Can you argue that Dennis Rodman was a more valuable player than Karl Malone?

[Tarik One]

Is this a justifiable claim? All things considered.

[Young X]

You can't be serious b

[ClipperRevival]

On certain teams, absolutely. Just depends on what your team needs. But on most teams, Malone would be more valuable. But I would take a guy like Rodman on my team any day.

[Akrazotile]

Absolutely.

Rodman was easily a Top 25 player. Pippen was Top 15. Phil is GOAT coach.

Team was STACKED. Its not a coincidence MJ went from 1-9 to being successful once these guys started showing up.

[RidonKs]

in a vacuum yeah, on the basis that rodman's abilities and traits are more difficult to come by. a burly fast break big with a jumper? that type of player is one of the easiest in the league to plug into your roster.


malone/artest
rodman/pierce

which do you take?

[Uncle Drew]

The mailman doesn't deliver on Sunday.

[Carbine]

Malone could be your best player and you would have title aspirations.

Rodman is a better third best player. His ability is more suited to be in this role.

If Rodman was your best player your team would be pretty bad in the win loss record, unless you were stacked.

[SouBeachTalents]

Lol, Malone is the most disrespected player on this site

[MEB2kDeez]

Lol, Malone is the most disrespected player on this site
:lol fact

[Indian guy]

If Rodman was your best player your team would be pretty bad in the win loss record, unless you were stacked.

Rodman wouldn't be the best player on a "stacked" team. If a team is "stacked", that means they have some good offensive players. And a go-to scorer/playmaker is by far the biggest necessity on a basketball team. You can always find/replace/fill-in for someone who just plays hard. Bulls went 38-9 w/o Rodman from 96-98, won the '97 championship despite Rodman barely contributing, and won in '98 too despite Rodman not even starting half the games(and 0 come Finals). Not that hard for a unit to make-up for someone whose best attribute was effort. Those players are not THAT valuable. Thus, there's no scenario where Rodman would be more valuable than Malone. And it's not like Malone wasn't a pretty good rebounder and defender in his own right. Even if he's on some bizarro team where he's neither the 1st or 2nd option, he's still so good offensively that whatever he's giving up on defense/rebounding to Rodman, he'll more than make-up for it on the offensive end. Rodman's honestly the single most overrated player on this board.

[ClipperRevival]

Rodman wouldn't be the best player on a "stacked" team. If a team is "stacked", that means they have some good offensive players. And a go-to scorer/playmaker is by far the biggest necessity on a basketball team. You can always find/replace/fill-in for someone who just plays hard. Bulls went 38-9 w/o Rodman from 96-98, won the '97 championship despite Rodman barely contributing, and won in '98 too despite Rodman not even starting half the games(and 0 come Finals). Not that hard for a unit to make-up for someone whose best attribute was effort. Those players are not THAT valuable. Thus, there's no scenario where Rodman would be more valuable than Malone. And it's not like Malone wasn't a pretty good rebounder and defender in his own right. Even if he's on some bizarro team where he's neither the 1st or 2nd option, he's still so good offensively that whatever he's giving up on defense/rebounding to Rodman, he'll more than make-up for it on the offensive end. Rodman's honestly the single most overrated player on this board.

And you're selling Rodman short. He wasn't just a hustle guy like a Reggie Evans. He was one of the most physically gifted players at his size (6'8" and 220 lbs) who is arguably the best rebounder ever (pound for pound) and maybe the most versatile defender ever. And he was an amazing runner in transition. You can't just get a guy like that off the street.

Worthy called him the best athlete he ever played against. Kerr called him one of the best athletes ever. Laimbeer said Rodman had a gear he had never seen before. People overlook just how gifted he was physically.

Yes, on most situations and teams, Malone is more valuable. But I have to stand up for my guy. :cheers:

[guy]

Rodman wouldn't be the best player on a "stacked" team. If a team is "stacked", that means they have some good offensive players. And a go-to scorer/playmaker is by far the biggest necessity on a basketball team. You can always find/replace/fill-in for someone who just plays hard. Bulls went 38-9 w/o Rodman from 96-98, won the '97 championship despite Rodman barely contributing, and won in '98 too despite Rodman not even starting half the games(and 0 come Finals). Not that hard for a unit to make-up for someone whose best attribute was effort. Those players are not THAT valuable. Thus, there's no scenario where Rodman would be more valuable than Malone. And it's not like Malone wasn't a pretty good rebounder and defender in his own right. Even if he's on some bizarro team where he's neither the 1st or 2nd option, he's still so good offensively that whatever he's giving up on defense/rebounding to Rodman, he'll more than make-up for it on the offensive end. Rodman's honestly the single most overrated player on this board.

Clearly. He was also incredibly hard to control. It's not a coincidence that he was only successful on teams with strong leadership. Every other team looked at him as a cancer.

[DonDadda59]

:biggums:

Malone was a bonafide franchise player. Dennis was a complementary guy. You couldn't build a team around his 7 PPG caliber offense. You'd need at least 4 other offensive options whereas Karl could be an anchor on both ends of the court. Obviously he wasn't the defender Rodman was, but he wasn't anywhere near A'mare level on D... he was very solid. He made a few all defensive first teams.

[GrapeApe]

I'm a big Rodman fan but this is ridiculous. If not for Jordan's Bulls, Malone would likely have 2 rings, 2 FMVP's, and be squarely in the discussion for top 10 all time. You cannot compare Rodman to a first option / franchise centerpiece. It's completely apples and oranges.

[K Xerxes]

This is Jordan hating taken way too far. Rodman is NOT comparable to Malone.

Even if you say Rodman is a better complement on teams that already have offensive firepower, let's take the Bulls as an example: 96-98 Bulls with Jordan, Pip AND Karl?! Come on now:biggums:

[DonDadda59]

This is Jordan hating taken way too far. Rodman is NOT comparable to Malone.

Even if you say Rodman is a better complement on teams that already have offensive firepower, let's take the Bulls as an example: 96-98 Bulls with Jordan, Pip AND Karl?! Come on now:biggums:

David Stern would've basketball reasons'ed the hell out of that team. That would've been criminal. :eek:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Could you legitimately build around Rodman?

I can see the case being made for Malone despite his woeful postseason play. Worm is like the perfect 3rd wheel - a guy that could impact some aspects of the game at superstar levels. His attitude could be seen as a detriment, though, and could scare off some managers that don't have the "right" personnel in their locker room.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm a big Rodman fan but this is ridiculous. If not for Jordan's Bulls, Malone would likely have 2 rings, 2 FMVP's, and be squarely in the discussion for top 10 all time. You cannot compare Rodman to a first option / franchise centerpiece. It's completely apples and oranges.

Exactly, if not for Jordan, Malone would have had 2 MVP's, 2 Finals MVP's, and 14 All-NBA Teams, including 11 First Teams. That's a top 10 resume of all time. And we're asking whether or not he's as valuable as Rodman? :biggums:

[Human Error]

Is this a justifiable claim? All things considered.
No.

[Clifton]

in a vacuum yeah, on the basis that rodman's abilities and traits are more difficult to come by. a burly fast break big with a jumper? that type of player is one of the easiest in the league to plug into your roster.


malone/artest
rodman/pierce

which do you take?
It's important to note that Malone was very coachable and never missed a game. He played almost two decades at the all-star level. And at his best (which was almost his whole career), he clearly had a spot among the second-tier all-time greats (where guys like Durant and Jerry West are or will be). If he played today, he would be a top 5 player in the league no question.

He had his weaknesses. You claim that Rodman's weaknesses could be more than made up for by a guy like Pierce (or any another guy who could put up 20 points a night). Well, Malone's weaknesses would be made up for by any of the takeover combo guards our league has. Anyone willing to have the ball in his hands and create a shot for himself on the team? Well, Malone had everything else. The Jazz may have beaten the Bulls if they had such a player. Certainly they would have beaten the Warriors, even without that player.

