RealGM

Who was the better player?

Jones for sure.

Big numbers from Rodman, but I think he was better on Detroit than later in his career where he was more of a headcase and more focused on rebounding than on sound defensive principles.

Huge Bobby Jones fan here, think he was vastly underrated for the longest time. Super defender (historically speaking), very efficient on offense, great teammate.

That being said Jones/Rodman is a very close comparison. Like Jones Rodman too was a super defender (historically speaking), that was important offensively in a different way (offensive rebounding) but equally important way.

Big numbers from Rodman, but I think he was better on Detroit than later in his career where he was more of a headcase and more focused on rebounding than on sound defensive principles.

From 1995-96 to 1997-98 Chicago was the best defensive team in the league (100.1 pts/100poss allowed). Rodman (ages 34-36, and 3-5 years past playing for Detroit) was 3rd on that team in minutes played, behind only Jordan and Pippen. Those 3 played 40% of the team's total minutes played over those 3 seasons, and all 3 are the key reason why that team was so dominant defensively.

Rodman is possibly the greatest big man defender in league history that was not a shot blocker.

He is also just 1 of 4 PFs voted to 7+ NBA all-defensive 1st teams, along with Bobby Jones, Garnett, and Duncan, including 1 with the Spurs in 1994-95 and 1 with the Bulls in 1995-96.

Guess there were others that thought his defensive principles were quite sound after Detroit.

kcktiny wrote:Huge Bobby Jones fan here, think he was vastly underrated for the longest time. Super defender (historically speaking), very efficient on offense, great teammate.

That being said Jones/Rodman is a very close comparison. Like Jones Rodman too was a super defender (historically speaking), that was important offensively in a different way (offensive rebounding) but equally important way.

Big numbers from Rodman, but I think he was better on Detroit than later in his career where he was more of a headcase and more focused on rebounding than on sound defensive principles.

From 1995-96 to 1997-98 Chicago was the best defensive team in the league (100.1 pts/100poss allowed). Rodman (ages 34-36, and 3-5 years past playing for Detroit) was 3rd on that team in minutes played, behind only Jordan and Pippen. Those 3 played 40% of the team's total minutes played over those 3 seasons, and all 3 are the key reason why that team was so dominant defensively.

Rodman is possibly the greatest big man defender in league history that was not a shot blocker.

He is also just 1 of 4 PFs voted to 7+ NBA all-defensive 1st teams, along with Bobby Jones, Garnett, and Duncan, including 1 with the Spurs in 1994-95 and 1 with the Bulls in 1995-96.

Guess there were others that thought his defensive principles were quite sound after Detroit.

There’s really a lot of indication that Rodman was not a particularly impactful defensive player on the Bulls. Rodman’s DRAPM in 1997 & 1998 was not actually particularly good. The NBArapm website has Rodman with a -0.3 two-year DRAPM (with negative numbers being bad), ranked 218th in the NBA. TheBasketballDatabase is a bit more charitable (probably in part because it doesn’t include playoff data), and has Rodman’s DRAPM in those two years being ranked 96th in the NBA. Meanwhile, Squared’s partial RAPM in the 1996 season has almost all of the Bulls’ games that year and has Rodman with a genuinely bad DRAPM. In full games Rodman missed in those years, the Bulls still had a -4.33 rDRTG, which is a little worse than what the Bulls averaged overall (which was -5.1), but not particularly different. Rodman also got taken out of the starting lineup and/or ended up getting his minutes significantly reduced during the playoffs in both 1997 and 1998. He then basically washed out of the league after leaving Chicago. Oddly enough, the offensive RAPM data is actually a bit more charitable towards him than the defensive data, but he still doesn’t come out as a particularly impactful player in his Bulls years, and that’s particularly the case in the NBArapm data that includes the playoffs.

At the same time, there’s plenty of information indicating that Rodman was a very impactful player prior to the Bulls. Despite doing badly in the 1996 Squared RAPM, Rodman does extremely well in Squared’s full 1985-1996 RAPM (he’s ranked 6th!). He also ranks pretty well in WOWYR (41st all time), which is almost entirely pulling from his pre-Chicago years.

