Is Dennis Rodman One of The Top 75 Best Players In NBA History?

[jfs1000d]

No. Great player though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Invictus88]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

[dhsilv2]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

Not sure anyone would say his tenure on the spurs was a plus at all. Questionable how valuable he was for the bulls after 96 though younger me wants to think he was a huge plus...not sure his playoff play was that great though.

[NZB2323]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

The Spurs defense improved after he left. I also don’t think him starting at 25 is a positive, but Mutumbo also started at 25, affected the game with defense and rebounding, and didn’t make the top 75 team. If we compare their teammates, I think it’s obvious that Rodman had better teammates. For the first 12 years:

Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
David Robinson

Vs.

Laphonso Ellis
Steve Smith
Iverson


End of their career:

Dirk
Nash
Kobe
Shaq

Vs.

Kidd
Marbury
Tmac
Yao

Mutumbo also had longevity on Rodman, helping the Rockets win 22 games in a row when Mutumbo was in his 40s.

[Joao Saraiva]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

Very impressive and I'm OK if anyone evaluates different than me. He definitely has an argument for the top 75. I just think we've had enough guys who are more than capable #1 options on deep runs that I find it hard to place Rodman ahead of them. But as long as it is justified I'm OK with it.

If Rodman was lucky... sure he was lucky. When the worst team you're in during your prime has David Robinson in it you are a lucky player. And that's part of what allows us to evaluate him in such a positive way. If Rodman was stuck in middle teams or teams with not enough star power he'd be ranked much lower.

However that can be said even for some star players. Who knows what common rank would Garnett have if he and Duncan switched places? My guess is that KG rises and Duncan goes down. Maybe KG doesn't rise to the heights of Duncan tough.

[Tracymcgoaty]

If he is then so is draymond.

[Lalouie]

what's the criteria for top75

[Lalouie]

the fact that rodman made a diff on TWO ring teams, that's 5IVE rings, and rodman is considered to be one of our best defenders,,,,
this convo must start with rings because that is how he made his bones

so strike all those players with no rings

im not putting him ahead of ginobili or parker - that's lunacy. hes ahead of dray though

[Invictus88]

Rodman was an elite defender and rebounder. He requires a very specific team to be useful, even more with his craziness going arround.

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

The Spurs defense improved after he left. I also don’t think him starting at 25 is a positive, but Mutumbo also started at 25, affected the game with defense and rebounding, and didn’t make the top 75 team. If we compare their teammates, I think it’s obvious that Rodman had better teammates. For the first 12 years:

Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
David Robinson

Vs.

Laphonso Ellis
Steve Smith
Iverson


End of their career:

Dirk
Nash
Kobe
Shaq

Vs.

Kidd
Marbury
Tmac
Yao

Mutumbo also had longevity on Rodman, helping the Rockets win 22 games in a row when Mutumbo was in his 40s.

The Spurs won 55 and 62 games in the years Rodman was with the team. Rodman made an All NBA 3rd team and all-defensive team while there.

Who cares about what their teams looked like in the final year or two when they were past their prime? Is that really the window that matters when trying to holistically evaluate players' careers?

And I haven't really said much about Mutumbo. He had a great career. I think if he had more team success (bad luck?) then maybe he is part of the title of this thread as well. But his teams only won 51% of their games and 41% in the playoffs. Winning matters.

[NZB2323]

what's the criteria for top75

Whatever criteria you want to use.

I don’t think it’s wrong to include him, but I also don’t think it’s wrong to leave him out.

However, given that he was ranked 67th by ESPN in 2022(seems about right, I’d have Rodman ahead of some of those players and behind others) and I’d have Jokic, SGA, Tatum, Luka, Butler, Dwight, Gasol, and Mutumbo, Green, and Tmac ahead of him, and possibly more, I think I’d have Rodman in the 80-90 range.

[NZB2323]

Except that he was great for the Pistons, Spurs and the Bulls which compromise the first 12 years of his career (and he started late at 25).

There's no debating that he was bad on offense outside putbacks and offensive rebounds (which many times were game-changing in key moments). But if you are focusing on his offensive skills as a reason he shouldn't be considered as a top 75 player then you really are missing the boat.

Very, very few players were ever able to affect games in the manner he did. It's much less common than folks who affect the game offensively. And he won 5 rings. He had a career win-loss record of 636-275. That's 69.8%. Across 900 games. 116-53 in the playoffs. 68.6%. Highest of any player with 100+ playoff games.

He's either extremely lucky to be surrounded by great players or more likely extremely great at helping to make his team better.

