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

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965745]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965761]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]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).

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

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=iamgine;14965809]LOL stop with this nonsense. Guy like Charles Oakley was fully sufficient to replace Rodman on that '96 team.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.
[video=youtube;pas7u0fcmzc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pas7u0fcmzc&ab_channel=BasketballComposition[/video]
[video=youtube;98R_SCHiSUY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98R_SCHiSUY&ab_channel=LamarMatic[/video]
[video=youtube;4kIDw1qMCW0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kIDw1qMCW0&ab_channel=Exit[/video]

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

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965903] 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. [/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14965905]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

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?

[QUOTE=Nowoco;14965917]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 [B]between 1987-1997, his absolute prime, he only missed 20 games which is exceptional for a center.[/B]

Does anyone else (mis)remember him this way?[/QUOTE]

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.

[video=youtube;DVcckbtfObQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcckbtfObQ&ab_channel=BTMBasketballTimeMachine[/video]

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.