It's not clear to me that Rodman would be as effective in the NBA of today. Coachability is needed now. In my opinion, in the Spurs-Hawks-Warriors era, so is genuine chemistry with teammates, not just on the court but off. And a lot of his tactics would not be accepted by the refs. Mind games were 20% of his effectiveness; 50% in important moments (like when he's shutting down Malone in the fourth quarter). I don't see him getting away with that stuff today.

Rodman would still be great, but he'd be in a Draymond Green category now. That is, Max Player on the Warriors (or Bulls); a bad contract and a personnel issue for most other teams.

Malone though? Timeless. 60s, 70s, now... top 5 player in any era whatsoever. You think he was deadly with Stockton? Let's see him run a pick and roll with Nash, Rose, Harden, someone who is capable of heavy individual damage off the pick and roll.

Basically, imagine if Kevin Love never got injured and played good man defense. You're not taking Draymond over that are you? Only one team out of 30 is doing it today, and that team is one in a million.

[Fallen Angel]

Rodman's defensive, rebounding, and hustle impact on the game is amazingly underrated, he's was so valuable to every single one of his championship teams.

Malone's impact is greater because he puts points on the board. I'd take a great two way player over a great one way player.

[Clifton]

But to answer the OP, you can definitely argue it. I remember back in 2002 or 2003 (before the Pistons got Sheed and won the title), I used to argue Ben Wallace was a top 10 player. A guy who can absolutely shut down multiple positions (or, in Big Ben's case, entire teams) and gobble up every rebound is insanely important. But with guys like that, you need the right players and the right coach and the right culture, or it won't come together. Do you remember anything Ben Wallace did outside of Detroit? Or for that matter before Sheed got there?

Of course you could say the same about Malone: without Jerry Sloan and Stockton (in that order, IMO), he might be as lost as Kevin Love on the Cavs. Perhaps. But look at what Durant was able to do when he made the Finals in spite of a clueless coach and a reckless point guard who couldn't run an offense (which Westbrook was until 1-2 years ago) - the exact opposite of the framework in which Malone got exactly as far, with a comparable level of individual performance.

[ArbitraryWater]

Rodman wouldn't be the best player on a "stacked" team. If a team is "stacked", that means they have some good offensive players. And a go-to scorer/playmaker is by far the biggest necessity on a basketball team. You can always find/replace/fill-in for someone who just plays hard. Bulls went 38-9 w/o Rodman from 96-98, won the '97 championship despite Rodman barely contributing, and won in '98 too despite Rodman not even starting half the games(and 0 come Finals). Not that hard for a unit to make-up for someone whose best attribute was effort. Those players are not THAT valuable. Thus, there's no scenario where Rodman would be more valuable than Malone. And it's not like Malone wasn't a pretty good rebounder and defender in his own right. Even if he's on some bizarro team where he's neither the 1st or 2nd option, he's still so good offensively that whatever he's giving up on defense/rebounding to Rodman, he'll more than make-up for it on the offensive end. Rodman's honestly the single most overrated player on this board.

DROPPIN' KNOWLEDGE!

[Beastmode88]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[warriorfan]

:biggums:

Malone was a bonafide franchise player. Dennis was a complementary guy. You couldn't build a team around his 7 PPG caliber offense. You'd need at least 4 other offensive options whereas Karl could be an anchor on both ends of the court. Obviously he wasn't the defender Rodman was, but he wasn't anywhere near A'mare level on D... he was very solid. He made a few all defensive first teams.


Well said. Rodman gets lots of love because of his unorthadox style of play but let's be serious, he is on another tier or two lower than Karl Malone. Some people assume that Karl Malone wasn't a good defender for some reason and that is just wrong.

[GIF REACTION]

You have to be careful with what you say. You could get banned.

[Marchesk]

Swap Rodman and Malone, and where are the Jazz?

[4 Inches]

It has been 13 years since Malone started his last season for Utah and 13 years since his latest girlfriend was born.

[iamgine]

Would it be like comparing Deandre Jordan with Blake Griffin?

[Cali Syndicate]

Ish has gone full retard

[ClipperRevival]

All I am saying is that on certain teams, Rodman would be a better fit. There is only 1 basketball to go around. You team can't just have scoring. The pieces need to compliement each other. On teams with a couple of great scorers, I do think Rodman might be more beneficial. There is great value in a guy like Rodman. The ability to guard many positions is a very valuable trait. Not to mention the all time great level rebounding and hustle. A guy like that can't be measured in stats.

Of course Malone is the superior player. But like I said, in certain situations, I think Rodman can be more beneficial.

[97 bulls]

Rodman wouldn't be the best player on a "stacked" team. If a team is "stacked", that means they have some good offensive players. And a go-to scorer/playmaker is by far the biggest necessity on a basketball team. You can always find/replace/fill-in for someone who just plays hard. Bulls went 38-9 w/o Rodman from 96-98, won the '97 championship despite Rodman barely contributing, and won in '98 too despite Rodman not even starting half the games(and 0 come Finals). Not that hard for a unit to make-up for someone whose best attribute was effort. Those players are not THAT valuable. Thus, there's no scenario where Rodman would be more valuable than Malone. And it's not like Malone wasn't a pretty good rebounder and defender in his own right. Even if he's on some bizarro team where he's neither the 1st or 2nd option, he's still so good offensively that whatever he's giving up on defense/rebounding to Rodman, he'll more than make-up for it on the offensive end. Rodman's honestly the single most overrated player on this board.
The Bulls were successful with Jordan gone and with Pippen hurt. Your post means nothing

[3ball]

Let's compare their playoff averages in 1997 when Malone won the MVP:

Malone: 26/11
Rodman: 4/8


Don't try to sell me on 8 rpg Rodman... If 35-year old Rodman isn't rebounding, he's not worth much - rebounding is the main thing he does and his calling card.. He also put up 4/8 in the 1998 Finals.

1996 was Rodman's last good year... In 1997 and 1998, he was actually at the same level he was on the Lakers in 1999 (done), but nobody noticed because by that point the Bulls were daaaa bulls

[ClipperRevival]

Let's compare their playoff averages in 1997 when Malone won the MVP:

Malone: 26/11
Rodman: 4/8


Don't try to sell me on 8 rpg Rodman... If 35-year old Rodman isn't rebounding, he's not worth much - rebounding is the main thing he does and his calling card.. He also put up 4/8 in the 1998 Finals.

1996 was Rodman's last good year... In 1997 and 1998, he was actually at the same level he was on the Lakers in 1999 (done), but nobody noticed because by that point the Bulls were daaaa bulls

The agenda to degrade MJ's supporting cast at all costs continues....

[LAZERUSS]

Let's compare their playoff averages in 1997 when Malone won the MVP:

Malone: 26/11
Rodman: 4/8


Don't try to sell me on 8 rpg Rodman... If 35-year old Rodman isn't rebounding, he's not worth much - that's half of what he does.. He also put up 4/8 in the 1998 Finals.

1996 was Rodman's last good year... In 1997 and 1998, he was actually at the same level he was on the Lakers in 1999, but nobody noticed because the Bulls were daaaa bulls

Rodman wasn't Karl...but he had a FAR greater IMPACT than 4-8.

Without Rodman, MJ goes ringless in his three years from '96 to '98. That was PROVEN in '95, without an ELITE PF in GRANT, the Bulls were wasted by Grant's Magic in the ECSF's.

Of course, with RODMAN neutralizing SHAQ in the '96 ECF's (luckily for Dennis that Grant went down in game one of that series...in a post-season in which he was averaging 17-12 and on a staggering .656 FG% coming into that series), they swept the Magic.

[97 bulls]

All I am saying is that on certain teams, Rodman would be a better fit. There is only 1 basketball to go around. You team can't just have scoring. The pieces need to compliement each other. On teams with a couple of great scorers, I do think Rodman might be more beneficial. There is great value in a guy like Rodman. The ability to guard many positions is a very valuable trait. Not to mention the all time great level rebounding and hustle. A guy like that can't be measured in stats.

