# Prime Ben Wallace Vs. Prime Dennis Rodman



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Defensive minded rebounding machines? Who was better?


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

I would for sure take Ben Wallace. While Rodman was the better rebounder - with a couple more rebounds per game for his career compared with Wallace - you simply can't overlook how much better Wallace on defense. Four defensive player of the year awards is enough evidence for me.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Rodman easily.

Rodman was a great rebounder, and defender. He could defend more positions than Wallace as well.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Rodman.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Rodman


----------



## Babir (Jan 10, 2005)

Rodman


----------



## TheBowski (Jun 12, 2002)

I was going to say Wallace, no question, until I realized how much better of a rebounder Rodman was. Still give me Wallace though, he's the better all-around defender, not to mention he doesn't bring the headaches Rodman does if your coach isn't Phil Jackson (even then you have some). It's a close call though.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Coatesvillain said:


> Rodman easily.
> 
> Rodman was a great rebounder, and defender. He could defend more positions than Wallace as well.


Yep, I'm taking Rodman because he could cover more positions just as well as Wallace covered big men. He reminds me of a wealthy man's Kenyon Martin defensively.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

It's pretty close for me, but I prefer a strong defensive anchor over a versitile big man defender, give me Wallace.


----------



## TheBowski (Jun 12, 2002)

Wallace could defend more than just big guys in his prime. Granted, he couldn't guard an athletic wing for a whole game, but he could do well enough on switches and such for a possession.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Rodman and it's not even close. I'm surprised this is even up for debate as a comparison. Maybe, just me.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Never got the impression that Wallace is a better defender than Rodman. Wallace had more blocks, but Rodman was more versatile. Rodman > Wallace.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

Detroit's defensive scheme that was predicated around funneling the offensive player to Wallace helped him to develop the superior defensive reputation that he has. It could be argued that Ben Wallace's success as a defender could be attributed to the system as much as Steve Nash's success as an MVP could be attributed to the seven seconds or less offense.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Dennis Rodman > Ben Wallace.

Rodman has had the better career, Rodman was the better rebounder, and a much more versatile defender. Also Rodman wasn't the Black Hole on offense that Wallace is. Rodman could actually score, and knock down a free throw. Rodman in the span of his career could defend Michael Jordan or Karl Malone. Dennis Rodman is as strong as Ben Wallace, and much quicker. 

And for who ever brought up the Defensive Player Of The Year awards in favor for Ben Wallace, did you forget that Dennis Rodman won two Defensive Player Of The Year awards himself ? Rodman also happened to be the key singing that helped propel the Bulls to the best single season winning championship team ever going 72-10. 

This is a Dennis Rodman win in a landslide.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Great defensive players with differing skills. Terrible offensive players. And it does depend on personnel needs, but all things being equal in that department I will have to lean toward Ben Wallace. 

Dennis Rodman may have been the greatest rebounder in NBA history, but he was a major headache and distraction unless the team has a dominant personality or two in the locker room and as possibly the head coach. Rodman may have been the better player, but Wallace is the better teammate.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Organized Chaos said:


> Rodman and it's not even close. I'm surprised this is even up for debate as a comparison. Maybe, just me.


I agree. Rodman kept it up his play for so many seasons too, Wallace had a pretty rapid decline after Detroit won thier chip.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

How in the good **** can anyone say Wallace? You guys are obviously young and never saw DRod. Guy was possible the best rebound ever. ****ing ever. Good defender too. 
I suck and I was probably a better offensive player than that dirt bag, but he could rebound like 8 foot Jesus.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It's Ben Wallace, no contest.

Ben Wallace put up the best D-Rtg in NBA history of a player that played 24+ MPG, and followed that up with the best D-Rtg in a post season in NBA history of a player that played 24+ MPG.

Dennis Rodman isn't even in the same class. Rodman's best defensive season is only good for 271st best D-rtg in NBA history.

Ben Wallace apparently had a season with the Bullets where he played 24+ MPG and had a D-Rtg that was only 0.2 worse than Rodman's best season! Ben Wallace has 7 seasons with a better D-Rtg than Rodman.

Ben Wallace has 64.6 DWS in his career compared to Rodman's 52.9. Rodman played 8 more career games than Wallace, and still has 11.7 less DWS than Wallace!

Rodman spent his career playing on either a great Pistons team, a great San Antonio team, or a great Chicago team. Those teams were winning a lot, which means there was a lot of win shares up for grab.

Ben Wallace led the league in D-Rtg three times and DWS five times. Rodman NEVER led the league in either of those categories.

