RealGM

I decided to look at Dennis Rodman's impact during his career and found out that he was a pretty good player. I looked at the seasons where Rodman missed a lot of games to compare how his team did with and without him. I looked at rebounding impact and overall impact.


Offensive Rebounding% with Rodman and without Rodman



Defensive Rebounding%



Total Rebounding%



Rebound margin per game:



Here is more data for Rodman. I am going to look at his overall impact, not rebounding.

Scoring Margin with Rodman and Without:



Defensive Rating with and without Rodman (negative is good, positive is bad)




Offensive Rating with and without Rodman:



As you can see Rodman had a big offensive impact. Here are his teams eFG% with and without him. it was literally the same which means his offensive impact came from his rebounding.



Conclusions:
-Overall, Rodman had a really big impact on some good teams.
-Rodman's impact was mostly on the offensive boards. He had some good defensive rebounding impact, but it paled in comparison to his offensive rebounding. In his prime, Rodman was getting 5-6% points more offensive rebounds
-Rodman had impact on both sides of the ball but surprisingly his impact was higher on offense. Rodman wasn't looked at as an offensive player but he had a lot of impact on that side of the ball. It was all due to his insane offensive rebounding.

From ElGee's now extinct blog. Here is how Rodman's teams were ranked in total rebounding margin. Included are the years before and after Rodman to gauge his impact.

Year Team Diff Rank
1987 Detroit 412 1
1988 Detroit 243 3
1989 Detroit 381 1
1990 Detroit 322 4
1991 Detroit 378 3
1992 Detroit 261 6
1993 Detroit* 67 13
1994 Detroit -434 27 (Without Rodman)

1993 San Antonio -9 17 (Without Rodman)
1994 San Antonio 544 1
1995 San Antonio* 358 3
1996 San Antonio -59 15 (Without Rodman)

1995 Chicago 80 11 (Without Rodman)
1996 Chicago* 541 1
1997 Chicago* 403 1
1998 Chicago 426 1

93 in Detroit, Rodman is still focused on defense and it shows. 95 in SA, Rodman quits playing defense to hang around the boards and pad his rebounding stats and it shows. Notice how SA IMPROVES considerably defensively with Terry Cummings who had a (undeserved in my opinion) rep as mediocre defender and even with J.R. Reid (matured into a mediocre banger type but not a All-D team candidate in any universe I've ever lived in). Defense is a team concept, Rodman was letting the Spurs down.

Rodman's offensive impact is very interesting though . . . you think it is ALL offensive rebounding or is there more to it (moving the ball quickly -- hockey assist style? Pick setting? any other offensive value)? After all, his team efgs didn't slip despite his lack of scoring.

penbeast0 wrote:Rodman's offensive impact is very interesting though . . . you think it is ALL offensive rebounding or is there more to it (moving the ball quickly -- hockey assist style? Pick setting? any other offensive value)? After all, his team efgs didn't slip despite his lack of scoring.

Here are the 95 Spurs offensive stats with and without Rodman


The teams scoring efficiency is the same. The team also experienced a slight decline in turnovers, but the vast majority of the +6.4 O rating difference is attributed to the 6.1% difference in offensive rebounding.

Very interesting thread, thanks colts for your research.

Building on what pen noted, do you guys think it's possible that post-Detroit Rodman was more valuable on offense than defense? What about in the playoffs when I believe his rebounding went down but he had some very notable defensive series?

I buy 100 percent than Rodman had strong offensive impact. He had incredibly high bball IQ. In the Triangle, he was actually a very good passer despite not having much range — or rather, much inclination — to shoot. He was a master of timing, whether it be for hitting the offensive glass or knowing when to hand the ball off to Jordan/Kerr/Harper and then getting in the way of their defender and sort of screening that defender out to get his teammate a clean look. His activity on the offensive glass meant you had to dedicate a player to face-guarding him. You couldn't just ignore the guy when you're a defender.

I don't think I'd consider several seasons of 1-3 point differential impact as being superstar level. It seems it has become popular over the past couple years to call him a superstar, but I think people are reaching a bit. Detroit Rodman is interesting though. He definitely was one of the best defensive players (at least in modern history.) But post-Detroit, I think his impact is overrated.

For instance, his RAPM (non-prior informed):
'97: +3.2 tot, +2.1 off, +1.2 def (32nd)
'98: +1.35 tot, +1.53 off, -0.18 def (76th)
'99: -1.55 tot, +0.07 off, -1.63 def (382nd)

Prior-informed:
'98: +1.70 tot, +1.25 off, +0.44 def (79th)
'99: +0.37 tot, +0.85 off, -0.48 def (141st)

Not that RAPM is always correct, and '99 Rodman was definitely not him at his best, but it's certainly more reliable than raw with/without stats because there's a strength of schedule adjustment built in and an adjustment for teammates/guys who replace you in the lineups.

