APBRmetrics

Nikos · Joined: 16 Jan 2005 Posts: 346

It is widely stated how great Rodman was on defense. The fact that he was versatile enough to guard 2-5's was a testament to his greatness on D, along with his historic rebounding ability. As a position defender he was very good, and had nights where he could effectively guard even centers such as Shaq.

Ben Wallace is known as a good defender in general in the post (but far from great) and an excellent help defender. Also he is a great rebounder, although not quite as good as Rodman.

Rodman was a better defender, Ben a better help defender.

Which was more valuable? Who was the superior overall defender and why?

It seems to me anyone who watched Rodman back in the day always states that he is 'clearly' superior on D to Ben because of his post defense, and overall versatility guarding SG's to C's.

So who is superior in their prime years on D and why?

KD · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 163

Rodman was absolutely brilliant, just a force that would enervate and frustrate teams to no end. Some sick hybrid of TR Dunn, Moses Malone and Randy Smith, and it wasn't bloody fair. As good as he was in Chicago, he was twice as good in Detroit, and he inspired quite a few (both on and off court) in his time wearing #91 ...

Love and appreciate Wallace's ability to play both the ideal weak side-helper and floor-bound rebounder in the Magic/Piston defense (too flighty in 97-98 to be considered a force with the Wiz), but Rodman essentially created the NBA defensive ideal as we know it today. Charge calls all around, everyone hits the floor, etc ...