Dennis Rodman: How good was he actually at his best?

[L.Kizzle]

I started watching NBA in 1994, right after the Rockets won their first title. Rodman was a Spur, with either gold or purple hair. Looking at his accolades, he was at his best in Detroit. Made his only All-Star games, won a few DPOYs as well.

But his best, was he a legitimate top 15-20 player in the league? I know he wasn't a top 10 guy.

It seems like over the years, he's become better than what he was. The NBA selected their top 50 players in 1996, he wasn't chosen or even considered a snub. 25 years later, he made the top 75 NBA players list. How? He jumped a bunch of guys from his era he probably wasn't considered better than.

I've seen him listed on various 50 greatest list. Even inside the top 40 on a new.

Was he greater than Alex English, someone he went up against in the 80s? Or what about Chris Webber, a guy he battled in the 90s.

What happened over the past 25 years?

[Full Court]

Hard to rank him because he was a scoring non-factor. Defensively and rebounding though, he was as good as anyone who's ever played.

Top 50 seems generous.

[iamgine]

He's a highly specialized player and needed a certain kind of team around him. For example, in the 1990 Detroit that won the title, I would say he's the 5th-7th best player. In the 1996 Bulls, I'd say he's their 5th best player.


So pretty average but he's useful in the right team.

[1987_Lakers]

Hard to rank him because he was a scoring non-factor. Defensively and rebounding though, he was as good as anyone who's ever played.

Top 50 seems generous.

He is the GOAT rebounder and all-time great defender, but there are a handful of players who had more defensive impact.

To me he is kind of like the Draymond of his era with less versatility. His Detroit days were for sure his best, had the ability to guard multiple positions, and had one great year in Chicago before he went off the rails again. Should have been on the dream team over Larry Bird if you are strictly picking the best possible team to send in 1992.

I think the reason why Rodman got such a legacy boost after retirement is because Rodman to this day he is still a pretty big figure in pop culture, and that might have some influence over the voters whether they know it or not. I personally wouldn't have him top 75, he was more of an ultimate glue guy to a squad that any team would kill for when his mind was right.

[L.Kizzle]

Nobody was ranking Rodman over Kemp in the 90s. Hell, no one was ranking him over Kevin Johnson either.

[SouBeachTalents]

Nobody was ranking Rodman over Kemp in the 90s. Hell, no one was ranking him over Kevin Johnson either.
Nobody was ranking Dirk or Nash over McGrady in the early 2000's, that has little bearing on where players rank all time.

[Full Court]

He is the GOAT rebounder and all-time great defender, but there are a handful of players who had more defensive impact.

To me he is kind of like the Draymond of his era with less versatility. His Detroit days were for sure his best, had the ability to guard multiple positions, and had one great year in Chicago before he went off the rails again. Should have been on the dream team over Larry Bird if you are strictly picking the best possible team to send in 1992.

I think the reason why Rodman got such a legacy boost after retirement is because Rodman to this day he is still a pretty big figure in pop culture, and that might have some influence over the voters whether they know it or not. I personally wouldn't have him top 75, he was more of an ultimate glue guy to a squad that any team would kill for when his mind was right.

I agree with everything you said.

[L.Kizzle]

Nobody was ranking Dirk or Nash over McGrady in the early 2000's, that has little bearing on where players rank all time.
What are you even talking about? Nash and Dirk weren't ranked higher than T-Mac in the early 2000s because they weren't better than him at that time. Once they started winning MVPs, things shifted but no one ranked them over McGrady from 2000-2004.

[jstern]

Rodman was not a liability on offense, he could pass, picks up offensive systems faster than the majority of players. He's the type of player who, even though he did not look to score at all, makes any team better. Just look at the 1999 Lakers (1998-99). The Lakers were on a 3 game losing streak, Rodman joins the team, and they win the next 10 games. Old Rodman.

I think people who are not familiar with Rodman would look at his stats and think that he would be the type of player who would be clumsy with the ball, and thus a liability on offense, but when the ball lands in his hand, he's going to make the correct reads and decisions.

[John8204]

Nobody was ranking Rodman over Kemp in the 90s. Hell, no one was ranking him over Kevin Johnson either.

636-275 (Rodman)
633-418 (Kemp)
472-263 (Johnson)

Rodman has one of the all-time greatest win percentages, and ten of the guy ahead of his played on superteams like the Showtime Lakers, Russell Celtics, and Duncan's Spurs.

[L.Kizzle]

636-275 (Rodman)
633-418 (Kemp)
472-263 (Johnson)

Rodman has one of the all-time greatest win percentages, and ten of the guy ahead of his played on superteams like the Showtime Lakers, Russell Celtics, and Duncan's Spurs.

Rodman played with like 4 Hall of Famers in Detroit, played with peak Robinson and then moved to the Bulls. His win percentage should be high.

[iamgine]

636-275 (Rodman)
633-418 (Kemp)
472-263 (Johnson)

Rodman has one of the all-time greatest win percentages, and ten of the guy ahead of his played on superteams like the Showtime Lakers, Russell Celtics, and Duncan's Spurs.
That's because he always played for all time great teams. In his first season in '87 playing 15 minutes a game Detroit was already taking the great Celtics to 7 games. San Antonio was still winning 59 games after Rodman left. Chicago was a dynasty. Lakers was a 60 win team.

[ILLsmak]

Ranking him like that is a disservice.

This is how I see it. There are maybe 5 guys in the NBA at any time who you can truly build around. If you have a pick of those guys, who would you pick as a second guy? I'd put Rodman top 5 in that. He is a catalyst and a huge value player assuming you already have one true superstar. He's right up there with Pip, haters gona hate. The issue is that Pip is gonna show out and get you 25 on a bad team, probably. Rodman raises any team's ceiling.

Dude said there were higher impact defensive players, but were there? Maybe some really great shot blocking bigs, but Rodman's rebounds + outlets, and the fact that he was almost always able to get in the head of the opponents leading scorer (except Kemp, dudes talking about Kemp vs Rodman, but Kemp was way better than his stats indicate. ) He is the only dude who dogged Rodman over and over, even in Cleveland, other than like Larry Bird when Rodman was young.

-Smak

[Nowoco]

Rodman was not a liability on offense, he could pass

This. Rodman was a very underrated passer.

Everyone knows how dominant the 1996 Bulls were but they started 31-1 in games Rodman played. I wouldn't say the acquisition of Rodman was equal to MJ's summer slugfest to get back into basketball shape but it was pretty damn close to being so. He made an already powerful Bulls team completely overpowering. Three first team All-Defense ffs. There is no beating that.

[Reggie43]

Always wondered what the reaction would be to peak Rodman playing today? With todays pace he could easily average a double double going for 20 rebounds a night. Purely basketball he is smart enough to play in any system, its obviously just the baggage that hurts his value.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Rebounding wise, he was second only to Wilt.

[90sgoat]

One of the best athletes of all time definitely. His ability to double and triple jump is some serious physical abnormality. Probably has some lactic acid mutation or something. Also was freakisly strong.

Then again a complete non scorer, so that has to detract.

[Meticode]

I always wondered how much better Rodman could've been if he didn't have those off-the-court distractions. No doubt he was the hardest worker on the team (even said by Jordan) when he was there.

[ILLsmak]

I always wondered how much better Rodman could've been if he didn't have those off-the-court distractions. No doubt he was the hardest worker on the team (even said by Jordan) when he was there.

I think when you are like Rodman you can't turn down.

Larry Bird couldn't, either, but instead of going to vegas and shit he just practiced and his body broke. So, in some ways, it probably worked out.

-Smak

[John8204]

Rodman played with like 4 Hall of Famers in Detroit, played with peak Robinson and then moved to the Bulls. His win percentage should be high.

On the flip side look at the players he was facilitating with his rebounding...pretty big variety from Isiah to Jordan to Robinson.

Playing with Hall of Famers doesn't always translate to wins/success Golden State had three Hall of Famers for years and they could barely win a playoff series. Pippen did better in Portland than with two of the 30 greatest players of all-time in Houston.

[Carbine]

I would take Rodman over quite a few players that are likely viewed as better.

Russell Westbrook being one of them.

Harden being another.

Dominique.

Allen Iverson.

Rodman is likely the best #3 guy to have surrounding two higher volume scoring first and second options because almost all of his gigantic impact comes from doing things without the basketball.

He's the only teammate to take FMVP votes off MJ.

[Phoenix]

I started watching NBA in 1994, right after the Rockets won their first title. Rodman was a Spur, with either gold or purple hair. Looking at his accolades, he was at his best in Detroit. Made his only All-Star games, won a few DPOYs as well.

But his best, was he a legitimate top 15-20 player in the league? I know he wasn't a top 10 guy.

It seems like over the years, he's become better than what he was. The NBA selected their top 50 players in 1996, he wasn't chosen or even considered a snub. 25 years later, he made the top 75 NBA players list. How? He jumped a bunch of guys from his era he probably wasn't considered better than.