Rodman is the greatest rebounder in NBA history. Rodman is good defensively, but Ben Wallace is an all time great defender.

Ben Wallace is still a great rebounder (as evidenced by leading the league in rebounds twice), while being one of the best defenders ever.

If I was picking between these guys in their prime, I'm taking Wallace.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BG7 said:


> It's Ben Wallace, no contest.
> 
> Ben Wallace put up the best D-Rtg in NBA history of a player that played 24+ MPG, and followed that up with the best D-Rtg in a post season in NBA history of a player that played 24+ MPG.
> 
> ...


I don't think you ever saw a prime Rodman play.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

dennis had a wierd career ...there was a time early on where he was just a good rebounder ...and was so good as a defender he did things that were inconcievable unless you saw them(like the time he fouled out michael jordan (4 offensive fouls and 2 defnsive fouls)...then there was aspan where he was a great defender and a great rebounder (his last couple of years in det. and his time in s.a.) in the end he cared more about rebounding than anything else and being a star.

he was also such a smart player ,other players marveled at his head for the game.

wallace was a very good player but...

rodman easy.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Rodman no question about it. This shouldn't be a question. Rodman used to get in everyone's ***...... EVERYONE


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

i liked how some of the people who picked wallace are only 19 years old. clearly they never got to see dennis rodman, not even during his lakers/mavericks years.

i just don't see how ben wallace can compare with dennis rodman. people say he's a better defender but honestly, there aren't any stats that measure defense. blocks and steals are sort of an indication, but i really feel rodman's stats don't give his defense any justice whatsoever. rodman was just a monster athlete back then... he ran the floor like a deer, strong as an ox, is a pest on D and was effective defending 2 to 5(remember him guarding orlando shaq?). dude was a beast.

ben wallace is a glorified bo outlaw, and i love bo outlaw. his man to man defense is so overrated. he's basically just a good help defender who was one of the best undersized rebounding C's of the early-mid 2000's.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Rodman. I always thought Ben Wallace was overrated defender, all those years he won the defensive player of the year awards I thought both Rasheed Wallace and Duncan were better defensive players than him.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

The only one being over-rated in this thread is Rodman. It is close. It's very close. Let's not forget that Rodman was never his team's best player or the best player on a championship team, while Wallace was. They are very evenly matched.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> The only one being over-rated in this thread is Rodman. It is close. It's very close. Let's not forget that Rodman was never his team's best player or the best player on a championship team, while Wallace was. They are very evenly matched.


I wouldn't say that Wallace was the best player on that Detroit championship team. That was a unique team that had very good players but no all-time greats. No clearly identifiable superstar. B. Wallace was the great rebounder and defender. R. Wallace was the great low post defender and scorer. Hamilton was the big scorer. Billups ran the show and was probably the best all-around player on the team in my opinion (scorer, passer, defender). Besides, I think it is a bit misguided to say that Rodman never the best player on his team when he was playing with all time greats (Thomas, Jordan, Pippen).


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

This isn't close and with I believe one exception, the results of the voting are split on the age of the posters.

Ben Wallace was a tremendous help defender but an at best barely above average man defender. Just like with Camby, people overrate blocked shots. Wallace won too many DPOY awards and I never considered him the best defensive player in the league at any time he played.

Rodman was a far superior man defender and a much more versatile defender.

Also, defensive win shares and defensive rating are garbage statistics. Real defense is evaluated by watching players.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Pinball said:


> I wouldn't say that Wallace was the best player on that Detroit championship team. That was a unique team that had very good players but no all-time greats. No clearly identifiable superstar. B. Wallace was the great rebounder and defender. R. Wallace was the great low post defender and scorer. Hamilton was the big scorer. Billups ran the show and was probably the best all-around player on the team in my opinion (scorer, passer, defender). Besides, I think it is a bit misguided to say that Rodman never the best player on his team when he was playing with all time greats (Thomas, Jordan, Pippen).


Rasheed and Billups were far more important to that team than Ben was. Without Rasheed's man defensive skills, Ben would have gotten abused like he did the previous year by the Nets.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> This isn't close and with I believe one exception, the results of the voting are split on the age of the posters.
> 
> Ben Wallace was a tremendous help defender but an at best barely above average man defender. Just like with Camby, people overrate blocked shots. Wallace won too many DPOY awards and I never considered him the best defensive player in the league at any time he played.
> 
> ...


