PDA

View Full Version : Best Rebounders Of All Time



JasonJohnHorn
06-01-2012, 03:48 PM
Simple enough. List the five guys who you think were the best rebounders of all time.

Here's my list:

1. Wilt
2. Russel
3. Rodman
4. Ben Wallace
5. Moses Malone

Who you got?

Edti: Kevin Love and Dwight Howard are the best of this generation, and one of them may very well be ranked hight than Moses in my estimation if their careers continue they way they have been going.

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 03:53 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leecl01.html

there are players with high rebounds who never get mentioned in these threads.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:02 PM
Rodman


then start thinking about it.

Hellcrooner
06-01-2012, 04:03 PM
any list starts with Nate Thurmond.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:04 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=15&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_pct_career.html


Rodman has the 5 highest seasons at rebound rate, and has the highest career rebound rate, fairly easily.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:05 PM
btw, Love would currently be #2 all time in rebound rate, career, if he qualified.

JasonJohnHorn
06-01-2012, 04:14 PM
any list starts with Nate Thurmond.

Love this! Thurmond is one of the most underrated players of all time. It was hard for me to leave him off my list, but I'm glad to see somebody appreicates what this guy did. The first guy to record a quadrouple double! He would have tore $#!T up if he'd played today.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
06-01-2012, 04:16 PM
lol Wilt is no way in hell the best rebounder

greg_ory_2005
06-01-2012, 04:20 PM
Rodman


then start thinking about it.

This.

JasonJohnHorn
06-01-2012, 04:22 PM
lol Wilt is no way in hell the best rebounder

I believe there is a solid argument in favour of Wilt. A career average of 22.9 a game? I could be wrong, but I do believe that is the absolute highest career rebounding average in the history of the NBA, and his 27.2 rebounds per game is the highest single season average. I can understand if somebody disagrees and would argue that the generational gap inflates his numbers because there used to be more possessions and that perhaps Rodman is the best rebounder, but to say "no way in hell" to the suggestion that Wilt is the best rebonder of all time seems like hyperbole to me.

So that said, who you got?

Cfrey
06-01-2012, 04:22 PM
Rodman then Love

natelpete
06-01-2012, 04:24 PM
lol Wilt is no way in hell the best rebounder

He did average 23 rpg for his career. He also had a nice little 55 rebound game against Bill Russel. Care to name any names that go above Wilt?

llemon
06-01-2012, 04:28 PM
I believe there is a solid argument in favour of Wilt. A career average of 22.9 a game? I could be wrong, but I do believe that is the absolute highest career rebounding average in the history of the NBA, and his 27.2 rebounds per game is the highest single season average. I can understand if somebody disagrees and would argue that the generational gap inflates his numbers because there used to be more possessions and that perhaps Rodman is the best rebounder, but to say "no way in hell" to the suggestion that Wilt is the best rebonder of all time seems like hyperbole to me.

So that said, who you got?

To me, Wilt and Russell are the best, then Moses. Rodman is certainly up there too. I think Bob Pettit, Nate Thurmond, and Wes Unseld have to be considered also.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:32 PM
I believe there is a solid argument in favour of Wilt. A career average of 22.9 a game? I could be wrong, but I do believe that is the absolute highest career rebounding average in the history of the NBA, and his 27.2 rebounds per game is the highest single season average. I can understand if somebody disagrees and would argue that the generational gap inflates his numbers because there used to be more possessions and that perhaps Rodman is the best rebounder, but to say "no way in hell" to the suggestion that Wilt is the best rebonder of all time seems like hyperbole to me.

So that said, who you got?

Wilt played 47.2 mpg at a track meet pace of well over 120 possessions per game.

You have to measure rebounds by the amount of rebounds a player snatches that are available to him. Obviously you set minimum parameters, so a dude who plays 11 mpg isn't qualifying.

Rodman is easily the best rebounder to ever play in the NBA/ABA. After that, you can start debating a handful of players.