I think the best reading of this information is that Rodman was probably a genuinely highly impactful player in earlier years of his career, but was nowhere near as impactful by the time he was on the Bulls. Which really wouldn’t be a surprise, since he was in his mid-30’s on the Bulls. A player being far less good in his mid-30’s than he was prior to that is exactly what we’d expect (and definitely what we’d expect when we know he basically washed out of the league afterwards). It’s also not surprising when we he was pretty obviously too focused on rebounding.

Pretty close in terms of their on-court play. But if I were a coach or GM and had to pick one for a real team, absolutely no question I'd take Jones as better in the locker room and as a veteran role model/mentor for my younger players.

meanwhile, Squared’s partial RAPM in the 1996 season has almost all of the Bulls’ games that year and has Rodman with a genuinely bad DRAPM.

Let me get this straight.

In 1995-96 the Bulls were the best defensive team in the league (just 100.6 pts/100poss allowed). Three team members - Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman - are all named to the NBA all-defensive team, all voted for by NBA head coaches, the very people who game planned against Chicago all season.

Yet here you are, some 3 decades later, saying someone creating a plus/minus concoction says no, that's not right, that not only was Rodman not even deserving of the all-defensive team, but - even more - try to invent the abstraction that he was in fact a genuinely bad defender because of this mathematical nonsense??

Are you serious?

And the genuinely laughable part of this is how you prefaced this by saying:

There’s really a lot of indication that Rodman was not a particularly impactful defensive player on the Bulls.

As if that statement had any bit of factuality - or credibility - to it whatsoever.

Talk about not passing the laugh test.

I think the best reading of this information is that Rodman was probably a genuinely highly impactful player in earlier years of his career, but was nowhere near as impactful by the time he was on the Bulls. Which really wouldn’t be a surprise

The best reading of this information is that it is a complete crock.

You know what is not a surprise? Your revisionist history. You didn't watch the Bulls all that season, and neither did the individual concocting this mathematical construction, yet you are trying to pass this off as if it has true meaning.

It does not. You are wearing this plus/minus aberration like the emperor wore his new clothes.

Not only that, but those 3 seasons of 1995-96 to 1997-98, the Bulls were - by far - the best defensive team in the playoffs too at just 99.4 pts/100poss allowed. The next best defensive team was significantly worse at 101.4 pts/100poss allowed (Utah). And the players to play the most minutes on the Bulls those 3 playoffs were just like the regular season - Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman.

kcktiny wrote:

meanwhile, Squared’s partial RAPM in the 1996 season has almost all of the Bulls’ games that year and has Rodman with a genuinely bad DRAPM.

Let me get this straight.

In 1995-96 the Bulls were the best defensive team in the league (just 100.6 pts/100poss allowed). Three team members - Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman - are all named to the NBA all-defensive team, all voted for by NBA head coaches, the very people who game planned against Chicago all season.

Yet here you are, some 3 decades later, saying someone creating a plus/minus concoction says no, that's not right, that not only was Rodman not even deserving of the all-defensive team, but - even more - try to invent the abstraction that he was in fact a genuinely bad defender because of this mathematical nonsense??

Are you serious?

And the genuinely laughable part of this is how you prefaced this by saying:

There’s really a lot of indication that Rodman was not a particularly impactful defensive player on the Bulls.

As if that statement had any bit of factuality - or credibility - to it whatsoever.

Talk about not passing the laugh test.

I think the best reading of this information is that Rodman was probably a genuinely highly impactful player in earlier years of his career, but was nowhere near as impactful by the time he was on the Bulls. Which really wouldn’t be a surprise

That the best reading of this information is that it is a complete crock.

You know what is not a surprise? Your revisionist history. You didn't watch the Bulls all that season, and neither did the individual concocting this mathematical construction, yet you are trying to pass this off as if it has true meaning.

It does not. You are wearing this plus/minus aberration like the emperor wore his new clothes.

Not only that, but those 3 seasons of 1995-96 to 1997-98, the Bulls were - by far - the best defensive team in the playoffs too at just 99.4 pts/100poss allowed. The next best defensive team was significantly worse at 101.4 pts/100poss allowed (Utah). And the players to play the most minutes on the Bulls those 3 playoffs were just like the regular season - Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman.

