RealGM

Who would you take for your team?
Who had the better career?

Rodman had the better career. He won two DPOYs.

But you're playing 4 on 5 with him on offense. He had a Usage Rate of 8.7 his last year in Chicago. Give me HoGrant all day.

Edit: I will say it's kind of crazy looking back that Rodman didn't make at least one all-star game with the Bulls, leading the league in rebounding on a team that's winning 72, 69, and 62 games.

Rodman had the better career but if I'm picking Grant (and I am), it's not based on play. I think Rodman was clearly the better player, he was at times truly a great player. I just don't trust him not to disrupt most teams and create problems. I trust Grant to be a very good player and a consummate professional.

I prefer Bulls Grant to Bulls Rodman but Detroit Rodman may be the best

Horace had a nice jumper and an overall offensive game that was easily better than Rodman's. Not sure Rodman's rebounding/defensive advantages are enough to overcome that given Grant was also a very good defender and rebounder. There are team situations I'd prefer Rodman but in a vacuum I'll take Grant.

I'd brought this up when I started thinking about how Rodman is a HOFer. Maybe he deserves it, there is a great case the HOF traditionally overvalued PPG. A pivot towards Rodman is a sign of voter maturity.

But then I thought about Grant who also was a major contributor to excellent teams throughout his career. He wasn't DPOY but he was a very good defender and a much more efficient offensive player without any of the mental issues that affected Rodman's on court play. Rodman was compromised for the 95 & 97 playoffs and was flushed out of the league in 99. They seem very similar in the aggregate.

Would anyone consider Grant a HOFer? That convinces me it isn't necessarily greater maturity among voters but Rodman's marketability.

GeorgeMarcus wrote:Horace had a nice jumper and an overall offensive game that was easily better than Rodman's. Not sure Rodman's rebounding/defensive advantages are enough to overcome that given Grant was also a very good defender and rebounder. There are team situations I'd prefer Rodman but in a vacuum I'll take Grant.

Grant has some really nice +/- numbers throughout his career. Peak Grant may have been a more impactful player than peak Rodman.

Grant has a solid 10 year prime with good durability playing heavy minutes. He has a good head on his shoulders and was serviceable offensively. I think I prefer that to Rodman in what I want from a role player. That said, I totally see the argument for his versatility defensively and his relentless energy on the boards. I think the unconventional support systems he had in DET and CHI may have contributed to his success there. Toss up to me.