For instance, lets equalize Rodman and Wilt, per minute, per possession rebounds.

I am doing this roughly, simply to demonstrate what Rodman does with the same minutes/pace.

125 possession/100 possessions=1.25

47.2 mpg/31.7 mpg= 1.488

1.25x1.488x13.1 (Rodman's career PER GAME Avg)= 24.37 rpg.

So you really have to put it into perspective.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:35 PM
To me, Wilt and Russell are the best, then Moses. Rodman is certainly up there too. I think Bob Pettit, Nate Thurmond, and Wes Unseld have to be considered also.

Is that because your eyes saw rebound after rebound after rebound in the track meet era of poor shooting?

Again, it needs to be put in perspective.

Fact is, Rodman grabbed a MUCH higher percentage of available rebounds than any of the players you listed.

llemon
06-01-2012, 04:40 PM
Is that because your eyes saw rebound after rebound after rebound in the track meet era of poor shooting?

Again, it needs to be put in perspective.

Fact is, Rodman grabbed a MUCH higher percentage of available rebounds than any of the players you listed.

Rodman loses some points in my evaluation because we was a slapper for many of his rebounds.

Never saw two more dominating rebounders than Wilt and Russell, with Thurmond third.

And Moses was dominating in his prime.

But you believe what you wish to believe. It's an opinion thread.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:50 PM
Rodman loses some points in my evaluation because we was a slapper for many of his rebounds.

He loses points for being a superior athlete who understood how to free the ball to board it? That makes no sense.


Never saw two more dominating rebounders than Wilt and Russell, with Thurmond third.

I don't trust your eyes. Keep in mind they never competed against the high level of specialists, nor played in an era where offensive efficiency was thought of as a necessity, therefore they had more opportunities to rebound the ball. Which again is why we have to equalize. Nobody on earth could get 22 rebounds a game now.


And Moses was dominating in his prime.

Oh I agree with that.


But you believe what you wish to believe. It's an opinion thread.

I do believe what I wish to, with actual facts to back them up. I know you continue to refute statistics, and refuse to believe the game has evolved over the years, so those gaudy per game numbers are completely inflated from back in the old days. You have to put it in perspective. We have tools to do so. If Rodman played in an era where all they did was run and have a deflated fg%, imagine how dominant you would think he is.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:52 PM
llemon, I value your opinion, but sometimes its like talking to my Dad, who thinks Jesus himself could play basketball and not touch the level of play of the old-timers.

Sports evolve.

Yankee Clipper
06-01-2012, 04:53 PM
Dennis Rodman at the top of the list.

khaleesi
06-01-2012, 04:54 PM
Is that because your eyes saw rebound after rebound after rebound in the track meet era of poor shooting?

Again, it needs to be put in perspective.

Fact is, Rodman grabbed a MUCH higher percentage of available rebounds than any of the players you listed.

It also means rebounds probably came out longer and inflated Guards rebounding stats more so than bigs.

I mean, if the shooting is so bad, then I expect boards to come out very long and for bigs to get less rebounds as a % in comparison to guards.

Again, stats for Guards in that era were very inflated much more so than for Centers and post guys.

AN eye ball test would show you that -- Bigs today suck in comparison to days past whereas Guards today are in many ways better. Only exception is bigs are better outside shooters then days past and Guards have worse mid range games then days past.

You and your stats with as usual zero context or understanding of the game.

KaganRS
06-01-2012, 04:54 PM
Rodman at Wilt's height = every rebound in the game

khaleesi
06-01-2012, 04:56 PM
He loses points for being a superior athlete who understood how to free the ball to board it? That makes no sense.



I don't trust your eyes. Keep in mind they never competed against the high level of specialists, nor played in an era where offensive efficiency was thought of as a necessity, therefore they had more opportunities to rebound the ball. Which again is why we have to equalize. Nobody on earth could get 22 rebounds a game now.



Oh I agree with that.