Of course Malone is the superior player. But like I said, in certain situations, I think Rodman can be more beneficial.
Value is relative. If you have great scoring, but lack rebounding, you will be looking for rebounding. If you have great rebounding, you will be looking for scoring.

How many times have two uber talented scoring players actually been succesful?

[97 bulls]

Let's compare their playoff averages in 1997 when Malone won the MVP:

Malone: 26/11
Rodman: 4/8


Don't try to sell me on 8 rpg Rodman... If 35-year old Rodman isn't rebounding, he's not worth much - rebounding is the main thing he does and his calling card.. He also put up 4/8 in the 1998 Finals.

1996 was Rodman's last good year... In 1997 and 1998, he was actually at the same level he was on the Lakers in 1999 (done), but nobody noticed because by that point the Bulls were daaaa bulls
He was hurt and played limited minutes you moron. When he was on the floor he was still the best rebounder and played great defense. How many times does one have to tell your ignorant ass this

[ClipperRevival]

Value is relative. If you have great scoring, but lack rebounding, you will be looking for rebounding. If you have great rebounding, you will be looking for scoring.

How many times have two uber talented scoring players actually been succesful?

I meant a superstar option and a second fiddle scoring option. Rodman was best as 3rd wheel.

[LAZERUSS]

He was hurt and played limited minutes you moron. When he was on the floor he was still the best rebounder and played great defense. How many times does one have to tell your ignorant ass this

Interesting too, that there were articles claiming that Rodman had a case for the '96 FMVP, and Pippen for the '98 FMVP (going into game six.)

But, again...MJ had ZERO help in his six title runs.

[97 bulls]

Interesting too, that there were articles claiming that Rodman had a case for the '96 FMVP, and Pippen for the '98 FMVP (going into game six.)

But, again...MJ had ZERO help in his six title runs.
Rodman shouldve won in 96. Pippen would've won had he not got injured in 98.

[ClipperRevival]

Rodman shouldve won in 96. Pippen would've won had he not got injured in 98.
:facepalm Oh boy.

[3ball]

Interesting too, that there were articles claiming Pippen for the '98 FMVP


Awwww... ain't that sweet... and then Pip scored 8 and 6 points in the final two games to finish the series with 15 ppg on 40% shooting.

Meanwhile, MJ averaged more than twice that, with the greatest clutch 40 seconds any of us have ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH4oEF1mqPc&t=0m35s

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm Oh boy.

The point was...MJ had a TON of help in '96 and '98 (and '97 as well.)

[97 bulls]

I meant a superstar option and a second fiddle scoring option. Rodman was best as 3rd wheel.
I agree with you. But even still as far as value, its all relative. I think itd be easier to get a good number two scorer than it would be to get the best rebounder in the game.

[LAZERUSS]

Awwww... ain't that sweet... and then Pip scored 8 and 6 points in the final two games to finish the series with 15 ppg on 40% shooting.

Meanwhile, MJ averaged more than twice that, with the greatest clutch 40 seconds any of us have ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH4oEF1mqPc&t=0m35s

Of course, it was Pippen who was credited with getting the Bulls a 3-1 series lead...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-06-11/sports/9806110398_1_scottie-pippen-bulls-karl-malone

[RidonKs]

rodman was a generational player who under the right leadership could fuel a team like few others have been able to do in history. he'll call a desperation timeout or hunt down a loose ball or force a jump ball at uncanny moments. or how about getting in the head of an opposing team? stars have lost playoff series because of a single pestering defender on the other team who gets them off their game. rodman is just that guy and flexible enough to defend as many as four positions. he's the best rebounder in the league to boot, and he's not exactly kwame brown with the ball either. average passer and finisher. just no jump shot.

the main caveat is whether the organization has somebody with enough clout to reign in his attitude. and actually malone would be perfect for that job. but preferably a head coach. it would have been fun to see him in a run and gun offense early on like with don nelson or george karl or somebody like that.

karl malone may inspire lifelong friendship with his consistent output and sustained effort. but that'll only fire you up so much, and as for inspiration in the moment, karl doesn't really seem to give a shit about that. he just goes out and does his job. you could count on that throughout a game, but he showed time and again the difficulty he had getting buckets when the team needed them most. his talent doesn't account for energy and momentum and desperation and everything else dennis rodman excels at. they're polar opposites.

rodman is clutch, malone is not
rodman is unique, malone is not
rodman is a winner, malone is not

[97 bulls]

:facepalm Oh boy.
What do you mean oh boy????? Its true. Had Rodman not dominated the boards, the Bulls dont win in 96. They just dont. I mean he set the record fir most offensive rebounds in a Finals. And he did that twice

[3ball]

The point was...MJ had a TON of help in '96 and '98 (and '97 as well.)
Pippen's playoff averages from 1996-1998 were 17/7/5 on 40.8%... That's horrible compared to Wade's 20/5/4 on 47.5% from 2011-2014.

Also, instead of a 10-time all-star in his prime as his 3rd option (Bosh), MJ gets dilapidated, 36-year old Rodman, who can barely muster 4 points and 8 rebounds in the entire 1997 playoffs and 1998 Finals, let alone be a 41% 3-point floor-spreader and a wildly diverse asset for the Heat like Bosh was.

MJ had less on-paper talent in 1997 and 1998 than anyone's ever had that won a championship... However, optimal team chemistry and superior brand of basketball is the most important thing - that's why US lost in international play between 2002-2006, as their horrific brand of basketball more than offset their massive talent edge - brand of basketball is THAT important, and the Bulls had it, which more than offset their frequent talent deficit.

You think I'm FOS????... then name me one player who has won a ring when his #1 option averaged 15 ppg on 34% (Pippen in 1996 Finals), or 15 ppg on 41% (Pippen in 1998 Finals).
.

[ClipperRevival]

rodman was a generational player who under the right leadership could fuel a team like few others have been able to do in history. he'll call a desperation timeout or hunt down a loose ball or force a jump ball at uncanny moments. or how about getting in the head of an opposing team? stars have lost playoff series because of a single pestering defender on the other team who gets them off their game. rodman is just that guy and flexible enough to defend as many as four positions. he's the best rebounder in the league to boot, and he's not exactly kwame brown with the ball either. average passer and finisher. just no jump shot.

the main caveat is whether the organization has somebody with enough clout to reign in his attitude. and actually malone would be perfect for that job. but preferably a head coach. it would have been fun to see him in a run and gun offense early on like with don nelson or george karl or somebody like that.

karl malone may inspire lifelong friendship with his consistent output and sustained effort. but that'll only fire you up so much, and as for inspiration in the moment, karl doesn't really seem to give a shit about that. he just goes out and does his job. and while you can count on it throughout a game, he showed time and again the difficulty he had getting buckets when the team needed them most. an admirable talent that doesn't account for energy and momentum and desperation and everything else dennis rodman excels at.

rodman is clutch, malone is not
rodman is unique, malone is not
rodman is a winner, malone is not

A couple of points. Rodman was an elite finisher and runner in transition, not average.

And in 1990, the Pistons were struggling with Aguirre in the starting line up. When Rodman replaced him, they finished like 26-1.

[ClipperRevival]

:facepalm

I don't understand why you guys waste so much energy backing up your agendas. 3ball with MJ. Laz having to degrade MJ to boost Wilt. And I don't know what's up with 97 Bulls. He always boosts Pip and Rodman but doesn't seem to like MJ despite "Bulls" in his name.

Just be objective.

[RidonKs]

A couple of points. Rodman was an elite finisher and runner in transition, not average.

And in 1990, the Pistons were struggling with Aguirre in the starting line up. When Rodman replaced him, they finished like 26-1.
yeah i only caught him at the tail end and i was young, never saw him as a piston. elite finisher sounds like hyperbole but he could take care of the ball and finish with speed.

[LAZERUSS]

Pippen's playoff averages from 1996-1998 were 17/7/5 on 40.8%... That's horrible compared to Wade's 20/5/4 on 47.5% from 2011-2015.