Blocks and steals are so overrated when evaluating a player's defensive skills because there's no stat to track missed blocks and steals. How many times do you see a player gamble for a steal only to miss and give up an easy basket. How many times do you see a guy jump in the air and go for a block only to be fooled while the other player pump fakes and then has an easy, uncontested shot. It happens all the time. Ben Wallace was an excellent weakside defender and blocked shots as well as anyone but it's incredible that he has 4 DPOY awards and Tim Duncan has 0.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

LOL @ everyone who picked Wallace.:smackalot::wtf:


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> LOL @ everyone who picked Wallace.:smackalot::wtf:


Seconded.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

I am going to pick Rodman, not only for the obvious, but for the fact his respective prime was much longer than Wallace's.


----------



## supa snake (Sep 22, 2009)

im surprised that everyones forgot about who each players competition was. wallace played against the worse collection of centers ever. while rodman played in an era full of great centers. i cant imagine how many rebounds prime rodman would get in the early 00s. and dont forget wallace couldnt even get off the bench in the 90s. i still remember kobe dunking on him in the preseason.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> I am going to pick Rodman, not only for the obvious, but for the fact his respective prime was much longer than Wallace's.


Good point. Even in Dennis Rodman's short stints with the Lakers and the Mavericks, he was still pulling down 11-14 rebounds a game with only 28-32 minutes per game. He was around 40 years old at the time. He got cut from both teams because he was flaky. Not bad numbers for being an uncontrollable flake. 8 years in a row of averaging at least 12.5 rebounds a game. He never really declined much as far as his rebounding goes. He was as tough of a defender as they come too. His defense doesn't show up in the stats as far as steals, and blocks goes. But he could man up on almost anybody in the league.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Not to take anything away from Ben's 4 DPOYs but awards do not tell the whole story. It is like arguing Nash and his 2 MVPs make him better than Hakeem or Shaq who only won 1. Rodman is generally regarded as one of the greatest defensive players ever and arguably the most versatile defender ever. I take Rodman and despite all his baggage he has 5 rings. Neither is a franchise player.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Rodman is the greatest rebounder I ever saw (and that includes the game footage I have seen of Wilt). Not to mention we are talking about a non-center here who is what 6'7? 



ScottVdub said:


> Good point. Even in Dennis Rodman's short stints with the Lakers and the Mavericks, he was still pulling down 11-14 rebounds a game with only 28-32 minutes per game. He was around 40 years old at the time. He got cut from both teams because he was flaky. Not bad numbers for being an uncontrollable flake. 8 years in a row of averaging at least 12.5 rebounds a game. He never really declined much as far as his rebounding goes. He was as tough of a defender as they come too. His defense doesn't show up in the stats as far as steals, and blocks goes. But he could man up on almost anybody in the league.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Here are some reminder's of Rodman's attributes:

Valuable to his teams:



> “There is no question in my mind that Dennis belongs in the Hall of Fame. He was a member of five N.B.A. championship teams and an important element of the two most dominant teams of that era. He gave credibility to being a rebounder. He made it a job, that before him, no one really wanted.”
> 
> Isiah Thomas
> 
> ...


Athleticsm



> "[Rodman] could probably play a 48-minute game and play the 48th minute stronger than the first minute of the game...He was that terrific an athlete."
> 
> Phil Jackson (when describing the best athlete he's ever coached)


Versatile



> “He ran like a deer. He could run all day. He could defend from the one position all the way to the five. Look at one series, he’s guarding Jordan when he was with Detroit and fast-forward that when he’s with the bulls, he’s guarding Shaq. That’s something. You don’t see athletes like that too often.”
> 
> Kobe Bryant


Coachable



> “I’m often asked, “What is Dennis Rodman really like?” When I think of Dennis, I associate the following: loyal, intelligent, superbly conditioned, perhaps the easiest player I ever had to coach, and a true winner-check the rings.”
> 
> Chuck Daly


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

D-Rod, clearly. He was a much better rebounder. Plus, he could defend anyone from a 2 to a 5. He could "shut down" a Michael Jordan (or at least come as close as anyone else in the league), or put the clamps on a Shaq O' Neal. No kidding. He gave Karl Malone fits too. One of the most versatile, if not the most versatile, defenders the league has ever seen, and an absolutely tireless jack in the box on the boards. Plus, Big Ben has been awful in his thirties. Whereas D Rod posted big rebounding numbers non stop.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 2, 2009)

The main thing that puts Rodman over Wallace is he was far more versatile defensively. Rodman could guard opposing big men, or perimeter players. Wallace could only guard big men. Both sucked offensively, but Rodman wasn't as much of a black hole. The only real advantage Wallace has on Rodman was he could block shots.


----------