I do believe what I wish to, with actual facts to back them up. I know you continue to refute statistics, and refuse to believe the game has evolved over the years, so those gaudy per game numbers are completely inflated from back in the old days. You have to put it in perspective. We have tools to do so. If Rodman played in an era where all they did was run and have a deflated fg%, imagine how dominant you would think he is.

So Rodman, the specialist rebounder, was a more dominant rebounder than Wilt or Russell?

Oh god, what a stats clown. I don't think you get what dominant means ....

khaleesi
06-01-2012, 04:57 PM
Rodman at Wilt's height = every rebound in the game

Tiny Archibald at Wilt's height = 95 PPG scorer.

What is the point of your post?

llemon
06-01-2012, 04:57 PM
He loses points for being a superior athlete who understood how to free the ball to board it? That makes no sense.



I don't trust your eyes. Keep in mind they never competed against the high level of specialists, nor played in an era where offensive efficiency was thought of as a necessity, therefore they had more opportunities to rebound the ball. Which again is why we have to equalize. Nobody on earth could get 22 rebounds a game now.



Oh I agree with that.

I just meant that sometimes it took Rodman two, three or 4 rebounds to get a single possession, pumping up his rebounding numbers.

Don't want you to trust my eyes. Again, I'm just expressing my opinion on a subject where I've seen all the players being considered.

I do believe what I wish to, with actual facts to back them up. I know you continue to refute statistics, and refuse to believe the game has evolved over the years, so those gaudy per game numbers are completely inflated from back in the old days. You have to put it in perspective. We have tools to do so. If Rodman played in an era where all they did was run and have a deflated fg%, imagine how dominant you would think he is.

Don't believe you are stating facts, you are stating stats. Not the same thing.

Plus Rodman would have run into many players that would have been just as strong and mean dirty as him.

llemon
06-01-2012, 04:59 PM
He loses points for being a superior athlete who understood how to free the ball to board it? That makes no sense.



I don't trust your eyes. Keep in mind they never competed against the high level of specialists, nor played in an era where offensive efficiency was thought of as a necessity, therefore they had more opportunities to rebound the ball. Which again is why we have to equalize. Nobody on earth could get 22 rebounds a game now.



Oh I agree with that.

I just meant that sometimes it took Rodman two, three or 4 rebounds to get a single possession, pumping up his rebounding numbers.

Don't want you to trust my eyes. Again, I'm just expressing my opinion on a subject where I've seen all the players being considered.

I do believe what I wish to, with actual facts to back them up. I know you continue to refute statistics, and refuse to believe the game has evolved over the years, so those gaudy per game numbers are completely inflated from back in the old days. You have to put it in perspective. We have tools to do so. If Rodman played in an era where all they did was run and have a deflated fg%, imagine how dominant you would think he is.

Don't believe you are stating facts, you are stating stats. Not the same thing.

Plus Rodman would have run into many players that would have been just as strong and mean dirty as him.

Part of my response is within the quoted section.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 04:59 PM
It also means rebounds probably came out longer and inflated Guards rebounding stats more so than bigs.

I mean, if the shooting is so bad, then I expect boards to come out very long and for bigs to get less rebounds as a % in comparison to guards.

Again, stats for Guards in that era were very inflated much more so than for Centers and post guys.

AN eye ball test would show you that -- Bigs today suck in comparison to days past whereas Guards today are in many ways better. Only exception is bigs are better outside shooters then days past and Guards have worse mid range games then days past.

You and your stats with as usual zero context or understanding of the game.

Well, you expect wrong. With no three point line, they weren't chucking up the long distance shots at the rate they do now.

Rodman isn't from today.

You don't even has a simplistic understanding of stats, so why would I care in the slightest about that last statement?

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 05:00 PM
Don't believe you are stating facts, you are stating stats. Not the same thing.

Plus Rodman would have run into many players that would have been just as strong and mean dirty as him.

Whatever you want to call them, they are more factual than a human eye.

