RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #28 (Charles Barkley)

[HeartBreakKid]

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

I can only speak for myself. Because he was consistently among the very top rebounders in the league throughout his career while only being 6'4'. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter, but I think it's objectively more impressive than somebody bigger posting the same or better numbers. Why else is it common for Dennis Rodman to be referred to as the GOAT rebounder and not, say, Wilt or someone like that?

You rebound like that without the size advantage that usually accompanies it, it indicates more pure skill at that aspect of the game.

[falcolombardi]

Barkley was short head height wise but his actual wingspan was a lot longer and his wide frame/athletism did a lot for him

Not to diminish his motor and feel for rebounding but he had plenty of phisical tools too

[OhayoKD]

Vote for #28: Bob Pettit. To state this upfront: I do not care about science fiction time machines whisking Pettit to 1923, 2023 or 2123. In fact, the sci-fi crowd still hasn't convinced me at all that such a time machine even exists. His era was also the weakest of the candidates currently eligible, which is why I am considering him now rather than earlier spots..

So why exactly does it matter petit played in the weakest era?

Do you think he would do worse if he played in a later era?

What even makes it the weakest era? Surely you aren't assuming that the players of that era would do worse today than vice versa?

Becuase if the answer to that is yes, then you do care about science fiction time machines and are part of the sci-fi crowd.

[OhayoKD]

Those of us pushing Stockton's nomination (which I realize include you) feel similarly. It's part of the project.

Those of us pushing harden feel similarly too tbf

i believe you said it was due to off-court reasons, but i have yet to see a case for barkley as better than jh based on on-court things(and as a reminder, it was harden who played better teams closer)

Frankly i think Pippen is a better comparison. Barkley's main problem right now is that his backers aren't really williing to positively argue for him as the best candidate, rather than simply a viable one

No, the main problem is that several Barkley backers didn't show up to vote the last couple threads. I can think of three people who have been pretty consistent voters up to this point who just didn't vote the last couple threads who in all likelihood would've been Barkley voters. I don't want to name names because that never goes anywhere good, but you can go back and see them voting for Barkley two, three threads ago and see them letting him down the last couple threads with their no-shows. Had they shown, he would've gotten in #26.

I have in the past made very detailed arguments for Barkley, it's just when it's like the tenth time in a row, I lose the motivation to do anything beyond vote and give a one-sentence explanation.

And did any of those detailed arguments actually explain what makes him greater than Harden who actually was on pace to beat the greatest team ever and still got closer with a weaker cast the next year than barkley did vs a much weaker champion in 1993?

This is a ranking. In otherwords you'll have a much better shot at swinging the anti-barkley block if you are making a comparative case. It doesn't really matter what barkley's numbers or skillset is if you can't justify the bit where those number make barkley better than everyone else on the board. 

I have yet to see anyone do that bit vs Harden who also is a mvp winner, also lost to an eventual champion, also has impressive slashlines, and actually came closer to a 2nd mvp win multiple times than barkley ever did. In fact when i asked someone who was picking barkley over harden why they favored barkley over harden, their response was, "uh i don't really know why"

Your apparent justification seems to be that barkley was voted higher in the last project. If that is all the justification that can be offered here, then perhaps you should be taking issue with the previous project for overrating a player so drastically and praising this one for finally evaluating him properly.

The dude had a string of scoring efficiency seasons that has rarely been matched and was a GOAT-tier rebounder and all things considered, didn't suffer much playoff drop individually speaking.

He wasn't a goat-tier rebounder, assuming we agree "goat-tier" means you have a legitimate argument as the goat. For one, he, like pretty much any non-big, had his numbers juiced by having bigger teammates boxing out. For another, even if we just looked at offensive rebounding, he was still not racking up as many as Wilt.

And while he was a better rebounder, he is at a big disadvantage as a ballhandler/progressor, and also disadvantaged as a raw chance creator. What is your basis for Barkley's advantages trumping his disadvantages here?

