Anthony Mason vs Dennis Rodman

[70sFan]

Who would you prefer at their peaks and why?

[penbeast0]

Rodman easily. Mason was a tough guy and a decent player, with good post defense even for a 4 and good lateral movement for a big man which allowed him to slide to the 3. But frankly, Rodman was better at all those things, quicker, and played with a higher motor and of course, his rebounding instincts were arguably GOAT. Offensively, Mason will obviously get you more scoring though teams with him as a primary scorer always seemed ugly because he liked to dribble in place eating up clock. Both are surprisingly good passers, neither had great range or great finishing moves. Rodman obviously brings locker room issues galore but unless those are really kicking in like they did in San Antonio, it's not that close.

[70sFan]

Rodman easily. Mason was a tough guy and a decent player, with good post defense even for a 4 and good lateral movement for a big man which allowed him to slide to the 3. But frankly, Rodman was better at all those things, quicker, and played with a higher motor and of course, his rebounding instincts were arguably GOAT. Offensively, Mason will obviously get you more scoring though teams with him as a primary scorer always seemed ugly because he liked to dribble in place eating up clock. Both are surprisingly good passers, neither had great range or great finishing moves. Rodman obviously brings locker room issues galore but unless those are really kicking in like they did in San Antonio, it's not that close.

A few things:

1. Mason co-anchored some impressive offenses in Charlotte as the main ball-handler.
2. I agree that both are underrated passers, but I'd give Mase clear edge in that department.
3. Mason didn't have a great range, but he had accurate short midrange shot - including some pull-up game. Rodman couldn't score at all outside the paint, so I wouldn't equal them in that department.

It doesn't mean that I have Mason higher of course, I'm just disagreeing with some of points I try to get as much opinions about it as possible, because I'm a big Mase fan and I'm not objective most likely.

[penbeast0]

Not sure I see the impressive offense or Mason being a primary ballhandler in Charlotte. The year before they got him they were top 5 and his first year there as well, but that was with Muggsy Bogues running the show. Silas loved using Mason as a secondary ballhandler though; I think he saw himself in Mason and Mason played 43+ mpg that year which helped his numbers too. . When Muggsy got injured and they moved David Wesley to the point, they dropped to 11th, then Mason was injured all year and they were 14th, then 15th when he came back. Both years, Wesley had more assists (per game and per minute) than Mason, though they often used a high post offense utilizing Mason's skills. The year they were 11th, they also had Vlade Divac, one of the better passing centers around, the year they were 15th, Eddie Jones also had 4+ assists so it was most likely Silas's offense liked to use secondary creators. I actually remember him as a point forward in Milwaukee, not Charlotte, though the numbers aren't really there like they were for Pressey.

Rodman may have been a spoiled child, but he was one of the better hockey passers, especially considering his lack of shooting and low usage. I think they were in the same league as passers, just utilized differently.

[CumberlandPosey]

rodman.he gives you something extra elite (rebounding or man defense for example).something mason cant provide.huge fan of both players but besides skills the worm also has that special entertainment factor built in on court and off the court.

[70sFan]

Not sure I see the impressive offense or Mason being a primary ballhandler in Charlotte. The year before they got him they were top 5 and his first year there as well, but that was with Muggsy Bogues running the show. Silas loved using Mason as a secondary ballhandler though; I think he saw himself in Mason and Mason played 43+ mpg that year which helped his numbers too. . When Muggsy got injured and they moved David Wesley to the point, they dropped to 11th, then Mason was injured all year and they were 14th, then 15th when he came back. Both years, Wesley had more assists (per game and per minute) than Mason, though they often used a high post offense utilizing Mason's skills. The year they were 11th, they also had Vlade Divac, one of the better passing centers around, the year they were 15th, Eddie Jones also had 4+ assists so it was most likely Silas's offense liked to use secondary creators. I actually remember him as a point forward in Milwaukee, not Charlotte, though the numbers aren't really there like they were for Pressey.

Rodman may have been a spoiled child, but he was one of the better hockey passers, especially considering his lack of shooting and low usage. I think they were in the same league as passers, just utilized differently.

1997 Hornets: +4.5
1998 Hornets: +2.5

Mason out:
1999 Hornets: +0.1
2000 Hornets: +0.2

I don't say that it's all on Mase, but these results are highly impressive in my opinion.

[70sFan]

rodman.he gives you something extra elite (rebounding or man defense for example).something mason cant provide.huge fan of both players but besides skills the worm also has that special entertainment factor built in on court and off the court.

Mason was elite man defender though.

[Odinn21]

I'd probably take Rodman as the better player. Both were defensive specialists. It'd be hard for me to say their offensive performances mean much. Mason's scoring reached a height Rodman never sniffed but Rodman's aggression on offensive boards and his somewhat decent facilitating abilities would make up for the scoring gap. On defense, I'd have Rodman over Mason. Not by a big margin but a clear margin.
Rodman is the way more popular figure. What I'd like to add for Mason's case is that his arrival along with Riley's was one of the major reasons why the Knicks went from a barely playoffs team to a historic defensive team. I'd definitely want Mason over Rodman for my team fwiw. Rodman was a nutjob. In a random situation, him being like what he was in SA looks more probable to me.

[G35]

Hmmm that is difficult decision. The problem is they were both quasi-SF/PF types that were plugged into specific roles based on the team:

Rodman with the Pistons was a defensive energizer bunny who was a designated defensive stopper....with the Spurs he was suppose to bring a winning attitude and intensity as a starter next to DRob...very apparent chemistry issues got in the way of the DRob-Rodman pairing ever reaching its potential...this is why potential is just that potential. Personality issues can get in the way of potential. Rodman with the Bulls allowed him to go back to a more defined role as a defensive stopper without having to provide much leadership and he was defending big men more than when he was with the Pistons.

T:;DR Rodman is exceptional in a defined defensive role where you do not ask him to have much if any leadership responsiblities...so you better have a strong minded coach/player leader

Mason was part of those defensive minded Knicks with Ewing as the leader/best player and I think he excelled in that type of environment. Those Knicks were grabby, pushy, rough and tumble type of team and they depended a lot of Ewing and Mason's post play to generate efficient points and offensive creation. Those Knicks did not have much shooting, decent shooting but not great shooting...so much of their offense was 18ft and in.

In Charlotte, he was playing next to Glen Rice, one of the best 3pt shooters of all time imo...not quite as good as Steph, but I would put him up against Klay any day. They also had Mugsy Bogues, who while being a competent ball handler had his physical limitations. Mason was one of the original "point forwards" that was popular back then with Grant Hill, Scottie Pippen, who could bring up the ball and create their own offense. Now Mason was nowhere near as athletic as those guys, could not create like those guys, nor shoot like them either. He had this weird herky, jerky, motion and you could see it at the FT line...IIRC he would bring the all up with two hands and then shoot the FT with one hand.

But he was a good change of pace guy when your main guy went to the bench he could run an offense for 3-5 minutes and you would not get blown out.

Rodman brings more value, but only if you have all the other pieces to put around Rodman...otherwise if you are a middle of the road team and need a lot of help in multiple areas...I might go with Mason.....

[CumberlandPosey]

rodman.he gives you something extra elite (rebounding or man defense for example).something mason cant provide.huge fan of both players but besides skills the worm also has that special entertainment factor built in on court and off the court.

Mason was elite man defender though.

not as elite as the worm imo.anyways i will watch some knick games from their 93-96 runs to get a better understanding of mason.probably have forgotten how great he was man to man.

what???just checked and saw that anthony mason even made the asg once at age 34 with the heat...not that its any kind of unbelievable achievement but i didnt know that.