The second statement is completely a matter of opinion. The average NBA player was larger from 1985-2000 then in Wilt's day.

llemon
06-01-2012, 05:08 PM
Whatever you want to call them, they are more factual than a human eye.

The second statement is completely a matter of opinion. The average NBA player was larger from 1985-2000 then in Wilt's day.

Stats are on paper. The human eye watches the game as it's being played.

And if Rodman had played in Wilt's day, he wouldn't have been as large physically or as strong. That's one of the differences in the game you don't like to take into consideration.

Also, if Wilt were playing now, he wouldn't be the freak he was back then, which would have taken a lot of pressure off him, and he would have physically developed himself into a 300 lb muscular monster.

Again, one of the differences in the game you don't like to take into consideration.

You may now respond, but I'm done arguing on what is a matter of opinion, not paper stats.

dh144498
06-01-2012, 05:32 PM
Rodman loses some points in my evaluation because we was a slapper for many of his rebounds.

Never saw two more dominating rebounders than Wilt and Russell, with Thurmond third.

And Moses was dominating in his prime.

But you believe what you wish to believe. It's an opinion thread.

So you're telling us that you are 60+ perhaps 70+ years old? Stop it. Wilt and Russell played with a bunch of 6'6 white dudes. They were dominant....during their eras. But no way they can out rebound Rodman if they were to play in a matchup.

JasonJohnHorn
06-01-2012, 05:35 PM
Wilt played 47.2 mpg at a track meet pace of well over 120 possessions per game.

You have to measure rebounds by the amount of rebounds a player snatches that are available to him. Obviously you set minimum parameters, so a dude who plays 11 mpg isn't qualifying.

Rodman is easily the best rebounder to ever play in the NBA/ABA. After that, you can start debating a handful of players.

For instance, lets equalize Rodman and Wilt, per minute, per possession rebounds.

I am doing this roughly, simply to demonstrate what Rodman does with the same minutes/pace.

125 possession/100 possessions=1.25

47.2 mpg/31.7 mpg= 1.488

1.25x1.488x13.1 (Rodman's career PER GAME Avg)= 24.37 rpg.

So you really have to put it into perspective.

This is a great argument, and it is the reason why I wouldn't argue with anybody who thinks Rodman is the best rebonder of all time. I agree that there is an argument to be made for Dennis Rodman as the greatest rebounder.

That said, at the end of the day, Wilt just got more rebounds. He put himself on the floor more, playing 48 minutes a game one season, and something has to be said for his ability to play all 48 minutes of a track meet. Throw Rodman into that era and I do not think that he would have been able to keep up with the pace of the game and play as many minutes as Wilt played. Rodman may have been physically able to play 48 minutes, but he likely would have been fouled out before he got to 48 minutes.

the beauty of the arguements for and against Rodman and Wilt is that there will never be a way for anybody to put their theories to the test.

What kind of rebounding numbers would Rodman have gotten if he played with Wilt and Russell? Would he have even been given minutes by a coach considering his offensive inabilities? Would he have had the stamina to play 48 minutes per game like Wilt? Would Wilt be able to play 48 minutes a game today if he was in his prime? Would Wilt have been able to get as high a percentage of the rebounds if he was working against other guys who actually worked out? Wilt was after all, likely the only player in the league at the time who worked out with weights, he changed how players approached conditioning for the game. Would he be able to compete with players who have been influenced by his approach and used more modern techniques?

So many ifs. What is clear is that anybody who has Wilt as number one has a very good arguement on their side. And anybody who has Rodman as number one has just as good an arguement on their side, and neither will ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do people ever apply the %'s arguments to scoring?

llemon
06-01-2012, 05:36 PM
So you're telling us that you are 60+ perhaps 70+ years old? Stop it. Wilt and Russell played with a bunch of 6'6 white dudes. They were dominant....during their eras. But no way they can out rebound Rodman if they were to play in a matchup.

I'll be 62 in a few days. And I've stated my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 05:38 PM
Stats are on paper. The human eye watches the game as it's being played.

