Who is the better basketball player?

[DavidSomerset]

So I got in this argument with my friend the other day that goes to Michigan (is a semi-Pistons fan, just cause he goes to school up there).

He was bragging about how good Ben Wallace was, and I said Dennis Rodman was a better player, and just as good of a defender.

What do yall think?

[Diesel]

Dennis Rodman without question is the better basketball player. Rodman went up against much better competition and dominated the boards.

[cyman3]

ill be happy to share one opinion.

offensively, theyre about even (slight edge to Rodman)

defensively, Rodman in his best year was avg 18.70 rpg. Wallace was at 15.4 rpg. Rodman is the better rebounder. when it comes to blocking, no contest- Ben Wallace.

but defense is more than just blocking, its sticking to ur man and frustrating the living sh%t out of him... and Rodman certainly did that.

if you ask the question to the average NBA fan- "who is the better basketball player, PERIOD... Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman?" i think ud get more ben wallace SIMPLY based on the fact that ben wallace is a fan favorite, blue collar guy while Rodman has that negative image (when in fact, hes a blue collar guy himself).

After all is said and done, if you MADE ME CHOOSE... id say RODMAN is the better basketball player.

offensively Rodman has slight edge (FT% hes better and ppg hes better).

defensively Rodman is just as good (in different ways) as Wallace.

Rodman wins.

[CBAreject]

I say Ben Wallace for about 3-4 years. Rodman had better longevity.

Wallace was an MVP candidate, as he was more of a game-changer. He was the core of the great Pistons teams. His decline led to their decline. Rodman was always a nice piece on some good teams. He was never the centerpiece of his team. However, Rodman strung together about 8 phenomenal rebounding years. He could've done more if he hadn't punk'd out at the end. Wallace appears to be on the decline now. For 4 years, though, Wallace was dominating and game-changing.

[chillzatl]

don't forget that Rodman also got MVP mentions (though many laughed at the notion) in his 18rpg season with the bulls. He was a defensive game changer. I've never see Ben Wallace do to players what Rodman did to the likes of Karl Malone, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing and even Shaq. He would routinly take the superstars of the game so far outside themselves that it was comical.

[Popeye]

Agree, Rodman was better and i just loved how he allways comes up with different hair colors.

[AHF]

Rodman was better for his career but didn't have as much of an impact as Ben Wallace at his peak. Both are very comparable, though, IMO.

[chillzatl]

didn't have the impact? That's absurd. Ben wallace has NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER had the impact that Rodman did during those last three years with the Bulls.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

didn't have the impact? That's absurd. Ben wallace has NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER had the impact that Rodman did during those last three years with the Bulls.

---

I agree... As good as Ben Wallace was... He's been overhyped into being a world beater out there. Ben is basically a better rebounding version of Theo Ratliff.

In fact, Ben Wallace is an average defensive player one on one at best.

[AHF]

Wallace made the Pistons world champions by dominating on defense and making every other player on the team a better defender with his help defense. I don't think there were probably more than 4-5 other players that could have impacted the Pistons to the extent he did (i.e., championship level).

Rodman's best seasons he was a dominating individual defender playing with other dominating individual defenders in Pippen and Jordan. I think he was interchangable with any of the top 10 - 15 or so PFs in the league as far as the team's success. They were almost certain to win championships as long as they had someone there who was a competent rebounder. Whether that was Rodman or someone else wasn't that important because Rodman wasn't that important to the team as far as winning championships, IMO.

[chillzatl]

sorry but I think your opinion is flat out wrong. He was considered an MVP candidate by some and next to Jordan was credited as the most important piece on that team. Why do you think his technicals and antics were so heavily criticzed? Because many felt that without his rebounding and defense, the Bulls couldn't win. After seeing the way he controlled Malone, the MVP, it's hard to argue.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Wallace made the Pistons world champions by dominating on defense and making every other player on the team a better defender with his help defense. I don't think there were probably more than 4-5 other players that could have impacted the Pistons to the extent he did (i.e., championship level).

Rodman's best seasons he was a dominating individual defender playing with other dominating individual defenders in Pippen and Jordan. I think he was interchangable with any of the top 10 - 15 or so PFs in the league as far as the team's success. They were almost certain to win championships as long as they had someone there who was a competent rebounder. Whether that was Rodman or someone else wasn't that important because Rodman wasn't that important to the team as far as winning championships, IMO.

---

Big Ben wasn't dominating Reef to much was he? You think Rodman would allow a second rate Forward like Shareef to score 50 points againest him?

"Wallace made the Pistons world champions by dominating on defense and making every other player"

Here's something... The NBA wasn't very good when Detroit won the NBA title. Rodman had big effects on teams that were truly great and not good teams that benefitted from a weak league.

Let's not forget that Detroit wasn't overly impressive other than that series againest LA.. They struggled to beat the Bucks and the Nets. That Laker team just wasn't that good anyway.. Shaq was done on the decline and the Lakers time was ended the year before by SA... Malone and Payton's reputations were bigger than their production on the court.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

He was considered an MVP candidate by some and next to Jordan was credited as the most important piece on that team.

