RealGM

When you look at Wilt's utter dominance on the boards it is quite hard for me to see anyone making a case for anyone being a better rebounder than him, especially when you consider his utter dominance over his peers.

Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin in rebounding "wins" in the 143 H2H games he played against Russell.

Chamberlain also holds a 7-1 margin over Russell in H2H 40+ rebound games.

Wilt also held a 23-4 margin in H2H 35+ rebound games.

He had three 30 rpg series out of 8 played against Russell and he also outrebounded him in every single playoff series they played against each other.

With some of the margins being 25-21; 30-26; 31-25, and even 32-23.

He has the most rebounds in a single playoff game and regular season game with both occurring against Russell.


In the 29 playoff series that Wilt played in he was never outrebounded by any other center

Wilt has the most seasons leading the league in rebounds with 11 and it very well could have been 12 seasons had he not suffered his knee injury in 1970.

He is the all-time leader in Career rebounds per game with (22.9)

He holds the highest RPG per game average in a season with (27.2) in 1960-1961,

He has the Highest rpg average for a series(32.0)

He has the most rebounds in a single postseason (444 during the 1969 Playoffs).

He has the Highest rebounds per game average in the finals with (24.6)

He has the 2nd-highest playoff rebounds per game average (24.5).

No he is the greatest.

migya wrote:No he is the greatest.

Yeah to me it has always seemed that Wilt's rebounding stats are far more impressive than Russell's and Rodman's due to the far bigger load that he carried compared to them both.

As all Russell and Rodman were asked to do by their teams was rebound and play defence.

Therefore you can go all out on the boards if you don’t need to focus on offence.


One could make the argument that had Wilt swapped places with Russell.

With Wilt coming into the NBA in 1956 and Russell in 1959.

That Wilt could have averaged close to 30 RPG in those three seasons.

Therefore he would easily hold the record for the highest RPG for a career in both the regular season and post-season.

As Wilt making four Finals from 69 onwards dilutes his rebounding numbers because the pace of playing and volume of scoring and rebounding was de king by that point.

Russell meanwhile caught the upswing, the peak and the sustainment and just a touch of the decline.


.

coastalmarker99 wrote:

migya wrote:No he is the greatest.

Yeah to me it has always seemed that Wilt's rebounding stats are far more impressive than Russell's and Rodman's due to the far bigger load that he carried compared to them both.

As all Russell and Rodman were asked to do by their teams was rebound and play defence.

Therefore you can go all out on the boards if you don’t need to focus on offence.


One could make the argument that had Wilt swapped places with Russell.

With Wilt coming into the NBA in 1956 and Russell in 1959.

That Wilt could have averaged close to 30 RPG in those three seasons.

Therefore he would easily hold the record for the highest RPG for a career in both the regular season and post-season.

As Wilt making four Finals from 69 onwards dilutes his rebounding numbers because the pace of playing and volume of scoring and rebounding was de king by that point.

Russell meanwhile caught the upswing, the peak and the sustainment and just a touch of the decline.


.

Chamberlain wasnt perfect and had some bad performances in the playoffs but he was completely above everyone else.

Chamberlain said it himself, and it brings up a fact that I think is significant, that if he was allowed to do like Shaq and barge through guys that he'd have been much better, which is obvious to be true. Chamberlain in place of Shaq would've destroyed Jordan's legacy and he'd be indisputably known as the GOAT. It's his era that many consider reason to not consider him much. His offense and defense were the best, I'd argue he defended better than Russell. There's been noone like him.

migya wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:

migya wrote:No he is the greatest.

Yeah to me it has always seemed that Wilt's rebounding stats are far more impressive than Russell's and Rodman's due to the far bigger load that he carried compared to them both.

As all Russell and Rodman were asked to do by their teams was rebound and play defence.

Therefore you can go all out on the boards if you don’t need to focus on offence.


One could make the argument that had Wilt swapped places with Russell.

With Wilt coming into the NBA in 1956 and Russell in 1959.

That Wilt could have averaged close to 30 RPG in those three seasons.

Therefore he would easily hold the record for the highest RPG for a career in both the regular season and post-season.

As Wilt making four Finals from 69 onwards dilutes his rebounding numbers because the pace of playing and volume of scoring and rebounding was de king by that point.

Russell meanwhile caught the upswing, the peak and the sustainment and just a touch of the decline.


.

Chamberlain wasnt perfect and had some bad performances in the playoffs but he was completely above everyone else.