Actually I am quite certain I watched those Bulls more than you did—since I lived in the Chicago area at the time and watched almost every game they played. And, while you object to “mathematical constructions” and act like the view I presented must be of someone who didn’t watch those Bulls, need I remind you that this discussion started with you disagreeing with someone else’s eye-test assertion about Rodman’s defense on the Bulls (i.e. “later in his career where he was more of a headcase and more focused on rebounding than on sound defensive principles”). You’ve been presented with multiple people telling you what they saw watching Rodman on the Bulls and you have also been given both possession-level and game-level impact data that backs up that assertion. You’ve also been presented with circumstantial evidence—including that Rodman washed out of the league soon after leaving the Bulls, and was taken out of the starting lineup and/or had his minutes substantially reduced in the 1997 and 1998 playoffs. And your only retort is basically to just talk about Rodman being named to all-defensive teams. That’s fine, but we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it. And as I mentioned in my prior post, we have evidence that Rodman *did* well deserve it earlier, so he deserved it at some point—it wouldn’t be surprising at all for him to get recognition a bit after he stopped deserving it, especially given how successful the Bulls were.

Jones was awesome. Such a clear track record of positive impact. No disrespect to Rodman but I didn't hesitate on this one

Rodman being named to all-defensive teams. That’s fine, but we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it.

I get it. You watched every Bulls game but came to a different conclusion - a vastly different conclusion - that the NBA head coaches that coached all those games and game planned against the Bulls all that time. They all decided as a group that not only was Dennis Rodman a very good defender but in 1995-96 was a top 5 defender in the league by position.

But you say no.

Not only that but the next 2 seasons you are claiming his defense was worse than the supposedly not very good defense he played in 1995-96, yet both years he was within just a few votes for the all-defensive team, and even had more than some who were named to it (Rodman with 11 in 96-97, Stockton with 9 but named at PG, Rodman with 17 in 97-98, Eddie Jones with 10 but made it at SG).

But again, you say no, his defense was even worse than in 95-96.

Well, I certainly value the opinions of the head coaches that voted at the time the player played far more than I do you or your 3 decades later mathematical concoction.

You’ve been presented with multiple people telling you what they saw watching Rodman on the Bulls

Really? That watched him all season, and they all said his defense was bad or nowhere near all-defensive team quality? Trot them out.

and you have also been given both possession-level and game-level impact data that backs up that assertion.

Oh give us a break. On/off plus/minus derivatives are so flawed they are for all intent useless. And which version are you using now? How many different versions are there now? Which one is the most accurate, which author of the concoction is claiming theirs is the best?

And every time you question one of their player values because it is nonsense the author of that concoction says you just don't understand what the value means.

Your statement is as laughable as the statements of those on this board that say Alvin Robertson wasn't a great defender because some plus/minus garbage says so.

Or the ones that claim Jokic is a really good defender when the defensive shot data at stats.nba.com shows his shot defense is poor. But we'll just ignore that shot defense data because plus/minus is right.

You are delusional in saying Dennis Rodman was:

not a particularly impactful defensive player on the Bulls

When he was a key reason why the Bulls were the top defensive team in both the regular season and the playoffs the 3 years he played for them.

And you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of plus/minus where individual player FG% allowed on defense is not part of the calculation. You believe the nonsense that this concoction profusely expresses in how it accounts for "everything" that happens on the floor when in reality it does no such thing.

Tell you what, just list all your plus/minus ratings for all the Bulls players from 1995-96, multiply them by each player's minutes played, and show us how that adds up to them being the best defensive team in 1995-96. Especially with Rodman supposedly being so bad.

But you won't. Because you don't want to take the effort. You'll just believe someone else's mathematical nonsense and profuse as truer than those who watched and analyzed the game 3 decades ago.

we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it.

Yes, you are such an expert. Why don't you tell us when Rodman did not deserve it and who should have been named in his place. And get all your friends online here that feel as you do and have them do the same. Just tell us 3 decades later how you are all smarter than the experts of the day 30 years ago, how they all got it wrong, because it is you who now knows better, you and your plus/minus friends are the experts.

Create you own revisionist NBA history. Wear your emperors new clothes.

IF we are counting rebounding as defense, there's a case to be made for Rodman. I'd take Jones too; super classy guy (if there was a criticism of him, it's that he was too nice and didn't have that mean streak), great locker room leader, high efficiency midrange scorer, guarded 2-5 at times (didn't have Rodman's lower body strength against post guys but was a very good shotblocker for a forward with some years of 2 block/2 steal number).