Also, instead of a 10-time all-star in his prime as his 3rd option (Bosh), MJ gets dilapidated, 36-year old Rodman, who can barely muster 4 points and 8 rebounds in the entire 1997 playoffs and 1998 Finals, let alone be a 41% 3-point floor-spreader and be a wildly diverse asset for the Heat like Bosh was.

MJ had less on-paper talent in 1997 and 1998 than anyone's ever had that won a championship... However, optimal team chemistry and superior brand of basketball is the most important thing - that's why US lost in international play between 2002-2006, as their horrific brand of basketball more than offset their massive talent edge - brand of basketball is THAT important, and the Bulls had it, which more than offset their frequent talent deficit.

You think I'm FOS????... then name me one player who has won a ring when his #1 option averaged 15 ppg on 34% (Pippen in 1996 Finals), or 15 ppg on 41% (Pippen in 1998 Finals).

Pippen was FAR greater than Wade from '91 thru '93 than Wade was from '11-14. FAR greater, especially if you include his DEFENSE, which is arguably the greatest ever for his position. And his DEFENSE from '96 to '98 was LIGHT YEARS better than broken down Wade from '11-14. FAR greater.

And Rodman was FAR greater than POS Bosh, who contributed virtually nothing from '11 to '14. While players like Grant and Rodman were winners everywhere they went, Bosh was a useless third wheel, and insignificant second option, and had virtually ZERO impact as a #1. He was, and still is...a POS.

As for Rodman's and Pippens offensive numbers...well, their DEFENSE helped overcome MJ's AWFUL shooting in those three Finals (.455, .427, and a horrendous .415.)

No way does Wade and Bosh from '11 thru '14 help MJ win a ring from '96 thru '98.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

I don't understand why you guys waste so much energy backing up your agendas. 3ball with MJ. Laz having to degrade MJ to boost Wilt. And I don't know what's up with 97 Bulls. He always boosts Pip and Rodman but doesn't seem to like MJ despite "Bulls" in his name.

Just be objective.
Because Pip and Rodman always get the short end when it comes to credit. No one ever says Jordan sucked. So whats to argue?

You have guys litterally saying Jordan won 6 titles by himself. Thats Bull (no pun)

[ClipperRevival]

Because Pip and Rodman always get the short end when it comes to credit. No one ever says Jordan sucked. So whats to argue?

You have guys litterally saying Jordan won 6 titles by himself. Thats Bull (no pun)

MJ deserves the majority of credit. He was "the man". He was the focus of the opposition every night, faced the doubles and still dominated. That's the hardest thing to do. To carry that burden and still dominate. It's much easier to play the 2nd fiddle and 3rd wheel role where you can work off the focus MJ receives from the D. Of course they contributed but MJ was "the man" and that should never be overlooked.

[3ball]

No way does Wade and Bosh from '11 thru '14 help MJ win a ring from '96 thru '98.


Pippen's playoff averages from 1996-1998 were 17/7/5 on 40.8% - this was sufficient help for MJ to 3-peat, but Wade's 20/5/4 on 48% from 2011-2014 wouldn't be?...

You have zero basis to make this claim other than just spouting off at the mouth with BS, which is not a basis.

Also, Bosh was a 10-time all-star and Lebron's 3rd option - Lebron is the only player in modern history who had a 10-time all-star as his 3rd option - almost nobody has a 10-time all-star as their SECOND option even... Nothing can change the fact that Lebron had ACCESS to a 10-time all-star in his prime as his 3rd option - don't compare that to 36 year old, 4/8 Rodman.
.

[SHAQisGOAT]

http://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/disgusted-eww/disgusted007%20watermark.gif

[LAZERUSS]

Pippen's playoff averages of 17/7/5 on 40.8% was sufficient help for MJ to 3-peat from 1996-1998, but Wade's 20/5/4 on 48% from 2011-2014 wouldn't be?...

You have zero basis to make this claim other than just spouting off at the mouth with BS, which is not a basis.

Also, Bosh was a 10-time all-star and Lebron's 3rd option - Lebron is the only player in history who had a 10-time all-star as his 3rd option - almost nobody has a 10-time all-star as their SECOND option even... Anyway, Lebron had access to a 10-time all-star in his prime as his 3rd option - don't compare that to 36 year old, 4/8 Rodman.

I can tell you this much...

replace broken down Wade, and zero-impact Bosh in the '14 Finals, with Pippen and Rodman in '98, and the Spurs are blown away. With Pippen, Rodman, and then Lebron's all world defensive play...and the Spurs would have been lucky to get a 3pt shot off, much less make any.

[guy]

What do you mean oh boy????? Its true. Had Rodman not dominated the boards, the Bulls dont win in 96. They just dont. I mean he set the record fir most offensive rebounds in a Finals. And he did that twice

Not necessarily true. What's more likely to be true then that is if Jordan wasn't there even playing below his standards to the degree that he did, the Bulls don't win. As bad as Jordan played for his standards, and as great as Rodman played for his standards, there's no way anybody on the Bulls would've rather had Rodman over Jordan going into the series even knowing how they would've performed if they had to choose between the two.

[97 bulls]

Not necessarily true. What's more likely to be true then that is if Jordan wasn't there even playing below his standards to the degree that he did, the Bulls don't win. As bad as Jordan played for his standards, and as great as Rodman played for his standards, there's no way anybody on the Bulls would've rather had Rodman over Jordan going into the series even knowing how they would've performed if they had to choose between the two.
Going into the series? Sure. But based on how it turned out? Rodman was more valuable. Lets me honest. Jordan took a bunch of shots. Missed a bunch, and Rodman saved the day by dominating the defensive and offensive boards.

A better question would be how many players could've did what Rodman did, and how many do what Rodman did?

[guy]

Going into the series? Sure. But based on how it turned out? Rodman was more valuable. Lets me honest. Jordan took a bunch of shots. Missed a bunch, and Rodman saved the day by dominating the defensive and offensive boards.

A better question would be how many players could've did what Rodman did, and how many do what Rodman did?

No. Even knowing how they would've performed, they would still pick Jordan. Rodman was great FOR Rodman. Jordan was bad FOR Jordan. Completely different standards. Rodman didn't save the day by dominating the boards, cause dominating the boards can mean nothing if they aren't converted into points, which Rodman doesn't do. And by the way, it wasn't just Jordan that shot and missed a bunch of shots, it was the whole team. Jordan was actually still as usual their most efficient scorer. If Jordan put up 8 ppg/15 rpg it would easily be considered a worse series then he actually had.

Scarcity doesn't necessarily equally value. For example, Karl Malone probably doesn't do what Rodman did in 96. But the Bulls probably would've had a much easier time beating the Sonics in 96 with him in his place.

[Blue&Orange]

Is this a justifiable claim? All things considered.
You do realize Dennis Rodman ended up in the Bulls because nobody else wanted him?


Dumb agenda thread.

[GrapeApe]

I can tell you this much...

replace broken down Wade, and zero-impact Bosh in the '14 Finals, with Pippen and Rodman in '98, and the Spurs are blown away. With Pippen, Rodman, and then Lebron's all world defensive play...and the Spurs would have been lucky to get a 3pt shot off, much less make any.

This entire post is hyperbole and the bolded statement is laughable.

[97 bulls]

No. Even knowing how they would've performed, they would still pick Jordan. Rodman was great FOR Rodman. Jordan was bad FOR Jordan. Completely different standards. Rodman didn't save the day by dominating the boards, cause dominating the boards can mean nothing if they aren't converted into points, which Rodman doesn't do. And by the way, it wasn't just Jordan that shot and missed a bunch of shots, it was the whole team. Jordan was actually still as usual their most efficient scorer. If Jordan put up 8 ppg/15 rpg it would easily be considered a worse series then he actually had.

Scarcity doesn't necessarily equally value. For example, Karl Malone probably doesn't do what Rodman did in 96. But the Bulls probably would've had a much easier time beating the Sonics in 96 with him in his place.
Rodman was great based on the standard of what a great rebounder is. Bettter than such greats as Russell and Chamberlain and Wallace.