I think later era Rodman was too interested in rebounds and wasn't a game-changer anymore on defense to make up for his lack of offensive skills/scoring. His usage rate ranged from 8 to 10. That's tiny, and yeah, there are very good players who don't shoot often, but they're rare. We should have compelling evidence that Rodman is a "superstar" or even a star. Detroit Rodman, sure (though he shot more often there), but I'm not convinced of post-Detroit Rodman.

acrossthecourt wrote:I don't think I'd consider several seasons of 1-3 point differential impact as being superstar level. It seems it has become popular over the past couple years to call him a superstar, but I think people are reaching a bit. Detroit Rodman is interesting though. He definitely was one of the best defensive players (at least in modern history.) But post-Detroit, I think his impact is overrated.

For instance, his RAPM (non-prior informed):
'97: +3.2 tot, +2.1 off, +1.2 def (32nd)
'98: +1.35 tot, +1.53 off, -0.18 def (76th)
'99: -1.55 tot, +0.07 off, -1.63 def (382nd)

Prior-informed:
'98: +1.70 tot, +1.25 off, +0.44 def (79th)
'99: +0.37 tot, +0.85 off, -0.48 def (141st)

You have 1999 RAPM data? When is that coming out?

acrossthecourt wrote:I don't think I'd consider several seasons of 1-3 point differential impact as being superstar level. It seems it has become popular over the past couple years to call him a superstar, but I think people are reaching a bit. Detroit Rodman is interesting though. He definitely was one of the best defensive players (at least in modern history.) But post-Detroit, I think his impact is overrated.

For instance, his RAPM (non-prior informed):
'97: +3.2 tot, +2.1 off, +1.2 def (32nd)
'98: +1.35 tot, +1.53 off, -0.18 def (76th)
'99: -1.55 tot, +0.07 off, -1.63 def (382nd)

Prior-informed:
'98: +1.70 tot, +1.25 off, +0.44 def (79th)
'99: +0.37 tot, +0.85 off, -0.48 def (141st)

Not that RAPM is always correct, and '99 Rodman was definitely not him at his best, but it's certainly more reliable than raw with/without stats because there's a strength of schedule adjustment built in and an adjustment for teammates/guys who replace you in the lineups.

I think later era Rodman was too interested in rebounds and wasn't a game-changer anymore on defense to make up for his lack of offensive skills/scoring. His usage rate ranged from 8 to 10. That's tiny, and yeah, there are very good players who don't shoot often, but they're rare. We should have compelling evidence that Rodman is a "superstar" or even a star. Detroit Rodman, sure (though he shot more often there), but I'm not convinced of post-Detroit Rodman.

Good stuff. Thanks for your RAPM work. Is 99 NPI/PI almost ready for release?

Great post. I had looked into Rodman's impact a bit such as Detroit's record with and without him, the Spurs going from a 55 win pace without him to a 67 win pace with him in '95, and Rodman's roles in the Spurs seemingly overachieving in '94. The first thing that stands out about that season is obviously Robinson carrying the team with Lucas literally giving him license to do play how he wanted. Lower down the list, there's the fact that Dale Ellis at 33 was still one of the best shooters in the league(15 ppg + 3rd in eFG% at 56% and 7th in 3s made), but what stood out well above that was the advantage adding an 18+ rpg player in Rodman to a 12 rpg player in Robinson gave them which led to the Spurs outrebounding opponents by 6.6 rpg which is just so far above what's usually a great rebounding team. I had looked at his great '92 season as well, which I believe to be his peak and when I also believe he had become Detroit's best player and his '96 playoff run. Rodman had a pretty quiet 1st round vs Miami other than frustrating Zo at times, iirc, but played very well vs the Knicks and then was great vs both Orlando and Seattle. I don't think Rodman's role in Chicago going from a 2nd round loss to a 72 win championship team can be overstated. I had also remembered that the disappointing '99 Lakers had been at their best during Rodman's brief stretch and before they traded Eddie Jones despite the problems Rodman caused. I've wondered for years what a coach who could have managed the egos, particularly Phil Jackson could have done with prime Shaq, young Kobe, Rodman and Eddie Jones.

But these numbers add a lot more insight, and are making me think again about just how good Rodman was and how many players you could truly call better than him during those years. The '93 numbers are validation or evidence of what a great defender Rodman was during his Detroit days. That means they were a bit above average defensively with him, but the worst defense without him. Even worse than an 11 win Mavs team that was far worse than the 2nd worst defensive team that year. Which got me thinking about '92 when Detroit had a top 6 defense(with just over 1 point per 100 possessions separating them and the number 1 ranked Spurs) with a very similar roster while playing 40.3 mpg, averaging 18.7 rpg, an efficient 9.8 ppg and 2.3 apg, which obviously isn't where his offensive impact is, but better than his usual numbers on top of everything else. I know Rodman had some great stretches and received some high praise that year, but it's probably not brought up enough these days when mentioning peaks and great seasons.

