Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

[Exhibitman]

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

We need some images:



1961 photo of Chamberlain against the Celtics.



1960 Chamberlain team issue; with that kind of leaping, not a lot else matters...

[icurnmedic]

Maybe. But this is akin to the argument that players from 30,40,50 years ago couldn’t play in the M L B today. Times were different. Wilt is in the conversation of best of all time. Also what,7 feet or so? At 6’7 Rodman was a better rebounder! That doesn’t mean he had more. Maybe the tv comment is correct.

[Exhibitman]

If we were talking 10% differential, maybe, but nearly twice the boards including play in the early 1970s with the likes of Kareem and Thurmond and Unseld and Lanier and Cowens to battle? The argument doesn't hold water.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of Rodman's career. He had "made his name" well before he played for the Bulls, and he was a dominant rebounder everywhere he played (regardless of how well he fit in).

Rodman was only a full-time starter from '90 to '98, thanks to entering the league at age 25 (and how stacked the Pistons were his first few years). He then led the league in rebounds/game for seven straight seasons. For every one of those full-time years except his first one.

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

Considering that Chamberlain and Drummond were 4-6 inches taller and outweighed him by almost 100 pounds, it's quite easy to make an argument that Rodman was the better pure rebounder

[PowderedH2O]

This doesn't really answer the question of "all-time", but one of the greatest I ever saw (although his career wasn't very long, for various reasons, including suspension) was Kermit Washington in the late 1970's. I used to play a game called Statis Pro Basketball. Kermit pretty much grabbed everything at power forward. Obviously he never put up the gaudy numbers of Malone, Wilt, etc, but he grabbed a boat load of boards when he was in the game.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

This shows a complete misunderstanding of Rodman's career. He had "made his name" well before he played for the Bulls, and he was a dominant rebounder everywhere he played (regardless of how well he fit in).

Rodman was only a full-time starter from '90 to '98, thanks to entering the league at age 25 (and how stacked the Pistons were his first few years). He then led the league in rebounds/game for seven straight seasons. For every one of those full-time years except his first one.

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

Considering that Chamberlain and Drummond were 4-6 inches taller and outweighed him by almost 100 pounds, it's quite easy to make an argument that Rodman was the better pure rebounder

In addition to that there were significantly more rebounds available when Wilt played. That is to say a lot more shots ( therefore misses) were taken 50-60 years ago than when Rodman played.

[jiw98]

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jiw98

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

That's because Rodman played 31.7 minutes per game for his career, and Wilt played 45.8 minutes/ game.

So Rodman collected a higher % of available rebounds than Wilt (per minute on the floor)

[jiw98]

Chamberlain had .49 rebounds per minute played
Rodman had .41 rebounds per minute played
Chamberlain still leads if my math is correct, so I'm still staying with Chamberlain.

[clydepepper]

For Offensive Rebounds...Moses Malone, Adrian Dantley and Bernard King

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jiw98

Chamberlain had .49 rebounds per minute played
Rodman had .41 rebounds per minute played
Chamberlain still leads if my math is correct, so I'm still staying with Chamberlain.

You have to combine the two statistics to get percentage of possible rebound per minute played which Rodman is well-ahead in.

Also there's a difference between a center in the 1960's and a power forward in the 1990's and where they are guarding their opponent. Wilt was almost always right under the rim, Rodman could be nearly anywhere on the floor. So by nature of his position and era (a center today is much less likely to just be parked under the basket) Chamberlain had an advantage.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by jiw98

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

Basketball-reference.com has a stat called total rebound % which I assume is something akin to what you calculated. They have Rodman at only 23.4% but only have data on Wilt's last three seasons when he was 34-36 years old. Rodman beats him by a lot in his 34-36 years, something like 25% to 19%. Both figures seem low to me but I don't know how they came up with the numbers. I'm quite sure that Chamberlain's % was higher than Rodman's earlier in his career & likely over their entire careers, however. FWIW, I think Chamberlain was the best rebounder but Rodman is definitely in the mix.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

This is irrelevant. That Rodman wasn't in good enough condition to play more minutes shouldn't be used to discredit others. Then there are all the time he got technicals or kicked out of games. He was a very undisciplined player. Also, Rodman used very little energy on the offensive end other than rebounding. I will take a Jerry Lucas who could average both 20ppg and 20rpg.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is irrelevant. That Rodman wasn't in good enough condition to play more minutes shouldn't be used to discredit others. Then there are all the time he got technicals or kicked out of games. He was a very undisciplined player. Also, Rodman used very little energy on the offensive end other than rebounding. I will take a Jerry Lucas who could average both 20ppg and 20rpg.