Barkley not dropping lower is contingent on voters thinking he's better than everyone. Why not start there instead of some tangent about how he was voted last time

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

I can only speak for myself. Because he was consistently among the very top rebounders in the league throughout his career while only being 6'4'. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter, but I think it's objectively more impressive than somebody bigger posting the same or better numbers. Why else is it common for Dennis Rodman to be referred to as the GOAT rebounder and not, say, Wilt or someone like that?

You rebound like that without the size advantage that usually accompanies it, it indicates more pure skill at that aspect of the game.

Okay so you want us to curve up barkley's rebounding because even though he wasn't actually goat level he was skilled for his height?

Do you also penalize chuck for not being that good of a passer or ball-handler for a 6'4 guy?

[trelos6]

Malone v Barkley career wise.

I think Malone was at a weak MVP level longer (9 seasons v 5 seasons), All NBA level longer (14 seasons v 9 seasons), and he was also a lot better defensively.

Sure, their careers intertwined a lot, especially during the 1992 Olympics, but I have Karl Malone clearly ahead of Barkley in terms of career value. Looking at last years greatest peaks project, Barkley was 31st and Malone 32nd. And I think looking at peaks, they’re definitely close.

[Samurai]

Vote for #28: Bob Pettit. To state this upfront: I do not care about science fiction time machines whisking Pettit to 1923, 2023 or 2123. In fact, the sci-fi crowd still hasn't convinced me at all that such a time machine even exists. His era was also the weakest of the candidates currently eligible, which is why I am considering him now rather than earlier spots..

So why exactly does it matter petit played in the weakest era?

Do you think he would do worse if he played in a later era?

What even makes it the weakest era? Surely you aren't assuming that the players of that era would do worse today than vice versa?

Becuase if the answer to that is yes, then you do care about science fiction time machines and are part of the sci-fi crowd.

Not sure about some of the assumptions you are making. As I stated, I am impressed that he was still All NBA First Team in 1964, in his second to last season, competing against the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor, Lucas and Havlicek. I stated that I feel that the league was stronger at that point than it was when he was at his peak in the 50's. He wasn't at his peak in 64. If I knew that he could be as dominant relative to his peers then as he was in 56 or 59 when he won his MVP awards but Wilt, Oscar and West weren't playing yet, it would be more impressive to me. Feels fairly straight-forward to me and I don't see how time machines are even a part of that.

Do I like sci-fi? Of course I do; been a superhero nerd my whole life and post about comic book superhero movies and shows in those forums. I just keep my sci-fi discussions to those forums and stick to basketball in this one.

[HeartBreakKid]

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

I can only speak for myself. Because he was consistently among the very top rebounders in the league throughout his career while only being 6'4'. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter, but I think it's objectively more impressive than somebody bigger posting the same or better numbers. Why else is it common for Dennis Rodman to be referred to as the GOAT rebounder and not, say, Wilt or someone like that?

You rebound like that without the size advantage that usually accompanies it, it indicates more pure skill at that aspect of the game.

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

[OhayoKD]

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

I can only speak for myself. Because he was consistently among the very top rebounders in the league throughout his career while only being 6'4'. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter, but I think it's objectively more impressive than somebody bigger posting the same or better numbers. Why else is it common for Dennis Rodman to be referred to as the GOAT rebounder and not, say, Wilt or someone like that?

You rebound like that without the size advantage that usually accompanies it, it indicates more pure skill at that aspect of the game.

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

rodman's rebounds would likely be more valuable on average if he was actually 7 feet

[70sFan]

Vote for #28: Bob Pettit. To state this upfront: I do not care about science fiction time machines whisking Pettit to 1923, 2023 or 2123. In fact, the sci-fi crowd still hasn't convinced me at all that such a time machine even exists. His era was also the weakest of the candidates currently eligible, which is why I am considering him now rather than earlier spots..

So why exactly does it matter petit played in the weakest era?

Do you think he would do worse if he played in a later era?

What even makes it the weakest era? Surely you aren't assuming that the players of that era would do worse today than vice versa?

Becuase if the answer to that is yes, then you do care about science fiction time machines and are part of the sci-fi crowd.

It's funny that you always come up that argumentation to bold the inconsistencies in voter's methodology, but it was discussed long before this post - understanding that the league was less sophisticated and talent pool was smaller is not "time machine argument".

