Dennis Rodman: Does 4=5?

Dennis Rodman is now securely in the Hall of Fame, ceremonially admitted after an uncomfortably cathartic speech. But this won’t end the controversy that defines his historical placement, and I’m not talking about any of the Worm’s flamboyant antics. No, the Rodman imbroglio is about how much we value Rodman’s on-court contributions. His particular style of play–all rebounding and defense, no offensive input–makes it difficult to know just how good he was. 

For starters, we’re at a loss to tangibly account for any player’s individual defense. Recently, plus-minus arrived to save the reputations of offensively inept stoppers like Ekpe Udoh, but no such stat tracking existed in the 90’s. The Worm’s efforts on that end will slog into history much praised, though uncharted.

But, the main debate point on Rodman is this: Does it matter if you abstain from offense? Clearly, a player who shoots often and misses frequently can have a negative impact on team efficiency. But what about the Worm’s tendency to just watch it all unfold? Does non-participation hurt a squad?

My guess would be that “4 on 5” isn’t as hindering as we might believe. As Henry Abbott once hypothesized, team defense requires more collective effort than team offense:

“Good defense is just about, always about every player on your team doing things well. Good offense, on the other hand, can be about a few players on your team doing things well.”

So it’s possible that Rodman’s wall-flowering did little to stop the scoring efforts of his teammates. I would also hazard that team offense mattered less in the illegal defense era, a quaint time when defenses weren’t allowed to “load up” and shift over to individual scorers. Check out a late 90’s Bulls game, and witness Michael Jordan backing his man down ad-infinitum. Much like Rodman, the opposing defense is resigned to helplessly watching.

Another question: Is it possible that “4 on 5” can help an offense? This is a radical notion, but I wonder if, in certain instances, it helps to know exactly who your scorers are. When a certain role player avoids “doing too much,” his offensively-talented teammates benefit from counting on more usage, assured of large, predictable roles. One small caveat per this theory: It’s all hypothetical and not grounded in a shred of evidence.

For now, Dennis Rodman signifies the gap between Dave Berri and John Hollinger. Berri’s stat (Wins Produced) doesn’t punish Rodman’s wall flowering and Hollinger’s PER does. Most advanced stats tend to reward participatory players. After all, if everyone played like Dennis Rodman, offenses would score 40 points per game.

But very few played like Dennis Rodman in a league so obsessed with scoring and scorers. And very few won like Dennis Rodman, a player who contributed to 55+ win seasons for three different franchises.

No related posts.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

when your 5th guy is joel anthony (who doesn't rebound well on either end of the court), it's 4 on 5. when your fifth guy is dennis rodman, you get to shoot so many extra shots from his ABSURD offensive rebounding that it's likely to be a net plus. the dude is adding offensive value in plays where a teammate shot and MISSED. and he's putting pressure on big men who'd otherwise play better help D but instead have to box him out. i read a great article (i forget where) that talked about zach randolph and how his problems with being a good help defender basically stem from how hard he's working on every possession to position himself for defensive rebounds. basically, dennis rodman either grabs the offensive board or turns an opposing big man into zach randolph as a help defender. and he adds this value in EVERY POSSESSION instead of needing the ball in his hands. and nobody dominated the boards like rodman did. great article that i do remember from benjamin morris' skeptical sports analysis: http://skepticalsports.com/?p=331

to your point - would the heat trade bosh for an in his prime rodman? i would. it would free up more touches for your talented finishers. it would lock upyour battle for the boards. and boy, they could have used him to guard dirk. also, of note, rodman always did a great job of keeping the ball moving andmaking the right pass., and when need was able to finish well and at odd angles.

"Check out a late 90’s Bulls game, and witness Michael Jordan backing his man down ad-infinitum." I think I checked out my fair share, both then and now, and have still yet to witness anything like that. I can't recall ever seeing a referee move his outstretched arm out twice calling an illegal defense because of an iso set featuring Jordan in the post. Please don't confuse Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley ever again.

Andrew, You misunderstand me here, and perhaps that's my fault. I think Rodman belongs in the Hall of Fame and I'm setting up the justification for how his offensive non-participation shouldn't hold him back. As for his speech being "uncomfortably cathartic," well, that isn't really an insult. A speech can be affecting and uncomfortable at the same time.

Ethan, What is your opinion here? That we can't judge Rodman's career because of a lack of some made up statistic? That he was a great player? That you don't like him because he didn't play offense? Are you pro or anti his hall of fame selection? I disagree with you that we are "at a loss" to evaluate play of "offensively inept stoppers". How about we ask some of the greatest players to ever play the game about Dennis' contributions. There are plenty of quotes from Jordan, Phil, Scotty, Alonzo, Shaq, Magic etc. that support the idea that he was one of the greatest players of all time. Speaking of far-fetched statistics, I do believe Dennis has the #1-6 (and 7 in the top 10) seasons all-time in rebound rate (whatever the hell that means). As far as the speech being "uncomfortably cathartic", I will straight up disagree with you. I thought Rodman's speech was the most honest, touching, and emotionally affecting speech I've seen in awhile. For me, it was on a level with Jimmy V's speech at the ESPY's. It brought me to tears. To see someone who built a reputation on being annoying, obnoxious, and reckless be so brutally honest is something rare to see. Just read this quote from the heart of his speech, "I didn't play the game for the money. I didn't play the game to be famous. What you see here is just an illusion, I just love to be an individual that is very colorful. [...] I could have been dead. I could have been a drug dealer. I could have been homeless...I was homeless. A lot of you guys here in the hall of fame know what I'm talking about, living in the projects. And trying to get out the projects, and i did that, but it took a lot of hard work and a lot of bumps in the road. " If that doesn't speak to you- you don't have a heart. I'd be curious to see what you think, but I think in the NBA today, there are so few guys who are this honest, this interesting anymore. Charles and Dennis are the two that come to my mind...I can't think of a single NBA player active today that is even remotely this interesting. Ron Artest is the only one I can think of that is even in the same realm. Dennis' story is absolutely incredible. There never was, and will never be another player like Dennis. I'd love to see Hoopspeak write a real article to honor someone who is, regardless of Hollinger's made up stats, one of the greatest to ever play the game.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Sherwood Strauss at HoopSpeak has an interesting take on Dennis Rodman and his offense, or lack thereof, basically wondering if it actually mattered that [...]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes