman and Bill Laimbeer's philosophies on psychological warfare. It just happens Rodman was able to rattle the best players in the world while I merely knew how to pick which of my small-town opponents would always want to make things about more than the game, leading to technicals, flagrants and the like.

So in that regard, I most certainly find the "psychological warfare" aspect to be very valuable. It cannot be taught. Most folks have no chance of pulling it off. But it can be terribly important to a team, though it cannot be measured.

And yes, the one thing I tried to change with that whole "head games" thing was not letting it become self destructive. I think Bill Laimbeer was likely better at keeping himself in check in this regard as opposed to Rodman. It was strange to watch Rodman in Chicago sometimes. At many points (like the infamous Brickowski situation) we'd be saying, "Aw man, Dennis has got him! Sick mind games! Look at him, Dennis is totally even-keeled but Frank is probably pissed". Then, randomly and without warning, something like Dennis' referee headbutt would jump off. Some say that was just Dennis being Dennis, but his issues in that regard were severe enough to affect his play and his team.


So you think Rodman looking at himself in the mirror and saying to himself, "Ok how can I get on Malone's nerves in this game?" Let's see, he hates it when I put my d*ck up his ass, so I'm going to do that. He doesn't like it when I talk about his daughter, so I'm gonna call her a whore throughout the whole game.

I really don't understand how many are now calling this a skill. Sure it can be effective, I'll give you that, but to say he is a great over Ben because he can do that when Ben has him beat on blocks and leadership is retarded since those 2 factors are way more important than being an annoying little brat.
For starters, I'm not sure many (if any) posters are using Rodman's mind games as the deal breaker for placing him above Ben Wallace in a head to head comparison.

Secondly, I tried to describe this above but I'm not sure I did a fine enough job. I've actually never quite known if I could do this aspect of the game justice with my own words. True psychological warfare in basketball goes eons and eons beyond merely asking oneself prior to a game, "Okay, what doesn't my opponent like? Because I'm going to do that." I almost want to say the level at which Rodman operated in this regard was natural. It's a subconscious form of handling oneself on the basketball court while in direct or indirect contact with other athletes. Sometimes, there's just that feeling where you know something as significant as hanging on to a player's arm for one extra second, or placing your body in a place they're not expecting, will completely alter the opponents' frame of mind.

In Rodman's case, I surely don't believe it can be dismissed in the manner with which you presented. It is no doubt a craft (a rare craft at that) and can have a significant impact on a basketball game. As mentioned multiple times prior, however, he did seem to counteract a lot of the good with some self-destructive tendencies.

[RidonKs]

i think it's a talent since not everybody can do it. taking that sort of pride in obliterating an opponent's mental health is definitely maniacal, psychopathic, probably a little bit sadistic, but like you just admitted, it's effective, and like i just said, not everybody is capable. that makes it a talent.

and f*ck if you think any of it was planned. the sort of shit Rodman did could have only been impromptu and out of the blue. prolly why it was so effective, you aren't going to piss anybody off with rehearsed trash talking. that's just silly and transparent. lol

but take a guy like MJ, a much more respectful trashtalker... it's still talking shit and while Jordan did it more to boost himself than take anybody else down, the tactic or methodology is exactly the same. but i don't suppose you disapprove of mike doing what he did the same way you do of Rodman. yet they're two sides of the same coin.

plus you're focusing on the particularly naughty rodman antics. the stuff that makes guys like Reggie Miller and Ron Artist wonder wtf is wrong with the guy. but talking shit about family, whispering absurdities... that only made up a fraction of what really made Rodman the nightmare the go up against that he was. it was the grinding, the endless energy, flying elbows, the bumps and clips and tangles, the FIAH that all combined to make him the most hated opponent in the league. you add the trashtalking on top of everything else, because it was all part and parcel of the same package... and all of it can most certainly be described as a talent, something not many others were capable of, and nobody was to the extent of the worm.

[copper]

So you think Rodman looking at himself in the mirror and saying to himself, "Ok how can I get on Malone's nerves in this game?" Let's see, he hates it when I put my d*ck up his ass, so I'm going to do that. He doesn't like it when I talk about his daughter, so I'm gonna call her a whore throughout the whole game.

I really don't understand how many are now calling this a skill. Sure it can be effective, I'll give you that, but to say he is a great over Ben because he can do that when Ben has him beat on blocks and leadership is retarded since those 2 factors are way more important than being an annoying little brat.
You have proof that he put his dick in malones ass? or called his daughter names? if not then plz dont make those statements. Fact is we dont know how he got under peoples skin so easily...maybe he just has one of those faces.

[RidonKs]

Secondly, I tried to describe this above but I'm not sure I did a fine enough job. I've actually never quite known if I could do this aspect of the game justice with my own words. True psychological warfare in basketball goes eons and eons beyond merely asking oneself prior to a game, "Okay, what doesn't my opponent like? Because I'm going to do that." I almost want to say the level at which Rodman operated in this regard was almost natural. It's a subconscious form of handling oneself on the basketball court while in direct or indirect contact with other athletes. Sometimes, there's just that feeling where you know something as significant as hanging on to a player's arm for one extra second, or placing your body in a place they're not expecting, will completely alter the opponents' frame of mind.

In Rodman's case, I surely don't believe it can be dismissed in the manner with which you presented. It is not doubt a craft (a rare craft at that) and can have a significant impact on a basketball game. As mentioned multiple times prior, however, he did seem to counteract a lot of the good with some self-destructive tendencies.
nicely described, i was getting at the same thing in my post above

btw this smile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htRsHwtsWic) at about the 20 sec mark just about sums up Rodman better than a thousand words possibly could. the smirk, sadistic in a way, but with his arms nicely crossed behind him, playing the role of a f*cking boy scout. just hilarious and in a way downright scary. lol

[Lebron23]

Ben Wallace

[rodman91]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuivG44plqQ


That's top 5 block of Ben Wallace. That doesn't mean anything. Everybody knows Wallace is much better shot blocker than Rodman. :facepalm

Here is a clip. Rodman kept 20 of 26 players he guarded below their season average. 3 of them equal & 3 better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27dEU3LVGBw

Rodman defended almost 1-5 position and did good to great job on them in his career.

By the way..Offensively Rodman was better as well.

Career: Rodman 7.3 ppg (%52 FG, %58 FT) > Wallace 5.9 ppg (%47 FG, %42)
Peak : Rodman 11.6 (56%) > Wallace 9.7 (45%)

Wallace was better at post moves. Rodman was better at ball handling,open court,passing,screens and even shooting. Both of them were below average for star players but advantage is on clearly Rodman.

Wallace's defensive reputation was on protecting rim..Rodman's being lock down defender and so versatile.

If a guy has better stats,longevity,more championships & HOF reputation.. There is nothing much to argue about.

But Ben Wallace was hell of a player in prime as well.

[jstern]

So you think Rodman looking at himself in the mirror and saying to himself, "Ok how can I get on Malone's nerves in this game?" Let's see, he hates it when I put my d*ck up his ass, so I'm going to do that. He doesn't like it when I talk about his daughter, so I'm gonna call her a whore throughout the whole game.

I really don't understand how many are now calling this a skill. Sure it can be effective, I'll give you that, but to say he is a great over Ben because he can do that when Ben has him beat on blocks and leadership is retarded since those 2 factors are way more important than being an annoying little brat.

Did you watch Rodman play? It wasn't that simple, or verbal.

[IamRAMBO24]

You have proof that he put his dick in malones ass? or called his daughter names? if not then plz dont make those statements. Fact is we dont know how he got under peoples skin so easily...maybe he just has one of those faces.

I wouldn't put it pass Rodman. If you watch his style of defense, he loves to gyrate his pelvic towards the opposing opponent's ass when they back him down. I'm sure they MUST HAVE felt something. As morally reprehensible as he is (and showing signs of homosexuality) it is a plausible scenario of getting under his opponent's skin. I'm not saying it is not effective; but his quickness and energy has more to do with great defense than breaking down a player psychologically.

I think this whole argument is being inflated. Sure he could get in opposing players head, but what star can't? Ben for sure was messing with slasher's head when they know he will be there to challenge their shot.

Blocking a shot does more psychological damage than tickling the opposing's belly button and making homoerotic sexual advances to get them off their game.

