RealGM

Who do you think would be the better player if you dropped the peak versions of both into the current NBA? I'm going with Rodman. I feel like his superior athleticism and defensive versatility would be a better fit in the modern style of play. And although they certainly weren't anything to write home about as offensive players, Rodman was the more efficient of the two on that end of the floor by a pretty decent margin. As great as Ben was in his role, in my opinion he was very much a product of the dead-ball era.

Peak Ben Wallace wasn't the product of any era. He's a monster who would slay in any year of the league's existence. Including this one. Look at the impact Mitchell Robinson has on the game when he's inserted. Then multiply it by 100. That's Ben Wallace.

That being said, peak Rodman gets the nod for his unique versatility. No one in today's game can defend the perimeter (while switching seemlessly on anyone), rebound the ball, and fill the lane, all at elite levels, like he could.

.

Save for his GOAT tier rebounding, wasnt as impressed by Rodmans defence like former players and analysts are. A large part of his "defence" (if you could call it that) was flopping and throwing himself to the ground on the simplest of contact. Or baiting opponents into losing their marbles. I don't respect that

And speaking of losing their marbles i quite frankly wouldn't trust him not to lose his without iron clad alpha win at all costs no nonsense leaders like Isiah and Michael steering the team. No such players exist in today's era. His tenure in SA was downright disgraceful as far as im concerned.

Ben Wallace quite comfortably for me. Much better interior defender/rim protector and I would trust more as a legit anchor which i value more than Rodmans versatility and superior rebounding.

Rodman would be borderline unplayable, so Ben.

One_and_Done wrote:Rodman would be borderline unplayable, so Ben.

He was a better offensive player than Ben. People forget his Detroit days where he played a larger role on offense as opposed to his Bulls era.

He peaked at per-36 16 ppg, on 56% FG, Ben 9.7 ppg on 45% FG.

D.Brasco wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Rodman would be borderline unplayable, so Ben.

He was a better offensive player than Ben. People forget his Detroit days where he played a larger role on offense as opposed to his Bulls era.

He peaked at per-36 16 ppg, on 56% FG, Ben 9.7 ppg on 45% FG.

He played a minimal offensive role for the Pistons. Was a double-digit scorer once, not a major playmaker, couldn't hit a free throw, not a spacer. Crushed the offensive glass, that was his offensive contribution. Otherwise, he was all D and rebounding as a player.

tsherkin wrote:

D.Brasco wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Rodman would be borderline unplayable, so Ben.

He was a better offensive player than Ben. People forget his Detroit days where he played a larger role on offense as opposed to his Bulls era.

He peaked at per-36 16 ppg, on 56% FG, Ben 9.7 ppg on 45% FG.

He played a minimal offensive role for the Pistons. Was a double-digit scorer once, not a major playmaker, couldn't hit a free throw, not a spacer. Crushed the offensive glass, that was his offensive contribution. Otherwise, he was all D and rebounding as a player.

Are you saying he wasn't a better offensive player than Ben though? who despite being a post center was a pretty damn inefficient scorer around the basket.

D.Brasco wrote:Are you saying he wasn't a better offensive player than Ben though? who despite being a post center was a pretty damn inefficient scorer around the basket.

I mean, Rodman was better at the line, and over his first four seasons, better from the field. So that helped a lot. But we're talking about a fairly small difference, and Ben was a better defender. Both of them were such low-volume guys that it didn't really matter.

tsherkin wrote:

D.Brasco wrote:Are you saying he wasn't a better offensive player than Ben though? who despite being a post center was a pretty damn inefficient scorer around the basket.

I mean, Rodman was better at the line, and over his first four seasons, better from the field. So that helped a lot. But we're talking about a fairly small difference, and Ben was a better defender. Both of them were such low-volume guys that it didn't really matter.

I agree that neither player is vaunted for their offense, but my reply was to the post suggesting that Rodman was somehow 'unplayable' in a comparison with Wallace. As for defense, in the current era, I think Rodman’s versatility to guard out to the perimeter would give him an edge over Ben, who didn’t like to venture much outside the paint.

Ben has 4 DPOY to Rodman's 2, however, Rodman's era was stacked with great defensive big men he was in competition with.

D.Brasco wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

D.Brasco wrote:Are you saying he wasn't a better offensive player than Ben though? who despite being a post center was a pretty damn inefficient scorer around the basket.

I mean, Rodman was better at the line, and over his first four seasons, better from the field. So that helped a lot. But we're talking about a fairly small difference, and Ben was a better defender. Both of them were such low-volume guys that it didn't really matter.

I agree that neither player is vaunted for their offense, but my reply was to the post suggesting that Rodman was somehow 'unplayable' in a comparison with Wallace. As for defense, in the current era, I think Rodman’s versatility to guard out to the perimeter would give him an edge over Ben, who didn’t like to venture much outside the paint.

Ben has 4 DPOY to Rodman's 2, however, Rodman's era was stacked with great defensive big men he was in competition with.

The 2000s was much stronger than the 80s lol.

D.Brasco wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

D.Brasco wrote:Are you saying he wasn't a better offensive player than Ben though? who despite being a post center was a pretty damn inefficient scorer around the basket.

I mean, Rodman was better at the line, and over his first four seasons, better from the field. So that helped a lot. But we're talking about a fairly small difference, and Ben was a better defender. Both of them were such low-volume guys that it didn't really matter.

I agree that neither player is vaunted for their offense, but my reply was to the post suggesting that Rodman was somehow 'unplayable' in a comparison with Wallace. As for defense, in the current era, I think Rodman’s versatility to guard out to the perimeter would give him an edge over Ben, who didn’t like to venture much outside the paint.

Ben has 4 DPOY to Rodman's 2, however, Rodman's era was stacked with great defensive big men he was in competition with.

Rodman would be near unplayable today. Unlike Ben he can't anchor the defense at the 5, and his nil offensive game renders him unplayable at the 4.

D.Brasco wrote:I agree that neither player is vaunted for their offense, but my reply was to the post suggesting that Rodman was somehow 'unplayable' in a comparison with Wallace.

Then you quoted the wrong post

As for defense, in the current era, I think Rodman’s versatility to guard out to the perimeter would give him an edge over Ben, who didn’t like to venture much outside the paint.

I think it'd help him retain relevance, but Wallace was capable of showing well on PnRs and he was a far better rim defender, so I still think he'd end up being the more valuable defender.

Both teams need enough offensive threats around them to cover their lack of scoring. Rodman brings better passing and mobility, Wallace (who has excellent mobility for a center) brings more shot blocking.

IF, and it's a big if as we saw in San Antonio, Rodman is in a system with a coach who can keep him focused on team goals, he's probably the better player.

Detrot-era Rodman could legit guard all 5 positions very well, which gives him a bit more value than Wallace in today's game.

Pistons Rodman for sure.