And if Rodman had played in Wilt's day, he wouldn't have been as large physically or as strong. That's one of the differences in the game you don't like to take into consideration.

Also, if Wilt were playing now, he wouldn't be the freak he was back then, which would have taken a lot of pressure off him, and he would have physically developed himself into a 300 lb muscular monster.

Again, one of the differences in the game you don't like to take into consideration.

You may now respond, but I'm done arguing on what is a matter of opinion, not paper stats.

My only response is simply this: Stats are listed results. You can choose your eyes, as you always do, and back out with the "its a matter of opinion" nonsense you always use when anyone dares to use results versus throwing an opinion out there as if its a fact.

mightybosstone
06-01-2012, 05:40 PM
Yeah, Hawkeye is totally right about Rodman anyone who wants to argue the point should just quit while they're behind. Wilt and Russell played against players with inferior height and athleticism, while Rodman played in an era with dominant big men, some of which were half a foot taller then him, but STILL managed to post 8 seasons of 14+ RPG. :drool: Throw in the guy's just general overall nastiness on defense, and he would have absolutely destroyed those 60s era teams on the glass.

Outside of Rodman, I would probably throw Moses Malone out as my No. 2 and Barkley as my No. 3. Malone is fourth in TRB%, but consider that he played 20 years in the league and 18 were in the NBA. Nater only played 10 years and 3 were in the ABA, and Dwight is still relatively young, so his TRB% will take a hit later in his career.

I give the third spot to Barkley, because he's easily the greatest rebounder at 6'6" or shorter (and he might be listed as 6'6", but he's probably 6'4"). Barkley's game doesn't make sense on paper, but he was just a bowling ball around the glass and the guy just had a knack for getting his hands on the ball in the paint.

dh144498
06-01-2012, 05:40 PM
I'll be 62 in a few days. And I've stated my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

fair enough on your opinion. But can you honestly admit that if they were to play in the league in the 90s till now, they can still avg 22+ rpg and be "dominant" on the boards?
To me what's even more incredible is that Rodman's only 6'6.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 05:41 PM
I will state, the "if" b.s. is just that. A player can only help what era and competition they played in. And sending old players to modern days is exponentially more of a fail than trying to send modern players back. The game is highly evolved over the years. If you sent Love back in a time machine, they wouldn't know what to do with him back then. Same goes for any sport that relies on size, speed, physicality, and advancement in game plan.

JasonJohnHorn
06-01-2012, 05:42 PM
I give the third spot to Barkley, because he's easily the greatest rebounder at 6'6" or shorter (and he might be listed as 6'6", but he's probably 6'4"). Barkley's game doesn't make sense on paper, but he was just a bowling ball around the glass and the guy just had a knack for getting his hands on the ball in the paint.

Inch for inch, Barkley may have been the best rebounder ever ;-)

llemon
06-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Inch for inch, Barkley may have been the best rebounder ever ;-)

The Round Mound.

Was Barkley much smaller than Unseld?

kenzo400
06-01-2012, 05:52 PM
Andrea Bargnani

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:08 PM
those "6-6 white guys" have amazing rebounding stats too.

mightybosstone
06-01-2012, 06:10 PM
those "6-6 white guys" have amazing rebounding stats too.

Really? Like who? And how do they stack up with Wilt and Russell? Because I'm guessing their numbers tower over the competition of the same era.

llemon
06-01-2012, 06:13 PM
those "6-6 white guys" have amazing rebounding stats too.

People keep talking about the the differences in the game, but the differences extend beyond 'pace' and 'possessions'.

But what does any of it matter? It's all opinion, like 'Would Ali have beaten Marciano?'.

But it does keep the board alive.

mightybosstone
06-01-2012, 06:19 PM
People keep talking about the the differences in the game, but the differences extend beyond 'pace' and 'possessions'.