Chamberlain said it himself, and it brings up a fact that I think is significant, that if he was allowed to do like Shaq and barge through guys that he'd have been much better, which is obvious to be true. Chamberlain in place of Shaq would've destroyed Jordan's legacy and he'd be indisputably known as the GOAT. It's his era that many consider reason to not consider him much. His offense and defense were the best, I'd argue he defended better than Russell. There's been noone like him.

Russell was overall the better defender compared to Wilt due to his ability to guard others outside of the paint and ability to recover quicker.

While Wilt was a better man-to-man defender, especially in his 76er days in which it was truly awe-inspiring

Furthermore late into his career after he suffered that knee injury.

Wilt basically hated chasing centers that could shoot such as dave cowens.

For example cowens averaged 31.8 ppg and 19.8 rpg in 4 games against Wilt in 1973.

There’s clearly a case.

Nuances will depend on interpretation. Peak versus career. Rate versus cumulative (and any arguments if/how pace affects rate). Are we talking individual totals or impact on team rebounding. Different interpretations of era. Different interpretations of “what they did” versus “in a vacuum” (linking to your areas of focus noted above). Is there greater value in individual production at one end (at a team impact level, failure at one end means the opponents succeeding at the other, but this isn’t the case for individual production). But this will tend to make it a more open question not less.
But the clear simple case. Hollinger estimated Wilt’s peak “rebound rate” (equivalent to trb%) as 20.9 in 1969 (the 6th highest year up to ’71 by his reckoning [unclear on start date] behind Russell ’57, Unseld ’69, Mikan ’53, Russell ’64 and Russell ’68). Estimates because I think rebound numbers are slightly fuzzy with changes to how rebounds were counted and team rebounts etc which create further uncertainty.
Rodman, by his reckoning and Reference (suggesting the same measure) peaks at 29.7 and per Reference is at a career 23.4 (i.e. above Wilt’s peak by a bit) despite starting out as a small forward. Drummond has similar numbers (lower peak, at present higher career).

This isn’t to absolutely foreclose any debate. People can argue “if Wilt got to play fewer minutes (he argued it benefited him, stopped him getting stiff, fwiw, though this doesn’t necessarily make it accurate)”, “if Wilt could focus exclusively on rebounding” etc going back to the above “it depends what you mean” point. But it seems hard to suggest that there’s no case when others produced at greater rates


Finally whilst people are open to mean what they want, I'd suggest the large number of pure rpg measures cited ignores rebound opportunities tilting favorably towards a high pace and towards a low% era, which if taken at face value would lead one to believe all the best rebounders were probably from around the early to mid 60s.

Wilt v. Mikan -- can't speak to this without accurate numbers.

Wilt v. Russell -- Wilt had larger totals due to larger minutes and you will see this v. everyone else in the history of the NBA. Wilt played more minutes per game than anyone else ever. The Russell side of the argument is two-fold. Per minute, according to our statistics, Russell had slightly better rebound totals, thus Hollinger's rebound rate has him higher. Also, Russell played further from the basket on both sides of the ball with his more active defense and his late career high post passing hub on offense. And yet he still had a higher rebound rate than Wilt, mainly due to his ability to quick jump and to see where things were going on the court.

Wilt v. Rodman and Drummond. IF Russell had a higher estimated rebound rate than Wilt, Rodman and Drummond are the all time leaders in actual calculated rebound rate and by a considerable amount. Their numbers look considerably better than Hollinger's estimated rate for Wilt (or Russell).

Wilt still has the highest rebound totals and rebounds per game numbers due to his ridiculous minutes and stamina and due to the era he played in where there were more rebounds available. Also, in his day, teams used their PF as a banger and rebounder as well so there were more players fighting for rebounds than in the modern era of 4 out offenses. So Wilt does have a case as well.

Can't think of anyone else that has a case; don't see Unseld in this category despite him being my favorite player growing up.

I think Wilt was the best rebounder ever due to his unreal postseason numbers and his combination of offensive rebounds and finishing ability (which separates him from Rodman or even Adams), but it's quite easy to make a case against him - his rebounding rate is significantly lower (in RS) than Rodman's (or Drummond's).

In most cases if you have to ask if something is undisputed, it's not. I'm not sure there is any basketball skill with an objective best at it that everyone will agree on.

Semantics about wording the question aside, I do have Wilt as the greatest rebounder in NBA history although Russell and Rodman aren't that far off for me.

Dutchball97 wrote:In most cases if you have to ask if something is undisputed, it's not. I'm not sure there is any basketball skill with an objective best at it that everyone will agree on.

Semantics about wording the question aside, I do have Wilt as the greatest rebounder in NBA history although Russell and Rodman aren't that far off for me.

How close is Andre Drummond?