I'm just saying that psychological mindf*ck doesn't just start and stop with Rodman's dirty play, it can extend to a monster block, dunk, 3 pointer, clutch shot, etc.

So when you say this is a gift and advantage Rodman has over Ben, that's not being completely honest since I'm sure Ben's block does just as much psychological damage to a slashing PG or SG.

[La Frescobaldi]

You clearly didn't read the link.

Rodman is a better rebounder than Wilt.
I don't wanna hijack this thread.

But when Dennis Rodman can play such torrential offense that he is tied with Michael Jordan at 30.1 ppg and yet still has time to get 23 rebounds 4.5 apg and about 5 bpg .... let me know.

[IamRAMBO24]

That's top 5 block of Ben Wallace. That doesn't mean anything. Everybody knows Wallace is much better shot blocker than Rodman. :facepalm

Here is a clip. Rodman kept 20 of 26 players he guarded below their season average. 3 of them equal & 3 better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27dEU3LVGBw

Rodman defended almost 1-5 position and did good to great job on them in his career.

By the way..Offensively Rodman was better as well.

Career: Rodman 7.3 ppg (%52 FG, %58 FT) > Wallace 5.9 ppg (%47 FG, %42)
Peak : Rodman 11.6 (56%) > Wallace 9.7 (45%)

Wallace was better at post moves. Rodman was better at ball handling,open court,passing,screens and even shooting. Both of them were below average for star players but advantage is on clearly Rodman.

Wallace's defensive reputation was on protecting rim..Rodman's being lock down defender and so versatile.

If a guy has better stats,longevity,more championships & HOF reputation.. There is nothing much to argue about.

But Ben Wallace was hell of a player in prime as well.

Ben BEFORE his peak:

Finals MVP. 4x Defensive player of the year. 1 Ring.

The guy went down with an injury before he reached his peak, so it is unfair to throw in the longevity argument, stats, and overall career performance when Ben could not play at his full capacity throughout his career.

Rodman was pretty much healthy throughout his career, plus he was playing with the best team of all time, so it's not fair to say he's better because he was able to rack up more opportunities to succeed than Wallace.

A fair comparison would be to compare the two at their peak and ask yourself who comes out on top.

1. Rodman can shut down opposing star players 1 on 1.

2. Wallace can shut down the whole team.

That's the difference.

[RidonKs]

I think this whole argument is being inflated. Sure he could get in opposing players head, but what star can't? Ben for sure was messing with slasher's head when they know he will be there to challenge their shot.

Blocking a shot does more psychological damage than tickling the opposing's belly button and making homoerotic sexual advances to get them off their game.
very very different. good try with the argumentation, decent angle i'd say, but you're still wrong. athletes on the floor are as conceited as literally anybody else in society. it's their job to believe they're amazing. so the fact that another supposedly amazing dude is sitting in the paint waiting to block your shot doesn't psyche out any slashers worth their salt because they've seen it all before, and no matter how good the shotblocker is, they convince themselves that they've conquered worse.

with psychological warfare, which is as good a term to describe it as i could come up with, you're actually frustrated and pissed off at the fact that only you, the victim of the subtle attacks, know full well what's actually going on. well, you and your attacker. that's how it works. it's slowly pent up frustration, much more potent in messing up a psyche than some fear of pending humiliation via a stuff.

[IamRAMBO24]

very very different. good try with the argumentation, decent angle i'd say, but you're still wrong. athletes on the floor are as conceited as literally anybody else in society. it's their job to believe they're amazing. so the fact that another supposedly amazing dude is sitting in the paint waiting to block your shot doesn't psyche out any slashers worth their salt because they've seen it all before, and no matter how good the shotblocker is, they convince themselves that they've conquered worse.

with psychological warfare, which is as good a term to describe it as i could come up with, you're actually frustrated and pissed off at the fact that only you, the victim of the subtle attacks, know full well what's actually going on. well, you and your attacker. that's how it works. it's slowly pent up frustration, much more potent in messing up a psyche than some fear of pending humiliation via a stuff.

That's deep. I'll give you that. I feel sorry for the girl you are dating. :oldlol:

[JohnnySic]

I take Wallace. Give me the center who could control a game without taking a shot every time.

People are remembering Rodman through rose colored glasses. He was great, but people conveniently forget that he played on stacked teams that allowed him to focus olahis strengths.

And I've been a fan since the mid-80's, so dont go there.

[Rake2204]

If a guy has better stats,longevity,more championships & HOF reputation.. There is nothing much to argue about.

But Ben Wallace was hell of a player in prime as well.
Again, I feel it necessary to preface by saying that I'm not trying to convince anyone that Ben is better than Dennis or vice versa, but I'm not sure I buy into the championships argument. Dennis didn't lead anyone to a ring. He played a significant role on two separate dynasty-level squads. To play that impossible hypothetical game, I think if Ben took Rodman's place on those Bulls teams, he'd have reaped three rings as well. Similarly, Ben Wallace on those Bad Boys Pistons? Downright righteous.

The key point you make would be in terms of longevity. If we're comparing simply each player's body of work as a whole, Ben won't be anywhere within the same stratosphere. The first portion of career was terribly pedestrian in Washington and Orlando. Similarly, after his leg injury, the end of his career seemed to return him to his early NBA roots in terms of effectiveness. I guess you'd say Wallace had a steeper incline and decline. So in that regard, I suppose the argument would start and stop right there.

However, I believe I tend to compare players more in terms of peak vs. peak, with clear regard for the players who were merely flash in the pans. Meaning, I'm not rating Michael Adams anywhere within the realm of anyone in terms of guard skill simply because he ran up 26ppg in one single season with that insane Denver offense in the early 90's. I think Ben Wallace's prime was long enough (7 years or so) to make for an apt comparison of skill without accounting for ascents or descents. I suppose it'd be the same theory that doesn't allow Robert Parish to be labeled the best center of all-time because he was still putting up numbers at age 40.

[oolalaa]

As a Pistons fan, I feel honored to have had both players be very important members of our franchise. I hate having to talk down one to talk up the other. They were both tremendous in their own ways. I certainly don't think it's just absolute lunacy to suggest Ben Wallace was better at certain things than Dennis Rodman was. While Rodman seems to be getting all the gritty details of his exploits in this thread (full with testimonials), Ben Wallace seems to be getting the "Yeah, he protected the rim I guess" treatment.

I'll say this for Ben - I certainly love Dennis Rodman, but at least Ben could always be relied upon. Dennis Rodman took a lot of folks out of their games. But he also took himself out of games. He was a wildcard, what folks today would refer to as a headcase. And at times, it certainly did affect his play.

Dennis Rodman was great in that he could guard positions one through five. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, he wasn't perfect at guarding all those positions though. This sort of feels like one of those situations where he was so good at something that someone took how good he actually was and decided to morph it into being other-worldly awesome. I suppose that'd be called overrating.

Meanwhile, Dennis Rodman did not instill fear into those who entered the paint. I'm certain players always had to have their heads on a swivel, watching for a helping Rodman to step in and take a charge. But around the hoop, I'm not sure I feel he affected as many drives and attempts as Ben Wallace did.

Further, in reference to the suggestion that Ben just "stole a lot and blocked", I feel that is clearly doing Wallace a disservice. It sort of feels as if some of us believe Rodman had a sick list of intangibles, but Wallace had nothing outside of his boards, blocks, and steals. He was a 6'9'' behemoth, so did he guard point guards as effectively as Rodman may have been able to? No. But was he able to hedge pick and rolls better than any big man I've seen within the past 15 years? Yes. Was he just as much a threat to step in and take a charge as he was to block or alter a shot? Yep. Did he fill lanes, run the floor, and gather garbage baskets (much like Dennis)? Absolutely. And in reference to the fellow here who gave props to Ben because he dunked, I'm supposing that might have possibly been, somehow, his way of suggesting Ben was able to put the can on his offensive caroms with more consistency (hell of a reach for me to make, right?)