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Those of us pushing harden feel similarly too tbf

i believe you said it was due to off-court reasons, but i have yet to see a case for barkley as better than jh based on on-court things(and as a reminder, it was harden who played better teams closer)

Frankly i think Pippen is a better comparison. Barkley's main problem right now is that his backers aren't really williing to positively argue for him as the best candidate, rather than simply a viable one

No, the main problem is that several Barkley backers didn't show up to vote the last couple threads. I can think of three people who have been pretty consistent voters up to this point who just didn't vote the last couple threads who in all likelihood would've been Barkley voters. I don't want to name names because that never goes anywhere good, but you can go back and see them voting for Barkley two, three threads ago and see them letting him down the last couple threads with their no-shows. Had they shown, he would've gotten in #26.

I have in the past made very detailed arguments for Barkley, it's just when it's like the tenth time in a row, I lose the motivation to do anything beyond vote and give a one-sentence explanation.

And did any of those detailed arguments actually explain what makes him greater than Harden who actually was on pace to beat the greatest team ever and still got closer with a weaker cast the next year than barkley did vs a much weaker champion in 1993?

This is a ranking. In otherwords you'll have a much better shot at swinging the anti-barkley block if you are making a comparative case. It doesn't really matter what barkley's numbers or skillset is if you can't justify the bit where those number make barkley better than everyone else on the board. 

I have yet to see anyone do that bit vs Harden who also is a mvp winner, also lost to an eventual champion, also has impressive slashlines, and actually came closer to a 2nd mvp win multiple times than barkley ever did. In fact when i asked someone who was picking barkley over harden why they favored barkley over harden, their response was, "uh i don't really know why"

I didn't specifically compare him to Harden because Harden wasn't on the board back then.

For starters, I'd take issue with "weaker cast". If you're talking about 2017-18, Harden had CP3, Capela(who was putting 24.8/19.4 per 100 on +9.4 rTS), two elite 3D guys in Ariza and Tucker, and Gordon off the bench with 18ppg on +2.2 rTS. I don't know that that's so much worse than KJ/Majerle/Ceballos/Dumas/West/Chambers/Ainge/etc. If anything, a lot of the coverage of the team for those couple years(16-17 and 17-18) was focused, in addition to Harden's individual offensive accomplishments, on the job Morey had done constructing that team.

Anyway - it might surprise you to learn that I don't think the gap between Barkley/Harden is big. They're very similar. Scoring dynamos with other dimensions(Barkley's rebounding, Harden's playmaking/running of offense) who didn't play much defense and who maybe weren't the best locker room guys(though like I said in the last thread, I think that's overblown for Barkley), and who got close but couldn't get the ring.

I can compare them statistically, broadly speaking, and draw the conclusion that it's close.

Barkley is +6.9 rTS for his career in the RS; Harden is +5.7.
Barkley is +4.8 rTS(over RS league average) for his career in the PO; Harden is +3.4.
Barkley is a career 6.1 BPM RS and 6.3 BPM PO; Harden is 6.7 and 6.2.
Barkley is a career .216 WS/48 RS and .193 WS/48 PO; Harden is .218 and .172.

There is much more impact data available for Harden, but based on J.E.'s set, Barkley's late-career RAPMs are in the ballpark of many of Harden's prime RAPMs.

Harden had one outlier year - 2014-15 - where he had a 4.58 RAPM, and one outlier in the opposite direction - 1.65 in 2012-13 - but for the rest of his career(through 2018-19, that's where JE's set ends), it's always between 2.5 and 3.63. Barkey's RAPMs for the four seasons we have - 1996-97 through 1999-00 - range from 2.45 to 3.51. It is reasonable to think Barkley's RAPMs may have been higher than that in early years, but that's much too speculative so I won't push that.

Let's look at how they did in the two series you referenced - the 2018 WCF and the 1993 Finals.