---

What was his best finish in MVP voting? Compare that to Wallace's best finish.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He was considered an MVP candidate by some and next to Jordan was credited as the most important piece on that team.

---

What was his best finish in MVP voting? Compare that to Wallace's best finish.

---

Rodman

1995-96 0 1st, 2nd or 3rd place votes. 4 total points.

1996-97 No votes.

1997-98 No votes.

Those were the Chicago years for Rodman.

Wallace

2001-02 24 total points (no first place, unclear second or third)

2002-03 1 1st place vote (unclear # of 2nd or 3rd) - 33 total points.

2003-04 24 total points

Wallace dominates Rodman in terms of MVP consideration. It isn't close.

I will admit that many other people think more highly of Rodman than I do, but this is a bad argument for Rodman > Wallace, particularly since Wallace got vastly superior #s in 3 consecutive years supporting my argument that his impact at its peak was bigger than Rodman's.

In contrast, Rodman never received votes in consecutive years during his career.

[chillzatl]

I never said rodman got votes. I said he got mention.

Look at the eras they played in. Rodman played in an era that held the the greatest collection of big scoring big men in the history of the league. Big Ben is a dominant big man in an era where there really aren't any big men. Furthermore, he's never really been considered a great one on one defender. Rodman was a shutdown defender on just about anyone you put him on, regardless of size.

I think you're letting a dislike of Rodman influence your opinion more than anything. either that or you simply don't remember the impact he had during his championship years. Besides that, you're comparing a guy who was regarded as an excellent defender for his entire career, regardless of where he played. With a guy who has only been considered a "great" defender for about 5 years and wasn't considered that until he went to a team that already played great team D.

Regardless, it's a matter of opinion. I love Ben and I take nothing away from anything he's done. But don't see him having the impact on the game or his teams success that Rodman did.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I never said rodman got votes. I said he got mention.

---

Votes are betting than getting mentioned, IMO.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, he's never really been considered a great one on one defender. Rodman was a shutdown defender on just about anyone you put him on, regardless of size.

---

I think I said the same thing. No disagreement except to add that Wallace is a great help defender and Rodman wasn't more than an adequate one due to his fixation on being in position to get a rebound.

Quote:

---

I think you're letting a dislike of Rodman influence your opinion more than anything. either that or you simply don't remember the impact he had during his championship years.

---

I thought his impact was overrated during those years. In fact, I thought he became obsessed with getting rebounds during the Chicago years for the attention it gave him and thought then and still think he had a bigger impact in both Detroit and San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Besides that, you're comparing a guy who was regarded as an excellent defender for his entire career, regardless of where he played. With a guy who has only been considered a "great" defender for about 5 years

---

That was my point above. Rodman had the better career as an "excellent" defender but Wallace's impact at his peak was better as a "great" defender during that period.

Quote:

---

and wasn't considered that until he went to a team that already played great team D.

---

Wallace joined a team that gave up 102 ppg the year before he joined and helped them reduce that by an average of over 10 ppg over the next six years.

Quote:

---

Regardless, it's a matter of opinion. I love Ben and I take nothing away from anything he's done. But don't see him having the impact on the game or his teams success that Rodman did.

---

It is ultimately opinion. Without Rodman I see the Bulls finishing first in the central and winning titles all three years. Thus his impact was taking a championship club and making it a better championship club. Ben Wallace took a Detroit team that would have been a second tier team and made them a championship club. Bigger impact in my book.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I never said rodman got votes. I said he got mention.

---

Votes are betting than getting mentioned, IMO.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, he's never really been considered a great one on one defender. Rodman was a shutdown defender on just about anyone you put him on, regardless of size.

---

I think I said the same thing. No disagreement except to add that Wallace is a great help defender and Rodman wasn't more than an adequate one due to his fixation on being in position to get a rebound.

Quote:

---

I think you're letting a dislike of Rodman influence your opinion more than anything. either that or you simply don't remember the impact he had during his championship years.

---

I thought his impact was overrated during those years. In fact, I thought he became obsessed with getting rebounds during the Chicago years for the attention it gave him and thought then and still think he had a bigger impact in both Detroit and San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Besides that, you're comparing a guy who was regarded as an excellent defender for his entire career, regardless of where he played. With a guy who has only been considered a "great" defender for about 5 years

---

That was my point above. Rodman had the better career as an "excellent" defender but Wallace's impact at his peak was better as a "great" defender during that period.

Quote:

---

and wasn't considered that until he went to a team that already played great team D.

---

Wallace joined a team that gave up 102 ppg the year before he joined and helped them reduce that by an average of over 10 ppg over the next six years.

Quote:

---

Regardless, it's a matter of opinion. I love Ben and I take nothing away from anything he's done. But don't see him having the impact on the game or his teams success that Rodman did.

---

It is ultimately opinion. Without Rodman I see the Bulls finishing first in the central and winning titles all three years. Thus his impact was taking a championship club and making it a better championship club. Ben Wallace took a Detroit team that would have been a second tier team and made them a championship club. Bigger impact in my book.