And truly, I don't say any of this as a means of stating that Ben is better than Dennis or vice versa. I'm just saying that I sort of feel Ben is getting a lot of strange dismissals of his services in this thread. Somehow, I suppose that it could be argued Chauncey Billups was the leader of the Pistons in '04, but I'm not entirely sure that'd be accurate. Looking at the Finals MVP trophy, it's an easy conclusion to come to. However, Ben Wallace was undoubtedly the anchor for any and all success that era of Pistons was able to reap.

Also, to address a few other very small details:


Dennis Rodman was able to spend a large part of his career collecting a record number of rebounds while contributing in many other aspects of the game. However, I would not use his time with the Dallas Mavericks as any sort of example for his longevity. This is a tough comment to make, but, if someone were to forget about every other aspect of basketball and attempt only to grab rebounds, those numbers are likely going to look more impressive than they normally would, right? Well, while in Dallas, that is essentially all I remember Dennis doing. There's a reason he only played 10 or so games with them, and that's because he was an unwilling teammate and wasn't interested in many other parts of the game aside from snaring boards.

Another stupid hypothetical to throw out there, and I know this can be easily rebutted and never discovered, but if Dwight Howard never had to worry about putting the ball in the hole, do you guys believe his rebounding numbers might spike as well? Because I have to be real, during my years of playing the game, if I stopped thinking about how I might score each trip down the court, and only worried about rebounding the ball, I feel there'd be a huge spike in those numbers.


Again, this is not to say one is better than the other, but I find this small portion of your argument to be invalid, with respect. There's a lot of other directions to go with the advantages Dennis Rodman had over Ben Wallace. However, suggesting that Wallace mimicked Rodman because Ben had a tattoo of London's Big Ben on his bicep while also growing an afro that began merely as a bet between he, Chris Webber, and Darvin Ham while they were all members of the Wizards is shortsighted in terms of what it could possibly mean for this discussion.

Yes, I will concur with rambo - best response so far. I feel Wallace doesn't get his due any more (and I don't think he ever did, from the regular fan anyway). The guy was a defensive behemoth, and would have been in any era. People who say he played in an era of weak big men - his prime coincided with prime Duncan, prime KG, prime Shaq, prime Yao, prime Webber, close to prime Howard and past his prime but still good mutombo (up until '02 anyway) - not as illustrious a list as the 90s but still not bad, and certainly not as bad as it is now.

Whilst Rodman was an unbelievable perimeter defender, Wallace had more defensive value in my opinion, simply because the best interior defenders will always be more valuable than the best perimeter ones (although saying that, maybe that isn't true in todays NBA :oldlol: ). And not only was he one of the greatest interior defenders and shot blockers of all time, he also got you steals, drew charges, fought hard for every rebound and altered the play style and shots of countless opponents.

Intangibly, Rodman probably has an edge. He was a psychological warrior - it's no secret that he got in the heads of many players (I remember Mourning getting particularly mad in a couple of games in the late 90s :lol '97 maybe?). However, he could be a distraction, especially later in his career ('95 Spurs, '97 & '98 Bulls) and that's something that was never the case with Wallace. It works both ways I guess.

Overall, in their primes it is pretty close for me. Maybe I would take Wallace simply because he was an absolute force in the paint - those players are hard to come by. But if I'm ranking players careers, yes, Rodman has the edge, even though I can't fathom why his rebounding numbers dropped in the post season (can someone help me out? :confusedshrug: ).

[RidonKs]

That's deep. I'll give you that. I feel sorry for the girl you are dating. :oldlol:
i honestly wish i had one... maybe 'subtle attacks' are the answer to finding one?

[iDefend5]

I take Wallace. Give me the center who could control a game without taking a shot every time.

People are remembering Rodman through rose colored galsses. He was great, but people conveniently forget that he played on stacked teams that allowed him to focus on his strengths.

And I've been a fan since the mid-80's, so dont go there.
What else did Wallace have to do besides play rebound and defense which is what Rodman also did?

[oolalaa]

I don't wanna hijack this thread.

But when Dennis Rodman can play such torrential offense that he is tied with Michael Jordan at 30.1 ppg and yet still has time to get 23 rebounds 4.5 apg and about 5 bpg .... let me know.

Exactly. In the early/mid 90s especially, Rodman's main focus was rebounding, sometimes to the detriment of his teams.

[Rake2204]

with psychological warfare, which is as good a term to describe it as i could come up with, you're actually frustrated and pissed off at the fact that only you, the victim of the subtle attacks, know full well what's actually going on. well, you and your attacker. that's how it works. it's slowly pent up frustration, much more potent in messing up a psyche than some fear of pending humiliation via a stuff.
More great stuff. Through the years I've actually compared it to having little brother syndrome. For most of my youth life, as my brother was three years older than me and huge (would grow to 6'6'' 240), I knew damn well he'd be blamed for anything where I ended up making myself out to be the victim. It sounds bizarre, but knowing an opponent's triggers (like my brother had), and knowing which opponents were succeptable, and most importantly knowing how to slip something in there that looks harmless, innocent, or invisible to an official's eye (where your opponent is the only one who knows what you're doing and then retaliates in response) that's the essence. It's the art of making everything you do look accidental/innocent/happenstance to 99.999% of the people watching. Only the victim knows the real story, but that'll never help him.

[jstern]

I wouldn't put it pass Rodman. If you watch his style of defense, he loves to gyrate his pelvic towards the opposing opponent's ass when they back him down. I'm sure they MUST HAVE felt something. As morally reprehensible as he is (and showing signs of homosexuality) it is a plausible scenario of getting under his opponent's skin. I'm not saying it is not effective; but his quickness and energy has more to do with great defense than breaking down a player psychologically.

I think this whole argument is being inflated. Sure he could get in opposing players head, but what star can't? Ben for sure was messing with slasher's head when they know he will be there to challenge their shot.

Blocking a shot does more psychological damage than tickling the opposing's belly button and making homoerotic sexual advances to get them off their game.

I'm just saying that psychological mindf*ck doesn't just start and stop with Rodman's dirty play, it can extend to a monster block, dunk, 3 pointer, clutch shot, etc.

So when you say this is a gift and advantage Rodman has over Ben, that's not being completely honest since I'm sure Ben's block does just as much psychological damage to a slashing PG or SG.

I don't think you ever saw Rodman play. It was an ability to make his opponent so angry that they would attack him. You're simplifying it by putting it in the level of what every player does.

This video is interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlosK1udgp4

It's interesting because back then, people watching would laugh at the fact that Rodman got under Thomas' skin and that Rodman totally played him, but younger kids like yourself look at the video and think Thomas is a bad ass, and cool.

Edit: Just saw the 24 on your name. You're probably one of them fanboys that relentlessly puts down anything from the 90s to lower Jordan and prop up Kobe.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yes, I will concur with rambo - best response so far. I feel Wallace doesn't get his due any more (and I don't think he ever did, from the regular fan anyway). The guy was a defensive behemoth, and would have been in any era. People who say he played in an era of weak big men - his prime coincided with prime Duncan, prime KG, prime Shaq, prime Yao, prime Webber, close to prime Howard and past his prime but still good mutombo (up until '02 anyway) - not as illustrious a list as the 90s but still not bad, and certainly not as bad as it is now.

Whilst Rodman was an unbelievable perimeter defender, Wallace had more defensive value in my opinion, simply because the best interior defenders will always be more valuable than the best perimeter ones (although saying that, maybe that isn't true in todays NBA :oldlol: ). And not only was he one of the greatest interior defenders and shot blockers of all time, he also got you steals, drew charges, fought hard for every rebound and altered the play style and shots of countless opponents.

Intangibly, Rodman probably has an edge. He was a psychological warrior - it's no secret that he got in the heads of many players (I remember Mourning getting particularly mad in a couple of games in the late 90s :lol '97 maybe?). However, he could be a distraction, especially later in his career ('95 Spurs, '97 & '98 Bulls) and that's something that was never the case with Wallace. It works both ways I guess.

Overall, in their primes it is pretty close for me. Maybe I would take Wallace simply because he was an absolute force in the paint - those players are hard to come by. But if I'm ranking players careers, yes, Rodman has the edge, even though I can't fathom why his rebounding numbers dropped in the post season (can someone help me out? :confusedshrug: ).

Another good argument.

It is not a surprise the most well versed, logical arguments all happen to support Ben Wallace and can see beyond stats and numbers.