The Spurs defense improved after he left. I also don’t think him starting at 25 is a positive, but Mutumbo also started at 25, affected the game with defense and rebounding, and didn’t make the top 75 team. If we compare their teammates, I think it’s obvious that Rodman had better teammates. For the first 12 years:

Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
David Robinson

Vs.

Laphonso Ellis
Steve Smith
Iverson


End of their career:

Dirk
Nash
Kobe
Shaq

Vs.

Kidd
Marbury
Tmac
Yao

Mutumbo also had longevity on Rodman, helping the Rockets win 22 games in a row when Mutumbo was in his 40s.

The Spurs won 55 and 62 games in the years Rodman was with the team. Rodman made an All NBA 3rd team and all-defensive team while there.

Who cares about what their teams looked like in the final year or two when they were past their prime? Is that really the window that matters when trying to holistically evaluate players' careers?

And I haven't really said much about Mutumbo. He had a great career. I think if he had more team success (bad luck?) then maybe he is part of the title of this thread as well. But his teams only won 51% of their games and 41% in the playoffs. Winning matters.

The Spurs won 49 games the year before Rodman and 59 games the year after Rodman. They went from 10th to 9th in DefRtg the first year of Rodman and from 5th to 3rd the year he left.

A 22 game streak is impressive. Tmac didn’t play in all those games, Yao didn’t play in all those games, but Mutumbo in his 40s did. I think that’s part of Mutumbo’s legacy, and so is him winning DPOTY when he was 34. Mutumbo was much better from 34-41 than Rodman was.

Do you think it’s easier to win championships with LaPhonso Ellis and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf or Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen?

[Special_Puppy]

Box score composites like RAPTOR and BPM have him squarely outside the top 75, but they might be underrating him. Squared2020's 1985 to 1998 RAPM has Rodman 6th (!) https://squared2020.com/2025/01/26/historical-rapm-1985-1996/

[Asianiac_24]

Definitely not. I don't even think he is top 150 and or even top 200 to be honest. I would take guys like Rasheed, Pau, Marc Gasol, Siakam, etc over him as well.

[kodo]

The 75th anniversary team is not the 75 best players in NBA history, as per the title.
Just as the MVP is not the best player in the league, in no way was Steve Nash the best player in the league for 2 years or was Barkley & Malone ever considered better than Michael Jordan.

In terms of accomplishments I'd put Rodman in there with his 5 rings over Jason Kidd, who is on the team 75th team.

[Invictus88]

The Spurs defense improved after he left. I also don’t think him starting at 25 is a positive, but Mutumbo also started at 25, affected the game with defense and rebounding, and didn’t make the top 75 team. If we compare their teammates, I think it’s obvious that Rodman had better teammates. For the first 12 years:

Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
David Robinson

Vs.

Laphonso Ellis
Steve Smith
Iverson


End of their career:

Dirk
Nash
Kobe
Shaq

Vs.

Kidd
Marbury
Tmac
Yao

Mutumbo also had longevity on Rodman, helping the Rockets win 22 games in a row when Mutumbo was in his 40s.

The Spurs won 55 and 62 games in the years Rodman was with the team. Rodman made an All NBA 3rd team and all-defensive team while there.

Who cares about what their teams looked like in the final year or two when they were past their prime? Is that really the window that matters when trying to holistically evaluate players' careers?

And I haven't really said much about Mutumbo. He had a great career. I think if he had more team success (bad luck?) then maybe he is part of the title of this thread as well. But his teams only won 51% of their games and 41% in the playoffs. Winning matters.

The Spurs won 49 games the year before Rodman and 59 games the year after Rodman. They went from 10th to 9th in DefRtg the first year of Rodman and from 5th to 3rd the year he left.

A 22 game streak is impressive. Tmac didn’t play in all those games, Yao didn’t play in all those games, but Mutumbo in his 40s did. I think that’s part of Mutumbo’s legacy, and so is him winning DPOTY when he was 34. Mutumbo was much better from 34-41 than Rodman was.

Do you think it’s easier to win championships with LaPhonso Ellis and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf or Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen?

It's really hard to take seriously a response that is effectively "But but but Dikembe won 22 games in a row" as a counterargument to whether a completely different player (Rodman) had a career worthy of being in the top 75.

[NZB2323]

The Spurs won 55 and 62 games in the years Rodman was with the team. Rodman made an All NBA 3rd team and all-defensive team while there.

Who cares about what their teams looked like in the final year or two when they were past their prime? Is that really the window that matters when trying to holistically evaluate players' careers?