You're right... Like size, speed and athleticism. Wilt or Russell would not dominate the league today like they did in the 60s. Hell, they wouldn't have dominated the 80s or 90s either. The truly telling point which proves guys like Rodman, Moses and Dwight were superior rebounders is that they not only posted superior statistics, but they played in eras with bigger, stronger, faster players.

If you honestly think Wilt would average 22 rebounds per game in today's NBA, even if the pace was identical to the style of play in the 60s, you're insane.

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:22 PM
Really? Like who? And how do they stack up with Wilt and Russell? Because I'm guessing their numbers tower over the competition of the same era.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pettibo01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howelba01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/arizipa01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lovelcl01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/natersw01.html


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/schaydo01.html


these are some....

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:24 PM
here's a hall of famer who died just recently...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/twymaja01.html



http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/y/yardlge01.html




http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/foustla01.html


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/havlijo01.html

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:30 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/dukeswa01.html

not a "6-6 white dude" but still an "unathletic white dude from that era"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/dukeswa01.html

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:33 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lucasje01.html ( unathletic white dude averaged 20 - 20 for two straight seasons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gallaha01.html

Gibby
06-01-2012, 06:36 PM
i would put barkley over wallace. barkley averaged double figure rebounds every year except his rookie year (15 straight years).

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:41 PM
People keep talking about the the differences in the game, but the differences extend beyond 'pace' and 'possessions'.

But what does any of it matter? It's all opinion, like 'Would Ali have beaten Marciano?'.

But it does keep the board alive.

exactly. players from different eras would play differently. those earlier teams had fundamentals and they knew how to use their unathletic bodies.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 06:46 PM
Prolly Rodman but we dont know how many offensive rebounds Bill and Wilt collected.

All we know is if even by modest estimations for Rodman and he would outrebound everyone. Outrebounding isnt the only factor but its pretty important. How well they blocked out their man is important as well. And when you factor in their defensive help responsibility, I have no doubt Russell was all over the court moreso than Rodman. That was abit easier to do in that era tho

asandhu23
06-01-2012, 06:48 PM
Also, Rodman was paid to do one and one thing only: go out there and grab rebounds. Players like Wilt, Barkley, Russell etc, had other responsibilities.

goldenstater
06-01-2012, 06:51 PM
any list starts with Nate Thurmond.

this!

llemon
06-01-2012, 06:55 PM
Also, Rodman was paid to do one and one thing only: go out there and grab rebounds. Players like Wilt, Barkley, Russell etc, had other responsibilities.

Rodman didn't care what he was paid to do. He did what he did.

mightybosstone
06-01-2012, 07:10 PM
Also, Rodman was paid to do one and one thing only: go out there and grab rebounds. Players like Wilt, Barkley, Russell etc, had other responsibilities.

Wow... Never mind that you're completely ignoring Rodman as one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history. :eyebrow:

llemon
06-01-2012, 07:16 PM
Wow... Never mind that you're completely ignoring Rodman as one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history. :eyebrow:

mbt, you are correct. But Russell, Wilt, Thurmond and Unseld were also amongst the greatest defensive players of all time.

mightybosstone
06-01-2012, 07:19 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lucasje01.html ( unathletic white dude averaged 20 - 20 for two straight seasons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gallaha01.html

All you're doing is pulling white guys who had good rebounding numbers, but you're not considering their size, ability, era or context. Some of these guys, for example, played in completely different eras without the shot clock, and some played well before the influx of black players in the 60s.

And obviously you're going to have white players who rebounded well during those eras. Wilt and Russell were icons, but they couldn't grab EVERY rebound, especially in games where their teams didn't play.

Most importantly, though, you're just completely missing the point by focusing entirely on race. Kevin Love is white and he's one of the best rebounders in the NBA today. It's not about race, it's about context. The overall size, athleticism and ability of players in the 60s does not compare to players today.

If you think a 6'7", 195-pound Dolph Schayes would average 12.1 RPG in today's NBA, you're insane...

xILLN355
06-01-2012, 07:22 PM
joel anthony would be beast like russel if he played in '60s lol

basketfan4life
06-01-2012, 07:23 PM
Prolly Rodman but we dont know how many offensive rebounds Bill and Wilt collected.

