RealGM

I honestly wasn't even thinking about him making the team, but glad he did. He was an incredibly special player and the fact that the Bulls at one point had three of the top 75 players of all-time is pretty damn cool.

Pound for pound the greatest rebounder of all time. Probably one of the ten greatest defensive forwards ever.



Also one of the most iconic/iconoclastic players of all time with all the hair colors and crazy outfits. Maybe the biggest name recognition of any non-superstar in league history. In addition to the Jordan 13s(imo the greatest of all Jordans), I had(still have both) Rodman's Converse shoes back in 97:



There will never be another Rodman. I still think we should retire his #91.

The way he got into the heads of whoever he was defending. I'll never forget those matchups with Karl Malone.

Well deserved. And the fact that Kukoc #7 and Rodmans 91 is not in the rafters is a damn shame. I believe both should have had their numbers in the rafters.

one of my fav bulls players eher..
so much fun to watch him go after it and getting in opponents heads. i miss that kind of player on our team.



RealGM mobile app

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:

Spoiler:

Is that bald guy Gene Siskel? Ive seen that pic a million times but never noticed that

Well deserved. He should have made it in 1996.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A HELL of a defender......a HELL of a rebounder.....and for sure a HELL of personality.

Very very very well deserved.

Easy selection.
What's incredible is that we got him well after his prime. I absolutely hated & respected him on Detroit, he was a monster.

Thank goodness he's crazy, otherwise Pops would never have traded him to us for Will Perdue.

I don't know how you define the 75th team, it's like picking MVP, there are different ways you can view it. I can definitely come up with a way that Rodman fits (and someone did), but he's clearly not one of the 75 best basketball players of all time.

dougthonus wrote:I don't know how you define the 75th team, it's like picking MVP, there are different ways you can view it. I can definitely come up with a way that Rodman fits (and someone did), but he's clearly not one of the 75 best basketball players of all time.

I think there's an argument. He was an important part of five championship teams, and he led the league in a statistical category - RPG - for seven straight seasons. A few quick searches show that the only other players to ever lead the league in a statistical counting category for seven or more straight seasons are MJ(scoring, 7), Wilt(scoring, 7), Cousy(assists, 8), and Stockton(assists, 9). Some elite company.

kodo wrote:Easy selection.
What's incredible is that we got him well after his prime. I absolutely hated & respected him on Detroit, he was a monster.

Thank goodness he's crazy, otherwise Pops would never have traded him to us for Will Perdue.

I wouldn't say 'well after his prime'. I think he was past his prime by 97-98, but prior to that, particuarly in 95-96, he was perhaps a little past it, but not well past it - he led the league in rebounds and made the all defensive first team in 96.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I think there's an argument. He was an important part of five championship teams, and he led the league in a statistical category - RPG - for seven straight seasons. A few quick searches show that the only other players to ever lead the league in a statistical counting category for seven or more straight seasons are MJ(scoring, 7), Wilt(scoring, 7), Cousy(assists, 8), and Stockton(assists, 9). Some elite company.

He was 3rd most important piece (maybe 4th depending on your view of Kukoc) on 3 title teams, and a less important one on two others. His poor attitude probably cost another team a realistic chance at a title (Spurs).

Rebounding in general isn't nearly as big an indicator of skill as scoring or assists. You have to be an absolutely elite player to lead the league in those categories. The same is not true with rebounding. Andre Drummond led the league in rebounding in four different seasons as an example.

Rodman also contributed relatively little on offense, without knowing the whole list, he's almost certainly a bottom five offensive player on it, and I'm not sure he's anywhere near a top 5 defensive player.

At any rate, he's one of the most unique guys out there, and his personality is so big and his role on important teams was large enough that I can see why he's there. You can't tell the story of the NBA without Rodman, but you could probably tell it without players whom are pretty clearly better than Rodman but didn't end up with key roles on great teams.

dougthonus wrote:

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I think there's an argument. He was an important part of five championship teams, and he led the league in a statistical category - RPG - for seven straight seasons. A few quick searches show that the only other players to ever lead the league in a statistical counting category for seven or more straight seasons are MJ(scoring, 7), Wilt(scoring, 7), Cousy(assists, 8), and Stockton(assists, 9). Some elite company.

He was 3rd most important piece (maybe 4th depending on your view of Kukoc) on 3 title teams, and a less important one on two others. His poor attitude probably cost another team a realistic chance at a title (Spurs).