The guys who support Rodman cannot articulate why he was so much better. I do like the argument provided by Ridonks on psychological warfare, so I will give Rodman that edge.

I still am not convince mindf*cking an opponent until he caves in and racking up rebounds on an already stacked team can make a player better (in terms of impact and effectiveness) than a shot blocking defensive king who alters opponents game plans, a leader on a good, but not great team, leading his team over an HOF stacked Lakers team to a championship, and a guy with an arsenal of monstrous dunks that can provide an inside threat on offense.

Rodman does not have the same set of arsenals. Ok he can be annoying as hell; yea he's got the mind games; he's pesky and can grab a ton of rebounds, but he didn't have the same impact as Ben did. When teams played against the Piston, the pressure was on Ben. He was the clear target.

I have never heard anyone who plays the Bulls say, "Damn we need to stop Rodman." Hell he can party the night before, get sh*t faced, wake up an hour before the game starts, and sneak in for 15 rebounds because nobody gave a sh*t about him nor cared to stop him.

Big Ben took on a prime Shaq, prime Kobe, relevant Fisher and Payton, an effective Karl Malone and Phil Jackson with a bunch of good players (but not all-star caliber) and won the series based on his defense.

You guys must have amnesia; Ben in his prime was a force to be reckon with. I remember people saying the Pistons brought fun back to defense because they would block every ball that comes in the paint.

[Teanett]

I have never heard anyone who plays the Bulls say, "Damn we need to stop Rodman."

george karl and jeff van gundy come to mind without even thinking about it more than half a second.

yo. you're just too young to know.

[IamRAMBO24]

george karl and jeff van gundy come to mind without even thinking about it more than half a second.

yo. you're just too young to know.

What I meant was they had bigger fish to worry about. A team playing against the Bulls would first try to figure out how to stop Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and then Rodman, if at all. On the Lakers, it was Shaq and Kobe; Pistons, Isaiah and Dumars. Rodman was never the biggest threat, hence why people say he does a lot of the "intangibles," y'know sh*t nobody ever notices.

Ben was clearly the floor leader on the Pistons. They were the best defensive team on the league because he lead the way. His impact on the team was more relevant than Rodman because not only did he changed his own teammates style of play and mentality, but he altered the way opponents play against him.

His defense was so good the Pistons hardly needed to double team a star player because they knew if they were beat, they would have to face Ben.

Even when Ben was guarding Shaq, he was still controlling the paint.

That is on a whole new level.

[97 bulls]

Yes, I will concur with rambo - best response so far. I feel Wallace doesn't get his due any more (and I don't think he ever did, from the regular fan anyway). The guy was a defensive behemoth, and would have been in any era. People who say he played in an era of weak big men - his prime coincided with prime Duncan, prime KG, prime Shaq, prime Yao, prime Webber, close to prime Howard and past his prime but still good mutombo (up until '02 anyway) - not as illustrious a list as the 90s but still not bad, and certainly not as bad as it is now.

Whilst Rodman was an unbelievable perimeter defender, Wallace had more defensive value in my opinion, simply because the best interior defenders will always be more valuable than the best perimeter ones (although saying that, maybe that isn't true in todays NBA :oldlol: ). And not only was he one of the greatest interior defenders and shot blockers of all time, he also got you steals, drew charges, fought hard for every rebound and altered the play style and shots of countless opponents.

Intangibly, Rodman probably has an edge. He was a psychological warrior - it's no secret that he got in the heads of many players (I remember Mourning getting particularly mad in a couple of games in the late 90s :lol '97 maybe?). However, he could be a distraction, especially later in his career ('95 Spurs, '97 & '98 Bulls) and that's something that was never the case with Wallace. It works both ways I guess.

Overall, in their primes it is pretty close for me. Maybe I would take Wallace simply because he was an absolute force in the paint - those players are hard to come by. But if I'm ranking players careers, yes, Rodman has the edge, even though I can't fathom why his rebounding numbers dropped in the post season (can someone help me out? :confusedshrug: ).
His rebounding numbers dropped due to minutes and how the opposition gameplanned him. And the pace of the playoffs is gonna minimize his rebounding numbers. But he did lead the playoffs in rebounds twice as well as avg 16 once.

As far as your list of wallaces competiton, sure there were some good centers durring the 00s. But night in and out? Terrible. And duncan, garnett and webber are not centers. Rasheed Wallace drew the tougher assignment on a nightly basis. And I firmly believe the fact that wallace didn't defend great bigs night in and out helped him be able to control the paint and block shots.

[97 bulls]

I take Wallace. Give me the center who could control a game without taking a shot every time.

People are remembering Rodman through rose colored glasses. He was great, but people conveniently forget that he played on stacked teams that allowed him to focus olahis strengths.

And I've been a fan since the mid-80's, so dont go there.
Wallace didn't play on a stacked piston team relative to their era? Evem more in what may be the weakest conference in nba history? Everyone on that piston team could hold his own defensively

[oolalaa]

His rebounding numbers dropped due to minutes and how the opposition gameplanned him. And the pace of the playoffs is gonna minimize his rebounding numbers. But he did lead the playoffs in rebounds twice as well as avg 16 once.

As far as your list of wallaces competiton, sure there were some good centers durring the 00s. But night in and out? Terrible. And duncan, garnett and webber are not centers. Rasheed Wallace drew the tougher assignment on a nightly basis. And I firmly believe the fact that wallace didn't defend great bigs night in and out helped him be able to control the paint and block shots.

It wasn't just his minutes....

Rodman's career TRB% in the regular season = 23.4

Rodman's career TRB% in the post season = 20.5

That's a reasonably significant drop off. You say it was because the opposition gameplanned for him? How do you game plan for a rebounder exactly? Does it go beyond just saying to your players - "we gotta stop the worm getting so many boards. Make sure you fight for every loose ball!! And don't forget to box him out!!".

Maybe teams were far less concerned with stopping Rodman in the reg season then? Maybe he was an overrated rebounder? Maybe his true rebounding ability was exposed in the post season?

Yes, I would agree that the 00s big men pool wasn't as deep as the 90s. But, you also say that Sheed drew the tougher assignment on a daily basis.....Ben Wallace won 2 defensive player of the year awards before Sheed even got there.

[AMISTILLILL]

So if I play dirty and take cheap shots, talk about their mommas, wet my pinky finger and give them a wet willy, stick my thumb up their ass when they are backing down, rub my crotch up their left butt cheek, and doing whatever it takes to irritate them makes me a good player?

No that makes me annoying as f*ck. Being annoying requires no skills. Now if I did something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuivG44plqQ

That requires mad skills. Rebounding doesn't win games alone, defense and leadership does.

You can't sit there with a straight face and say Rodman can do what Ben did after watching that video. He did that night in and night out. He was 1 man, against 1 team, and he shut down their star players and entire inside game by HIMSELF.

People who say Rodman is better is only look at the stats and not truely seeing what Ben is capable of doing when he's healthy.

I genuinely think you either have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or you're just pretending to be this dense. Why do you keep talking about the 'annoying player' thing? NOBODY is saying that's all that made Rodman better.

Way to go into a lot of vivid detail about rubbing against other guys and sticking things in their ass though... :wtf:

[97 bulls]

Another good argument.

It is not a surprise the most well versed, logical arguments all happen to support Ben Wallace and can see beyond stats and numbers.

The guys who support Rodman cannot articulate why he was so much better. I do like the argument provided by Ridonks on psychological warfare, so I will give Rodman that edge.

I still am not convince mindf*cking an opponent until he caves in and racking up rebounds on an already stacked team can make a player better (in terms of impact and effectiveness) than a shot blocking defensive king who alters opponents game plans, a leader on a good, but not great team, leading his team over an HOF stacked Lakers team to a championship, and a guy with an arsenal of monstrous dunks that can provide an inside threat on offense.

Rodman does not have the same set of arsenals. Ok he can be annoying as hell; yea he's got the mind games; he's pesky and can grab a ton of rebounds, but he didn't have the same impact as Ben did. When teams played against the Piston, the pressure was on Ben. He was the clear target.

I have never heard anyone who plays the Bulls say, "Damn we need to stop Rodman." Hell he can party the night before, get sh*t faced, wake up an hour before the game starts, and sneak in for 15 rebounds because nobody gave a sh*t about him nor cared to stop him.