Rodman was a genuinely nasty man defender in Detroit, a great rebounder and sometimes great defender in San Antonio and Chicago, but he did sometimes leave his man to hunt rebounds and he refused to play team defense over some snit in San Antonio and walked away from the Bulls midseason to go to Vegas. His headcase issues make this an easy choice. If you could have them both with Tony Allen's mentality, I'd go Rodman but that isn't who he was.

Yikes, this one got snitty....

Anyway, it was suggested by multiple persons that Rodman was more impactful defensively early in his career than later in his career, and not just because of age-related decline: but because he sacrificed sound defensive principles in order to chase rebounds. As someone who watched [and in some cases re-watched] his career fairly extensively (certainly consumed the majority of games he played in a Bulls uniform), I would confirm this is absolutely true.

Early on in his career, while he rebounded very well, he prided himself more on being a versatile defensive stopper and general 'energy guy'. It wasn't uncommon to see him guarding one of the 'point of attack' wing players: for instance, occasionally guarding Pippen [or sporadically even Michael Jordan on key possessions] when facing the Bulls, and generally guarding Worthy in those NBA Finals vs the Lakers.

Starting around '92 [when it became apparent the Pistons were no longer contending for titles], he shifted somewhat and decided he wanted rebounding titles. Defense [and particularly perimeter defense] began to suffer as a result. Perhaps not too much, though, right at the start. He's not too old or over-the-hill in '92, yet retaining some of the vigour and spry athleticism of youth at that point (you can hedge a little without it being too costly).

The Pistons were still a pretty good defense that year [6th of 27]. It's worth noting that Rodman was playing a whopping 40.3 mpg and didn't miss a single game. PLUS there were respectable defenders at multiple positions among the regular rotational players: Joe Dumars [2nd in minutes], Bill Laimbeer [4th in minutes], John Salley [6th in minutes], Darrell Walker [8th in minutes]. He assuredly had some help on that end, in other words. I bring these things up to then question whether---with that array of help---he could have been having DPOY-level impact [on a per-minute basis] in his 3rd-in-the-league minutes played.......and they still came in "only" 6th?

Posing that question is a far cry from saying he was a net-negative (or even net-neutral defender).
He still could, in fact, have been a legit DPOY candidate simply for being a moderate net-positive defender for 40+ mpg and never missing a game (that's value that adds up). But I do wonder if his defensive value (on a per-minute or per-possession basis) hadn't already slipped from prior seasons.

And yes, it would have been primarily because of his chasing boards.


The pinnacle of seeing the correlation (between chasing boards and defensive lapses) was seen during that final season in San Antonio. I think the reasons for this were multifactorial:
1) He was 33 years old by this point (and a bit injury-dinged that year). So he wasn't quite the athletic specimen that he'd been 4-5 years earlier; so if he hedges, he couldn't recover a useful position as quickly as he may once have done.
2) San Antonio semi-regularly tasked him with guarding the opposing SF......which would require him to come out of the paint area (something he was increasingly reluctant to do, because it takes him out of rebounding position). This is the biggest part of why Robert Horry [whom Rodman was the primary defender of] went off like an all-star in the WCF against San Antonio. Because Rodman left him on an island half the time (and this in the year with a shortened 3pt line).
So whereas during the rs Horry averaged 10.2 ppg @ 55.6% TS [37.9% 3pt% on 3.5 3PA], 5.1 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.9 topg......in the WCF [defended by Rodman] he went off for 14.5 ppg @ 58.3% TS despite shooting terrible at the FT-line (66.7% in the series, vs being a 76.1% shooter during rs); mostly by way of going 42.5% from 3pt on 6.7 3PA [again: on an island]; also 7.2 rpg, 2.7 apg, only 1.0 topg.
3) Because of his head issues, he got into a bit of a snit with DRob and the coaching, at times refusing defensive help assignments. (This was mostly an issue in the post-season [worst possible time], iirc).


I think [at least initially] in Chicago, his defensive imprint may have improved slightly from San Antonio. This is mostly because Phil Jackson didn't ask him to guard SF/wings anymore, letting him defend only the bigs.......which was good for him because he was still a fantastic low-post defender (despite not being a shot-blocker). Rodman was happier with this because he's then around the basket to collect rebounds. I think his imprint on team defensive rebounding is inflated by his individual numbers because, yes: he chased (sometimes at the expense of boxing out).