Thered only one ball bro. With Rodman, Jordan didn't have to sacrifice what he wanted to do. SCORE. He would have to share the ball with Malone.

[97 bulls]

You do realize Dennis Rodman ended up in the Bulls because nobody else wanted him?


Dumb agenda thread.
How do you know? San Antonio used him as a scape goat for their failure. They didnt want him.

[DatAsh]

I can tell you this much...

replace broken down Wade, and zero-impact Bosh in the '14 Finals, with Pippen and Rodman in '98, and the Spurs are blown away. With Pippen, Rodman, and then Lebron's all world defensive play...and the Spurs would have been lucky to get a 3pt shot off, much less make any.

This statement seems silly to me.

1. 98 Pippen isn't that much better than 14 Wade. He was a much better defender and put up 15.7/6.8/4.8 on 41% to Wade's 15.2/3.8/2.6 on 44%. Wade received more defensive attention.

2. 36 year old Rodman was not the great defender that he once was, he was playing only 30 minutes a game, and he wasn't even starting. He put up 3/8/1 on 46% to Bosh's 14/5/1 on 55%. 98' Rodman was a considerably worse player overall than 14' Bosh, and this is coming from a huge Rodman fan who has him as one of the 40 best players ever. The Heat offense also relied heavily on the spacing that Bosh's long two provided. Lebron's scoring would come down considerably with Rodman in place of Bosh.

3. "Lebron's all world defensive play"? This makes me wonder if you even watched the series at all. Lebron was terrible defensively...absolutely terrible. Are you sure we're thinking of the same series?

4. Those games were blowouts in favor of the Spurs, like 20+ points had the Spurs actually kept playing. You think an upgrade at the SG position and a downgrade at PF is going to swing the game 30-40 points in favor of the Heat? My best guess says they'd do slightly worse than they did without Bosh's spacing, but I can't see it swinging more than 5 points either way. The best players ever are ~ +10 over an average replacement. 32 year old Pippen and 36 year old Rodman are nowhere near the best players ever, and 32 year old Wade 29 year old Bosh are better than your average replacement.

[guy]

Rodman was great based on the standard of what a great rebounder is. Bettter than such greats as Russell and Chamberlain and Wallace.

Thered only one ball bro. With Rodman, Jordan didn't have to sacrifice what he wanted to do. SCORE. He would have to share the ball with Malone.

Yes, Rodman was great based on the standard of a great rebounder. Not sure where that disproves my point. Rodman was probably a better rebounder then someone like Malone or Duncan was at anything. Doesn't mean those two aren't easily better players.

Bulls had a hard time scoring in the 96 Finals. You don't think the addition of one of the greatest scorers in NBA history wouldn't help? On top of that, a great rebounder and defender in his own right (not as good as Rodman, but still great)? A guy that would open things up more for Jordan, who would see less double teams, and the rest of the Bulls? The combination of all of that would've made things easier for the 96 Bulls.

As far as no one wanting Rodman goes, it was widely reported that no one wanted him at the time, but the Bulls felt they had the leadership to deal with his attitude and distractions. That's a big reason why they were able to obtain him for just Will Perdue and nothing else.

[97 bulls]

Yes, Rodman was great based on the standard of a great rebounder. Not sure where that disproves my point. Rodman was probably a better rebounder then someone like Malone or Duncan was at anything. Doesn't mean those two aren't easily better players.

Bulls had a hard time scoring in the 96 Finals. You don't think the addition of one of the greatest scorers in NBA history wouldn't help? On top of that, a great rebounder and defender in his own right (not as good as Rodman, but still great)? A guy that would open things up more for Jordan, who would see less double teams, and the rest of the Bulls? The combination of all of that would've made things easier for the 96 Bulls.

As far as no one wanting Rodman goes, it was widely reported that no one wanted him at the time, but the Bulls felt they had the leadership to deal with his attitude and distractions. That's a big reason why they were able to obtain him for just Will Perdue and nothing else.
It disproves your point because you feel feel Rodman was great for Rodmans standards. He was great flat out.

And yes Jordan helped. But he didnt play great. Rodman played great. Historically great.

It is obvious you dont understand basketball everyone has a role. And everyone is there to make each others job easier.

Look at 2011. If Korver and Bogans hit their open shots, the Heat would either loose or stop trapping Rose. Well they didnt. Which made things more difficult for Rose.

The Sonics should've made sure they had a body in Rodman at all times. They didnt Rodman killed them. I mean damn George Karl said Rodman alone won two games for the Bulls. Stopped being so biased

[guy]

It disproves your point because you feel feel Rodman was great for Rodmans standards. He was great flat out.

And yes Jordan helped. But he didnt play great. Rodman played great. Historically great.

It is obvious you dont understand basketball everyone has a role. And everyone is there to make each others job easier.

Look at 2011. If Korver and Bogans hit their open shots, the Heat would either loose or stop trapping Rose. Well they didnt. Which made things more difficult for Rose.

The Sonics should've made sure they had a body in Rodman at all times. They didnt Rodman killed them. I mean damn George Karl said Rodman alone won two games for the Bulls. Stopped being so biased

Everything is based on a standard. If Jordan put up 8/15 it would be considered a poor series for him, arguably the worst of his career. If Rodman put up 27/5/4 even on low efficiency, it would be considered a great series for him, arguably the
greatest of his career. That's undeniable.

Same logic can be applied to this years finals with Iggy and Steph, which is why Steph was robbed.

And really, bringing up what Karl said doesn't mean much. Do we really need to go over how many times someone said Jordan was responsible for a Bulls win? And in that series, there's no point of mentioning that Jordan was responsible cause that wasn't something that would've been worth mentioning.

[97 bulls]

Everything is based on a standard. If Jordan put up 8/15 it would be considered a poor series for him, arguably the worst of his career. If Rodman put up 27/5/4 even on low efficiency, it would be considered a great series for him, arguably the
greatest of his career. That's undeniable.

Same logic can be applied to this years finals with Iggy and Steph, which is why Steph was robbed.
Thats ridiculous. Thats not Rodmans game. So whay eveen bring it up? Again. Answer my question. Whose game would be more easily replicated? Jordans or Rodmans?

[Smoke117]

http://i.imgur.com/4bUV7Ls.gif

[Marchesk]

It disproves your point because you feel feel Rodman was great for Rodmans standards. He was great flat out.

But did he shut Kemp down? Because I recall Kemp having a good series.


And yes Jordan helped. But he didnt play great. Rodman played great. Historically great.

Remove Jordan and the Sonics win, no question. Remove Rodman and it's a tight seven game series that go could either way.

So who's more valuable?

[guy]

Thats ridiculous. Thats not Rodmans game. So whay eveen bring it up? Again. Answer my question. Whose game would be more easily replicated? Jordans or Rodmans?

Right that's not Rodman's game. And Rodman's game is less valuable hence the lower standards.

I'd say Rodman's game is more easily replicated. He just doesn't do as much as Jordan and his presence isn't as impactful.

[SouBeachTalents]

Pippen's playoff averages from 1996-1998 were 17/7/5 on 40.8% - this was sufficient help for MJ to 3-peat, but Wade's 20/5/4 on 48% from 2011-2014 wouldn't be?...

You have zero basis to make this claim other than just spouting off at the mouth with BS, which is not a basis.

Also, Bosh was a 10-time all-star and Lebron's 3rd option - Lebron is the only player in modern history who had a 10-time all-star as his 3rd option - almost nobody has a 10-time all-star as their SECOND option even... Nothing can change the fact that Lebron had ACCESS to a 10-time all-star in his prime as his 3rd option - don't compare that to 36 year old, 4/8 Rodman.
.

10-time all-star

[LAZERUSS]

10-time all-star


And a ONE time All-NBA 2nd team player.

[97 bulls]

But did he shut Kemp down? Because I recall Kemp having a good series.



Remove Jordan and the Sonics win, no question. Remove Rodman and it's a tight seven game series that go could either way.

So who's more valuable?
Longley guarded Kemp. And we got to see what would happen without Rodman. The Bulls are a second round team. Very good. But not champions.