Rebounding in general isn't nearly as big an indicator of skill as scoring or assists. You have to be an absolutely elite player to lead the league in those categories. The same is not true with rebounding. Andre Drummond led the league in rebounding in four different seasons as an example.

Rodman also contributed relatively little on offense, without knowing the whole list, he's almost certainly a bottom five offensive player on it, and I'm not sure he's anywhere near a top 5 defensive player.

At any rate, he's one of the most unique guys out there, and his personality is so big and his role on important teams was large enough that I can see why he's there. You can't tell the story of the NBA without Rodman, but you could probably tell it without players whom are pretty clearly better than Rodman but didn't end up with key roles on great teams.

Please give some examples of such players, otherwise I don't know what I'm arguing against.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Please give some examples of such players, otherwise I don't know what I'm arguing against.

Only going to name guys I watched play as much or more than Rodman and am not going to go historical to which I can't even begin to gauge fairly:

Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Pau Gasol, Chis Bosh, and Dwight Howard are a few whom led teams as true #1 options way better than Rodman ever could.

Maybe a bit more controversial would be guys like Kyrie Irving, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili whom weren't #1 options but were the 2a/2b guys on title teams compared to Rodman whom was more if a 3a/3b guy and worse. Even someone like Paul George whom hasn't won anything is probably an individual better player than Rodman.

For non offensive players, I'd take Motumbo and Wallace over Rodman as well.

Is Rodman more important to the NBA story than all of those guys, maybe (though Pau has a couple rings and Parker/Ginobili do as well and Parker even has a Finals MVP to his credit). Is he a better player than them if I'm picking a dude to anchor my team for their five best years? No. Clearly not.

dougthonus wrote:I don't know how you define the 75th team, it's like picking MVP, there are different ways you can view it. I can definitely come up with a way that Rodman fits (and someone did), but he's clearly not one of the 75 best basketball players of all time.

I get what you're saying, which is why I myself never even considered him as a serious candidate for this list. Then again, his resume is pretty incredible. In a 9-year span he won 7 rebounding titles, 5 championships, and was 2-time DPOY. I guess the argument would be are there 75 players that accomplished more than that.

HomoSapien wrote:

dougthonus wrote:I don't know how you define the 75th team, it's like picking MVP, there are different ways you can view it. I can definitely come up with a way that Rodman fits (and someone did), but he's clearly not one of the 75 best basketball players of all time.

I get what you're saying, which is why I myself never even considered him as a serious candidate for this list. Then again, his resume is pretty incredible. In a 9-year span he won 7 rebounding titles, 5 championships, and was 2-time DPOY. I guess the argument would be are there 75 players that accomplished more than that.

The championship thing is garbage argument because he was debatably the 3rd best guy at his peak on those teams and there was a mammoth gap between #1 and #2 and him at #3 and you could argue him as being at #4. On the Pistons he was even lower in the pecking order and just happened to be there. Are we going to consider Horace Grant or Robert Horry? No one else is getting credit for contributing to titles like that.

Rebounding titles are also pretty worthless. Go look at all the guys who won rebound titles, and how many of them are on this list unless they're also elite offensive players? None. No one else is really even in consideration.

2 time DPOY is meaningful, obviously being viewed as the best defender in the league carries some serious weight to it. However, Ben Wallace, Dikembe Motumbo, and Rudy Gobert all have more DPOY awards and aren't on the list. Gobert has more offense to his game than Rodman as well, and all three played a more important defensive position than Rodman (Motumbo/Wallace probably similarly inept on offense).

Like I said, I get why Rodman is there. He's the right mix of right place/right time, personality that made him bigger than life, a story so intricate to the NBA that the NBA story can't justifiably be told without him, and obviously a great player overall. From that perspective, I get the inclusion. I just don't think he's close to one of the 75 best players ever.

Beyond the guys I named earlier, take someone like Rasheed Wallace or prime Shawn Kemp would probably help you win more games than Rodman if Rodman wasn't paired with other super elite players. (edit, removed Gary Payton as he made the list).

dougthonus wrote:

HomoSapien wrote:

dougthonus wrote:I don't know how you define the 75th team, it's like picking MVP, there are different ways you can view it. I can definitely come up with a way that Rodman fits (and someone did), but he's clearly not one of the 75 best basketball players of all time.

