Is Dennis Rodman One of The Top 75 Best Players In NBA History?

[MiamiBulls]

Dennis Rodman making the NBA 75th Anniversary Team has brought on interest in the overall value Dennis Rodman brought to the basketball court.

Which of these player(s) was Rodzilla better than

Select multiple if necessary:

[NZB2323]

Probably not. You could add Pau Gasol, Jokic, Luka, SGA, Tatum, and Butler as players who didn’t make the top 75 list who are better than Rodman.

[mojomarc]

Rodman is a hard case. What he did well, he did at an all-time great level. What he didn't do great, he was awful at. Basically the entire list of folks above offered more rounded skills. But I don't think most of them are so superlative in a few areas like Rodman is at defense, rebounding and hustle, that you could make a massively clear cut case that they're better. But I would definitely take several over Rodman in part because of the distraction factor, and also because (translating to today), you need to have a wider range of skills to be able to play. So personally for me Parker and Green are the only two I think are pretty clearly matchups in Rodman's favor. The others, I could make a pretty good argument for Rodman being worse.

[ballzboyee]

Probably not. You could add Pau Gasol, Jokic, Luka, SGA, Tatum, and Butler as players who didn’t make the top 75 list who are better than Rodman.

All those guys will make the next list because they are all clearly top 100 players. It's hard to quantify Rodman's skill as a basketball player relative to his impact. Impact wise I think there is a strong argument that his is on the same level as those guys. Rodman will still be on the list even if those guys move up.

[dhsilv2]

Doh, I voted none of the above without noticing Parker there. I'd put him over Parker. But no he's not top 75 but he's not far after. Low 80's perhaps today?

[dhsilv2]

Probably not. You could add Pau Gasol, Jokic, Luka, SGA, Tatum, and Butler as players who didn’t make the top 75 list who are better than Rodman.

All those guys will make the next list because they are all clearly top 100 players. It's hard to quantify Rodman's skill as a basketball player relative to his impact. Impact wise I think there is a strong argument that his is on the same level as those guys. Rodman will still be on the list even if those guys move up.

The problem is the voters not only didn't drop anyone from the first 50 but added from that pool. The result is the list is biased for the past while the league is growing. So...there's a darn good chance many of those worthy guys won't make it.

[Joao Saraiva]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

It depends on how you evaluate things. He falls a bit into the Draymond Green category - players who have a ton of impact in specific roles, that were part of winning franchises and their contribute was key, but you can't ask them to lead a team as the #1 option or something.

Tracy McGrady probably could lead a team somwhere but never actually did it. At least he could have been a #2 option, and Rodman couldn't. But if you have two stars you probably don't need McGrady, but you can certainly use Mutombo, Green or Rodman and raise the ceilling of the team a lot.

Ranking is not easy. I'd say the best way to do it is by cumulative value of the career and then pondering peak and prime.

It's hard for me to see Dennis entering the top 75. By the formula I use (and it's just a formula I made up) Rodman doesn't get enough value to enter that realm.

[ballzboyee]

Probably not. You could add Pau Gasol, Jokic, Luka, SGA, Tatum, and Butler as players who didn’t make the top 75 list who are better than Rodman.

All those guys will make the next list because they are all clearly top 100 players. It's hard to quantify Rodman's skill as a basketball player relative to his impact. Impact wise I think there is a strong argument that his is on the same level as those guys. Rodman will still be on the list even if those guys move up.

The problem is the voters not only didn't drop anyone from the first 50 but added from that pool. The result is the list is biased for the past while the league is growing. So...there's a darn good chance many of those worthy guys won't make it.

I think they will all make the next list pretty easily. Jokic, Tatum, SGA, and Luka will be no brainers (assuming Tatum comes back 90 percent or better, which I think he will). Gasol's stock will go way up with the way the title is bouncing around from franchise to franchise. He probably should have been on the first list. The second near threepeat run he had as 2nd option pretty much solidifies his stock as a championship big unless we see another dynasty era, which is probably not going to happen with this CBA. OKC is built to make a run, but who are the other teams right now? Butler is the only one that I could see not getting slotted.