And I haven't really said much about Mutumbo. He had a great career. I think if he had more team success (bad luck?) then maybe he is part of the title of this thread as well. But his teams only won 51% of their games and 41% in the playoffs. Winning matters.

The Spurs won 49 games the year before Rodman and 59 games the year after Rodman. They went from 10th to 9th in DefRtg the first year of Rodman and from 5th to 3rd the year he left.

A 22 game streak is impressive. Tmac didn’t play in all those games, Yao didn’t play in all those games, but Mutumbo in his 40s did. I think that’s part of Mutumbo’s legacy, and so is him winning DPOTY when he was 34. Mutumbo was much better from 34-41 than Rodman was.

Do you think it’s easier to win championships with LaPhonso Ellis and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf or Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen?

It's really hard to take seriously a response that is effectively "But but but Dikembe won 22 games in a row" as a counterargument to whether a completely different player (Rodman) had a career worthy of being in the top 75.

Ah yes, because that was my entire argument.

[Invictus88]

The Spurs won 49 games the year before Rodman and 59 games the year after Rodman. They went from 10th to 9th in DefRtg the first year of Rodman and from 5th to 3rd the year he left.

A 22 game streak is impressive. Tmac didn’t play in all those games, Yao didn’t play in all those games, but Mutumbo in his 40s did. I think that’s part of Mutumbo’s legacy, and so is him winning DPOTY when he was 34. Mutumbo was much better from 34-41 than Rodman was.

Do you think it’s easier to win championships with LaPhonso Ellis and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf or Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen?

It's really hard to take seriously a response that is effectively "But but but Dikembe won 22 games in a row" as a counterargument to whether a completely different player (Rodman) had a career worthy of being in the top 75.

Ah yes, because that was my entire argument.

Did it not center around a comparison between Mutombo and Rodman that you made? Did you not repeat that fact?

I don't care what Mutombo did. It's tangential to this thread at best. Unless you have some sort of weird axe to grind and think that Rodman is the one somehow standing in the way of Mutombo getting his accolades and being part of the top 75 then why is he being mentioned here?

I still state and maintain that on his merits alone that Rodman deserves to be in the top 75. And no. I'm not going to go and try to magically prove why he is better than every other player who has had a good basketball career. I have better things to do.

[aliasxn]

Rodman is a hard case. What he did well, he did at an all-time great level. What he didn't do great, he was awful at. Basically the entire list of folks above offered more rounded skills. But I don't think most of them are so superlative in a few areas like Rodman is at defense, rebounding and hustle, that you could make a massively clear cut case that they're better. But I would definitely take several over Rodman in part because of the distraction factor, and also because (translating to today), you need to have a wider range of skills to be able to play. So personally for me Parker and Green are the only two I think are pretty clearly matchups in Rodman's favor. The others, I could make a pretty good argument for Rodman being worse.

Pretty much this. If I were building a team, I might take Rodman over some of the guys on this list. But if we're just ranking who is better then yeah, it's hard to argue.

[NZB2323]

It's really hard to take seriously a response that is effectively "But but but Dikembe won 22 games in a row" as a counterargument to whether a completely different player (Rodman) had a career worthy of being in the top 75.

Ah yes, because that was my entire argument.

Did it not center around a comparison between Mutombo and Rodman that you made? Did you not repeat that fact?

I don't care what Mutombo did. It's tangential to this thread at best. Unless you have some sort of weird axe to grind and think that Rodman is the one somehow standing in the way of Mutombo getting his accolades and being part of the top 75 then why is he being mentioned here?

I still state and maintain that on his merits alone that Rodman deserves to be in the top 75. And no. I'm not going to go and try to magically prove why he is better than every other player who has had a good basketball career. I have better things to do.

I made 3 arguments:

1.) The Spurs were barely better when they had Rodman.

2.) Mutumbo had better longevity and was better from ages 34-40, as evidence by him winning DPOTY at age 34 and winning 22 games in a row when he was 40.

3.) It’s easier to win a championship with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen than LaPhonso Ellis and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf.

I’m not necessarily against Rodman being top 75, but the reason I keep bringing up Mutumbo is him, and players like him are the centerpiece of this thread. Is Rodman better than players like Mutumbo who didn’t make the top 75 list?

I guess it’s fine to have Rodman, Green, Dwight, Mutumbo, Tmac, Gasol, Jokic, SGA, Luka, Tatum, and Butler on the top 75 list, but then you’d have to kick out a lot of members from the 2022 list, and I’m not sure that would be justified.

[JellosJigglin]

Yes. It's hard to describe how much he impacted the game if you weren't there to watch him.