I get what you're saying, which is why I myself never even considered him as a serious candidate for this list. Then again, his resume is pretty incredible. In a 9-year span he won 7 rebounding titles, 5 championships, and was 2-time DPOY. I guess the argument would be are there 75 players that accomplished more than that.

The championship thing is garbage because he was debatably the 3rd best guy at his peak on those teams. No one else is getting credit for that. Rebounding titles are also pretty worthless. Go look at all the guys who won rebound titles, and how many of them are on this list unless they're also elite offensive players? None.

2 time DPOY is meaningful, obviously being viewed as the best defender in the league carries some serious weight to it. However, Ben Wallace, Dikembe Motumbo, and Rudy Gobert all have more DPOY awards and aren't on the list.

I'll add that he's a 7-time All-Defensive 1st Team member. I don't think the championship thing is garbage. He wasn't Robert Horry on those teams. You remove him and I don't think any of those teams win a championship. Whether it was his rebounding or defense, he wasn't the type of talent who could easily be replaced -- especially on the Pistons where he was versatile enough to defend the likes of Karl Malone, Magic, Bird, Pippen, Jordan, etc.

To call rebounding titles worthless is such a weird statement, Doug. Why is it worthless? It's an incredibly important part of the game, and he's widely considered to be the All-Time GOAT rebounder of modern basketball.

Regarding Ben Wallace and Mutombo, without heavily looking through the list, I'm a bit surprised that neither made it. Then again, I think Rodman's resume is pound for pound significantly more impressive.

EDIT: Just saw you added to your post. Rasheed Wallace and Shawn Kemp? Great individual talents, without question, but there's no argument that either belongs on a top 75 list. They didn't accomplish nearly enough. Sheed, in particular, has pretty pedestrian numbers given his gifts.

HomoSapien wrote:I'll add that he's a 7-time All-Defensive 1st Team member. I don't think the championship thing is garbage. He wasn't Robert Horry on those teams. You remove him and I don't think any of those teams win a championship. Whether it was his rebounding or defense, he wasn't the type of talent who could easily be replaced -- especially on the Pistons where he was versatile enough to defend the likes of Karl Malone, Magic, Bird, Pippen, Jordan, etc.

Regarding Ben Wallace and Mutombo, without heavily looking through the list, I'm a bit surprised that neither made it. Then again, I think Rodman's resume is pound for pound significantly more impressive.

In the Pistons first title, he was probably their 6th best player behind Thomas, Dumars, Lambair, Dantley, and Aguirre. On their 2nd title, maybe he moved his way up to 4th best player? He was a fringe guy there.

The Bulls won 3 titles effectively swapping Horace Grant for Dennis Rodman. Horace Grant isn't anywhere near this list. Horace Grant was probably more critical to the first 3 titles than Rodman was to the 2nd three.

dougthonus wrote:

HomoSapien wrote:I'll add that he's a 7-time All-Defensive 1st Team member. I don't think the championship thing is garbage. He wasn't Robert Horry on those teams. You remove him and I don't think any of those teams win a championship. Whether it was his rebounding or defense, he wasn't the type of talent who could easily be replaced -- especially on the Pistons where he was versatile enough to defend the likes of Karl Malone, Magic, Bird, Pippen, Jordan, etc.

Regarding Ben Wallace and Mutombo, without heavily looking through the list, I'm a bit surprised that neither made it. Then again, I think Rodman's resume is pound for pound significantly more impressive.

In the Pistons first title, he was probably their 6th best player behind Thomas, Dumars, Lambair, Dantley, and Aguirre. On their 2nd title, maybe he moved his way up to 4th best player? He was a fringe guy there.

The Bulls won 3 titles effectively swapping Horace Grant for Dennis Rodman. Horace Grant isn't anywhere near this list. Horace Grant was probably more critical to the first 3 titles than Rodman was to the 2nd three.

I feel like I'm getting a little backed into an argument I'm not really passionate about making. Like I said, I didn't think he would even be considered to make the list but I think you're underrating him with some odd statements. Arguing that being a 7-time rebounding champ is worthless is such a weird stance to take that I don't even know what the counterargument is.

Horace Grant shouldn't be on this list. He may have been a more complete player than Rodman, but he wasn't more impactful and though his numbers were steady they weren't eye-popping in the same way Rodman's were.