I've seen him listed on various 50 greatest list. Even inside the top 40 on a new.

Was he greater than Alex English, someone he went up against in the 80s? Or what about Chris Webber, a guy he battled in the 90s.

What happened over the past 25 years?

There's some guys on that initial 50th list that wouldn't or shouldn't make it now if they re-did the list in 2024. Did every notable Celtic on the 1960s dynasty really warrant spots over guys like Dominique and Bob Mcadoo? Lenny Wilkins over someone like Alex English who had the most points in the 80s? A few of those 70s Knicks picks warrant an eye-brow raise too, but back in 1997 those players probably made more sense then. in 2024, nearly 30 years later, we have much better data and hindsight and I think Rodman, if a top 50 list was done today, absolutely warrants a spot. Prominent member of 5 championship teams? 7 rebounding titles? 2 DPOY awards? 8 time all-defensive? If anything, the media's perception of him because of his off-court antics probably played a role moreso than anything else. That and defensive oriented players don't get the press that offensive ones do. It took him 12 years to get into the HOF. His career accolades assigned to a less controversial talent is on the first ballot and it's not even a question of whether it's justified.

[sdot_thadon]

Hes one of the strongest cases for impact beyond stats. Alot good stuff already brought up like his intelligence on the floor and great ability to fit next to almost any star. Id aay in his era there were a few player types that no longer exist and his specific style was rare if not 1 of 1. The thing almost nobody ever speaks to is his ability to impose himself mentally on opposing frontcoirts beyond just physicality the Pistons were heralded for. You can even put a value on frustrating an opposing star pf or even center and taking them out of their games completely without scoring a bucket.

[Phoenix]

If you want to talk about someone who ACTUALLY guarded positions 1-5, and I mean over the course of a game and not just spot duty? Rodman guarded Magic and Jordan, he guarded Bird, Malone and Barkley, he guarded Shaq and Mourning. Elite players from all positions each with various styles and skillsets, and at different points of his career he defended all those guys.

[L.Kizzle]

There's some guys on that initial 50th list that wouldn't or shouldn't make it now if they re-did the list in 2024. Did every notable Celtic on the 1960s dynasty really warrant spots over guys like Dominique and Bob Mcadoo? Lenny Wilkins over someone like Alex English who had the most points in the 80s? A few of those 70s Knicks picks warrant an eye-brow raise too, but back in 1997 those players probably made more sense then. in 2024, nearly 30 years later, we have much better data and hindsight and I think Rodman, if a top 50 list was done today, absolutely warrants a spot. Prominent member of 5 championship teams? 7 rebounding titles? 2 DPOY awards? 8 time all-defensive? If anything, the media's perception of him because of his off-court antics probably played a role moreso than anything else. That and defensive oriented players don't get the press that offensive ones do. It took him 12 years to get into the HOF. His career accolades assigned to a less controversial talent is on the first ballot and it's not even a question of whether it's justified.
Was he a top 15 player at any season during his playing days?

1990, he was a champ, All-Star and DPOY. Was he a top 15 player?
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
K Malone
Hakeem
Clyde
Patrick
Dominique
Robinson
Thomas
Dumars
Stockton
Bird
Worthy
Parish
McHale
Miller
Pippen
Mullin

That's 20 guys right there. How is he a top 50 player all-time when he was barley top 15 at his best seasons. It doesn't add up.

[Phoenix]

Was he a top 15 player at any season during his playing days?

1990, he was a champ, All-Star and DPOY. Was he a top 15 player?
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
K Malone
Hakeem
Clyde
Patrick
Dominique
Robinson
Thomas
Dumars
Stockton
Bird
Worthy
Parish
McHale
Miller
Pippen
Mullin

That's 20 guys right there. How is he a top 50 player all-time when he was barley top 15 at his best seasons. It doesn't add up.

Obviously that's not how the voters viewed it. Rodman was a transcendent defensive talent who provided immeasurable intangibles to teams who won multiple championships. Because of how unique his game was, its kind of hard to measure if he was 'better' or 'worse' than a Chris Mullin or Robert Parish because he did completely different things and some just don't show on a statsheet or aren't as appreciated. Defense has never been viewed in the same light as someone who can drop 25. Should Mullin have made the top 75 because he was a top 15 player for a few seasons? Obviously the voters didn't think so. On the flipside was Mullin scoring 25 points a night on an offensive-centric team more conducive to winning than someone pulling 18 boards, half a dozen of them offensive and giving your team extra possessions, while defending everyone from Magic to Shaq over his career necessarily 'better' for the outcome of the game? I think better needs to be quantified here. You can find alot more people to put up scoring numbers win or lose than what Rodman did.

Clearly it was about the overall body of work. Reggie Miller wasn't a better player than Vince Carter or Tmac at their peaks( Reggie43 and Tpols may disagree), but he got in and the other two didn't. There's a number of players you could probably comb through on the first 50 who weren't 'top 15' players in their time, so why would that standard apply to Rodman? All the guys you selected, save for maybe Pippen, are offensive/scoring oriented players and that's clearly what you prioritize. Which is fine, but by extension it also excludes Rodman from the conversation in your eyes.

It's a very 2D way of looking at it, with due respect.

[Phoenix]

Rodman was not a liability on offense, he could pass, picks up offensive systems faster than the majority of players. He's the type of player who, even though he did not look to score at all, makes any team better. Just look at the 1999 Lakers (1998-99). The Lakers were on a 3 game losing streak, Rodman joins the team, and they win the next 10 games. Old Rodman.



From what I've read Rodman pretty much grasped the triangle immediately, something that I think MJ even struggled with at first( albeit they obviously had very different roles). Rodman's basketball IQ was off the charts and got lost in the weeds with all the shenanigans and multi-colored hairdos.

[Carbine]

Jordan didn't struggle grasping the triangle intellectually, he struggled adjusting to having the ball taken out of his hands. He was much more ball dominant under a coach like Doug who let him do whatever he wanted.

[Reggie43]

Rodman was elite defensively but still overrated. A good defensive minded enforcer like Dale Davis or PJ Brown could probably win atleast half the rings Rodman won on the Pistons and the Bulls if they changed places.

[Phoenix]

Rodman was elite defensively but still overrated. A good defensive minded enforcer like Dale Davis or PJ Brown could probably win atleast half the rings Rodman won on the Pistons and the Bulls if they changed places.

He's criminally underrated if players like Dale Davis or PJ Brown are being seen as viable alternatives. Neither one of those guys were the passer or had the natural feel for the game that Rodman had, on top of being much less versatile defenders and worse rebounders. Rodman psychologically could take players out of games in a way those guys never could. That's like saying if you replace Reggie Miller with Kevin Martin or Monta Eiis they'd take the Pacers just as far.

[Reggie43]

He's criminally underrated if players like Dale Davis or PJ Brown are being seen as viable alternatives. Neither one of those guys were the passer or had the natural feel for the game that Rodman had, on top of being much less versatile defenders and worse rebounders. Rodman psychologically could take players out of games in a way those guys never could. That's like saying if you replace Reggie Miller with Kevin Martin or Monta Eiis they'd take the Pacers just as far.

I said they would have won half the rings he won which about 2-3 rings which not unreasonable given how talented the teams he played in

[Phoenix]

I said they would have won half the rings he won which about 2-3 rings which not unreasonable given how talented the teams he played in

Which years? Because even saying they'd win half still comes off as devaluing Rodman to like a notch above guys who were basically journey-man level defensive bigs. They had their utilities but not even in the same stratosphere to casually namedrop them in a conversation about Dennis Rodman.

[jstern]

https://youtu.be/bdTeqzrP0xg

[Reggie43]

Rodman in his last 2 years with the Bulls was not that much better than the guys I mentioned. Dale Davis arguably outplayed him when they matched up in the playoffs in 98 which is one of the reasons they pushed it to seven games

[Reggie43]

Rodman blows them out of the water peak for peak but in those years they were on the same tier because Rodman was obviously past his prime

[L.Kizzle]

He's criminally underrated if players like Dale Davis or PJ Brown are being seen as viable alternatives. Neither one of those guys were the passer or had the natural feel for the game that Rodman had, on top of being much less versatile defenders and worse rebounders. Rodman psychologically could take players out of games in a way those guys never could. That's like saying if you replace Reggie Miller with Kevin Martin or Monta Eiis they'd take the Pacers just as far.

Well Horace Grant won 3 with Chicago and the Bulls followed that with Rodman's 3. So, that's at least the level of Dale Davis.

[Phoenix]

Rodman in his last 2 years with the Bulls was not that much better than the guys I mentioned. Dale Davis arguably outplayed him when they matched up in the playoffs in 98 which is one of the reasons they pushed it to seven games

We have this habit of just swapping players hypothetically in and out of scenarios with no real idea how those players will adapt, team chemistry or otherwise. They're different players with very specific skillsets that don't necessarily bring about the same outcome with a simple swap. How they played against each other in 98 doesn't really matter in that sense.

