Dennis Rodman vs Ben Wallace

[Harmless]

Wallace was quite awesome during his prime years in Detroit. He brought something that Rodman never did; elite shot blocking. Not only does that account for 2-3 actual blocks but a lot of altered shots and a lot of second guessing by penetrating guards, etc.

During their prime years, they're very comparable and probably pretty close, but Rodman's longevity was obviously much better.

Blocks per game is woefully inadequate in judging a players defensive ability. Amare averages 2.1 blocks per game yet he is considered a defensive liability.

Rodman NEVER even averaged 1 block or 1 steal per game, yet he is considered one of the best defenders of all time.

Blocks are good for highlight films, but Rodman MADE players miss shots regularly.

[Super Bad]

Because of the internet and the 24 hour sports station Wallace has become very over hyped. Rodman is clearly better but when Wallace was in his prime (didn't last long) was a great Defensive player. I think that the post should be who has the better hair Rodman or Wallace. Wallace and his fro are pretty sweet but the unpredictable of Rodman get the nod IMO

[tsherkin]

I want to point out that Wallace is not actually a comparable rebounder to Rodman.

Consider for the moment the last three-peat years, where the Bulls were playing at a pace that would be today around the slowest in the league all three years.

During those years, the Worm averaged 14.9, 16.1 and 15.0 rebounds per game in 32.5, 35.4 and 35.7 minutes per game. He posted rebound rates of 26.6, 25.6 and 24.1 (at the ages of 34, 35 and 36).

Those teams played at paces of 91.1, 90.0 and 89.0.

That's about as fast as Portland and Detroit this year, 29th or 30th in the league in pace.

Ben Wallace's best year as a rebounder doesn't approach Rodman's. He has three years with a rebound rate of 20% or better. Three consecutive years at his peak: 01, 02 and 03, from the age of 26 through 28.

So Rodman was, in his mid/late 30s, a better rebounder than Big Ben in his prime. 13.0, 15.4 and 12.4 rpg from Wallace in 36.5, 49.3 and 37.7 minutes per game. Those Pistons played at paces of 94.7, 90.0 and 86.8.

So you're talking about comparably-paced teams, Wallace playing MORE minutes and posting fewer rebounds. Rodman has a CLEAR advantage as a rebounder and it is a sizeable one. That should dispel that little myth.

Then, Rodman was a considerably better man defender than Wallace. This is largely indisputable. Big Ben was a much more prolific shot-blocker and was in general a very talented help defender but Rodman was no slouch on rotations himself, he just wasn't a prolific shot-blocker.

I don't think there's any question that the Worm is the better choice here.

[CBS7]

-= original quote snipped =-



Oo you got some lip on you boy, kiss your mother with that mouth?


That one person was me, and simply b/c (as I thought I wrote here but my post mysteriously disappeared whatdyaknow), Ben was at the VERY LEAST a comparable rebounder and defender, but without all the distractions.

People overrated Rodman during his Chicago years. The funniest thing is when people say Rodman was a better offensive player.

They were different defensive players. Rodman was a better man defender by far, and Wallace a better help defender by far.

At the very least comparable rebounders? I disagree. Prime Wallace was a beast on the boards, but Rodman was just something else. I'd say the guy that averaged nearly 19 boards a game in his best year and 13.1 for his career was quite a bit better then 15.4 in his best year and 10.5 for his career.

Rodman has the has the seven highest season rebound rates since 1969. Ben Wallace has the 11th and 34th.

Offensively.. who cares? They both made their impact on defense, but at least Rodman can say he averaged double figures one year, wasn't the first FT shooter in NBA history, and led the league in FG% in another year.

[Nolan]

Rodman, and this is an insult to him.