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

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?

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'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.

[QUOTE=Full Court;14964827]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14964840]Nobody was ranking Rodman over Kemp in the 90s. Hell, no one was ranking him over Kevin Johnson either.[/QUOTE]
Nobody was ranking Dirk or Nash over McGrady in the early 2000's, that has little bearing on where players rank all time.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14964835]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.[/QUOTE]

I agree with everything you said.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14964842]Nobody was ranking Dirk or Nash over McGrady in the early 2000's, that has little bearing on where players rank all time.[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14964840]Nobody was ranking Rodman over Kemp in the 90s. Hell, no one was ranking him over Kevin Johnson either.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=John8204;14964878]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=John8204;14964878]636-275 (Rodman)
633-418 (Kemp)
472-263 (Johnson)

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

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

[QUOTE=jstern;14964866]Rodman was not a liability on offense, he could pass[/QUOTE]

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.

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.