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'm NOT saying he was a negative toward the team defensive rebounding. Just saying he probably didn't leave as stellar an imprint as his indvidual DREB numbers would imply.

The one other thing Rodman did well defensively by this point of his career was simply 'worming' his way under peoples' skin. He was an irritant, and occasionally could induce opponents to lose their composure and/or play less than their best.


It was noted on a prior post that the Bulls were, collectively, the best defense in the NBA from '96-'98, with Rodman being 3rd in total minutes in that span.
Fair enough to point out, though also look at who was 1st and 2nd: Jordan and Pippen (the latter being a DPOY-calibre defender for at least one or two of those years). Then look at some of the other major minute-getters.......
4th in minutes was Kukoc (a revolving door against physical PF's in the post, but an actually pretty solid perimeter defender, who could move his feet reasonably well for his height, had quickish hands [got some steals], and his length was problematic for opposing SF's [in terms of shot contesting]).
5th was Ron Harper (a very solid perimeter defender at this stage of his career.....he had, in fact, basically turned into a defensive role player).
~7th or 8th was Randy Brown (another defensive role player; his entire career was built around defense).
~8th or 9th was Jud Buechler (a 3&D role player).

In other words, these teams were fairly loaded with good-to-great perimeter defenders.

And if we take a more granular look at their defensive strengths, we find it was perhaps mostly within those categories/areas that are influenced by the perimeter defense......
Opp eFG% is always one of their best defensive FF's, though looking closer we see they were merely "good" in 2pt defense each year, but elite in 3pt defense:
'96 --->average (or marginally above avg) in opp 3PA/game while simultaneously being 6th in Opp 3pt%.
'97 --->average (even hedging slightly to below avg) in opp 3PA/game, but 1st in Opp 3pt%.
'98 --->average in # of 3PA allowed, and 4th in Opp 3pt%.

They were the in the top 4 two of these years, while being "only" 6th the other (though that also was the year they allowed FEWER 3PA than average [even accounting for pace]).
So this is an aspect they were either elite or on the cusp of elite every year, while also being an aspect that Rodman has NO imprint on at all, because he's not defending the perimeter, nor are they chasing guys off the line to funnel them down to Rodman as a rim-protector (a la how the Jazz used to utilize Gobert for that).

And did this 3pt defense come at the expense of getting burned off the dribble and having defensive breakdowns result? Apparently not, since the other FF they were consistent elite(ish) at was Opp FTAr, placing 7th, 3rd, and 6th in the league respectively in those three seasons.

Personally, when I see excellent 3pt defense COMBINED WITH low opp FTAr, I grow pretty confident that the perimeter defenders on such a team are very solid.
Rodman consistently crashing the offensive glass could, at times, have been a strain on their transition defense, too. The fact that their PF is always crashing the offensive glass while their C is too slow to get back in transition (and is also NOT a shot-blocker), and yet their 2pt defense still looks good may represent another tip of the hat to their perimeter core.


Their DREB% was always decent/good, though never great or elite. They peaked at 7th in the league, while their worst year was 12th in the league (which, fwiw, was the year that Rodman missed a third of the season). And worth noting the other bigs [and sometimes wings] consistently boxed out, allowing Rodman to chase at times.


Anyway, long story short from the above: while I have no doubt that Rodman was a HUGE factor in their DREB%, and likely a significant factor in that "good" 2pt defense, there was a whole handful of defensive help on those teams. He was not doing the heavy lifting on those elite defenses; it was an ensemble effort, with the perimeter core---collectively---carrying the bulk of the weight.


In consideration of all of the above [wrt Rodman's defense], I do think he is historically overrated defensively. He DID have some truly elite years defensively, just not as many as the accolades and historical rep suggest.

But on the flip-side, I suspect the offensive impact of his absurd offensive rebounding throughout the back-half of his career is not adequately credited in most discussions.

kcktiny wrote:

Rodman being named to all-defensive teams. That’s fine, but we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it.

I get it. You watched every Bulls game but came to a different conclusion - a vastly different conclusion - that the NBA head coaches that coached all those games and game planned against the Bulls all that time. They all decided as a group that not only was Dennis Rodman a very good defender but in 1995-96 was a top 5 defender in the league by position.

But you say no.