[Phoenix]

Well Horace Grant won 3 with Chicago and the Bulls followed that with Rodman's 3. So, that's at least the level of Dale Davis.

Horace Grant was better than Dale Davis. As was Rodman, for different reasons. Alot of people think Rodman was the 96 finals MVP. As close or as far off from reality as they may be, there's no way Dale Davis or PJ Brown is impacting the series at that level to warrant such talk.

[Reggie43]

Not that hard to imagine Jordan and Pippen winning 2 rings with Dale Davis in 97 and 98

[90sgoat]

Rodman in his last 2 years with the Bulls was not that much better than the guys I mentioned. Dale Davis arguably outplayed him when they matched up in the playoffs in 98 which is one of the reasons they pushed it to seven games

Agreed, Dale Davis was better than Rodman at that point, significantly so.

[Phoenix]

Lol. Ya'll have a good Christmas. I just realized I'm here debating between 1998 Dennis Rodman and Dale fukking Davis when I should be deep into a bottle of Port at this point. Have a good one, ISH fam

[bizil]

When it comes to Rodman he lays claims to these things:

Arguably the best defensive player ever
The most versatile defender ever
Likely the best rebounder ever.

At his best you are getting these three elements with Rodman. When it comes to top 75 status, he CERTAINLY BELONGS!! Two time DPOY, seven rebounding titles, 8 All Defensive Teams, and five rings on top of it makes him EASILY WORTHY of top 75 status. And despite ONLY averaging 7.3 PPG for his career, you can't have a top 75 list WITHOUT the greatest rebounder, most versatile defender, and arguably the best defensive forward ever.

Plus Rodman was a freak athlete on top of it with an all time great motor to boot. Frankly he's DAMN NEAR a 1 of 1 type of player. The defensive versatility to defend every position while ALSO leading the league in rebounding is hella rare. Only other player to do that was KG in the modern era. BUT KG was 7'0. And we have seen guys kind of similar to him in that regard such as Giannis and AD.

Rodman was 6'7-6'8. NO PLAYER his size has come close to having that type of defensive ability, defensive versatility, and rebounding in one package. Ben Wallace was likely the closest BUT I didn't see Ben defending EVERY POSITION the way Rodman was. Rodman started in the league as a SF. Wallace was always an undersized C-PF type. Draymond doesn't have the rebounding ability. Same with an AK-47, Pippen, or Bobby Jones for that matter.

[90sgoat]

Lol. Ya'll have a good Christmas. I just realized I'm here debating between 1998 Dennis Rodman and Dale fukking Davis when I should be deep into a bottle of Port at this point. Have a good one, ISH fam

Merry Christmas, already over here in Europe :lol

[bizil]

Which years? Because even saying they'd win half still comes off as devaluing Rodman to like a notch above guys who were basically journey-man level defensive bigs. They had their utilities but not even in the same stratosphere to casually namedrop them in a conversation about Dennis Rodman.

DAMN RIGHT!!! The thing with PF's like Horace,PJ Brown, and D Davis is THE FACT they weren't ALL TIME GREAT for their position at scoring, passing, rebounding, or defense. Rodman was ALL TIME GREAT HELL ARGUABLY THE GOAT at rebounding, defensive ability, and defensive versatility. So sure Horace could get 15 PPG and 10-11 RPG. And provider all league D. But Rodman could totally shift a game in ways guys like Horace, PJ, and D Davis never could.

[L.Kizzle]

Rodman vs Grant
From 91-93 Grant played in 236 of 246 games
From 96-98 Rodman played in 199 of 246 games.

91-93 Bulls won 185 games total
96-98 Bulls won 203 games total.

[Phoenix]

Rodman vs Grant
From 91-93 Grant played in 236 of 246 games
From 96-98 Rodman played in 199 of 246 games.

91-93 Bulls won 185 games total
96-98 Bulls won 203 games total.

This would be a relevant comparison if the 91-93 and 96-98 leagues were the same, but I'm sure you know that's not the case. 35 year old MJ was able to lead the 98 Bulls to 62 wins with Pippen missing half the year and Rodman dipping in and out of the lineup going to Vegas or playing part-time NWO member with Hulk Hogan. That says alot more about the state of the league in 98 than the point you're attempting to make about Rodmans impact on their W/L vs Grant. The 91 Bulls played in a more talented league pre- Canadian expansion with prime dream team era stars including Jordan himself at his peak, and won 61 games.

Now, about to make myself some egg nog with spiced ginger whiskey.

[iamgine]

Dale Davis was a comparable player to Rodman.

Horace Grant was better than both.

[ILLsmak]

Dale Davis was a comparable player to Rodman.

Horace Grant was better than both.

shut the **** up haha

-Smak

[Phoenix]

shut the **** up haha

-Smak

The only appropriate response to such nonsense.

[Reggie43]

Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all

[90sgoat]

Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all

It's a fair point to ask how good those other players would look with MJ, Pip and Phil Jackson.

People have come to think that you absolutely need a Rodman type player for the system to work, but that was never the case. Rodman did work well because he was a good passer and smart basketball player, but his rebounding was better than Dale Davis, but how much value does 4-5 extra rebounds have compared to Dale Davis superior rim protection and scoring?

[iamgine]

Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all

Comparing Detroit or San Antonio Rodman is also not unreasonable. He's a good role player but that's about it.

[Carbine]

Dale Davis and his superior rim protection and scoring?

He averaged 1 block and 10, 8 and 8 ppg in Bulls last three peat

What is going on here?

[Phoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaLy6Tsgwxg&ab_channel=BBVExtra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZn8epqnKo&ab_channel=NobodyTouchesJordan

The way Rodman defended Shaq allowed the Bulls to stay home on the Magic shooters and not compromise their defense. He had tremendous lower body strength and center of gravity so Shaq couldn't easily back him down into scoring position, he either forced him into taking shots beyond his comfort zone or he'd have him taking extra dribbles to create something and the Bulls defenders like MJ, Pippen or Harper could swipe at the ball or disrupt Shaq's passing. Dale Davis was more of a typical enforcer type PF and he would have just played Shaq straight up and didn't have Rodmans defensive IQ, motor or leg strength to make it harder for Shaq.

Then you have series like against the Heat where Rodman would completely get into Mournings head, he knew he was easy to fukk with and would play mind games with him. There were simply things he did that took guys out of their comfort zones that don't necessarily show up on the box score.

By 98..ok...Rodman was like 37 and starting to become more trouble than he was worth then. But you aren't replacing 96 and 97 Rodman with Dale Davis.

[Reggie43]

Why would Dale Davis play Shaq straight up and not rely on his teammates? Its always weird to me how Rodman got all the credit in guarding Shaq when the team defense Pippen, Jordan, Harper etc provided was equally important.

The fun part was Shaq actually scored a fraction more while being more efficient and having more assists compared to his regular numbers while supposedly being "stopped"

[90sgoat]

Dale Davis and his superior rim protection and scoring?

He averaged 1 block and 10, 8 and 8 ppg in Bulls last three peat

What is going on here?

Got to look at the per 36 here.

[Phoenix]

Why would Dale Davis play Shaq straight up and not rely on his teammates? Its always weird to me how Rodman got all the credit in guarding Shaq when the team defense Pippen, Jordan, Harper etc provided was equally important.

The fun part was Shaq actually scored a fraction more while being more efficient and having more assists compared to his regular numbers while supposedly being "stopped"

You made my point. Rodman alot of the time played Shaq straight up. Dale relying on his teammates means double teams, meaning Orlando's shooters are left open. During the 95 ECFs the Magic were 45% on 3s against the Pacers. A year later against the Bulls, 25% on 3s. Orlando probably beats Chicago again if they shoot 45% 3s on high volume. The difference? Having someone defensively who can allow the perimeter defenders to stay home on the 3point shooters and not give up easy 2s to Shaq. If you don't understand the value of Rodman's individual defense there within the context of the team defense on the Magic, not sure what else to tell you.

The fun part when looking at statlines is going across the entire page and not just looking at the totals. Shaq averaged 26.6ppg during the season on 36mpg. He scored 27.1 in the 96 ECFs....on 42.5mpg. 7 more minutes to score 'a fraction more'. His efficiency was high because whenever he waa guarded by guys like Longley and Wennington, it was virtually a guaranteed score because the Bulls committed to as much single coverage as possible, and those two were, to coin Shaq's verbiage, BBQ chicken compared to Rodmans defensive efforts. The other funny part is before even looking at Shaqs stats that series, I was 99% sure his mpg were alot higher than the season and that little tidbit would be conveniently left out.

[Reggie43]

Rodman played Shaq straight up a lot of the time?