The '95 stats are so interesting because it's well documented that he was slacking off defensively to focus on rebounding at this point, and this year in particular, which the infamous playoffs, but I never would have guessed their defense was that much worse with him and never in a million years would I have guessed that he had such a big impact on their offense. Pretty crazy to think with a significant sample size, the Spurs defense was the best in the league, even better than the Knicks and that Rodman apparently brought them down to dead on middle of the pack, but that with his addition, an offense that would have only been top 13th and slightly above league average(so essentially as average of an offense as it gets) winds up producing at a level that would have had them edge out Orlando for first and was nearly as good as it gets.

It makes a bit of sense that beyond the half a dozen or so offensive rebounds Rodman gets, the threat he brings after every shot goes up, the energy and effort it took to keep him off the offensive glass and Rodman being so relentless tipping the ball usually until he could control it or to at least make you work harder could change a game. But the extent of it is something I didn't realize, and I doubt most realize. I'll also agree with what ronnymac noted about Rodman being a good passer who did well screening and with those handoffs. Plus, the triangle is an ideal offense for offensive rebounding.

It is clear that there are two different versions of Rodman people remember. The lockdown defender during the Bad Boys heyday who could guard 3-4 positions well and didn't look inept offensively and the Bulls version who was primarily a monstrous rebounder who was most notable defensively for being a potentially great and frustrating post defender, but '92 and '93 Rodman seems to be a bit of the best of both worlds. At least as far as his GOAT-level rebounding in addition to the great defense he displayed when the Bad Boys were contending and winning titles.

colts18 wrote:-Rodman had impact on both sides of the ball but surprisingly his impact was higher on offense.

No surprise here. His biggest defensive strength was always man to man defense and that's less important for overall impact on defensive end than help D. Dennis never really was great or even very good help defender. On the other hand offensive rebounding highly correlates with ORTG and that without a doubt was thing Rodman was the best at,

fpliii wrote:Building on what pen noted, do you guys think it's possible that post-Detroit Rodman was more valuable on offense than defense? What about in the playoffs when I believe his rebounding went down but he had some very notable defensive series?

In 1997, Rodman lead the league with an on court offensive rating of 114. His RAPM's seemed to suggest more impact on offense than defense.

As far as playoffs, he had some pretty good rebounding with the Bulls. From 96-98, the Bulls were #1 in playoff offensive rebounding each year. 1996 playoffs was his masterpiece. In the 1st round they faced the Heat, a team who finished the regular season 3rd in DRB%. In that series, the bulls had a 36 ORB%. Then in the CF, the Bulls had an absurd 44% ORB% vs Orlando which had a frontline of Shaq and Grant. The Bulls outrebounded the Magic by 15 per game in that series. In the finals, the Bulls had a 39% ORB% vs the Supersonics. Rodman was a big reason for their rebounding success in the playoffs.

ronnymac2 wrote:I buy 100 percent than Rodman had strong offensive impact. He had incredibly high bball IQ. In the Triangle, he was actually a very good passer despite not having much range — or rather, much inclination — to shoot. He was a master of timing, whether it be for hitting the offensive glass or knowing when to hand the ball off to Jordan/Kerr/Harper and then getting in the way of their defender and sort of screening that defender out to get his teammate a clean look. His activity on the offensive glass meant you had to dedicate a player to face-guarding him. You couldn't just ignore the guy when you're a defender.

But you could completely ignore him when you were on offense because of Rodman's singular focus to rebound instead of staying with his man. When a player costs a team a playoff win because he loses his man to a James Hardenish level, that is unforgivable......

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt86Gmzae50[/youtube]

acrossthecourt wrote:I don't think I'd consider several seasons of 1-3 point differential impact as being superstar level. It seems it has become popular over the past couple years to call him a superstar, but I think people are reaching a bit. Detroit Rodman is interesting though. He definitely was one of the best defensive players (at least in modern history.) But post-Detroit, I think his impact is overrated.

For instance, his RAPM (non-prior informed):
'97: +3.2 tot, +2.1 off, +1.2 def (32nd)
'98: +1.35 tot, +1.53 off, -0.18 def (76th)
'99: -1.55 tot, +0.07 off, -1.63 def (382nd)

Prior-informed:
'98: +1.70 tot, +1.25 off, +0.44 def (79th)
'99: +0.37 tot, +0.85 off, -0.48 def (141st)

Not that RAPM is always correct, and '99 Rodman was definitely not him at his best, but it's certainly more reliable than raw with/without stats because there's a strength of schedule adjustment built in and an adjustment for teammates/guys who replace you in the lineups.