Is there an argument against him? I can think of a couple for sure. They've been covered in this thread already.

penbeast0 wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:In most cases if you have to ask if something is undisputed, it's not. I'm not sure there is any basketball skill with an objective best at it that everyone will agree on.

Semantics about wording the question aside, I do have Wilt as the greatest rebounder in NBA history although Russell and Rodman aren't that far off for me.

How close is Andre Drummond?

Drummond is basically a leper. It's rare for him to get his due as he is associated with losing.

He's definitely in the conversation.

penbeast0 wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:In most cases if you have to ask if something is undisputed, it's not. I'm not sure there is any basketball skill with an objective best at it that everyone will agree on.

Semantics about wording the question aside, I do have Wilt as the greatest rebounder in NBA history although Russell and Rodman aren't that far off for me.

How close is Andre Drummond?

He's definitely an elite rebounder but a couple things keep me from putting him in that top tier with Wilt, Russell and Rodman. Drummond doesn't look like as much of an outlier for his era when looking at RPG and TRB%. Russell and Wilt were in a league of their own for their entire careers, while Rodman had pretty much the entire decade of the 90s locked down. Meanwhile Drummond looks more like a first among peers with the likes of DeAndre Jordan, Capela, Gobert and Whiteside also having some years on top.

Unless we're living in the greatest era for rebounders, which I doubt with the required skillsets of modern day basketball, then I don't see much of a case for Drummond.

Owly wrote:There’s clearly a case.

Nuances will depend on interpretation. Peak versus career. Rate versus cumulative (and any arguments if/how pace affects rate). Are we talking individual totals or impact on team rebounding. Different interpretations of era. Different interpretations of “what they did” versus “in a vacuum” (linking to your areas of focus noted above). Is there greater value in individual production at one end (at a team impact level, failure at one end means the opponents succeeding at the other, but this isn’t the case for individual production). But this will tend to make it a more open question not less.
But the clear simple case. Hollinger estimated Wilt’s peak “rebound rate” (equivalent to trb%) as 20.9 in 1969 (the 6th highest year up to ’71 by his reckoning [unclear on start date] behind Russell ’57, Unseld ’69, Mikan ’53, Russell ’64 and Russell ’68). Estimates because I think rebound numbers are slightly fuzzy with changes to how rebounds were counted and team rebounts etc which create further uncertainty.
Rodman, by his reckoning and Reference (suggesting the same measure) peaks at 29.7 and per Reference is at a career 23.4 (i.e. above Wilt’s peak by a bit) despite starting out as a small forward. Drummond has similar numbers (lower peak, at present higher career).

This isn’t to absolutely foreclose any debate. People can argue “if Wilt got to play fewer minutes (he argued it benefited him, stopped him getting stiff, fwiw, though this doesn’t necessarily make it accurate)”, “if Wilt could focus exclusively on rebounding” etc going back to the above “it depends what you mean” point. But it seems hard to suggest that there’s no case when others produced at greater rates


Finally whilst people are open to mean what they want, I'd suggest the large number of pure rpg measures cited ignores rebound opportunities tilting favorably towards a high pace and towards a low% era, which if taken at face value would lead one to believe all the best rebounders were probably from around the early to mid 60s.

Edit/additional note
The Hollinger estimates were intended to be best case scenarios for these players by making opponent rebound totals as low as possible.

As he describes it getting opponent rebounds by ...
average all other teams rebounds
player's team rebounds minus average of all other teams rebounds
average of all other teams rebounds minus the difference just calculated
So logic thus far is players team plays at an average pace and their distance above other team average means that amount is also taken away from opponents average.
Then multiply by 0.9 to go as low as possible.

Then presumably prorate team and opponent rebounds to proportion of minutes played by the player and then player rebounds divided by presumed available rebounds.

Just attempted this with '69 Lakers to see if I get the same figure/
Team reb: 4749
rest of league average: 4660.071429
difference: 88.92857143
ROL avg minus difference - i.e. first glance opponent estimate: 4571.142857
x0.9 stingy opponent estimate: 4114.028571
total available rebounds (team+stingy opponent): 8863.028571

Wilt plays 3669 of 3981 minutes (0.921627732)

8863.028571 x 0.921627732 = 8168.412919 notional available rebounds

Wilts rebounds (1712) divided by notional available = 0.209587838
I think I've done what he Hollinger did there, though if so he should have rounded up to 21.0.