Big Ben took on a prime Shaq, prime Kobe, relevant Fisher and Payton, an effective Karl Malone and Phil Jackson with a bunch of good players (but not all-star caliber) and won the series based on his defense.

You guys must have amnesia; Ben in his prime was a force to be reckon with. I remember people saying the Pistons brought fun back to defense because they would block every ball that comes in the paint.
Did you even take the time to watch rodman? Or the vid posted in which george karl says rodman two of their four wins? And noone ever gameplans based on wallace, he more often than not defended terrible players.

[IBLEEDGREEN20]

Rodman, by far.

[RidonKs]

I have never heard anyone who plays the Bulls say, "Damn we need to stop Rodman." Hell he can party the night before, get sh*t faced, wake up an hour before the game starts, and sneak in for 15 rebounds because nobody gave a sh*t about him nor cared to stop him.

Big Ben took on a prime Shaq, prime Kobe, relevant Fisher and Payton, an effective Karl Malone and Phil Jackson with a bunch of good players (but not all-star caliber) and won the series based on his defense.

You guys must have amnesia; Ben in his prime was a force to be reckon with. I remember people saying the Pistons brought fun back to defense because they would block every ball that comes in the paint.
this is revisionism. last i checked, ben didn't win that series by himself, and that lakers squad was a mess. shaq sure as shit wasn't in his prime, he was overweight and grumpy. pistons were good, a unique team to watch win, but they would have been trounced by any of the three truly prime lakers championship teams. but all of that, i think, is besides the point.

the arguments in favour of dennis aren't exclusively based on what you mentioned in this post. there are other factors. i mentioned a few.

- rodman was more useful on the offensive end of the floor particularly with his ball handling and passing, he could be a part of the offense and not just wander around setting screens, which was more or less ben's role, and he could also ignite a fast break with the ball in his hands especially in his earlier pistons days (let me emphasize that this isn't a major advantage but still certainly one that goes to worm)
- the liability of ben as a ft shooter at the end of games was exploited every so often and counts as a mark against him. rodman was at least over 60% most of the time
- his man defense is among the best we've ever witnessed in terms of both prowess and versatility
- he provided an energy that even Ben couldn't match because it was so much more vocal... in terms of your enthusiasm catching on, being contagious, rodman was your guy... though there were ups and downs so this is more of a moot point


overall, i think they're close enough that if it came down to picking one, the biggest single factor would be the composition of the rest of your team. they bring different things and priority number one should be to fill holes. and maybe, just maybe, if i had to choose one of them to build a team around, i'd go with Ben because shotblockers can be hard to find and lunatics on a team without down to earth keep your shit in check vets like mj and scottie can bring a world of trouble.

but individually in a h2h comparison, i still give rodman the edge

[Rake2204]

It's interesting because back then, people watching would laugh at the fact that Rodman got under Thomas' skin and that Rodman totally played him, but younger kids like yourself look at the video and think Thomas is a bad ass, and cool.

Edit: Just saw the 24 on your name. You're probably one of them fanboys that relentlessly puts down anything from the 90s to lower Jordan and prop up Kobe.
I think that could be overstating things a little bit. Dennis Rodman wasn't getting in scuffles every night and he wasn't successfully Brickowskying people every night. Further, not everyone thought Rodman's antics were simply hilarious. I surely didn't hate Rodman, but I'd say I more often enjoyed watching him get thrown around than I did watch him stare at folks. Fights in basketball are fun because it's heavy conflict with the comfort that no one is really going to get hurt. Basically, I'm trying to respectfully say that Rodman's antics weren't universally accepted, praised, and honored. It wasn't an "HAHAHA oh that Dennis ... what a card!" situation all the time. Therefore, I don't think it's a old viewer vs. young viewer situation.



this is revisionism. last i checked, ben didn't win that series by himself, and that lakers squad was a mess. shaq sure as shit wasn't in his prime, he was overweight and grumpy. pistons were good, a unique team to watch win, but they would have been trounced by any of the three truly prime lakers championship teams. but all of that, i think, is besides the point.

the arguments in favour of dennis aren't exclusively based on what you mentioned in this post. there are other factors. i mentioned a few.

- rodman was more useful on the offensive end of the floor particularly with his ball handling and passing, he could be a part of the offense and not just wander around setting screens, which was more or less ben's role, and he could also ignite a fast break with the ball in his hands especially in his earlier pistons days (let me emphasize that this isn't a major advantage but still certainly one that goes to worm)
- the liability of ben as a ft shooter at the end of games was exploited every so often and counts as a mark against him. rodman was at least over 60% most of the time
- his man defense is among the best we've ever witnessed in terms of both prowess and versatility
- he provided an energy that even Ben couldn't match because it was so much more vocal... in terms of your enthusiasm catching on, being contagious, rodman was your guy... though there were ups and downs so this is more of a moot point


overall, i think they're close enough that if it came down to picking one, the biggest single factor would be the composition of the rest of your team. they bring different things and priority number one should be to fill holes. and maybe, just maybe, if i had to choose one of them to build a team around, i'd go with Ben because shotblockers can be hard to find and lunatics on a team without down to earth keep your shit in check vets like mj and scottie can bring a world of trouble.

but individually in a h2h comparison, i still give rodman the edge
I vibe with nearly all the statements you've made in this thread.

[CLTHornets4eva]

Besides Yao and Shaquille, there were hardly any good bigs in Wallace's prime. Rodman guarded against the best bigs in the best big era.

[Whoah10115]

I suppose you could make the case that Dennis Rodman is the best defensive player of the modern era.



You can't make that claim on Ben Wallace.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wallace didn't play on a stacked piston team relative to their era? Evem more in what may be the weakest conference in nba history? Everyone on that piston team could hold his own defensively

The reason why they could hold their own is because of Wallace. It was an easy defensive assignment for them because Ben was controlling the paint at all times. All they had to do was play tight D on the perimete without having to worry about being beat on the dribble because opponents would be too afraid to go inside.

Ben took out the back door cuts, the pick and rolls didn't matter because the perimeter players only have to fight through the screen and stick to the outside shot (it didn't matter if the big man rolled to the basket), the iso plays are only restricted to outside fade aways, and since the Pistons had the luxury to play 1 on 1, they didn't need to double and rotate making it really hard for any team to get an open shot. Big Ben is fast enough to put pressure on a shooting big man and rotate to the paint to block any guard from behind with his vertical leap, even during a fast break.

Small guards can't fake Ben with a double pump or hesitation because he is quick enough to position his hands for a block; big men like Shaq had trouble backing him down because of his strength, and his vertical leap covers such a high and long distance he can play the mid range game while controlling the paint.

[RidonKs]

I vibe with nearly all the statements you've made in this thread.

care to make this vibe... intimate?

(i've got unlimited texting)

[Reggie43]

Dennis Rodman was obviously better. A better comparison would be Marcus Camby and Ben Wallace

[swi7ch]

Wallace because he can also block shots.

[Bigsmoke]

Rodman played next to David Robinson but yet Ben Wallace was the lucky one for playing with Sheed:rolleyes:

[RidonKs]

The reason why they could hold their own is because of Wallace. It was an easy defensive assignment for them because Ben was controlling the paint at all times. All they had to do was play tight D on the perimete without having to worry about being beat on the dribble because opponents would be too afraid to go inside.
c'mon

sheed has always been a heady defensive player long before he paired with ben. tay is four time all-defense second team. billups and rip held their own. there were also guys like Lindsey Hunter, incredibly tenacious perimeter defender. and need i mention the orchestrator of it all, Mr Larry Brown?

nobody will argue with you that Wallace was the integral piece of their defense. but it was a defensive system, not the sort of one man show going on in, say, orlando. similar to what SA has been all of these years, though i tend to chock that up to Pop more than anything else besides duncan.

[Rake2204]

care to make this vibe... intimate?