All we know is if even by modest estimations for Rodman and he would outrebound everyone. Outrebounding isnt the only factor but its pretty important. How well they blocked out their man is important as well. And when you factor in their defensive help responsibility, I have no doubt Russell was all over the court moreso than Rodman. That was abit easier to do in that era tho

on one hand you give these great opinions on the other hand someone comes up with 1,2*13,4*1,418=x so rodman is the best. With this being his only argument. Amazing.

ohreally
06-01-2012, 07:29 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lucasje01.html ( unathletic white dude averaged 20 - 20 for two straight seasons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gallaha01.html

Finally, somebody mentions Jerry Lucas. The guy was for real.

Bruno
06-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Rodman.

t2a2e9j12
06-01-2012, 07:38 PM
charles oakley is the man might not be best but loved him as a knick was a great rebounder

-Kobe24-TJ19-
06-01-2012, 07:40 PM
I believe there is a solid argument in favour of Wilt. A career average of 22.9 a game? I could be wrong, but I do believe that is the absolute highest career rebounding average in the history of the NBA, and his 27.2 rebounds per game is the highest single season average. I can understand if somebody disagrees and would argue that the generational gap inflates his numbers because there used to be more possessions and that perhaps Rodman is the best rebounder, but to say "no way in hell" to the suggestion that Wilt is the best rebonder of all time seems like hyperbole to me.

So that said, who you got?

Rodman

And Hawkeye already stated why he is better, plus Wilt was "a man amongst boys" while Rodman was the opposite

RLundi
06-01-2012, 07:42 PM
Lol at every PSD thread being 'best' or 'worst [something] of ALL TIME.' Why can't it be for at the moment? Or in recent memory?

-Kobe24-TJ19-
06-01-2012, 07:44 PM
joel anthony would be beast like russel if he played in '60s lol

:laugh:






:facepalm:

ohreally
06-01-2012, 07:46 PM
this!

Thurmond was great, but Jerry Lucas, who came into the league at the same time, averaged more rebounds and more points over is career. And if the three ball was in effect back then fuggeddaboudit.

llemon
06-01-2012, 07:47 PM
Lol at every PSD thread being 'best' or 'worst [something] of ALL TIME.' Why can't it be for at the moment? Or in recent memory?

Because some of us have seen more than others of you.

Is that a detriment for we posters that have been in this world and fans of the NBA longer than you 20-30-even 40 year olds?

SugeKnight
06-01-2012, 07:50 PM
Wilt played 47.2 mpg at a track meet pace of well over 120 possessions per game.

You have to measure rebounds by the amount of rebounds a player snatches that are available to him. Obviously you set minimum parameters, so a dude who plays 11 mpg isn't qualifying.

Rodman is easily the best rebounder to ever play in the NBA/ABA. After that, you can start debating a handful of players.

For instance, lets equalize Rodman and Wilt, per minute, per possession rebounds.

I am doing this roughly, simply to demonstrate what Rodman does with the same minutes/pace.

125 possession/100 possessions=1.25

47.2 mpg/31.7 mpg= 1.488

1.25x1.488x13.1 (Rodman's career PER GAME Avg)= 24.37 rpg.

So you really have to put it into perspective.

I don't think that Rodman will keep that rebound rate at a higher pace and playing more minutes. Fatigue is a factor that statistics don't consider, so you can't just multiply a guys minutes and pace of the game and expect the same production.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 07:53 PM
on one hand you give these great opinions on the other hand someone comes up with 1,2*13,4*1,418=x so rodman is the best. With this being his only argument. Amazing.

Since you are referring to me, allow me to reply. I simply equalized Wilt's per game numbers to show the pace and minutes played skewed the crap out of his rebound totals.

I provided plenty more information to the topic.

Rodman.