[Phoenix]

For fukk sakes go watch the series, or don't. At the very least watch the 2nd video I posted where the commentators are plainly talking about it. Doug Collins speaks to how despite Rodman only being 218 or whatever, he has a strong low base and can push Shaq out further and no double team. Rodman wasn't defending him all game, he obviously needed to be preserved for the rebounding he provided, but when he did defend Shaq it was typically straight up. The Bulls may have thrown some fake/weak doubles every so often to keep Shaq guessing, but its not possible if Rodman himself isn't able to hold his own and make it harder for Shaq to get deep scoring position.

This conversation is tedious.

[Reggie43]

Its just conversation bro dont take it too seriously but in regards to the topic I guess we just see it differently how the Bulls provide help defense for Rodman sometimes even before he catches the ball, somebody always within arms length to provide help and double team but if you see that as defending straight up a lot of the time we just have to agree to disagree

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/jhlZJA6Teng?si=d0MbaCEcf2OKnlyF

First play Harper helps out on Shaq to prevent the entry pass

Second play Kukoc and Pippen took turns on helping out on Shaq once he makes a move with the ball

Last 2 plays Jordan provide help defense late and they force a turnover then Rodman fouls Shaq late while Jordan still provides help D

[Phoenix]

One, I dont take online conversations seriously for the most part. 2nd, I didn't say Rodman exclusively solo covered him. Alot of it depends on what sets the Magic were running and whether the other Bulls defenders were even in position to double or be close enough to just swipe at the ball to force Shaq to pass. You can see the play happening and pretty much tell if it was gonna be a single coverage play or if one of the other Bulls were gonna soft/hard double. The worst thing that can happen defensively against Shaq is allowing him to catch the ball and within 3 seconds he's under the basket. At that point it's either a score or a foul( or worse case, and-1). Rodman being able to make it harder for him to get great position caused forced shots or allows the other Bulls defenders the ability to quickly collapse while still defend the perimeter. It kept Shaq guessing. Like all great players you aren't gonna stop him from getting numbers, you want to make him work for them and contain everyone else. And Shaq at that stage was still developing as far as making great decisions in the post. 2000 era Laker Shaq would have been much harder for Rodman because he had bulked up and he was much better as a post passer and decision maker.

[Phoenix]

https://youtu.be/jhlZJA6Teng?si=d0MbaCEcf2OKnlyF

First play Harper helps out on Shaq to prevent the entry pass

Second play Kukoc and Pippen took turns on helping out on Shaq once he makes a move with the ball

Last 2 plays Jordan provide help defense late and they force a turnover then Rodman fouls Shaq late while Jordan still provides help D

The first play Harper is shading to deny the entry pass, but when I say playing straight up I'm referring to what happens after the catch and Shaq starts getting into his dribble backdown. Ideally you want to double off the catch rather than let the post player dribble himself into great scoring position. Especially someone of Shaqs physical prowess and with guys like Dennis Scott or Nick Anderson waiting for open looks.

The 2nd play was good, Kukoc used his length to swipe and then get back out to Penny, then Pippen comes over to force the pass out. What you may not have noted is that Shaq probably caught the ball further away from the basket than he wanted to, which puts the Bulls defenders in position to do what you described.

[ILLsmak]

Its just conversation bro dont take it too seriously but in regards to the topic I guess we just see it differently how the Bulls provide help defense for Rodman sometimes even before he catches the ball, somebody always within arms length to provide help and double team but if you see that as defending straight up a lot of the time we just have to agree to disagree

I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.

Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.

Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.

What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.

They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.

You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo

Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.

-Smak

[sdot_thadon]

I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.

Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.

Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.

What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.

They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.

You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo

Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.

-Smak

Because of the antics most fans couldn't see the iq Dennis had. This guy's rebounding was just as much anticipation and positioning as the athletic and aggression aspects of it too. His passing was definitely above average for a big man in that time too and that clip shows his understanding of the triangle in addition to the passing acumen. The triangle wasn't a cake walk for most to learn as far as basketball systems go.

[Phoenix]

Because of the antics most fans couldn't see the iq Dennis had. This guy's rebounding was just as much anticipation and positioning as the athletic and aggression aspects of it too. His passing was definitely above average for a big man in that time too and that clip shows his understanding of the triangle in addition to the passing acumen. The triangle wasn't a cake walk for most to learn as far as basketball systems go.

Did you see the Rodman episode on 'the Last Dance'? Dude broke down the art of rebounding to a science. Then you understand how a guy 6'6, at most 6'7 was grabbing 18 boards in an age of great centers/Pfs and packed paints.

[jayfan]

Pistons Rodman and Bulls Rodman were two different players. And both were great.

Pistons Rodman was more dynamic and athletic. A freak perimeter defender & weak-side help defender for his size. And could fill the lane and run the break like a whirling dervish. His best version.

Bulls Rodman was a great interior defender, enforcer and play-maker.

Both versions were GOAT-level rebounders, but Bulls Rodman refined it.

[Reggie43]

I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.

Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.

Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.

What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.

They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.

You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo

Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.

-Smak

Was not really saying he was good as Rodman in his prime but that he would have been a good enough replacement for the Pistons/Bulls still win rings half the time or atleast lets say 97 or 98 when Rodman was old and past his prime

[Reggie43]

Fans get stuck on the idea that because X team won with X player that they could only win with X players specific skillset and nothing more. They dont take into consideration that a team as smart as the 90s Bulls for example could adjust with playing with another type of player and cover for his weaknesses and enhance his strengths. They might not be as good but they could still win because of how good Jordan, Pippen and Phil were

[L.Kizzle]

Love the discussion. When I originally made the thread, it was more so not is Rodman better than one of the Davis Boys but more so other fellow Hall of Famers.
We see Rodman ranked higher than a guy like Chris Mullin all the time now. But was it that way in 1991? Was he even considered greater than another defensive minded player like Mutombo or Alonzo Mourning.

If he wasn't, when did things change?

[Phoenix]

Love the discussion. When I originally made the thread, it was more so not is Rodman better than one of the Davis Boys but more so other fellow Hall of Famers.
We see Rodman ranked higher than a guy like Chris Mullin all the time now. But was it that way in 1991? Was he even considered greater than another defensive minded player like Mutombo or Alonzo Mourning.

If he wasn't, when did things change?

Its not a simple 1:1 comparison with someone like a Chris Mullin because defensive oriented players are kind of in their own category( and frankly don't get the same level of respect that offensive stars get). I think Dennis was viewed at his best as a transcendent defensive player, sort of a 1 of 1 type. Mullin was a great scorer/ shooter and had a 4 year run as an all-nba player. His career body of work wasn't better than Dennis even if you want to say he was better in a vacuum at their respective best. To me it's like comparing apples and pizza asking which is better.

Its almost like asking who was better, either in totality of their career or just in a vacuum, Ben Wallace who had anchored Detroits defense for a half decade and won a title, or Gilbert Arenas who had 3-4 years of being a great scorer and all NBA player? Who should rank higher? Like how should these things should be measured?

[L.Kizzle]

Its not a simple 1:1 comparison with someone like a Chris Mullin because defensive oriented players are kind of in their own category( and frankly don't get the same level of respect that offensive stars get). I think Dennis was viewed at his best as a transcendent defensive player, sort of a 1 of 1 type. Mullin was a great scorer/ shooter and had a 4 year run as an all-nba player. His career body of work wasn't better than Dennis even if you want to say he was better in a vacuum at their respective best. To me it's like comparing apples and pizza asking which is better.

Its almost like asking who was better, either in totality of their career or just in a vacuum, Ben Wallace who had anchored Detroits defense for a half decade and won a title, or Gilbert Arenas who had 3-4 years of being a great scorer and all NBA player? Who should rank higher? Like how should these things should be measured?
Ben Wallace situation is different. EVERYONE considered Big Ben as the player for the Pistons. The leader and even the best player. Rodman was never the leader or best player for any of his teams.

If we go back to I guess 1988-1998, how many seasons was Mullin considered better than Rodman? I mean, that's an honest question.

[Phoenix]

Ben Wallace situation is different. EVERYONE considered Big Ben as the player for the Pistons. The leader and even the best player. Rodman was never the leader or best player for any of his teams.

If we go back to I guess 1988-1998, how many seasons was Mullin considered better than Rodman? I mean, that's an honest question.

But how then do people even measure Ben Wallace against Rip or Chauncey Billups? You keep bringing up Mullin for an obvious reason, his scoring prowess as compared to Rodman. Ben Wallace was such a great defender and rebounder, and one could argue he was the best or most important on the 04 Pistons but that was a team of good to really good players with no dominant superstar, which makes that an easier claim. Big Ben wouldn't have been the best player on the 89/90 Pistons or the Bulls 96/97/98 teams. So ultimately an irrelevant point. Its very possible that peak Rodman on the 04 Pistons also blurs the line with who the 'best' player was.