[jayfan]

I can tell you this much...

replace broken down Wade, and zero-impact Bosh in the '14 Finals, with Pippen and Rodman in '98, and the Spurs are blown away. With Pippen, Rodman, and then Lebron's all world defensive play...and the Spurs would have been lucky to get a 3pt shot off, much less make any.

:biggums: :biggums:

Seriously, is that a joke? His perimeter defense was pathetic in that series.



.

[Sarcastic]

Longley guarded Kemp. And we got to see what would happen without Rodman. The Bulls are a second round team. Very good. But not champions.


When the Bulls made the second round without Jordan, they get praised as "ZOMG look how good they are".

When the Bulls made the second round with "baseball shape" Jordan having only played 17 games, you say "they're only a second round team".

Double standard much?

[97 bulls]

Right that's not Rodman's game. And Rodman's game is less valuable hence the lower standards.

I'd say Rodman's game is more easily replicated. He just doesn't do as much as Jordan and his presence isn't as impactful.
Again. We disagree on impact. If Rodman is rehounding at a record level (offensive rebounding) and Jordan is having a subpar game, and by all accounts Rodman won at least two games with hus rebounding, how can you make the determination that Jordans game (in the Seattle series cuz thats what were talking about) was more impactful??????

Again. For the third time now. Whose series was easier to replace???? Rodmans or Jordans?

In my opinion, it was Rodmans because off the top, the only guys capable of doing what he did in that Series was Wilt and Russell. And even they never accomplished that feat (11 offensive rebounds in a game...... TWICE!!!!!!!)

How many guys can avg 27 pts on 40% shooting?????

[97 bulls]

When the Bulls made the second round without Jordan, they get praised as "ZOMG look how good they are".

When the Bulls made the second round with "baseball shape" Jordan having only played 17 games, you say "they're only a second round team".

Double standard much?
Double stsndard? Not in the least I've plainly stated the 94 Bulls were a very good team. So was 95 with Jordan. But both obviously weren't good enough.

The Bulls get praised for what they did in 94 because people say they sucked outside of Jordan.

[DatAsh]

11-14 Lebron > 96-98 Jordan >> 11-14 Wade > 96-98 Pippen >> 11-14 Bosh >> 96-98 Rodman.

That's the way I see it; I'm sure many would disagree.

Bull's had better role players and more depth, and because of that they were a considerably better team overall.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ "Longley guarded Kemp. No he didn't, Rodman did for at least 70% of the series. Nice try, though.

[97 bulls]

lol @ "Longley guarded Kemp. No he didn't, Rodman did for at least 70% of the series. Nice try, though.
I think you need to rewatch the series again bro. Longley primarily guarded Kemp

[DatAsh]

In my opinion, it was Rodmans because off the top, the only guys capable of doing what he did in that Series was Wilt and Russell. And even they never accomplished that feat (11 offensive rebounds in a game...... TWICE!!!!!!!)


Why would they necessarily need 11 offensive rebounds? Adding a different player in place of Rodman would completely change the nature of the series. They may score an extra 15 points with a better offensive player in his place and come out further ahead. We just don't know.

With the amount of defensive attention they were giving Jordan that series, losing him would likely drop everyone else's fg% considerably. Not only would they be facing a much tougher defense, but they would have to throw up an extra 21 fga per game against that defense.

Rodman was no where near as valuable as Jordan in that series, I mean, he did get the big momentum plays, and that's what people tend to remember, but it's not even close in terms of absolute value. Relative value I would agree, but absolute...no way.

Jordan was even the better defender at that point in time.

Without Rodman they probably lose a close series. Without Jordan I imagine they would be blown out every game.

[OldSchoolBBall]

The person earlier who said that if Jordan had series averages of 5 pts/11 reb/40% FG or whatever it would be considered a far worse series than he actually had put it most succinctly. Anyone trying to argue that Rodman was more valuable than Jordan in the 1996 Finals is crazy.

[ArbitraryWater]

The person earlier who said that if Jordan had series averages of 5 pts/11 reb/40% FG or whatever it would be considered a far worse series than he actually had put it most succinctly. Anyone trying to argue that Rodman was more valuable than Jordan in the 1996 Finals is crazy.

:rolleyes: why do you use that hyperbole? You're smart enough to see that both had similar impact that series... so what?! 5 FMVP's not enough?

[Sarcastic]

:rolleyes: why do you use that hyperbole? You're smart enough to see that both had similar impact that series... so what?! 5 FMVP's not enough?


They both had an impact, but not similar. One is more easily replaced than the other. The value of scoring the basketball outweighs all others. That doesn't mean that the others aren't important, but the ability to score is the hardest thing to do on a basketball court.

[G-train]

One is arguably the greatest power forward ever and the other isnt even considered, you tell me

[OldSchoolBBall]

:rolleyes: why do you use that hyperbole? You're smart enough to see that both had similar impact that series... so what?! 5 FMVP's not enough?

They didnt have similar impact, though - not even close. Jordan's impact was far more global. Rodman's was niche.

[G-train]

Rodman had an effective season in 96 and played his role well in the finals, but Jordan was the best player still. He carried a larger burden overall and was the number one key to winning the title.

[JellyBean]

Lol, Malone is the most disrespected player on this site

Word.

[DatAsh]

:rolleyes: why do you use that hyperbole? You're smart enough to see that both had similar impact that series... so what?! 5 FMVP's not enough?

I don't see their impact as similar at all, and I'm by no means a Jordan stan. The Bulls offense would collapse without Jordan. Replacing Rodman would hurt them on the boards, but their offense would almost certainly improve.

[TheBigVeto]

No
/thread

[97 bulls]

Why would they necessarily need 11 offensive rebounds? Adding a different player in place of Rodman would completely change the nature of the series. They may score an extra 15 points with a better offensive player in his place and come out further ahead. We just don't know.
This is all hypothetical. But I do know how the head coach felt. Karl said Rodman won two games on his own. And he was a hand full in the other games.


With the amount of defensive attention they were giving Jordan that series, losing him would likely drop everyone else's fg% considerably. Not only would they be facing a much tougher defense, but they would have to throw up an extra 21 fga per game against that defense.
Come on bro. How demoralizing is it to play excellent defense only to not finish the job and secure the defensive rebound?


Rodman was no where near as valuable as Jordan in that series, I mean, he did get the big momentum plays, and that's what people tend to remember, but it's not even close in terms of absolute value. Relative value I would agree, but absolute...no way.
In a defensive struggle, the biggest and most important aspect becomes rebounds. If a guy is giving you multiple chances at the rate Rodman did you gotta respect that. He got almost all the big momentum plays. He got into players heads, come on. I man just think if he git 5 rebounds on the offensive end he would've been doing a great job.


Without Rodman they probably lose a close series. Without Jordan I imagine they would be blown out every game.
The same was thought off in the 94 vs the Knicks. How did that work out?

[Kobe_6/8]

Malone is a GOAT candidate for Power Forward...Rodman is a HOF player with GOAT rebounding skills and tenacious defense.

If I already had a team with 2 stars, I would take Rodman to be the clear 3rd option. Otherwise, I would take Malone.

[97 bulls]

Malone is a GOAT candidate for Power Forward...Rodman is a HOF player with GOAT rebounding skills and tenacious defense.

If I already had a team with 2 stars, I would take Rodman to be the clear 3rd option. Otherwise, I would take Malone.
I agree. Rodman was great but Malone was better overall.

[DatAsh]

This is all hypothetical. But I do know how the head coach felt. Karl said Rodman won two games on his own. And he was a hand full in the other games.


Come on bro. How demoralizing is it to play excellent defense only to not finish the job and secure the defensive rebound?


In a defensive struggle, the biggest and most important aspect becomes rebounds. If a guy is giving you multiple chances at the rate Rodman did you gotta respect that. He got almost all the big momentum plays. He got into players heads, come on. I man just think if he git 5 rebounds on the offensive end he would've been doing a great job.


The same was thought off in the 94 vs the Knicks. How did that work out?