I think later era Rodman was too interested in rebounds and wasn't a game-changer anymore on defense to make up for his lack of offensive skills/scoring. His usage rate ranged from 8 to 10. That's tiny, and yeah, there are very good players who don't shoot often, but they're rare. We should have compelling evidence that Rodman is a "superstar" or even a star. Detroit Rodman, sure (though he shot more often there), but I'm not convinced of post-Detroit Rodman.

Meh. If you are just looking at late 90s Rodman on the Bulls he was playing exclusively 4/5 and a lot of 5. Asking him to have the same defensive impact guarding guys he's gives up that much size to is unfair. And honestly adding the data from his cameo is a Laker is a bit disingenous. Its not just about him chasing rebounds. He was a terrific player who impacted the game beyond just his absurd rebound totals.

colts18 wrote:-Rodman's impact was mostly on the offensive boards. He had some good defensive rebounding impact, but it paled in comparison to his offensive rebounding. In his prime, Rodman was getting 5-6% points more offensive rebounds
-Rodman had impact on both sides of the ball but surprisingly his impact was higher on offense. Rodman wasn't looked at as an offensive player but he had a lot of impact on that side of the ball. It was all due to his insane offensive rebounding.

I remember Don Nelson used to have guys face-guard him starting at the half-court line for this very reason: to nullify his offensive impact. He would literally have whoever was guarding Rodman disregard help D: their sole responsibility was to keep him off the offensive glass.

Interesting stuff. Nice post.

colts18 wrote:Then in the CF, the Bulls had an absurd 44% ORB% vs Orlando which had a frontline of Shaq and Grant. The Bulls outrebounded the Magic by 15 per game in that series.

Rodman did run wild that series, but I have to point out that the frontline was more Shaq and Jon Koncak than Shaq and Grant. Grant entered the series injured, iirc and went down for good in game 1 so Orlando got a total of 0 point and 1 rebound out of Grant for the entire series. Can't really say they had Grant for the '96 series. While I still believe Chicago would have won regardless, I could have seen Orlando at least being a bit more competitive with Grant. In fact, I believe the biggest difference between the '95 and '96 series was Orlando having Grant in '95 and the Bulls not having Rodman(or any other real 4) while Orlando lost Grant in '96 and the Bulls had Rodman. After all, Grant had a phenomenal series vs the Bulls in '95 and was probably the MVP of that series for Orlando while Rodman went on to have a great series vs Orlando in '96.

Anyone in this thread willing to use their first hypothetical all-time draft pick to build around the superstar Dennis Rodman?

penbeast0 wrote:93 in Detroit, Rodman is still focused on defense and it shows. 95 in SA, Rodman quits playing defense to hang around the boards and pad his rebounding stats and it shows. Notice how SA IMPROVES considerably defensively with Terry Cummings who had a (undeserved in my opinion) rep as mediocre defender and even with J.R. Reid (matured into a mediocre banger type but not a All-D team candidate in any universe I've ever lived in). Defense is a team concept, Rodman was letting the Spurs down.

Rodman's offensive impact is very interesting though . . . you think it is ALL offensive rebounding or is there more to it (moving the ball quickly -- hockey assist style? Pick setting? any other offensive value)? After all, his team efgs didn't slip despite his lack of scoring.

It makes sense that if you are playing with ball dominant superstar offensive players being a low usage guy who doesn't take shots from them and gets a ton of offensive rebounds would be a huge benefit offensively, especially back when spacing wasn't as important as it is now.

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:Rodman did run wild that series, but I have to point out that the frontline was more Shaq and Jon Koncak than Shaq and Grant. Grant entered the series injured, iirc and went down for good in game 1 so Orlando got a total of 0 point and 1 rebound out of Grant for the entire series. Can't really say they had Grant for the '96 series. While I still believe Chicago would have won regardless, I could have seen Orlando at least being a bit more competitive with Grant. In fact, I believe the biggest difference between the '95 and '96 series was Orlando having Grant in '95 and the Bulls not having Rodman(or any other real 4) while Orlando lost Grant in '96 and the Bulls had Rodman. After all, Grant had a phenomenal series vs the Bulls in '95 and was probably the MVP of that series for Orlando while Rodman went on to have a great series vs Orlando in '96.

Horace Grant played in Game 1. He played 28 minutes in it. In that game, the Bulls had a 48% ORB% and 88 DRB% in the game. They outrebounded the Magic by 34 It's obviously a loss, but I think with Grant they lose in 5