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.

Rebounding wise, he was second only to Wilt.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Meticode;14965013]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14964881]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]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14964813]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965096]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965114]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=jstern;14964866]Rodman was not a liability on offense, he could pass,[B] picks up offensive systems faster than the majority of players[/B]. 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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965136]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965137]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965138]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[/QUOTE]

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.

[video=youtube_share;bdTeqzrP0xg]https://youtu.be/bdTeqzrP0xg[/video]

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

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

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965137]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965141]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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965143]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965141]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[/QUOTE]

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