Barkley:
21.3 pp36, 10.1 rp36, 4.3 ap36(vs 1.3 to p36)
54.4% TS(the 93 Bulls held opponents to 53.9% TS)

Harden:
27 pp36, 5.3 rp36, 5.7 ap36(vs 4.6 to p36)
53.8% TS(the 18 Warriors held opponents to 53.9% TS)

I'm using per36 because Barkley played a lot more minutes so the numbers would be too skewed otherwise.

Barkley was +0.5% over the opponent's allowed TS, Harden was -0.1% below.
Barkley had a much better a/t ratio.

If these are the highest-profile playoff series of their respective careers, one can make the argument that Barkley played a better series(you can point out that the <1% lower TS is worth the extra six points of volume for Harden, but he gives those points back with the additional turnovers).

So I can say that Barkley was the more efficient scorer and that he has small playoff edges in BPM and WS/48, and I can also say that Harden has small edges in the regular season equivalents of the latter two, but really the conclusion is that they're pretty close. I can't really make the argument that Barkley is significantly ahead of Harden, but by that token, I don't think you can argue the opposite either.

Zooming out a bit - I wouldn't undersell how close the Suns were in that series and how tough they were. It was a crushing loss for them.

They worked all season to earn the homecourt advantage, and then blew it by losing the first two games at home. Game 2, Barkley goes 42/13 on 61.5% FG, but the Suns still lose by 3 to go down 0-2 at home. A lot of players, a lot of teams, would be mentally done right then. Barkley and the Suns came to Chicago and freaking took 2 out of 3 to force it back to Phoenix when no one though they would. And they came damn close to making it 3 out of 3. Game 4, Barkley records a 32 point, 12 rebound, 10 assists triple double on 52.6% FG with 3 steals to boot, does everything you could possibly ask of him, and the Suns still lose by 6 to a herculean 55-point effort by MJ. Just absolutely soul-crushing. Game 6 in Phoenix was close all the way, and were it not for a poor defensive decision by Danny Ainge leaving John Paxson wide open, they were one possession from forcing the Bulls into Game 7 in Phoenix.

The games the Suns lost to the Bulls in their series were lost by 8, 3, 6, and 1.

It was a much closer series than one might think at first glance.

For me the edge between these two in particular comes down to A)I just think Barkley was a better playoff performer, as evidenced by some of the stuff above, B)As great of a scorer as Harden is, I think Barkley was better, C)For the moment, has a bit more longevity, and D)He didn't play with as much talent as Harden did(Harden had early-prime KD, early-prime Westbrook, late-prime CP3, prime Kyrie, and prime Embiid; Barkley had late-prime Moses, almost-done Dr. J, late-prime KJ, late-prime-to-almost-done Hakeem, and almost-done Drexler)

Your apparent justification seems to be that barkley was voted higher in the last project. If that is all the justification that can be offered here, then perhaps you should be taking issue with the previous project for overrating a player so drastically and praising this one for finally evaluating him properly.
...
Barkley not dropping lower is contingent on voters thinking he's better than everyone. Why not start there instead of some tangent about how he was voted last time

It's not a justification of anything. I wasn't saying vote for him because he was that high before, I was just pointing out that it's strange that he's falling that much. And it's not just the last project, it's all of them. In 2006/2008/2011/2014/2017/2020, he was always between 19 and 23(5 times between 19 and 21). Yeah, Steph/Giannis/Jokic moved up, but that doesn't explain the rest. This is going to be the lowest Barkley has ever been by at least five spots, and by at least 7-9 spots from most his previous rankings. It's a dramatic fall no matter how you look at it.

He wasn't a goat-tier rebounder, assuming we agree "goat-tier" means you have a legitimate argument as the goat. For one, he, like pretty much any non-big, had his numbers juiced by having bigger teammates boxing out. For another, even if we just looked at offensive rebounding, he was still not racking up as many as Wilt.

Okay so you want us to curve up barkley's rebounding because even though he wasn't actually goat level he was skilled for his height?

Do you also penalize chuck for not being that good of a passer or ball-handler for a 6'4 guy?

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

Firstly, I don't disagree that Rodman was better. Rodman is one of my favorite players ever, you won't get any pushback on that from me.