(i've got unlimited texting)
Ha, that statement was the best I figured I could do in lieu of supplying positive reputation.



c'mon

sheed has always been a heady defensive player long before he paired with ben. tay is four time all-defense second team. billups and rip held their own. there were also guys like Lindsey Hunter, incredibly tenacious perimeter defender. and need i mention the orchestrator of it all, Mr Larry Brown?

nobody will argue with you that Wallace was the integral piece of their defense. but it was a defensive system, not the sort of one man show going on in, say, orlando. similar to what SA has been all of these years, though i tend to chock that up to Pop more than anything else besides duncan.
More or less semantics, but the only thing I'll throw in there is that Ben was possibly at his nastiest prior to the arrival of all of the players you mentioned. Well, statistically he may have been nastiest in '03, Chauncey and Rip's first year in Detroit (pre-Lindsey, Larry, and Sheed). But Ben was gross in '02 as well, alongside Uncle Cliffy, Aunt Zeljko, and cousin Chucky.

[RidonKs]

Ha, that statement was the best I figured I could do in lieu of supplying positive reputation.
I endorse the reputation of this poster.

i think i'm going to start using that for every post i agree with

[IamRAMBO24]

I genuinely think you either have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or you're just pretending to be this dense. Why do you keep talking about the 'annoying player' thing? NOBODY is saying that's all that made Rodman better.

Way to go into a lot of vivid detail about rubbing against other guys and sticking things in their ass though... :wtf:

One of the arguments for Rodman was how much of a mindtrip he was towards other players like he's f*ckin hannibal lector talking his way to a dominance.

If Rodman is not better defensively, then how can you say his higher rebounding numbers are relevant when that is consider to be a part of defense?

He might have higher rebounding stats and can piss off the opposing players, but Ben is more of a defensive threat, so when you are saying Rodman is better, what are you really talking about?

His defense isn't as good; his offense can't hold a candle to Ben's strength inside. His intangibles can be comparable to Ben's leadership, hustle, and impact on the Pistons not measured by stats.

What else does Rodman have other than the ability to be a professional nagging queen?

*Note .. not looking at longevity and rings.

Rodman is over-rated. I think he is a great rebounder and his ability to guard stars 1 on 1 is exceptional, but pound for pound against Big Ben he just doesn't stack up.

Defense - negative
Offense - negative
Impact - negative
Leadership - negative

[IamRAMBO24]

c'mon

sheed has always been a heady defensive player long before he paired with ben. tay is four time all-defense second team. billups and rip held their own. there were also guys like Lindsey Hunter, incredibly tenacious perimeter defender. and need i mention the orchestrator of it all, Mr Larry Brown?

nobody will argue with you that Wallace was the integral piece of their defense. but it was a defensive system, not the sort of one man show going on in, say, orlando. similar to what SA has been all of these years, though i tend to chock that up to Pop more than anything else besides duncan.

I disagree. It was a one man show center around Ben's dominance in the paint. When a team has that strong of a defensive big man, the system revolves around that big man; look at the Spurs twin towers; Dikembe; prime Shaq; Bill Russell, etc.

There was very little rotation or a system: it was more or less Ben controls the paint and everybody cut through the screens and stick to their man.

Rip, Billups, Hunter looked like all defensive first team because their assignments were so easy. All they had to do was guard the hardest shot (outside) and Ben takes care of everything pass the free throw line.

You're right, there is a system, it is the Ben Wallace system.

[Rake2204]

The Ben Wallace System:

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2008/12/inflatablebenwallace.jpg

[97 bulls]

The reason why they could hold their own is because of Wallace. It was an easy defensive assignment for them because Ben was controlling the paint at all times. All they had to do was play tight D on the perimete without having to worry about being beat on the dribble because opponents would be too afraid to go inside.

Ben took out the back door cuts, the pick and rolls didn't matter because the perimeter players only have to fight through the screen and stick to the outside shot (it didn't matter if the big man rolled to the basket), the iso plays are only restricted to outside fade aways, and since the Pistons had the luxury to play 1 on 1, they didn't need to double and rotate making it really hard for any team to get an open shot. Big Ben is fast enough to put pressure on a shooting big man and rotate to the paint to block any guard from behind with his vertical leap, even during a fast break.

Small guards can't fake Ben with a double pump or hesitation because he is quick enough to position his hands for a block; big men like Shaq had trouble backing him down because of his strength, and his vertical leap covers such a high and long distance he can play the mid range game while controlling the paint.
And the pistons were able to funnel their man to wallace cuz wallaces man was garbage on a nightly basis.

But who did wallace stop? Definately not shaq in 04. Tony parker made a living in the paint vs the pistons. James? Wade? Come on

[97 bulls]

I disagree. It was a one man show center around Ben's dominance in the paint. When a team has that strong of a defensive big man, the system revolves around that big man; look at the Spurs twin towers; Dikembe; prime Shaq; Bill Russell, etc.

There was very little rotation or a system: it was more or less Ben controls the paint and everybody cut through the screens and stick to their man.

Rip, Billups, Hunter looked like all defensive first team because their assignments were so easy. All they had to do was guard the hardest shot (outside) and Ben takes care of everything pass the free throw line.

You're right, there is a system, it is the Ben Wallace system.
Lol rip, billups, etc had easy assignments? Why is it so hard to get through your thick skull that the centers wallace played against night in and out were terrible?

[97 bulls]

The Ben Wallace System:

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2008/12/inflatablebenwallace.jpg
Number 50 in this pic was tantamount to what wallace defended night in and out.

[IamRAMBO24]

Lol rip, billups, etc had easy assignments? Why is it so hard to get through your thick skull that the centers wallace played against night in and out were terrible?

This argument is moot.

1. Wallace did not play in that era so how can you possibly know for sure he won't be as dominating when you have not seen him play?

This is a hypothetical; resorting to hypotheticals means you can't argue the points that we know for sure can be debated on.

The argument has already been exhausted; there's no point debating further when you can't bring up a new argument on why Rodman is better.

[IGotACoolStory]

The Ben Wallace System:

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2008/12/inflatablebenwallace.jpg

Put Wilt's face on that and it's essentially a color photo of his era.

[97 bulls]

This argument is moot.

1. Wallace did not play in that era so how can you possibly know for sure he won't be as dominating when you have not seen him play?

This is a hypothetical; resorting to hypotheticals means you can't argue the points that we know for sure can be debated on.

The argument has already been exhausted; there's no point debating further when you can't bring up a new argument on why Rodman is better.
Actually, he did play in the late 90s. I remember kobe bryant dunking on him in 97. He bounced around from team to team playing for 3 in his first few years. He was a solid role player who lucked up and was able to shine as the centers began to erode by the early 2000s. There's nothing hypothetical about that.

Either way, the fact remains that the centers wallace defended were terrible. And in sports, competiton must be factored in when comparing players

[10x91= 5 Rings]

I wouldn't put it pass Rodman. If you watch his style of defense, he loves to gyrate his pelvic towards the opposing opponent's ass when they back him down. I'm sure they MUST HAVE felt something. As morally reprehensible as he is (and showing signs of homosexuality) it is a plausible scenario of getting under his opponent's skin. I'm not saying it is not effective; but his quickness and energy has more to do with great defense than breaking down a player psychologically.

I think this whole argument is being inflated. Sure he could get in opposing players head, but what star can't? Ben for sure was messing with slasher's head when they know he will be there to challenge their shot.

Blocking a shot does more psychological damage than tickling the opposing's belly button and making homoerotic sexual advances to get them off their game.

I'm just saying that psychological mindf*ck doesn't just start and stop with Rodman's dirty play, it can extend to a monster block, dunk, 3 pointer, clutch shot, etc.

So when you say this is a gift and advantage Rodman has over Ben, that's not being completely honest since I'm sure Ben's block does just as much psychological damage to a slashing PG or SG.


David Robinson.......is that you ?

[10x91= 5 Rings]

First I was like

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i366/sportlistikz/rodman-laimbeer-physical-1.jpg

then I was like

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i366/sportlistikz/311625_display_image.jpg

and after further consideration I have concluded that the op question was a nice try in trolling,but the master troll in NBA history was also the greatest rebounder, one of the greatest defenders (ask magic johnson,bird,pippen,jordan,robinson,malone,shaq,ke mp,etc) and hardest working,sado-masochistic basketball player we will ever see.

Thank You.Case Closed.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i366/sportlistikz/slide_43427_329363_large.jpg

[copper]

Dennis Rodman was obviously better. A better comparison would be Marcus Camby and Ben Wallace
Camby shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence as Wallace.:wtf:

[NumberSix]

Ben, cuz he never broke his dick. Well, not that I know of.