We're really far apart here, so I'm not sure it's possible for us to come to an agreement. I see Jordan as having 2-3 times the value that Rodman had that series. Rebounds are important, but basically the entire defense was centered on stopping Jordan, and in my opinion that's worth far more than rebounds.

Same thing as this years fmvp, Warriors would be way worse off without Curry than they would be without Iggy. Momentum is what people remember though.

[TheMarkMadsen]

maybe if you already have team compiled of all stars

[gasolina]

Karl was pretty unlucky that Rodman was with the bulls. I remember him destroying all of the west's front courts on the way to the two finals... but struggled mightily against the bulls.

Imagine if the Rockets get through, would Rodman guard Hakeem or Charles? I say they have a better chance than the jazz did.

Maybe until Pippen locks down Matt Maloney and shuts down the Rockets Offense from the halfcourt

[97 bulls]

We're really far apart here, so I'm not sure it's possible for us to come to an agreement. I see Jordan as having 2-3 times the value that Rodman had that series. Rebounds are important, but basically the entire defense was centered on stopping Jordan, and in my opinion that's worth far more than rebounds.

Same thing as this years fmvp, Warriors would be way worse off without Curry than they would be without Iggy. Momentum is what people remember though.
I just think thats such a strawman. You're making it seem as if Jordan was forced to go 1 on 5 for the whole series. Hell Payton guarded Pippen the first three games. I think youre overplaying the defensive attention card.

If that series plays out the way it did but was played today? Rodman wins the MVP.

[Marchesk]

f that series plays out the way it did but was played today? Rodman wins the MVP.

So Rodman was primarily guarding Perkins and not Kemp? Regardless, Kemp had a very good series. And Kemp himself had 26 offensive rebounds, which isn't the 47 that Rodman had, but it's pretty good. That's 6.5 a game.

23.3 on 55.1% with 10 boards a game. Maybe Rodman should have been guarding Kemp more, if he wasn't.

I watched that series and recall Rodman's offensive rebounding being important, but not more important than 27 points a game. Who else on the Bulls was going to score consistently in that series? Pippen shot 34.3%.

What I do also remember is that the Bulls didn't have anyone who seemed to be able to guard Kemp. I don't recall how often Rodman was on him, but nobody defended Kemp like everyone else was defended.

Anyway, Kemp had a better series than Rodman. Rodman has him beat in rebounds, and slightly in assists. Kemp had more steals, more blocks, points, and better FG%.

[97 bulls]

So Rodman was primarily guarding Perkins and not Kemp? Regardless, Kemp had a very good series. And Kemp himself had 26 offensive rebounds, which isn't the 47 that Rodman had, but it's pretty good. That's 6.5 a game.
Kemp had an awesome series. But longley guarded him most. If I remember correct, the Sonics started Ervin Johnson, but Rodman killee him so.bad that he was banished to the end of the bench. Which left Frank Brikowski and Perkins. And don't get me wrong Rodman.did check Kemp but he was primarily Longleys assignment.


23.3 on 55.1% with 10 boards a game. Maybe Rodman should have been guarding Kemp more, if he wasn't.
Why? Most of his points were garbage points after the Bulls pulled out a big lead. I honestly think Longley did a very good job on Kemp. I remember people were saying Kemp wasnt very aggressive. I credit Longley for that.


I watched that series and recall Rodman's offensive rebounding being important, but not more important than 27 points a game. Who else on the Bulls was going to score consistently in that series? Pippen shot 34.3%.
As I told Ash. It was a defensive struggle. Second chance opportunities were very important. Again, I can't stress this enough George Karl credited Rodman for two of the Bulls four wins.


What I do also remember is that the Bulls didn't have anyone who seemed to be able to guard Kemp. I don't recall how often Rodman was on him, but nobody defended Kemp like everyone else was defended.
Again don't go solely on stats bro. Kemp had great statistical games, but he was getting it in the papers as well.

[DCL]

let's be clear...

mailman > rodman

however...

jordan + pippen + rodman > jordan + pippen + malone

weird algebra due to chemistry and team dynamics

[Marchesk]

let's be clear...

mailman > rodman

however...

jordan + pippen + rodman > jordan + pippen + malone

weird algebra due to chemistry and team dynamics

Maybe so, but Stockton + Jordan + Malone > jordan + pippen + rodman

[gasolina]

let's be clear...

mailman > rodman

however...

jordan + pippen + rodman > jordan + pippen + malone

weird algebra due to chemistry and team dynamics
Might be closer than you think. Malone was also a terrific post defender and has Uber quick hands to swipe the ball away. Not the hustler/rebounding/intangibles of rodman but that trio would be unstoppable offensively.

Best thing is you don't have to put ****ing kukoc for 20+ minutes and watch him get raped on D

[KNOW1EDGE]

You can argue it all you want but it wont make it come true.

[97 bulls]

I took the liberty of looking up their stats (Jordan and Rodman)

Game 1
Jordan
28/7/7 50%
Rodman
7/13/2 50%

Advantage Jordan but Rodman played a good game


Game 2
Jordan
29/6/8 41%
Rodman
10/20/0 50% (11 offensive rebounds ties all time record)
Advantage Rodman


Game 3
Jordan
36/3/5 48%
Rodman
5/10/2 33%
Advantage Jordan. Rodmans only bad game



Game 4
Jordan
23/3/2 32%
Rodman
8/14/4 67%
Advantage Rodman


Game 5
Jordan
26/4/1 50%
Rodman
5/12/2 40%
Advantage Jordan



Game 6
Rodman
22/9/7 26%
Rodman
9/19/5 44% (record 11 offensive rebounds)
Advantage Rodman


Now if Im grading, Rodman had 3 As, 2 Bs, and a D. Jordan had 2 As, 1 B, 2 Cs, and an F.

[Marchesk]

Now if Im grading, Rodman had 3 As, 2 Bs, and a D. Jordan had 2 As, 1 B, 2 Cs, and an F.

Assists count as part of the offense, and Rodman only had that one game were he out assisted MJ (Mike's worst game).

[97 bulls]

Assists count as part of the offense, and Rodman only had that one game were he out assisted MJ (Mike's worst game).
I don't think its a travesty that Jordan won. Overall, he still ha a great series

[Sarcastic]

Jordan was better in games 1, 2, and 3. Series was already over. No one has ever come back from 0-3 down. Jordan deserved FMVP.

[guy]

Again. We disagree on impact. If Rodman is rehounding at a record level (offensive rebounding) and Jordan is having a subpar game, and by all accounts Rodman won at least two games with hus rebounding, how can you make the determination that Jordans game (in the Seattle series cuz thats what were talking about) was more impactful??????

Again. For the third time now. Whose series was easier to replace???? Rodmans or Jordans?

In my opinion, it was Rodmans because off the top, the only guys capable of doing what he did in that Series was Wilt and Russell. And even they never accomplished that feat (11 offensive rebounds in a game...... TWICE!!!!!!!)

How many guys can avg 27 pts on 40% shooting?????

Rebounding isn't more impactful then actual scoring. They keep score of points, not rebounds. So the fact that he was doing it at a record level is not that relevant in this comparison.

Rodman's series was easier to replace. I've already answered this. Statistically maybe you can say it wasn't, but when you bring in the intangibles such as the defensive attention Jordan required and his ability to get to the free throw line, its pretty easily Jordan.

The Rodman for FMVP talk is all based on standards. Like I said, if Jordan had that series, he'd be ripped apart. Today, it would be used against him way more then anything else. If Rodman had Jordan's series, he would've been considered a savior for that team. Kobe had 24/15 on 25% against the Celtics in G7 and it was considered a bad game for him. For Rodman, it would be considered a historic performance.

Not a lot of guys can actually average 27 points even if its on 40% shooting. That still requires the ability to create that many shots and/or get to the FT line. Like I said, he was still the most efficient scorer on the team out of anyone that took a substantial amount of shots.

[kshutts1]

Easy answer is that you can argue that Rodman was more valuable.. but you'd be stupid, or cherry-picking like hell, to do so.