One could argue Rodmans prowess as a defender/rebounder and the other intangibles he brought were more conducive to winning than Mullin's scoring. But again its not a 1:1 comparison, because you're debating Rodman's contributions as an elite defender/rebounder to winning against Mullin scoring alot of points and losing. You can find hundreds of guys, and I'm not saying this as a knock on Mullin, that can score 25 before you find what Rodman did. But that's if you can value what he did without looking at PPG or however else the term 'better' is being quantified here.

[L.Kizzle]

But how then do people even measure Ben Wallace against Rip or Chauncey Billups? You keep bringing up Mullin for an obvious reason, his scoring prowess as compared to Rodman. Ben Wallace was such a great defender and rebounder, and one could argue he was the best or most important on the 04 Pistons but that was a team of good to really good players with no dominant superstar, which makes that an easier claim. Big Ben wouldn't have been the best player on the 89/90 Pistons or the Bulls 96/97/98 teams. So ultimately an irrelevant point. Its very possible that peak Rodman on the 04 Pistons also blurs the line with who the 'best' player was.

One could argue Rodmans prowess as a defender/rebounder and the other intangibles he brought were more conducive to winning than Mullin's scoring. But again its not a 1:1 comparison, because you're debating Rodman's contributions as an elite defender/rebounder to winning against Mullin scoring alot of points and losing. You can find hundreds of guys, and I'm not saying this as a knock on Mullin, that can score 25 before you find what Rodman did. But that's if you can value what he did without looking at PPG or however else the term 'better' is being quantified here.
I mention Mullin because I was trying to find someone who played basically the same era as Rodman. And he's also a Hall of Famer.
I could use a non Hall of Famer, Shawn Kemp. I grew up in the 90s and I know for a fact the majority would take Kemp over Rodman. The 96 Finals, Kemp was 23/10 on 55% FG, Rodman 7/14.

[Phoenix]

I mention Mullin because I was trying to find someone who played basically the same era as Rodman. And he's also a Hall of Famer.
I could use a non Hall of Famer, Shawn Kemp. I grew up in the 90s and I know for a fact the majority would take Kemp over Rodman. The 96 Finals, Kemp was 23/10 on 55% FG, Rodman 7/14.

Rodman was good enough in the Finals that some argue he had an argument for finals MVP. The question of who is better with him and Kemp isn't much different than with Mullin. How are we defining better when comparing people with vastly different skillsets and roles? I think its the same, Rodman ended up with the more decorated career. Yes, I can easily say Kemp on the Bulls wins chips with 1000% more conviction than saying Dale Davis would, but circumstances do play a role with these rankings. Kemp in a bubble was probably better/more impactful than Mullin for that matter. At no point have you really quantified what you mean by better though. Frankly it doesn't really matter to me, but I could better understand your angle. Better because he scored more? Better as a two-way player( that would be the most obvious argument for Kemp as a player over Rodman compared to Mullin).

[Phoenix]

Just thinking aloud, can you imagine the level of terror in the 92 Olympics had Rodman been selected and he's out there with MJ and Scottie hounding the likes of Toni Kukoc and Petrovic?

[L.Kizzle]

Just thinking aloud, can you imagine the level of terror in the 92 Olympics had Rodman been selected and he's out there with MJ and Scottie hounding the likes of Toni Kukoc and Petrovic?
That is true. However, Rodman wasn't even an option when they were putting the Dream Team together. His name probably didn't even come up in discussions.

[Phoenix]

That is true. However, Rodman wasn't even an option when they were putting the Dream Team together. His name probably didn't even come up in discussions.

Yes I know. 92 Dream team was more about the biggest names in the league, the A listers if you will, and 'specialists' like Rodman weren't thought of until later Team USA rosters. Also, Detroit's reputation coming off their chips a few years earlier didn't do viable Piston candidates any favors. Some selections and omissions were political ( MJ infamously not wanting Isiah is common knowledge).

[L.Kizzle]

Yes I know. 92 Dream team was more about the biggest names in the league, the A listers if you will, and 'specialists' like Rodman weren't thought of until later Team USA rosters. Also, Detroit's reputation coming off their chips a few years earlier didn't do viable Piston candidates any favors. Some selections and omissions were political ( MJ infamously not wanting Isiah is common knowledge).

Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.

[sdot_thadon]

Did you see the Rodman episode on 'the Last Dance'? Dude broke down the art of rebounding to a science. Then you understand how a guy 6'6, at most 6'7 was grabbing 18 boards in an age of great centers/Pfs and packed paints.

I did but I remember the bits said throughout the later part of his career as well. Haven't heard of many guys who watch other guys shoot around just to study rebounding angles lol. He was one of a kind.

[sdot_thadon]

Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.

Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.

[L.Kizzle]

Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.
It was Nique over Drexler. Nique was injured in 91 when the first 10 guys were selected. Clyde was selected after 92 I think.

[sdot_thadon]

It was Nique over Drexler. Nique was injured in 91 when the first 10 guys were selected. Clyde was selected after 92 I think.

Nique was a 3 like Mullin and Clyde the only other 2 on the squad besides MJ iirc. We hadn't started ignoring positions yet lol.

[L.Kizzle]

Nique was a 3 like Mullin and Clyde the only other 2 on the squad besides MJ iirc. We hadn't started ignoring positions yet lol.

Mullin, Clyde, Pippen and MJ were interchangeable. All can handle the rock as well. Nique couldn't do that nor pass like the other 4 guys.

[Phoenix]

I did but I remember the bits said throughout the later part of his career as well. Haven't heard of many guys who watch other guys shoot around just to study rebounding angles lol. He was one of a kind.

Yes, that's what I was referring. Its one thing to understand positioning and how shots will come off the rim ,but he took it a step beyond that.

[John8204]

Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.


That is true. However, Rodman wasn't even an option when they were putting the Dream Team together. His name probably didn't even come up in discussions.


Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.

So when the Dream Team was put together they had left one roster spot open. It could have gone to several people..Isiah, Zeke, Moses Malone (who was still active), Rodman etc. In the end they gave the spot to Clyde Drexler because he had the best season of all the options.

Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan. Jordan wanted Mullin and Pippen...MJ loved Mullin they had won a gold medal in 84 together. Patrick Ewing was also on that team and Jordan loved Charles so that was the Jordan lineup (Mullin/Jordan/Pippen/Barkley/Ewing). When Jordan was working on his comeback and shooting Space Jam...Mullin was one of the guys that he called to get back in basketball shape.

Christian Laetner (another guy that ended up being a Jordan guy) was selected over Chris Webber and Shaq. Was it a bad pick...meh it's the 15th guy and if they wanted a spot up shooter he was the better pick. Coach K was also the assistant coach for the team and pushed for Laetner.

John Stockton was an easy pick as PG. The roster was finalized after the 90-91 season...Isiah only played half a season that year. Stockton had broken the 14 APG line in the previous seasons and Magic's season squad was pretty obvious (Stockton/Magic/Malone/Robinson).

Jordan was offered the Captain spot but he wanted it to be himself Larry and Magic. All three guys had issues with Isiah

[sdot_thadon]

Mullin, Clyde, Pippen and MJ were interchangeable. All can handle the rock as well. Nique couldn't do that nor pass like the other 4 guys.

In today's game absolutely, but in 92 not so much. Archetypes where alot more rigid. I'm saying the caliber of marquee player Nique was vs a Mullin wasnt very close. But one thing I was forgetting was when the ACL tear happened. I'm not sure he was available for the summer games and that probably made it an easy choice.


Yes, that's what I was referring. Its one thing to understand positioning and how shots will come off the rim ,but he took it a step beyond that.

Agreed. We need more guys like that in today's game that will work to master less glamorous aspects of the game. And not to discredit anyone, maybe we do and just haven't heard the stories yet..


So when the Dream Team was put together they had left one roster spot open. It could have gone to several people..Isiah, Zeke, Moses Malone (who was still active), Rodman etc. In the end they gave the spot to Clyde Drexler because he had the best season of all the options.

Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan. Jordan wanted Mullin and Pippen...MJ loved Mullin they had won a gold medal in 84 together. Patrick Ewing was also on that team and Jordan loved Charles so that was the Jordan lineup (Mullin/Jordan/Pippen/Barkley/Ewing). When Jordan was working on his comeback and shooting Space Jam...Mullin was one of the guys that he called to get back in basketball shape.

Christian Laetner (another guy that ended up being a Jordan guy) was selected over Chris Webber and Shaq. Was it a bad pick...meh it's the 15th guy and if they wanted a spot up shooter he was the better pick. Coach K was also the assistant coach for the team and pushed for Laetner.

John Stockton was an easy pick as PG. The roster was finalized after the 90-91 season...Isiah only played half a season that year. Stockton had broken the 14 APG line in the previous seasons and Magic's season squad was pretty obvious (Stockton/Magic/Malone/Robinson).