[Rake2204]

Actually, he did play in the late 90s. I remember kobe bryant dunking on him in 97. He bounced around from team to team playing for 3 in his first few years. He was a solid role player who lucked up and was able to shine as the centers began to erode by the early 2000s. There's nothing hypothetical about that.

Either way, the fact remains that the centers wallace defended were terrible. And in sports, competiton must be factored in when comparing players
I have to say I completely disagree with the manner with which you disregard Ben Wallace's ability and accomplishments. There's never been such a thing as a solid role player merely lucking into 13rpg, 4orpg, and 3 blocks in multiple seasons while being regarded as arguably the finest defender of the 2000's (an argument that can be found in another active thread at the moment).

Most often, I do not enjoy punishing a player's abilities and accomplishments based on who he did or did not have to compete against. Would Ben Wallace have won the Defensive Player of the Year award as many times as he did if those 90's centers were still in their primes? I would say definitively not. But to hold such theories against a player's skill is a slippery slope. Do we then punish Hakeem Olajuwon for winning two titles without having to compete against a team led by normal Michael Jordan? Or does he receive consolation points for overcoming a team featuring David Robinson and malcontent Dennis Rodman? (note: I mean the San Antonio version of Dennis Rodman was a malcontent, not every-team Dennis Rodman)

I sort of get this feeling that some folks believe that had Ben Wallace been a part of the elite 90's centers group, he'd suddenly somehow lose his ability to jump, take charges, block shots, all sense of timing and reaction, rebounding ability, pick and roll coverage, hustle, leadership, athleticism and stamina. Unfortunately, for those with this train of thought, it's a lose-lose situation for Mr. Wallace. It becomes,

"____________ was better than Ben Wallace at everything. Look at the stats and even listen to what Mark Price had to say about him."

"I disagree. I believe Ben Wallace was better than ________ at ______, ______, and ______ because _____, ______, and _______"

"Well, there were no good centers or power forwards left anywhere in the 2000's so nothing Wallace did actually counted."

If that is the stance taken, there's really no open room for discussion. Personally, I feel Ben Wallace would have fit in very well in the 1990's. In fact, I nearly get chills thinking about replacing Dennis Rodman with him on the 80's Pistons. It definitely would have been different, but an Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirrie, Ben Wallace, Bill Laimbeer lineup is quite fascinating.

In the 1990's, it seems we like to think every single night of the NBA campaign featured a marquee center matchup for the ages. Further, we also like to think that placing any solid center from today's game (say, Dwight Howard) into that era would result in games where David Robinson would go for 34 and 16 while Dwight Howard would be reduced to rubble and struggle to 8 and 10. Then it seems we think he'd only then turn around and run into Hakeem Olajuwon the following night and experience similar results.

Horrible centers still existed back then. Ben would still get his fair share of the Brad Lohaus' of the world, and the 41 year old Robert Parish's, and Mike Peplowski's and Duane Causwell's and Mark West's and Cadillac Anderson's (all players who started at one point or another in the mid-90's). I'd say chances are he'd still have performed well against many of the great centers as well. Yes, someone like Shaq might drop 24 and 13 on him (as O'Neal did in '03). But Ben just as well may have grabbed 21 boards and blocked three shots in return while leading the Pistons to a 20 point victory (as Wallace did that same game in '03).

Basically, I'm just not convinced his game wouldn't have translated over had he played in the 90's. And to punish an award winner for not winning an award in an era where more people would have competed for the award is a little much for me.

[IamRAMBO24]

I sort of get this feeling that some folks believe that had Ben Wallace been a part of the elite 90's centers group, he'd suddenly somehow lose his ability to jump, take charges, block shots, all sense of timing and reaction, rebounding ability, pick and roll coverage, hustle, leadership, athleticism and stamina. Unfortunately, for those with this train of thought, it's a lose-lose situation for Mr. Wallace. It becomes,

"____________ was better than Ben Wallace at everything. Look at the stats and even listen to what Mark Price had to say about him."

"I disagree. I believe Ben Wallace was better than ________ at ______, ______, and ______ because _____, ______, and _______"

"Well, there were no good centers or power forwards left anywhere in the 2000's so nothing Wallace did actually counted."

If that is the stance taken, there's really no open room for discussion. Personally, I feel Ben Wallace would have fit in very well in the 1990's. In fact, I nearly get chills thinking about replacing Dennis Rodman with him on the 80's Pistons. It definitely would have been different, but an Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirrie, Ben Wallace, Bill Laimbeer lineup is quite fascinating.

In the 1990's, it seems we like to think every single night of the NBA campaign featured a marquee center matchup for the ages. Further, we also like to think that placing any solid center from today's game (say, Dwight Howard) into that era would result in games where David Robinson would go for 34 and 16 while Dwight Howard would be reduced to rubble and struggle to 8 and 10. Then it seems we think he'd only then turn around and run into Hakeem Olajuwon the following night and experience similar results.

Horrible centers still existed back then. Ben would still get his fair share of the Brad Lohaus' of the world, and the 41 year old Robert Parish's, and Mike Peplowski's and Duane Causwell's and Mark West's and Cadillac Anderson's (all players who started at one point or another in the mid-90's). I'd say chances are he'd still have performed well against many of the great centers as well. Yes, someone like Shaq might drop 24 and 13 on him (as O'Neal did in '03). But Ben just as well may have grabbed 21 boards and blocked three shots in return while leading the Pistons to a 20 point victory (as Wallace did that same game in '03).

Basically, I'm just not convinced his game wouldn't have translated over had he played in the 90's. And to punish an award winner for not winning an award in an era where more people would have competed for the award is a little much for me.

Very good point. This argument is moot because it is based on a hypothetical that can never be proven.

The reason why I say Ben was more of a vicious player is because we can look at videos and assess his impact on the game compare to Rodman.

Here is a small snippet. Keep in mind, it might be a "highlight" play, but it was hard to find a non-highlight vid to show how he does this night in and night out. What you see in this vid is not just a lucky 1 game high performance, but a showcase of what Ben was really capable of doing at his peak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n9iw4D6txM

Notice the vertical from behind Russell for the put back dunk. Rodman did not have that vertical. Wallace had a long and high leap that allows him to spread the floor and run back to the paint.

In the last play, when Shaq was backing down, Ben was on a potential outside threat, but he was quick enough with a deadly vertical to position himself at the mid range and run down inside to block Shaq. Had Shaq kicked it outside, he would of been on his man as well.

Ben didn't just play defense on a great player, he played D on the entire team.

Rodman is a great defender don't get me wrong, but look at Ben's dominance and impact in the game on the defensive end. There is no comparison.

[10x91= 5 Rings]

[QUOTE=Rake2204]

Do we then punish Hakeem Olajuwon for winning two titles without having to compete against a team led by normal Michael Jordan?

Of course Hakeem is punished by the fact that he won when MJ wasn`t playing.I`m not saying he wouldn`t have won at least one title,but he will never get the full recognition if he had beaten MJ. Same goes with 99 Spurs and Shaq/Kobe lakers that didn`t take the reign from the Bulls,but got it handed to them,because Jerry Krause dismantled a team that just won another threepeat.

If that is the stance taken, there's really no open room for discussion. Personally, I feel Ben Wallace would have fit in very well in the 1990's. In fact, I nearly get chills thinking about replacing Dennis Rodman with him on the 80's Pistons. It definitely would have been different, but an Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirrie, Ben Wallace, Bill Laimbeer lineup is quite fascinating.

That surely is a nice lineup but you fell into the Rodman trap. Dennis in his Detroit days was an elite wing and shut down defender and a great shot blocker. There are only so many bigs that can clog the lane.Even taking blocks in account,where Wallace was superb,Rodman took charges like no other,which would guarantee an automatic turnover.Rodman was so much more versatile it`s scary.

[97 bulls]

I have to say I completely disagree with the manner with which you disregard Ben Wallace's ability and accomplishments. There's never been such a thing as a solid role player merely lucking into 13rpg, 4orpg, and 3 blocks in multiple seasons while being regarded as arguably the finest defender of the 2000's (an argument that can be found in another active thread at the moment).