---

The Pistons won the title at a weak time in basketball... That weakens the arguement for Ben Wallace.

Without Rodman I see the Bulls finishing first in the central and winning titles all three years. "

"Didn't one of the finals againest the jazz go to a game 7?"

"I find it hard to believe they'd beat Utah without Rodman in the lineup. Sounds like a biased opinion talking.

"

[AHF]

Quote:

---

"I find it hard to believe they'd beat Utah without Rodman in the lineup. Sounds like a biased opinion talking.

"

---

They did win 3 championships without him on the roster using solid but unspectacular Horace Grant. I don't know why suggesting that they would still win while substituting in a middle of the pack PF like Dale Davis, Jayson Williams, etc. is evidence of "biased opinion." I think you'll need to explain that one to me.

I am not an anti-Rodman guy - he was amusing off the court and he played his rear off on the Court. He was a very good forward for a long time. I just thought his impact was overrated after he joined the Bulls and that he was better player when he tried to play a more complete game in Detroit, etc. before he became focused almost exclusively on rebounding.

The Bulls won those championships based around Jordan and Pippen. The rest of the team was just mixing and matching enough working parts together to make sure they have the support they needed.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"I find it hard to believe they'd beat Utah without Rodman in the lineup. Sounds like a biased opinion talking.

"

---

They did win 3 championships without him on the roster using solid but unspectacular Horace Grant. I don't know why suggesting that they would still win while substituting in a middle of the pack PF like Dale Davis, Jayson Williams, etc. is evidence of "biased opinion." I think you'll need to explain that one to me.

I am not an anti-Rodman guy - he was amusing off the court and he played his rear off on the Court. He was a very good forward for a long time. I just thought his impact was overrated after he joined the Bulls and that he was better player when he tried to play a more complete game in Detroit, etc. before he became focused almost exclusively on rebounding.

The Bulls won those championships based around Jordan and Pippen. The rest of the team was just mixing and matching enough working parts together to make sure they have the support they needed.

---

Horace Grant in his prime was a VERY underrated player. He was a better player than Dale Davis and Jayson Williams.

Not only was Horace a 8.5-10RPG player, but he also went between 12-16PPG during his prime. He was good at getting steals also.. He also averaged between 2.5-3 APG during his prime years. He was actually a very good well rounded player.

Quote:

---

He was a very good forward for a long time. I just thought his impact was overrated after he joined the Bulls and that he was better player when he tried to play a more complete game in Detroit, etc. before he became focused almost exclusively on rebounding.

---

He did what he was supposed to do.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"I find it hard to believe they'd beat Utah without Rodman in the lineup. Sounds like a biased opinion talking.

"

---

They did win 3 championships without him on the roster using solid but unspectacular Horace Grant. I don't know why suggesting that they would still win while substituting in a middle of the pack PF like Dale Davis, Jayson Williams, etc. is evidence of "biased opinion." I think you'll need to explain that one to me.

I am not an anti-Rodman guy - he was amusing off the court and he played his rear off on the Court. He was a very good forward for a long time. I just thought his impact was overrated after he joined the Bulls and that he was better player when he tried to play a more complete game in Detroit, etc. before he became focused almost exclusively on rebounding.

The Bulls won those championships based around Jordan and Pippen. The rest of the team was just mixing and matching enough working parts together to make sure they have the support they needed.

---

Horace Grant in his prime was a VERY underrated player. He was a better player than Dale Davis and Jayson Williams.

Not only was Horace a 8.5-10RPG player, but he also went between 12-16PPG during his prime. He was good at getting steals also.. He also averaged between 2.5-3 APG during his prime years. He was actually a very good well rounded player.

---

I agree Horace Grant was better than Davis or Williams. However, I think the Bulls still win their championships with guys as the middle of the road as Davis and Williams. The Bulls were able to just slot guys like Bison Dele in there because of Jordan and Pippen's amazing games. I think they could have done the same with the PF position. For example, I think they win the 1996 championship with any of:

Dennis Rodman (obviously)

Karl Malone

Shawn Kemp

Charles Barkley

Horace Grant

Charles Oakley

Rasheed Wallace

Chris Webber

Larry Johnson

Vin Baker

Antonio Davis

Dale Davis

Otis Thorpe

Cliff Robinson

Brian Grant

Loy Vaught

Jayson Williams

and have a very good chance with:

Antonio McDyess

Anthony Mason

Christian Laettner

Kevin Garnett

Joe Smith

Take Jordan or Pippen out and the list of who could have replaced them and won a championship is very, very small. The Bulls are better with Rodman than with Loy Vaught's 14 and 10 but the difference isn't nearly as big as if you are replacing Ben Wallace with the 15th guy down the list for the Pistons, IMO.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He was a very good forward for a long time. I just thought his impact was overrated after he joined the Bulls and that he was better player when he tried to play a more complete game in Detroit, etc. before he became focused almost exclusively on rebounding.

---

He did what he was supposed to do.

---

No argument there. So did Steve Kerr. I am not sure where that gets you, though.