[dhsilv2]

All those guys will make the next list because they are all clearly top 100 players. It's hard to quantify Rodman's skill as a basketball player relative to his impact. Impact wise I think there is a strong argument that his is on the same level as those guys. Rodman will still be on the list even if those guys move up.

The problem is the voters not only didn't drop anyone from the first 50 but added from that pool. The result is the list is biased for the past while the league is growing. So...there's a darn good chance many of those worthy guys won't make it.

I think they will all make the next list pretty easily. Jokic, Tatum, SGA, and Luka will be no brainers (assuming Tatum comes back 90 percent or better, which I think he will). Gasol's stock will go way up with the way the title is bouncing around from franchise to franchise. He probably should have been on the first list. The second near threepeat run he had as 2nd option pretty much solidifies his stock as a championship big unless we see have another dynasty era, which is probably not going to happen with this CBA. OKC is built to make a run, but who are the other teams right now? Butler is the only one that I could see not getting slotted.

Dwight Howard didn't make the 75 list. We're what 23-24 years away from the top 100? By then we will have 40 guys better than many on the first 50 and a few on the last 25.

Now sure Jokic, Tatum, SGA and Luka shouldn't have any issues. But now I've added 4 of 25 lots. We only have 21 more spots for the next 2 decades of basketball? Do you see the issue?

[SlimShady83]

I would say yes. But will have to take a good hard look

[ReggiesKnicks]

I think he is one of the most 75 influential players and/or is one of the Top 75 players in terms of telling the NBA story. I do not think he was one of the best 75 players of all-time.

[NZB2323]

Probably not. You could add Pau Gasol, Jokic, Luka, SGA, Tatum, and Butler as players who didn’t make the top 75 list who are better than Rodman.

All those guys will make the next list because they are all clearly top 100 players. It's hard to quantify Rodman's skill as a basketball player relative to his impact. Impact wise I think there is a strong argument that his is on the same level as those guys. Rodman will still be on the list even if those guys move up.

Rodman isn’t on the same level as those guys impact wise, especially if you consider the negatives. The Spurs defense got better after he left. He brought a gun to the team’s parking lot, kicked a cameraman, left the team in the middle of a season for a Vegas vacation, skipped practice in the finals, and didn’t shoot.

We only have play-by-play data from 97 onwards, so we don’t have a ton from Rodman. For 3 out of his 5 championships, his coach played him less than 30 minutes a game in the playoffs. For his career he averaged 28.3 minutes per game in playoff games.

Jokic, SGA, and Tatum were all the best players on a championship team. Luka and Butler were the best players on teams that made the finals. Gasol was the 2nd best player on championship team, which I guess you could argue Rodman for on those Pistons squads, but they had Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars.

Is Rodman better than Ben Wallace? Rudy Gobert?

I know Realgm really doesn’t like Gobert, but Rodman couldn’t defend the paint and 3 point line and 5 guys as none of his teammates could stay in front of a man either. Rodman is a better rebounder, Gobert is a better rim-runner. Rodman successfully defended and beat Magic, Jordan, Bird, Malone, and Shaq. Gobert successfully defended and beat Jokic, Durant, Lebron, and Booker.

Gobert has not always had success as a defender in the playoffs, but neither did Rodman. Rodman refused to provide help defense and double team while Hakeem was scoring 35 ppg on 59 TS%, and Rodman didn’t look great defensively in the 91 ECF when he got swept and his team was outscored by 46 points.

[NZB2323]

I think he is one of the most 75 influential players and/or is one of the Top 75 players in terms of telling the NBA story. I do not think he was one of the best 75 players of all-time.

I would go on to say that he is one of the most influential players of all time. He was the first NBA player to have tattoos and was very popular with people who aren’t basketball fans and is a big reason why tattoos are more mainstream today.

Also, a meeting between the President of the United States of America and the Supreme Leader of North Korea happened for the first and only time because of Dennis Rodman.