Most often, I do not enjoy punishing a player's abilities and accomplishments based on who he did or did not have to compete against. Would Ben Wallace have won the Defensive Player of the Year award as many times as he did if those 90's centers were still in their primes? I would say definitively not. But to hold such theories against a player's skill is a slippery slope. Do we then punish Hakeem Olajuwon for winning two titles without having to compete against a team led by normal Michael Jordan? Or does he receive consolation points for overcoming a team featuring David Robinson and malcontent Dennis Rodman? (note: I mean the San Antonio version of Dennis Rodman was a malcontent, not every-team Dennis Rodman)

I sort of get this feeling that some folks believe that had Ben Wallace been a part of the elite 90's centers group, he'd suddenly somehow lose his ability to jump, take charges, block shots, all sense of timing and reaction, rebounding ability, pick and roll coverage, hustle, leadership, athleticism and stamina. Unfortunately, for those with this train of thought, it's a lose-lose situation for Mr. Wallace. It becomes,

"____________ was better than Ben Wallace at everything. Look at the stats and even listen to what Mark Price had to say about him."

"I disagree. I believe Ben Wallace was better than ________ at ______, ______, and ______ because _____, ______, and _______"

"Well, there were no good centers or power forwards left anywhere in the 2000's so nothing Wallace did actually counted."

If that is the stance taken, there's really no open room for discussion. Personally, I feel Ben Wallace would have fit in very well in the 1990's. In fact, I nearly get chills thinking about replacing Dennis Rodman with him on the 80's Pistons. It definitely would have been different, but an Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirrie, Ben Wallace, Bill Laimbeer lineup is quite fascinating.

In the 1990's, it seems we like to think every single night of the NBA campaign featured a marquee center matchup for the ages. Further, we also like to think that placing any solid center from today's game (say, Dwight Howard) into that era would result in games where David Robinson would go for 34 and 16 while Dwight Howard would be reduced to rubble and struggle to 8 and 10. Then it seems we think he'd only then turn around and run into Hakeem Olajuwon the following night and experience similar results.

Horrible centers still existed back then. Ben would still get his fair share of the Brad Lohaus' of the world, and the 41 year old Robert Parish's, and Mike Peplowski's and Duane Causwell's and Mark West's and Cadillac Anderson's (all players who started at one point or another in the mid-90's). I'd say chances are he'd still have performed well against many of the great centers as well. Yes, someone like Shaq might drop 24 and 13 on him (as O'Neal did in '03). But Ben just as well may have grabbed 21 boards and blocked three shots in return while leading the Pistons to a 20 point victory (as Wallace did that same game in '03).

Basically, I'm just not convinced his game wouldn't have translated over had he played in the 90's. And to punish an award winner for not winning an award in an era where more people would have competed for the award is a little much for me.
Im not saying wallaces game wouldn't have translated over to the 90s. But what I am saying is that he wouldn't be as good. Sure his athleticism etc doesn't change, but the competitions does. Its no different any other comparison where one takes into consideration the competiton. Let's take for instance your center comparison. In particular mark west who you called "horrible". West game is exactly like kendrick perkins. And perkins is regarded as one of the leagues better centers. Dwight howard is regarded as the leagues best center. Back in rodmans day, he'd be ranked with alonzo mourning. Still very good but by no means the best.

I also don't see how wallace improves the bad boy pistons. Wallace would've been destroyed if he tried to guard jordan, magic, or bird on the perimeter.

Don't get me wrong rake, wallace was a great player, but when comparing players accross eras such as this one, the players peers must be accounted for. I mean the 00sbest centers as a whole were just really bad. Someone brought up marcus camby, I remember camby being labeled a bust when he first entered the league. Even your shaq compariosn, shaq was fat an lazy by 03.

There just no way you can honestly say that if wallace gets on the court with better rebounders, scorers, and just better overall players, that his game doesn't suffer.

[97 bulls]

Very good point. This argument is moot because it is based on a hypothetical that can never be proven.

The reason why I say Ben was more of a vicious player is because we can look at videos and assess his impact on the game compare to Rodman.

Here is a small snippet. Keep in mind, it might be a "highlight" play, but it was hard to find a non-highlight vid to show how he does this night in and night out. What you see in this vid is not just a lucky 1 game high performance, but a showcase of what Ben was really capable of doing at his peak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n9iw4D6txM

Notice the vertical from behind Russell for the put back dunk. Rodman did not have that vertical. Wallace had a long and high leap that allows him to spread the floor and run back to the paint.

In the last play, when Shaq was backing down, Ben was on a potential outside threat, but he was quick enough with a deadly vertical to position himself at the mid range and run down inside to block Shaq. Had Shaq kicked it outside, he would of been on his man as well.

Ben didn't just play defense on a great player, he played D on the entire team.

Rodman is a great defender don't get me wrong, but look at Ben's dominance and impact in the game on the defensive end. There is no comparison.
Lol that was byron russell. Even more an old byron russell. On the last play, wallace isn't even paying attention to his man. He's waiting for shaq to make his move and still gets there late. Actually, he should've been caled for an illegal defense. But why isn't he guadnig shaq? I believe that was rebracca.

[RidonKs]

There just no way you can honestly say that if wallace gets on the court with better rebounders, scorers, and just better overall players, that his game doesn't suffer.
as goes the premise, so goes the conclusion. that doesn't mean you aren't wrong though.

[kumquat]

How is this thread still going?

Rodman. /thread

[IamRAMBO24]

How is this thread still going?

Rodman. /thread

It is no longer going when people are throwing around hypotheticals to prove a point.

[TheCorporation]

Dennis Rodman

[AMISTILLILL]

It is no longer going when people are throwing around hypotheticals to prove a point.

I've left and came back to this board two or three times today and you've been arguing in this same thread non-stop for close to twelve hours. Get a hobby bro.

[Reggie43]

Camby shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence as Wallace.:wtf:

Camby had the same defensive stats while being the better offensive player. The only difference was that Wallace was fortunate enough to be coached by Larry Brown and to be able to play on a Pistons team that maximized his strengths while hiding/ playing through his weaknesses.

[IamRAMBO24]

I've left and came back to this board two or three times today and you've been arguing in this same thread non-stop for close to twelve hours. Get a hobby bro.

Hey if you are going to insult and say I am a loser for being on this site that much, make sure you are NOT on it as much to KNOW I've been posting that much.

Who knows, I could just be under house arrest for beating the living crap out of someone over the internet for talking smack. Just saying.

[I<3NBA]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/bohk.jpg/sr=1

[AMISTILLILL]

Hey if you are going to insult and say I am a loser for being on this site that much, make sure you are NOT on it as much to KNOW I've been posting that much.

Who knows, I could just be under house arrest for beating the living crap out of someone over the internet for talking smack. Just saying.

It's calling looking at the time stamps of your posts, genius. My, my... somebody's touchy.

[Bigsmoke]

Camby had the same defensive stats while being the better offensive player. The only difference was that Wallace was fortunate enough to be coached by Larry Brown and to be able to play on a Pistons team that maximized his strengths while hiding/ playing through his weaknesses.

Are u kidding me?

Ben had the reputation of being a great defender since he was on the Magic. He won 2 defensive player awards before being under Larry Brown and Ben's impact in 02 was good enough to win 50 games.

Camby was coached by Jeff Van Gundy if that counts.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's calling looking at the time stamps of your posts, genius. My, my... somebody's touchy.

I was kidding. Getting mad over the internet is the dumbest thing on the planet. What am I gonna do? Spend $500 to fly across country to kick someone's ass? Please.

[Reggie43]

Are u kidding me?

Ben had the reputation of being a great defender since he was on the Magic. He won 2 defensive player awards before being under Larry Brown and Ben's impact in 02 was good enough to win 50 games.

Camby was coached by Jeff Van Gundy if that counts.

As good a defender as Ben Walace was, he was always surrounded by very good defensive players and great defensive coaches something that Camby did not always have the luxury of having in his prime.

Put him on those Pistons teams and he gets a couple more Dpoy awards.

Im not saying that Camby was better than Ben or that they have the same impact but that it is a more valid comparison than Ben and Dennis especially numbers wise and that it is closer than what people may think.