Jordan was offered the Captain spot but he wanted it to be himself Larry and Magic. All three guys had issues with Isiah
Well if Mj got to pick the roster we definitely know the best available guys weren't selected lol. That's almost as proven as his greatness at this point.

[Nowoco]

Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan.

Do you have any source for this? As far as I've ever read, the only stipulation Jordan had was not having Isiah on the team, as everyone knows.

As for Laettner, this discussion comes up every few weeks. He thoroughly deserved to be on that team. He was the most accomplished college player of the time by far. Everyone knew Shaq was going to tear up the NBA but the college pick was about what you've done, not what you're going to do. What Laettner did or didnt do in the NBA is irrelevant. People hate on that pick all the time but revisionist history doesnt change the facts.

[John8204]

Do you have any source for this? As far as I've ever read, the only stipulation Jordan had was not having Isiah on the team, as everyone knows.


Yeah I was looking to see if I could find any of the clips I've seen of Jordan over the years. He brings up Chris Mullin all the time in documentaries. Jordan and Mullin started playing together in 81, they won a medal in 84, he was at the Jordan Dome in 95. He even got Mullin and Ewing in a McDonalds commercial in 92.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZz5Gz_AvWU

I also remember a story about Bird getting convinced by MJ and Magic to go even though he was hurt.

As for Laetner they had like five or six guys they could have picked on the short list. Laettener was definately picked as a spot up shooter but it could have easily been Grant Hill. Shaq and Chris Webber were the bigger names those were the blue chippers but Laettner picked for basketball reasons.

[Phoenix]

Practically speaking the final spot shouldn't have gone to any college player, without getting into who deserved it or otherwise. I don't recall if there was some mandate or if it was just a ceremonial position. But Stockton was injured and since politics kept Isiah out, that spot would have been better served on a PG like Tim Hardaway or KJ. IIRC Scottie ended up doing spot PG duties, but he should have been out on the wings with MJ and Clyde, not running offense. Ultimately it didn't really matter because the team was leagues ahead of everyone else, they could have picked someone from the stands for the last spot and it wouldn't have mattered.

[L.Kizzle]

Practically speaking the final spot shouldn't have gone to any college player, without getting into who deserved it or otherwise. I don't recall if there was some mandate or if it was just a ceremonial position. But Stockton was injured and since politics kept Isiah out, that spot would have been better served on a PG like Tim Hardaway or KJ. IIRC Scottie ended up doing spot PG duties, but he should have been out on the wings with MJ and Clyde, not running offense. Ultimately it didn't really matter because the team was leagues ahead of everyone else, they could have picked someone from the stands for the last spot and it wouldn't have mattered.
All of those guys made Dream Team II. Which basically had all of the 2nd tier stars like Reggie Miller and Derrick Coleman were on the team.

[Phoenix]

All of those guys made Dream Team II. Which basically had all of the 2nd tier stars like Reggie Miller and Derrick Coleman were on the team.

Yes I know. I think there's a case one of them could have been on the first team as an injury replacement for Stockton or just to have a 3rd PG in place of the college player pick, but it's all hindsight now.

[HoopsNY]

Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.

I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).

I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.

[RRR3]

Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.

I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).

I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.
That’s not necessarily saying much a ton of title teams would lose if you just removed their 3rd best player without replacing them.

Well maybe not teams that were basically just two man shows like the 01-02 Lakers or 20 Lakers or insanely stacked ones but the majority.

[L.Kizzle]

Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.

I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).

I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.
95 Bulls losing to the Magic had a lot to do with losing their big man Horace Grant. They didn't have a replacement in 95. They got Rodman the next season to basically replace him.

[Phoenix]

Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.

I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).

I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.

That would probably depend on who was on the team in place of him and if they still end up in the finals regardless. A couple of names being tossed around earlier aren't replacing 96 Rodman. But yeah I understand the general sentiment.

[iamgine]

Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.

I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).

I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.

LOL stop with this nonsense. Guy like Charles Oakley was fully sufficient to replace Rodman on that '96 team.

[HoopsNY]

LOL stop with this nonsense. Guy like Charles Oakley was fully sufficient to replace Rodman on that '96 team.

Yea. I didn't mean someone like Oakley couldn't. I'm saying if Rodman wasn't there and Chicago had Kukoc starting at the 4. Oakley was a great rebounder, great mid-range, and a defensive specialist. Obviously they would win with him as they would win with another all-star level player.

[Phoenix]

This whole thing with casually namesdropping other decent to good PFs in Rodman's place is weird. Nobody is saying he was irreplaceable. Charles Oakley was a good player, had a decent 15 foot jumpshot so he'd score a bit more than Dennis( and we're talking like 8-10 points compared to Rodman averaging 6), but wasn't nearly as versatile defensively( he only made 2 All defensive teams in case anyone thinks he was in the same tier because he was out there clotheslining people on their way to the basket), not as good a passer and in the period of time we're talking about, pulled down 5-6 less rebounds and like half as many offensive rebounds. It's like people are googling '90's power forwards' and just throwing out names like these are 1:1 replacements. What Rodman was able to do in 96 greatly contributed to a team that was historically great and set the all-time wins record that stood for 20 years. Even if they replaced him with Oakley and still win, I can confidently say they aren't nearly as good and to touch on what HoopsNY said, if they get to the finals I'm not 100% convinced the Sonics don't win. Rodman averaged 8 offensive rebounds that series. MJ over the course of that finals wasn't some unbeatable force, especially games 4-6 and Scottie was horrid on offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pas7u0fcmzc&ab_channel=BasketballComposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98R_SCHiSUY&ab_channel=LamarMatic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kIDw1qMCW0&ab_channel=Exit

I'm not even 100% they beat the Magic with Oakley if Grant doesn't get injured.

[iamgine]

What Rodman was able to do in 96 greatly contributed to a team that was historically great and set the all-time wins record that stood for 20 years.
That is vast exaggeration. You know who was mainly responsible for them being so good other than MJ and Pippen? Kukoc.

Rodman was perfectly replaceable by the likes of Oakley and Davis.

[Phoenix]

That is vast exaggeration. You know who was mainly responsible for them being so good other than MJ and Pippen? Kukoc.

Rodman was perfectly replaceable by the likes of Oakley and Davis.

Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?

FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.

[Phoenix]

Dennis Rodman was a historically great defensive player and rebounder but eh, PJ Brown will do. Straight clown takes bordering on trolling.

[Nowoco]

Speaking of Ewing. In my mind, Ewing was injury prone and always hurt throughout his career. But I was just looking at the stats and they say different. He got hurt in his first two seasons and at the end of his career but between 1987-1997, his absolute prime, he only missed 20 games which is exceptional for a center.

Does anyone else (mis)remember him this way?

[Phoenix]

Speaking of Ewing. In my mind, Ewing was injury prone and always hurt throughout his career. But I was just looking at the stats and they say different. He got hurt in his first two seasons and at the end of his career but between 1987-1997, his absolute prime, he only missed 20 games which is exceptional for a center.

Does anyone else (mis)remember him this way?

I wasn't watching the NBA till like 89, so I missed the first few years and by the late 90s, being past 35 and getting more injured was par for the course. But in his prime, I remember him being generally healthy and available.

[Phoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcckbtfObQ&ab_channel=BTMBasketballTimeMachine

Timely video that just showed up on my youtube this morning. It's around 40 mins so most won't have the attention span to watch it, but worth a watch if anyone is interested.

[ILLsmak]

dudes are forgetting Rodman could be a number 2 with the right player. If you take the Bulls for example, if you replace Pip with him and you have... MJ, Rodman, Kukoc, that's still a very solid team. His lack of scoring means you have to have two players who can score well, though.

Rodman was dumped by SAS and then retired as a Bull. Sure he did the LA/DAL thing, but... he had great success with DET, had a hard time adjusting to SAS (for two years, still got MVP votes? He wasn't the 3rd guy there, he was the 2nd, alongside a big (basically one of the worst situations for him to be in.)

Rodman is one of the best number 3s of all time, but people are underrating him as a number 2. I think if you can have your pick of anyone, there is a case to pick rodman second. That is a value you cannot get elsewhere. I think that's what people are missing. Sure people could have replaced him, but his value was still way higher than theirs.

-Smak

[sdot_thadon]

Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?

FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.

Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.

[Phoenix]

Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.

No-one throwing out these other names have actually bothered explaining why someone like Dale Davis or Charles Oakley are simple plug and plays. It's like the mindset is 'what bruiser forward type who averaged 10/10 can I throw out there?' But while Rodman could get physical he also had much greater defensive versatility than those guys on top of just being a flat out better rebounder. Pistons Rodman could defend positions 1-4. The older,slower Bulls Rodman could still defend 4s and 5s' and some 3s. Guys like Oakley and Dale Davis got 10 boards mostly banging and being in proximity of the basket. Rodman was all over the court diving for loose balls, could board and throw bullet outlet passes leading to an easy 2 for Jordan/Pippen on the break, could read the Triangle very well as you said and make the correct pass, and did things to get under the opponents skin; he was a psychological master and would get guys out of their comfort zone.
Scoring-wise yeah someone like Oakley gave you a bit more but Rodman was one of the best, if not the best, offensive rebounders most years which led to more possessions, generally equaling out someone like Davis or Oakley giving you an extra 4-5 points depending on the year.