[dhsilv2]

I think he is one of the most 75 influential players and/or is one of the Top 75 players in terms of telling the NBA story. I do not think he was one of the best 75 players of all-time.

I would go on to say that he is one of the most influential players of all time. He was the first NBA player to have tattoos and was very popular with people who aren’t basketball fans and is a big reason why tattoos are more mainstream today.

Also, a meeting between the President of the United States of America and the Supreme Leader of North Korea happened for the first and only time because of Dennis Rodman.

Rodman was certainly something else. NBA player dressing up in a dress to get married...he was special. I'm not sure how to evaluate that. But he certainly was a big part of pop culture.

[bkkrh]

Draymond Green is the only clear option for me, who is a better overall player, but Rodman I see overall a bit better in the main things you want either on your team. With everyone else it comes down a bit to how we evaluate. If it comes down to "who would you want as best player on your team" he is definitely behind everyone behind Green. If you´d say "who would you want to start a franchise with" I am a bit tempted with picking him ahead of some players like Parker from the perspective of that he would be a great complementary player next to another star.

[DAWill1128]

Rodman impacts the game in a way that a Draymond Green does today. People will dismiss Rodman and Draymond for not having the point totals. Its the same reason every week we have a thread where people can't fathom why people think guys like Kidd, Nash, or Stockton were good.

[HomoSapien]

He’s hard to quantify because he’s such a unique player. A lot of those guys listed are more talented or more clearly guys you’d try to build around, but Rodman’s resume speaks for itself.

5x Champion
2x DPOY
7X Rebounding Champ
2X All-NBA
8X All-Defensive Team
2x All-Star

If you had no idea about his stats, skillsets, or playing style but just saw those accomplishments would you question him being a top-75 player?

[MarcusBrody]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

It depends on how you evaluate things. He falls a bit into the Draymond Green category - players who have a ton of impact in specific roles, that were part of winning franchises and their contribute was key, but you can't ask them to lead a team as the #1 option or something.

Tracy McGrady probably could lead a team somwhere but never actually did it. At least he could have been a #2 option, and Rodman couldn't. But if you have two stars you probably don't need McGrady, but you can certainly use Mutombo, Green or Rodman and raise the ceilling of the team a lot.

Ranking is not easy. I'd say the best way to do it is by cumulative value of the career and then pondering peak and prime.

It's hard for me to see Dennis entering the top 75. By the formula I use (and it's just a formula I made up) Rodman doesn't get enough value to enter that realm.

I agree with this. If there was an all-time draft with 30 NBA teams, I could see Rodman going as high as 75th (more likely 90-100). But that's because each team would have already had their choice of two very good offensive options. But if there were 60 teams, I see him going 150+. He was a great player, but fills a very specific niche, so teams would need to know who their top guys were before choosing Rodman. But once they do, he may be more valuable to them than their second choice pick from the previous round (even if that player was still available).

Draymond goes ahead of him for most teams in my opinion as while Rodman is probably an even more versatile (and generally better) man defender, Draymond is an exceptional team defender and his facilitation makes him an offensive plus in a lot of systems, even if you can't have him being a primary scorer.

[Maxthirty]

Draymond is better than Rodman in every single aspect regarding offense. Stop comparing them.

[Capn'O]

Rodman is a hard case. What he did well, he did at an all-time great level. What he didn't do great, he was awful at. Basically the entire list of folks above offered more rounded skills. But I don't think most of them are so superlative in a few areas like Rodman is at defense, rebounding and hustle, that you could make a massively clear cut case that they're better. But I would definitely take several over Rodman in part because of the distraction factor, and also because (translating to today), you need to have a wider range of skills to be able to play. So personally for me Parker and Green are the only two I think are pretty clearly matchups in Rodman's favor. The others, I could make a pretty good argument for Rodman being worse.

An even weirder case because he started out more well rounded under Chuck Daly and the Pistons and decided to completely abandon offensive competency for defense and rebounding. In his second season he averaged 11.6 ppg (16 per 36) and even hit some 3s. My earliest recollections of him were more shooting Js than wreaking havoc on defense and the glass, though he certainly did that with the Pistons.