There are situations in which Rodman was more valuable, but for the vast majority of teams, and in a vacuum, it's Karl all day.

[97 bulls]

Rebounding isn't more impactful then actual scoring. They keep score of points, not rebounds. So the fact that he was doing it at a record level is not that relevant in this compcapable
Rebounds are tracked bro. But I get what your saying. The objective is to outscore your opponent. What you need to understand is that there's many way to do that. A defensive team will try to make sure the opponent doesn't score more points thn them. I've seen a lot of teams lose games because they couldn't rebound the ball. Great offensive teams as well. I feel the Bulls lost to Clevland this past playoffs because they couldn't keep Thompson off the glass. They did a great Job on James.


Rodman's series was easier to replace. I've already answered this. Statistically maybe you can say it wasn't, but when you bring in the intangibles such as the defensive attention Jordan required and his ability to get to the free throw line, its pretty easily Jordan.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one


The Rodman for FMVP talk is all based on standards. Like I said, if Jordan had that series, he'd be ripped apart. Today, it would be used against him way more then anything else. If Rodman had Jordan's series, he would've been considered a savior for that team.
And as I said thats not neither of those guys game. If Rodman scored that many point, would Jordan need to? Hell would Jordan be able to play with a guy like that? The Bulls had a third guy capable of giving you 20 ppg in Kukoc in 95. How did that work out?


Kobe had 24/15 on 25% against the Celtics in G7 and it was considered a bad game for him. For Rodman, it would be considered a historic performance.
Its because thats not Kobes game. Hes a scorer. He took a lot of shots to get those points. The 15 boards were great but they were like gravy. The Bulls brought Rodman in to rebound. Thats what he was payed to do. He did it at a high level and was one of the best at it if not the best.


Not a lot of guys can actually average 27 points even if its on 40% shooting. That still requires the ability to create that many shots and/or get to the FT line. Like I said, he was still the most efficient scorer on the team out of anyone that took a substantial amount of shots.
Lol. Theres a lot of guys that can get you 27 pts on 40%. The key is the opportunities. You get up enough shots, have plays run for you etc, you will be able to do it. Not verh many can do it efficiently.

[guy]

Rebounds are tracked bro. But I get what your saying. The objective is to outscore your opponent. What you need to understand is that there's many way to do that. A defensive team will try to make sure the opponent doesn't score more points thn them. I've seen a lot of teams lose games because they couldn't rebound the ball. Great offensive teams as well. I feel the Bulls lost to Clevland this past playoffs because they couldn't keep Thompson off the glass. They did a great Job on James.

Well obviously rebounds help and play a huge part. I never said they didn't. But a rebound can also result in relatively little contribution to the score of a game i.e. one guy gets an offensive rebound and they don't convert to points. Scoring points is still clearly more impactful.



And as I said thats not neither of those guys game. If Rodman scored that many point, would Jordan need to? Hell would Jordan be able to play with a guy like that? The Bulls had a third guy capable of giving you 20 ppg in Kukoc in 95. How did that work out?

If Rodman could score, Jordan could score less or score easier and contribute more to other parts of the game. Jordan's never gotten to play with a player like that, so how would you know he couldn't? Furthermore, what makes you think it would be Jordan, who's arguably the greatest scorer ever, that would be the one that would need to adjust.

You're right about Kukoc. I forgot every other season he played without Jordan he was averaging 20 ppg :rolleyes:



Its because thats not Kobes game. Hes a scorer. He took a lot of shots to get those points. The 15 boards were great but they were like gravy. The Bulls brought Rodman in to rebound. Thats what he was payed to do. He did it at a high level and was one of the best at it if not the best.

Yes, and you notice they pay guys like Jordan and Kobe more for that type of game as opposed to what Rodman does? And why is it that if Rodman had the exact same game he would be praised instead of criticized but if Jordan/Kobe had a Rodman type game they would be ripped apart? Again, different standards and in Rodman's case, lower standards.



Lol. Theres a lot of guys that can get you 27 pts on 40%. The key is the opportunities. You get up enough shots, have plays run for you etc, you will be able to do it. Not verh many can do it efficiently.

Okay, if you really think this then you're an idiot. Who the hell do you think creates these opportunities? You can't just take any role player and tell them to consistently create 20-21 shots and draw enough fouls to take 11 FTs per game whether thru themselves or by getting plays run for them and convert on 8-9 shots and 9-10 of those FTs. Sure, every once in a while a guy like Steve Kerr will be so hot one game and getting great looks from Jordan and Pippen or Deandre Jordan will get so many easy putbacks from offensive rebounds and easy lobs from CP3, that they can have that type of production but that's not sustainable over a 6 game series especially against the same opponent. And either way, they could never create for themselves or others the way Jordan does. On the other hand, ask a guy to get 15 rpg and 8 ppg off of finishes/easy looks from your star players over 6 games, its not easy but its definitely a lot easier to do.

[scm5]

In a draft, with full knowledge of how the players would turn out to be, I would pick Rodman.

Malone was a hell of a player, great offensively and hard to handle but he didn't motivate his team.

Rodman however, motivated his team with the way he played. He gave it his all every single time, and with a guy playing like that on your team, it's hard not to.

This type of charisma along with the defensive abilities he brings to the table puts Rodman above Malone in my eyes.

[Sarcastic]

In a draft, with full knowledge of how the players would turn out to be, I would pick Rodman.

Malone was a hell of a player, great offensively and hard to handle but he didn't motivate his team.

Rodman however, motivated his team with the way he played. He gave it his all every single time, and with a guy playing like that on your team, it's hard not to.

This type of charisma along with the defensive abilities he brings to the table puts Rodman above Malone in my eyes.

You obviously did not watch Rodman in San Antonio.

[Jasper]

Is this a justifiable claim? All things considered.
weak arguement - - -
so I will run with the title.
Dennis Rodman was a role player / probably the king of role players.
Karl Mailman was the engine that lead the Jazz to Western Conf. titles.

/

[Jasper]

I took the liberty of looking up their stats (Jordan and Rodman)




Game 6
Rodman
22/9/7 26%
Rodman
9/19/5 44% (record 11 offensive rebounds)
Advantage Rodman


.Looks like Jordan became Rodman in Game 6......:wtf:

[scm5]

You obviously did not watch Rodman in San Antonio.

Did you watch Malone in LA?

I forgot to mention I'm a Laker fan. **** Malone.

[DonDadda59]

In a draft, with full knowledge of how the players would turn out to be, I would pick Rodman.

Malone was a hell of a player, great offensively and hard to handle but he didn't motivate his team.

Rodman however, motivated his team with the way he played. He gave it his all every single time, and with a guy playing like that on your team, it's hard not to.

This type of charisma along with the defensive abilities he brings to the table puts Rodman above Malone in my eyes.

This whole site has lost its damn mind. :biggums:

Rodman went from very fortunate circumstances to even more fortunate circumstances during his career. The Pistons won rings with him riding the bench, the he went to a team that had already won 3 straight championships without him.

Put Malone in those same circumstances and we're talking about a universally acknowledged top 5-10 player all time. But put Rodman in the same circumstances as Malone and we're talking about a forgotten player who spent his whole career on a lottery team.

[triangleoffense]

Lol, Malone is the most disrespected player on this site
People underestimate him no doubt.. carrying his team (along with stockton ofc) to two back to back championship berths in UTAH of all places is nothing to sneeze at.. also noted as one of the most hard working men EVER in the NBA.. even Kobe was amazed at Karl's work ethic.

[Levity]

nuh uh.

[Lebron23]

Malone is getting underrated in this forum. He and Jordan would dominate the opposition in the 1990's. He was like the 3rd best player in Jordan's era.

[eliteballer]

Nope. Rodman's rebounding isn't THAT much better than Malone's, defense is probably a wash and Malone is on another planet as a scorer.

Maybe Malone couldn't win you a title as the best player, but he sure as hell would give you a better shot as the 3rd or 4th best than Rodman would.