It had nothing to do with Rodman's condition. The culture of the game was entirely different back then. All of the star players logged a lot more minutes than they did during the late '80s and '90s.

And you obviously never saw Rodman play. He was a good enough passer that some offense was run through him, especially with the Bulls' triangle. And then whenever a shot went up, he was all over the place trying to tap any miss back out. All of that needed plenty of energy on the offensive end.

[cardsagain74]

Also, for all the Chamberlain advocates, he wasn't even the most productive rebounder of his own era. Bill Russell averaged 19.1 rebounds per 36 minutes. Wilt averaged 18.0 per 36.

And Russell was just like Rodman on defense. All over the floor at all times helping out on D.

When it comes to hitting the boards, those are the two guys I would take over anyone (despite how amazing Jerry Lucas and the others mentioned were)

[ClementeFanOh]

John- we have agreed in the past, but I can't this time. This thread has taken an "anti Wilt" turn (ironically, just how it was when he played- "Nobody roots for Goliath"). Since Wilt didn't play 36 minutes- he played entire games and didn't foul out, ever- I like the entire game approach. Even Bill Russell couldn't stop Wilt, and said as much. The 55 boards in one game is an insane stat, and it was against the Celtics! (Wilt had 34 points and 55 boards, Russell 19 boards and 18 points, and naturally Boston won Wilt was a consistent stat machine year in, year out- he's your #1 pick if fantasy basketball existed in the 60s. The raw numbers are overwhelming. Doesn't mean the other guys weren't great. They were- Wilt was just a beast. If someone wants to bang on his stats, try the one where his career field goal percentage was higher than his career free throw percentage Trent King

[ALR-bishop]

Am also a Russell fan and got to see him play in St. Louis against the Hawks as well. The Hawks actually drafted Russell and traded him to Boston for Hagan and Macauley

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

John- we have agreed in the past, but I can't this time. This thread has taken an "anti Wilt" turn (ironically, just how it was when he played- "Nobody roots for Goliath"). Since Wilt didn't play 36 minutes- he played entire games and didn't foul out, ever- I like the entire game approach. Even Bill Russell couldn't stop Wilt, and said as much. The 55 boards in one game is an insane stat, and it was against the Celtics! (Wilt had 34 points and 55 boards, Russell 19 boards and 18 points, and naturally Boston won Wilt was a consistent stat machine year in, year out- he's your #1 pick if fantasy basketball existed in the 60s. The raw numbers are overwhelming. Doesn't mean the other guys weren't great. They were- Wilt was just a beast. If someone wants to bang on his stats, try the one where his career field goal percentage was higher than his career free throw percentage Trent King

If you go just by the basic per game numbers, Wilt averaged 22.9 rebounds for his career and Russell 22.5. Far from the individual domination of everyone that his mythical reputation has. And in the game you quoted, Wilt shot just 15 for 42 from the floor against him. So not only did Russell do a great job against him defensively, but that would've created a lot more chances for offensive rebounds than the typical Wilt game

So even in a game when Wilt's gaudy numbers set a record, Russell still really D'ed him up and found a way to win that day. Which he did better than anyone in the history of sports.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Also, for all the Chamberlain advocates, he wasn't even the most productive rebounder of his own era. Bill Russell averaged 19.1 rebounds per 36 minutes. Wilt averaged 18.0 per 36.

I thought everyone in the 60s played all of the time. I guess Russell wasn't in very good shape either. If Wilt wasn't a productive rebounder, how come Russell let Wilt get 55 rebounds in a game against the Celtics?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

And you obviously never saw Rodman play. He was a good enough passer that some offense was run through him, especially with the Bulls' triangle. And then whenever a shot went up, he was all over the place trying to tap any miss back out. All of that needed plenty of energy on the offensive end.

I lived in Illinois during Rodman's years with the Bulls. Almost every game was on TV and I watched them. I was a huge Michael Jordan fan.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

We need some images:



1961 photo of Chamberlain against the Celtics.



1960 Chamberlain team issue; with that kind of leaping, not a lot else matters...

Rodman also led the league in rebounds in his age 36 season. And he was even more on his last legs than Chamberlain having missed significant time to injuries over each of the previous five seasons.