Not only that but the next 2 seasons you are claiming his defense was worse than the supposedly not very good defense he played in 1995-96, yet both years he was within just a few votes for the all-defensive team, and even had more than some who were named to it (Rodman with 11 in 96-97, Stockton with 9 but named at PG, Rodman with 17 in 97-98, Eddie Jones with 10 but made it at SG).

But again, you say no, his defense was even worse than in 95-96.

Well, I certainly value the opinions of the head coaches that voted at the time the player played far more than I do you or your 3 decades later mathematical concoction.

You’ve been presented with multiple people telling you what they saw watching Rodman on the Bulls

Really? That watched him all season, and they all said his defense was bad or nowhere near all-defensive team quality? Trot them out.

and you have also been given both possession-level and game-level impact data that backs up that assertion.

Oh give us a break. On/off plus/minus derivatives are so flawed they are for all intent useless. And which version are you using now? How many different versions are there now? Which one is the most accurate, which author of the concoction is claiming theirs is the best?

And every time you question one of their player values because it is nonsense the author of that concoction says you just don't understand what the value means.

Your statement is as laughable as the statements of those on this board that say Alvin Robertson wasn't a great defender because some plus/minus garbage says so.

Or the ones that claim Jokic is a really good defender when the defensive shot data at stats.nba.com shows his shot defense is poor. But we'll just ignore that shot defense data because plus/minus is right.

You are delusional in saying Dennis Rodman was:

not a particularly impactful defensive player on the Bulls

When he was a key reason why the Bulls were the top defensive team in both the regular season and the playoffs the 3 years he played for them.

And you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of plus/minus where individual player FG% allowed on defense is not part of the calculation. You believe the nonsense that this concoction profusely expresses in how it accounts for "everything" that happens on the floor when in reality it does no such thing.

Tell you what, just list all your plus/minus ratings for all the Bulls players from 1995-96, multiply them by each player's minutes played, and show us how that adds up to them being the best defensive team in 1995-96. Especially with Rodman supposedly being so bad.

But you won't. Because you don't want to take the effort. You'll just believe someone else's mathematical nonsense and profuse as truer than those who watched and analyzed the game 3 decades ago.

we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it.

Yes, you are such an expert. Why don't you tell us when Rodman did not deserve it and who should have been named in his place. And get all your friends online here that feel as you do and have them do the same. Just tell us 3 decades later how you are all smarter than the experts of the day 30 years ago, how they all got it wrong, because it is you who now knows better, you and your plus/minus friends are the experts.

Create you own revisionist NBA history. Wear your emperors new clothes.

Okay, I forgot you were the “nothing else matters in terms of defense except FG% against” guy. This all makes sense now. You’re now doing the same thing but just latching onto all-defensive teams instead. Your consistent strategy is to latch onto one piece of information and just insist that it’s the only thing that matters, even when more comprehensive data/information (such as RAPM) strongly disagrees with your assertions. You simply handwave away that data as being “mathematical nonsense” and go upon your merry way only considering the one narrow thing you’re focused on. I don’t think this is a reasonable approach to basketball analysis, but I also don’t think it is likely to persuade anyone here, so carry on.

trex_8063 wrote:In consideration of all of the above [wrt Rodman's defense], I do think he is historically overrated defensively. He DID have some truly elite years defensively, just not as many as the accolades and historical rep suggest.

But on the flip-side, I suspect the offensive impact of his absurd offensive rebounding throughout the back-half of his career is not adequately credited in most discussions.

I think this conclusion is pretty much in line with my view of it. It’s also consistent with the impact data we have on Rodman—which paints him as really not being much of a positive defensively in his later years but actually still being a decently positive-impact player offensively. The limited amount of pre-1997 data we have on him (including Squared’s RAPM and Engelmann’s weird quarter-by-quarter RAPM approximation for the 1990s) is pretty consistent with that too, but just comes out with better results for Rodman on both ends of the floor (not a surprise, of course, that he’d be better in general when he was younger).

I think Rodman’s offensive rebounding on its own was actually *very* impactful. Of course, he gave up some of that impact by being really one-dimensional offensively. I do think the triangle helped him offensively in Chicago, because he actually has a good basketball mind and so a read-and-react offense worked well for him and allowed him to provide some positive moments beyond just rebounding. So the net result probably actually was at least decently positive offensively in those years. And in his earlier years he was more of an athletic finisher too, so that probably made him even better on that end.