To be clear, when I say goat-tier, it means exactly that - in a tier. If you look at all-time career rpg in the NBA/ABA, Barkley is #23 all time, and that moves up to #20 if you look at only NBA. And the top 5 are all 60s guys whose numbers are pace-inflated.

Here are some relevant names to this discussion that are below Barkley on the NBA/ABA list:

Kareem - #29
Shaq - #38
David Robinson - #42
Nikola Jokic - #44
Karl Malone - #58
Kevin Garnett - #60
Giannis - #78
Patrick Ewing - #68

To me, for Barkley to be in the Top 25 all-time at his height is enough for me to call him a GOAT-tier rebounder.

And while he was a better rebounder, he is at a big disadvantage as a ballhandler/progressor, and also disadvantaged as a raw chance creator. What is your basis for Barkley's advantages trumping his disadvantages here?

Perfectly willing to concede Harden's advantage as a creator. I just think Barkley has an equally large advantage as a rebounder(on both ends of the court).

[Owly]

Chuck was always among the top rebounders during his career but what do people mean by he is the GOAT rebounder or GOAT tier? What makes him better than other all time bigs who typically also have insane RB type of stats?

He doesn't seem further ahead of of other dominant bigs in those regards, so what do people mean by GOAT tier?

I can only speak for myself. Because he was consistently among the very top rebounders in the league throughout his career while only being 6'4'. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter, but I think it's objectively more impressive than somebody bigger posting the same or better numbers. Why else is it common for Dennis Rodman to be referred to as the GOAT rebounder and not, say, Wilt or someone like that?

You rebound like that without the size advantage that usually accompanies it, it indicates more pure skill at that aspect of the game.

Granting that rebounding is a bit squishy because individual rebounding and impact on team rebounding are different and it isn't always clear what one is talking about and the latter is difficult to gauge before play-by-play ,,,

Because Rodman grabbed a higher percentage of available rebounds.

Then too, there are quite a few "undersized" height rebounders among the most productive rebounders.

Going by listed height because it's what we have for everyone
the following are 6 feet and _ inches and rebound percentage of ()
R Evans 8 (21.9)
D Fortson 8 (20.4)
J Lane 6 (19.6)
L Smith 8 (19.3)
W Unseld 7 (18.0)
Buck Williams 8 (17.2)

[edit: could add K Faried 7 (18.3) and D Blair 8 (17.7) to the outer tier guys, though not to the top 10ish guys, see below]

All these plus Rodman and Barkley are in the top 50 NBA (or NBA/ABA combined for rebounds but didn't want to look at ABA guys) or would be if they qualified as given here (Fortson and Lane aren't qualified). Williams is the lowest on the NBA list at 46, then the rest are top 30 and mostly circa the official top 10 (Unseld 27th, Smith 11th - of course the official top ten marker would be lower if Fortson and Lane pushed others down).

This isn't to say that height isn't a factor at all (it absolutely is) nor that Barkley couldn't be GOAT tier (it's not like there's a defined tier depth and Barkley ranks very high by this measure) nor that one couldn't do an inch-for-inch version. I'm just not sure, especially in a project about how good the players were (not how good they were relative to their own physical limitations), that most would, or should, be curving for height for rebounding ability, and they don't need to for Rodman (Russell and Chamberlain's percentages in all estimates I've seen are lower).

If one wanted to move away from an objective measure of a particular thing as it happened to happen IRL (rebound totals over estimated available rebounds - well objective-ish: stats have to be counted by someone) I could see curving for "if in the same role" before doing inch-for-inch (without making it explicit) though in this context that starts moving away from what the holistic player was (more than it does closer in trying to even out circumstances) ... Bill Russell was contesting shots and we're crediting that (or attempting to), we don't need or want to credit rebounds he would have got when the shot would have missed anyway if he stayed on the floor, that would be double counting.

[Owly]

He didn't play with as much talent as Harden did(Harden had early-prime KD, early-prime Westbrook, late-prime CP3, prime Kyrie, and prime Embiid; Barkley had late-prime Moses, almost-done Dr. J, late-prime KJ, late-prime-to-almost-done Hakeem, and almost-done Drexler)

Just skimming but I would caution against using only "star (name?) level" talent as a gauge of teammate support. It's subjective, binary and could lump great and awful teams in the same bin.