He was simply a more active and dynamic player. These guys on here are like 'well lets see umm Dale Davis could score 10 points and could get 9-10 rebounds so ummmm yeah that's good enough'. Rodman was great at getting 'timely' rebounds, or drawing momentum changing charges, he just did what is referred to as 'winning' plays but he's just being, as far as I can tell, boiled down to some simple bruiser type who just grabbed a bunch of boards, and I guess scoring a few less points equals out to grabbing more rebounds or something. Frankly I don't know what formula they're using.

[Norcaliblunt]

Dude was a freak who lucked up joining two great teams with real coaches and real superstars.

The spurs is a great example of how much of loser dude really was. Was a straight flake when he had no guidance.

Yeah he’s a great rebounder and defender but that’s it.

Dude would not be remembered if he never colored his hair and acted a fool. Surely would never be remembered at all if he didn’t play for those legendary Piston and Bulls teams.

Dudes barely remembered now. It takes North Korea and LeBron homers make this dude relevant.

[Norcaliblunt]

Honestly I’d take

Tony Allen
Bruce Bowen
AC Green
Shawn Marion
Ron Artest
Josh Howard
Richard Dumas
Reggie Lewis
Dan Marjele
Joe Johnson
Rashard Lewis
Raja Bell
Mitch Richmond
Sean Elliot
Etc
Etc
Etc

Over Rodman any day.

[Norcaliblunt]

Rodman ain’t better than

Stephen Jackson
Jason Richardson
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Charles Oakley
Anthony Mason
Etc
Etc

[HoopsNY]

Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.

Good point. Ron Harper is a good example but another example is Glen Rice. Rice didn't fit well with the triangle offense and didn't like it either. Rodman adapted well, probably because he wasn't a scorer, but also because he was a good passer, something that gets left out of the conversation a lot.

Rodman won DPOY in 1990 and 1991. His contributions are understated when it comes to those late 80s and early 90s Bad Boyz Pistons teams. Look at the following:

DET w/Rodman '93: 36-26 (48 win pace)
DET w/o Rodman '93: 4-16 (17 win pace)

Rodman leaves after '93 and there are some shakeups, but Detroit wins just 20 games. He joins SAS and they go from being a 49 win team to a 55 win team, and then the following season 62 wins. He was a locker room problem but we can't ignore SAS play with him.

But here's the interesting thing about '95. Rodman played just 49 games:

'95 SAS w/Rodman: 40-9 (67 win pace)
'95 SAS w/o Rodman: 22-11 (52 win pace)

The discrepancy is a little skewed because the following season, SAS went on to win 59 games. But I think a lot of that had to do with Sean Elliott's elevated play. Point is, Rodman was an obvious ceiling raiser.

'96 CHI w/Rodman: 57-7 (73 win pace)
'96 CHI w/o Rodman: 15-3 (68 win pace)

The regular season numbers don't show it as much but Rodman's play in the playoffs I think summed it up well.

'97 CHI w/Rodman: 48-7 (72 win pace)
'97 CHI w/o Rodman: 21-6 (64 win pace)

Then in '99 he joins the Lakers:

'99 LAL w/Rodman 17-6 (61 win pace)
'99 LAL w/o Rodman: 14-13 (42 win pace)

There's just so much evidence of Rodman's contributions. As a third best player, it's really hard to think of anyone else I'd rather have in all of league history, and that includes Elgin, Manu, Klay, Ray, Grant, etc.

[HoopsNY]

Rodman ain’t better than

Stephen Jackson
Jason Richardson
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Charles Oakley
Anthony Mason
Etc
Etc

I'm taking Rodman as a third best player over all of those guys, especially if you have the scoring you need from a 1-2 punch like Steph/KD, Kobe/Shaq, MJ/Scottie, West/Wilt, Bird/McHale, Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Wade, LeBron/Kyrie, LeBron/AD, Tatum/Brown, etc.

[RRR3]

Norcaliblunt continuing to prove he's dumb as a rock. Richard Dumas lmao

[iamgine]

Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?

FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.
Actually yes. Kukoc was A LOT more crucial than Rodman.

You throw words like all defense and rebounds. It's like saying Raja Bell is absolutely crucial because he's 1st all defense level and shoot 3s so well. :lol

[L.Kizzle]

Good point. Ron Harper is a good example but another example is Glen Rice. Rice didn't fit well with the triangle offense and didn't like it either. Rodman adapted well, probably because he wasn't a scorer, but also because he was a good passer, something that gets left out of the conversation a lot.

Rodman won DPOY in 1990 and 1991. His contributions are understated when it comes to those late 80s and early 90s Bad Boyz Pistons teams. Look at the following:

DET w/Rodman '93: 36-26 (48 win pace)
DET w/o Rodman '93: 4-16 (17 win pace)

Rodman leaves after '93 and there are some shakeups, but Detroit wins just 20 games. He joins SAS and they go from being a 49 win team to a 55 win team, and then the following season 62 wins. He was a locker room problem but we can't ignore SAS play with him.

But here's the interesting thing about '95. Rodman played just 49 games:

'95 SAS w/Rodman: 40-9 (67 win pace)
'95 SAS w/o Rodman: 22-11 (52 win pace)

The discrepancy is a little skewed because the following season, SAS went on to win 59 games. But I think a lot of that had to do with Sean Elliott's elevated play. Point is, Rodman was an obvious ceiling raiser.

'96 CHI w/Rodman: 57-7 (73 win pace)
'96 CHI w/o Rodman: 15-3 (68 win pace)

The regular season numbers don't show it as much but Rodman's play in the playoffs I think summed it up well.

'97 CHI w/Rodman: 48-7 (72 win pace)
'97 CHI w/o Rodman: 21-6 (64 win pace)

Then in '99 he joins the Lakers:

'99 LAL w/Rodman 17-6 (61 win pace)
'99 LAL w/o Rodman: 14-13 (42 win pace)

There's just so much evidence of Rodman's contributions. As a third best player, it's really hard to think of anyone else I'd rather have in all of league history, and that includes Elgin, Manu, Klay, Ray, Grant, etc.
Rodman wasn't the only one left. Did you forget Isiah Thomas injury or Mark Aguirre retiring. Bill Laimbeer was done. Joe D, Zeke and Laimbeer were the only holdover from the championship teams.

[j3lademaster]

I'm taking Rodman as a third best player over all of those guys, especially if you have the scoring you need from a 1-2 punch like Steph/KD, Kobe/Shaq, MJ/Scottie, West/Wilt, Bird/McHale, Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Wade, LeBron/Kyrie, LeBron/AD, Tatum/Brown, etc.

You’d take Rodman over Klay? In this day and age?

[Phoenix]

Actually yes. Kukoc was A LOT more crucial than Rodman.

You throw words like all defense and rebounds. It's like saying Raja Bell is absolutely crucial because he's 1st all defense level and shoot 3s so well. :lol

Ah so all of a defense being a first team all-defender and leading the league in rebounding, literally setting the record for offensive rebounds in the finals are minor contributions. You throw around words like he was 'ALOT more crucial' with no context behind your vacuous statements whatsoever. FOH with this trolling garbage.:lol:facepalm

[Phoenix]

Norcaliblunt continuing to prove he's dumb as a rock. Richard Dumas lmao

Don't forget Iamgine following on with some dumb analogy about Raja Bell. Apparently that's the level of importance Rodman had on those teams. I'm just assuming at this point its trolling.

[iamgine]

Don't forget Iamgine following on with some dumb analogy about Raja Bell. Apparently that's the level of importance Rodman had on those teams. I'm just assuming at this point its trolling.
That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.

[sdot_thadon]

That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.


I'm taking Rodman as a third best player over all of those guys, especially if you have the scoring you need from a 1-2 punch like Steph/KD, Kobe/Shaq, MJ/Scottie, West/Wilt, Bird/McHale, Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Wade, LeBron/Kyrie, LeBron/AD, Tatum/Brown, etc.
Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

[Phoenix]

That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.

No it isn't, don't be daft. Even removing championships there's 2 all-star nods, 2 DPOY, 6 all-defense, 2 All-NBA, and 7 rebound titles worth of accolades separating the two of them.

[HoopsNY]

Actually yes. Kukoc was A LOT more crucial than Rodman.

You throw words like all defense and rebounds. It's like saying Raja Bell is absolutely crucial because he's 1st all defense level and shoot 3s so well. :lol

I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

[Phoenix]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.