The overall picture then, IMO, is that in his earlier years I actually think Rodman was genuinely a top 10-20 impact player. By the time he was in his mid-30’s on the Bulls, he was more of just a reasonable positive overall, in large part on the back of the effect of his offensive rebounding.

I would guess that peak Bobby Jones (arguably his rookie season strangely enough, though less strangely in the 4 years of college before coming to the NBA era) is maybe a top 5 impact player. He led Denver to the best record in the ABA's strongest season (then did it again in 76) with Ralph Simpson and Mack Calvin as his main partners, both guys I liked but both guys whose great years didn't always translate into team results. Then his asthma issues started limiting his minutes to the point where he became one of the top 6th men ever in Philly but still very impactful, just less minutes so less total impact.

Okay, I forgot you were the “nothing else matters in terms of defense except FG% against” guy.

Again, you are the one who is quoting your plus/minus imaginations as something factual, knowing full well that individual player defensive FG% is not accounted for.

And if do not understand this, then perhaps you should take the time to learn just what exactly your measurement you claim as gospel actually measures.

Your consistent strategy is to latch onto one piece of information and just insist that it’s the only thing that matters

This "one piece of information" was voted on by the very NBA head coaches who's entire staffs watched film, game planned, and had to adjust their strategies based on who they were playing on a daily basis. THEY voted Rodman all-defensive team. Both in San Antonio and in Chicago.

It's simple - you think you are smarter than they are, and your proof is YOU watched the same games they did but came to a vastly different conclusion as to Rodman's defensive abilites. Welcome to not passing the laugh test.

Why don't you give just one good reason why someone should believe you and not the NBA head coaches in the 90s that coached against Rodman.

even when more comprehensive data/information (such as RAPM)

Again, here you are some 3 decades later trying to overturn the consensus opinions of the very people who were paid as experts in their field to determine who the best defenders were, claiming your (or your overlord's) numbers overturn their convictions.

Revisionist history.

strongly disagrees with your assertions.

With who's assertions? Look Captain Clueless I didn't vote for the all-defensive teams, NBA head coaches did. It is their assertions you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.

You simply handwave away that data as being “mathematical nonsense”

Absolutely true, 100%. Especially when it is complete contrary to what NBA head coaches agreed with 3 decades ago.

and go upon your merry way

I'm just a happy guy.

only considering the one narrow thing you’re focused on

Again - completely dumb on your part.

All the team data show the Bulls were the top defensive team 1995-96 to 1997-98. NBA head coaches voted 3 Bulls to the all-defensive team in 1995-96, Pippen and Jordan the next 2 seasons, with Rodman receiving enough votes both years to be named but not by position. I watched him play a lot and I've watched enough interviews of other NBA players talking about what a great defender Rodman was - wherever he played.

You? You say you watched him play all that time, disagree with all those who did in fact watch him who voted him all-defense, and point to a mathematical concoction that you claim is smarter than all the NBA head coaches and all the NBA players who vouch for Rodman's defensive elite defensive abilities.

Sorry dude, but this is an easy choice as to who is correct.

I don’t think this is a reasonable approach to basketball analysis

Oh, but disregarding the opinions of NBA head coaches and claiming:

but we all know full well that players often get voted to those teams long after their play warrants it

As if you even have a clue what you are talking about is true basketball analysis? And who is "we"? You and your cult of RAPM analytical wannabee NBA analysts that point to a mathematical concoction done by people who never even saw Rodman (or Bobby Jones) play when they actually did play and claim is now the standard for true NBA analysis?

but I also don’t think it is likely to persuade anyone here, so carry on

And you carry on living in your fantasy world where you can proselytize that Dennis Rodman is not an all-defensive team caliber defender but Nikola Jokic is a great defender because your math equations say so.

It’s also consistent with the impact data we have on Rodman—which paints him as really not being much of a positive defensively in his later years

So reigns the cult that is RAPM and all it's derivatives. Do you get paid for each new convert you bring into the fold?

Rodman...he did sometimes leave his man to hunt rebounds and he refused to play team defense over some snit in San Antonio and walked away from the Bulls midseason to go to Vegas.

Rodman was named to the NBA all-defensive team in both his seasons with the Spurs, 1993-94 and 1994-95, in 1994-95 to the all-defensive 1st team despite playing just 1568 minutes all season. Then all-defensive 1st team the next season, his first season with Chicago in 1995-96.

You feel he was deserving of these nominations?