[penbeast0]

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

[70sFan]

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:

1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS
1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS

I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

[tsherkin]

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

There is also some discussion about Rodman explicitly sacrificing help defense to chase rebounds later on in his career, which seems less true for someone like Wilt at a quick glance (though with only loose confidence in that statement, tbf).

[falcolombardi]

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:

1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS
1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS

I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

Wilt being a center makes it less likely to "steal rebounds" than a 4

One could argue that adjusting to positional average rodman was still a more valuable rebounder than a center like wilt, but like you say the possibility that rodman was overhunting for rebounds give me pause

[Owly]

Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.

Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.

Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.

It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).

You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:

1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS
1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS

I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

So the Wilt side is a bit muddy but I'll assume you're doing it as consistently as possible ...

But at least on the Rodman side a part of that will be four of his top 5 rebounding season by rs trb% (92-95, 1st and 3rd-5th) constitute 0.356045633 (or circa 35.6%) of his RS career minutes, but the same years make up only 0.152223846 (circa 15.2%) of his playoff minutes. So whilst part is (eyeballing it, I think) him not sustaining his rate into the playoffs in the rebound-centric era (92 and on) it's also that playoff Rodman skews more towards early Detroit Rodman and away from some of the peak rebounding Rodman years.


As ever SA playoff Rodman's actual value is to my mind (mainly in '95, though he got suspended a game in '94) negligible to negative due to his toxicity. He helped get some RS wins but that second year he at best didn't care about and frankly was at times openly rebelling against his team.

[HeartBreakKid]

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:

1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS
1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS

I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

Wilt being a center makes it less likely to "steal rebounds" than a 4

One could argue that adjusting to positional average rodman was still a more valuable rebounder than a center like wilt, but like you say the possibility that rodman was overhunting for rebounds give me pause

Centers are not substantially more dedicated to rebounding than power forwards. It is entirely circumstantial who will be the better rebounder on a team. The center's primary purpose and distinction is shot blocking (traditionally).

I've never heard anyone say "wow he rebounds so much for a power forward". I think there is this misconception that tallest guys = best rebounders which is not true.

[70sFan]

With all due respect, on this board at least, Rodman is generally seen as the GOAT rebounder and for that matter, Russell pulls down more rebounds/minute than Wilt (19.1/38 v. 18.0), Wilt just played such ridiculous minutes that it inflates his already impressive totals and both Russell and Wilt played in an era where rebounding opportunties were greater thanks to pace and lower shooting percentages though there are also recording differences in things like team rebounds that cut the other way.

One other name to throw out. Andre Drummond is the all-time NBA leader in rebound rate over Rodman (and everyone else) although today, most teams play a 4 out with 4 getting back on defense and only one player crashing the boards where older eras often had 3. So you can expect to see more modern players on the rebound rate board (Reggie Evans, Rudy Gobert, etc.).

If you want to have this discussion, we can create a new thread if you like.

For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:

1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS
1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS

I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).

Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.

So the Wilt side is a bit muddy but I'll assume you're doing it as consistently as possible ...

But at least on the Rodman side a part of that will be four of his top 5 rebounding season by rs trb% (92-95, 1st and 3rd-5th) constitute 0.356045633 (or circa 35.6%) of his RS career minutes, but the same years make up only 0.152223846 (circa 15.2%) of his playoff minutes. So whilst part is (eyeballing it, I think) him not sustaining his rate into the playoffs in the rebound-centric era (92 and on) it's also that playoff Rodman skews more towards early Detroit Rodman and away from some of the peak rebounding Rodman years.


As ever SA playoff Rodman's actual value is to my mind (mainly in '95, though he got suspended a game in '94) negligible to negative due to his toxicity. He helped get some RS wins but that second year he at best didn't care about and frankly was at times openly rebelling against his team.

Very good point, that's something people rarely take into account (I'd add 1996 to that sample). Even in that sample, Rodman matched his RS averages only once in 1995, in a season you (rightfully) put his impact into question.