I'm assuming he's trolling, because anyone seriously equating Raja Bell with Dennis Rodman should be heavily sedated and in a straight jacket.


I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

I'm not sure if he means Kukoc was more crucial in general or in the 96 finals. The former would be a fair take in 98 because Rodman was really up and down that year. But 96 Finals Rodman? The one some people feel was FMVP that series? The one that Shawn Fukking Kemp is on record as saying 'Jordan didn't beat us, we had no answer for Rodman'. No chance in hell.

Otherwise, you spout the kind of nonsense he's going on about when the intent is to keep someone engaged in a back and forth( which admittedly he's gotten more energy from me than his posts warrant on the topic).

[HoopsNY]

Rodman wasn't the only one left. Did you forget Isiah Thomas injury or Mark Aguirre retiring. Bill Laimbeer was done. Joe D, Zeke and Laimbeer were the only holdover from the championship teams.

That doesn't explain how Detroit played so well with Rodman in 1993 and so poorly without him. You can't compare a 48 win pace to 17. The gap is immense. While it may not have all been Rodman, it certainly had a lot to do with him.

[HoopsNY]

You’d take Rodman over Klay? In this day and age?

Sure. Why not? Rodman is a legitimate versatile defender, which means he'd easily defend the perimeter. If you have a scoring duo like Tatum/Brown, or even Steph/Klay, why wouldn't you? I'll take my chances with Luka/Kyrie plus Rodman, as opposed to Luka/Kyrie + Klay. Klay is 34 this season. I'm taking 34 year old Rodman over him most likely.

[HoopsNY]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.


Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

Yea. Rodman was getting MVP votes on Detroit, San Antonio, and Chicago. He had 4 years where this was the case. By comparison, Draymond has had only 1 year (2016), Marion 2x (2005, 2006), Artest 0x, B. Wallace 3x (2002, 2003, 2004), D. Jordan 0x, Oakley 0x, and Mason 2x (1997, 2001).

I think that's a pretty telling bit of information, together with all the other stuff like his rebounding, offensive rebounding, FMVP votes, DPOYs, passing, and his teams' success with and without him. It's nothing to scoff at, that's for sure.

[sdot_thadon]

I'm assuming he's trolling, because anyone seriously equating Raja Bell with Dennis Rodman should be heavily sedated and in a straight jacket.



I'm not sure if he means Kukoc was more crucial in general or in the 96 finals. The former would be a fair take in 98 because Rodman was really up and down that year. But 96 Finals Rodman? The one some people feel was FMVP that series? The one that Shawn Fukking Kemp is on record as saying 'Jordan didn't beat us, we had no answer for Rodman'. No chance in hell.

Otherwise, you spout the kind of nonsense he's going on about when the intent is to keep someone engaged in a back and forth( which admittedly he's gotten more energy from me than his posts warrant on the topic).
I guess so, because I couldn't see anyone who watched both guys say that with a straight face. Maybe he was bored.

[L.Kizzle]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.


Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

Rodman was known for his off the court antics by then. He was wrasslin, having secks with famous women, marrying himself, arguing with coaches and now coloring his hair. He was now a polarizing figure. He wasn't in Detroit.

[sdot_thadon]

Rodman was known for his off the court antics by then. He was wrasslin, having secks with famous women, marrying himself, arguing with coaches and now coloring his hair. He was now a polarizing figure. He wasn't in Detroit.

Exactly. And i think for him it helped highlight when he actually did play and do the things he did, which let's be real are the less glamorous aspects of the game. It's the same reason so many future fans had trouble giving Bill Russell his flowers.

[iamgine]

I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

Of course no one remembers Kukoc because he's only a 3rd option. Way below MJ and Scottie. I'm talking about how Bulls was able to win 72 games. They basically has a peak Horace Grant level player in Kukoc.

[L.Kizzle]

Dennis Rodman had a made for TV film about his life in 1998. A coincidence, teammates Isiah Thomas' mother was featured in a made for TV movie during his playing days and a Michael Jordan one was in production as he finished his final season in Chicago.

[HoopsNY]

Of course no one remembers Kukoc because he's only a 3rd option. Way below MJ and Scottie. I'm talking about how Bulls was able to win 72 games. They basically has a peak Horace Grant level player in Kukoc.

Not sure what you mean. Kukoc barely played in the ECSF and for the playoffs in its entirety, he averaged 11 PPG on 39% FGs, 19% from 3, and that's with a shortened line.

He certainly wasn't a peak Horace Grant level player, especially seeing that he was the 6th man that year (and the majority of the 3 peat). He was an important player overall, yea, but I think you're overrating him.

[iamgine]

Not sure what you mean. Kukoc barely played in the ECSF and for the playoffs in its entirety, he averaged 11 PPG on 39% FGs, 19% from 3, and that's with a shortened line.

He certainly wasn't a peak Horace Grant level player, especially seeing that he was the 6th man that year (and the majority of the 3 peat). He was an important player overall, yea, but I think you're overrating him.

I guess we just disagree then

[HoopsNY]

I guess we just disagree then

But what are you basing it on? I'm trying to understand that much. Grant was a solid piece who could rebound, defend, had a good mid-range, and could deliver 15 PPG.

Kukoc was a good ball handler, give you similar points or more, but was terrible defensively, not a good rebounder, but was a better passer. His performance doesn't match peak Grant (especially when peak Grant is probably '91-'96). And during the 3 peat, Kukoc was at best hit or miss in the playoffs. I'd argue Grant was a superior postseason performer to Kukoc.

[Phoenix]

But what are you basing it on? I'm trying to understand that much. Grant was a solid piece who could rebound, defend, had a good mid-range, and could deliver 15 PPG.

Kukoc was a good ball handler, give you similar points or more, but was terrible defensively, not a good rebounder, but was a better passer. His performance doesn't match peak Grant (especially when peak Grant is probably '91-'96). And during the 3 peat, Kukoc was at best hit or miss in the playoffs. I'd argue Grant was a superior postseason performer to Kukoc.

Not sure if you've noticed, but none of that poster's claims have really been backed up by anything.

'Kukoc was way more crucial than Rodman!'

'How so?'

'Because!'

'Kukoc was a peak Horace Grant player'

'Not really ( gives several reasons why not)'

'Well I disagree!'

[Norcaliblunt]

Danny Manning
JR Rider
Michael cooper
Michael Red
Khris Middleton
Ginobli
Jrue Holiday
Cliff Robinson
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell
Vernon Maxwell
Byron Scott

The list goes on and on…

And yeah Raja Bell clutch 3 point shooter and great defender is better than offensive and showing up to actually play liability Rodman.

[Norcaliblunt]

I’d take

Rex Chapman
Danny ainge
Jeff hornacek
Schrempf

All

over Rodman.

lol.

[Norcaliblunt]

Latrell Sprewell shits on Rodman

Allan Houston? Yup.

Larry Johnson
Glen Robinson
Loy Vaught
Eddie Jones
Jamal Maahburn
Jimmy Jackson
Michael Finnley

[Norcaliblunt]

Glen freaking Rice shits all over Rodman.

[Norcaliblunt]

Elton Brand
Corey Magette
Iggy
Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Kemp


On and on and on and on

[HoopsNY]

Danny Manning
JR Rider
Michael cooper
Michael Red
Khris Middleton
Ginobli
Jrue Holiday
Cliff Robinson
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell
Vernon Maxwell
Byron Scott

The list goes on and on…

And yeah Raja Bell clutch 3 point shooter and great defender is better than offensive and showing up to actually play liability Rodman.

This list is laughable. Danny Manning? JR Rider? Cliff Robinson? Horry? Mad Max?!

[HoopsNY]

Latrell Sprewell shits on Rodman

Allan Houston? Yup.

Larry Johnson
Glen Robinson
Loy Vaught
Eddie Jones
Jamal Maahburn
Jimmy Jackson
Michael Finnley

You're picking a lot of guys who were actual #2 options or the second best player on teams. Houston is one of them, so was LJ and Glen Robinson. Michael Finley was a #1 option and then #2 option once Dirk emerged.

The discussion is really about picking the best #3.

[HoopsNY]

Elton Brand
Corey Magette
Iggy
Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Kemp


On and on and on and on

Again, why are you picking guys who were clearly the lead player or best player on a franchise? Kemp was for a time one of the best players in the league and a #1 option. Even on Seattle, it was debatable who the best player was.

[sdot_thadon]

Again, why are you picking guys who were clearly the lead player or best player on a franchise? Kemp was for a time one of the best players in the league and a #1 option. Even on Seattle, it was debatable who the best player was.

Hes gotta be trolling at this point, he's lining Rodman up agaisnt guys that were 1st option franchise players lol. I'm completely lost on what the point is.

[RRR3]

Hes gotta be trolling at this point, he's lining Rodman up agaisnt guys that were 1st option franchise players lol. I'm completely lost on what the point is.
No, he's actually that stupid if you read his posts in the OTC.