If one used this method to calculate Rodman's peak (and fwiw this method should inflate non-impactful rebounders more, because it assumes the team are taking away opponent rebounds and if the player is cannibalizing then opponents totals won't be reduced) his '95 estimated rebound percentage (playing fewer games) is 0.321451253 or 32.1. So this methodology - as expected - does seem to inflate trb%. Eliminating the x0.9 multiplier would bring Rodman down to 0.306764039 (or 30.7, still a bit higher than IRL 29.7) and Chamberlain down to 0.199308425 (or 19.9).

Wilt used to get mad when people would say Rodman was the best rebounder of all time because of his rebound %. It was so high because that's all he focused on. Other all time great rebounders had to do so many other things.

In Wilt’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 27 RPG while his team missed 65 shots per game. In Rodman’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 19 RPG while his team missed 45 shots per game.

So Rodman actually grabbed a higher percentage of the total rebounds per game despite playing “only” 40 MPG compared to Wilt’s 48. Rodman’s definitely GOAT rebounder IMO.

prolific passer wrote:Wilt used to get mad when people would say Rodman was the best rebounder of all time because of his rebound %. It was so high because that's all he focused on. Other all time great rebounders had to do so many other things.

What else was Wilt focused on while the ball was on the rim? Passing? I don’t think it’s unfair to expect an elite rebounder to be focused on rebounding when the ball’s in the air.

iggymcfrack wrote:In Wilt’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 27 RPG while his team missed 65 shots per game. In Rodman’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 19 RPG while his team missed 45 shots per game.

So Rodman actually grabbed a higher percentage of the total rebounds per game despite playing “only” 40 MPG compared to Wilt’s 48. Rodman’s definitely GOAT rebounder IMO.

Rodman's rebounding rate dropped considerably in the playoffs though, while Wilt's raised.

prolific passer wrote:Wilt used to get mad when people would say Rodman was the best rebounder of all time because of his rebound %. It was so high because that's all he focused on. Other all time great rebounders had to do so many other things.

And there's some truth to this and also some nuance. And as before it depends what people mean.

At his rebounding production apex ('95), fwiw, I don't value Rodman because what he was doing in the playoffs became sabotage adjacent. And based on reporting (and one notable play highlighted in the playoff where it's egregious) he was reportedly a lesser defender than previously, in part because of the rebounding focus. And Rodman may have had less defensive attention early in the play (depending on the team and how concerned they were with him on the boards) because he wasn't a scoring threat. At the same time Rodman started more as a defensive specialist and for most of his career remained a highly regarded defender (though accolades and popular defensive rep can, granted, outlast defensive effectiveness, I haven't checked late career Rodman or his stats so won't make a claim there). He started his career as a 3 and played further away from the basket than Wilt. My impression is Wilt, with some possible exception for a passing hub role for a couple of years on the 76ers was playing a fairly straight line, basket-adjacent game for most of his career, and his trb% in the final 3 years on the Lakers (where he isn't taking on much usage at all) shows great, but in an all time elite context, unexceptional, production (19.4).


Random aside here.
Even trb% though has it's flaws even as a measure of efficient production. One potential thing is that it's based on assumptions of flawless tracking, and I think just by their volume and non-memorableness these would be easy to fudge (lower risk further back as less games were kept) though can't speak to whether there actually are accuracy issues. And some may have issues with linear counting in higher pace areas. But my main thing would be the team context matters. If your team forces a lot of misses and doesn't miss a lot, you tilt percentage of the available rebounds towards the defensive end where it's easier to get them, which may be a case for separating offensive and defensive rebounding. Then too, as alluded to previously, what is actually valuable is impact upon team rebounding, which whilst moving slightly beyond the pure remit of rebounding (e.g. could possibly be achieved by spacing pulling opposing bigs out) is where the value is therefore what I would want examined and celebrated more. And even from that you'd want to know at what cost to other areas (do you fail to get on D or fail to get out in transition for slim marginal benefit or probability and at a net cost to the team) and the overall impact.

iggymcfrack wrote:In Wilt’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 27 RPG while his team missed 65 shots per game. In Rodman’s peak rebounding season, he averaged 19 RPG while his team missed 45 shots per game.

So Rodman actually grabbed a higher percentage of the total rebounds per game despite playing “only” 40 MPG compared to Wilt’s 48. Rodman’s definitely GOAT rebounder IMO.

I would agree that Rodman has a case though some of his numbers have to be taken in context of him focusing hugely on rebounding and some would say(which includes his own teammates/coaches) sometimes did this at the cost of defensive coverage while semi handicapping his teams on offense since his only real focus was cutting sometimes and getting off rebounds. I also think 48mpg is going to take a toll on anyone's reb rate, more so when they avg 30+ppg and are doing a lot of pick setting. So I'd say both guys have a case.