Then everyone else.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 07:55 PM
I don't think that Rodman will keep that rebound rate at a higher pace and playing more minutes. Fatigue is a factor that statistics don't consider, so you can't just multiply a guys minutes and pace of the game and expect the same production.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did anyone here EVER see Rodman tired? The dude never stopped moving 100 mph, against much bigger men.

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 07:57 PM
Because some of us have seen more than others of you.

Is that a detriment for we posters that have been in this world and fans of the NBA longer than you 20-30-even 40 year olds?

Is it a detriment that a lot more available information has come along that gives us results of players in the past? And the fact there is plenty of video to watch the same games you watched live?

Again, sometimes you sound like my Dad, who as knowledgeable as he is about the game, will never concede that the game has evolved big time since he was playing in the late 60's, early 70's.

3RDASYSTEM
06-01-2012, 08:15 PM
No order

Barkley - he right there with Worm as far as eye test impressive,he was 6'5'' battling Footers..and on for most part
The Worm - most impressive thru eye test, tho i didnt get to see some on list
Olajuwon
Big Dipper
Russell
Fo-Fo-Fo
Duncan
Baylor
Pettit
Unseld
TheBigTicket
Alcindor
Diesel
BigBen
BuckWill

RLundi
06-01-2012, 08:40 PM
Because some of us have seen more than others of you.

Is that a detriment for we posters that have been in this world and fans of the NBA longer than you 20-30-even 40 year olds?

Wait, so you're suggesting that because you're older, you're qualified to make a determination of what is best or worst of all-time?

naps
06-01-2012, 08:40 PM
Dennis Rodman.




Everyone else.

I would take Wilt, Russell, Thurmond after Rodman.

KnicksorBust
06-01-2012, 09:00 PM
No order

Barkley - he right there with Worm as far as eye test impressive,he was 6'5'' battling Footers..and on for most part
The Worm - most impressive thru eye test, tho i didnt get to see some on list
Olajuwon
Big Dipper
Russell
Fo-Fo-Fo
Duncan
Baylor
Pettit
Unseld
TheBigTicket
Alcindor
Diesel
BigBen
BuckWill

This is actually a very good list.

Most underrated is Charles Oakley. He led the league in total rebound percentage in his ROOKIE season and led the league in defensive rebound percentage in seasons 2-3. It become impossible for him to keep this up when he got traded to the Knicks because Ewing was also grabbing 10+ boards per game. But let me tell you, Oak seemed to get all the tough ones, especially when we needed them. He would have been a perennial 12 rebound + top percentage guy if he wasn't playing along another double digit rebounder.

cle12152433
06-01-2012, 09:05 PM
Hakeem Olajuwon

albertc86
06-01-2012, 09:14 PM
Ben Wallace was a solid rebounder for being undersized but not deserving of being no top 10 of all-time, IMHO.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 11:29 PM
I love the people who think Wilt/Russ battled on the boards with "6'5'' white dudes" :facepalm:

Most teams had a '6'9''+ Big man :laugh:

Hawkeye15
06-01-2012, 11:41 PM
I love the people who think Wilt/Russ battled on the boards with "6'5'' white dudes" :facepalm:

Most teams had a '6'9''+ Big man :laugh:

So? Every team in the NBA has at least 4-5 of them now.

ChicagoJ
06-01-2012, 11:49 PM
Rodman heads the list. The guy was a rebounding specialist and was a pure talent for getting boards. Some guys are just tall and will get rebounds because of the role the play, but rodman had the athleticism and positioning intuition unlike any player I've seen play. He's #1 in my view and whoever is #2 is not even close.

Bruno
06-02-2012, 12:07 AM
1974 was the first year the league started keeping track of turnovers, blocks and steals. it's also the first year the basketball reference starts keeping track of pace. the pace in 1974 was 107.8. Elvin Hayes lead the league with 18.1 rebounds per game for the Bulets, on a team that had a pace of 106.3

the 1992 pistons played in a league where the average pace was 96.6, BUT, the Pistons had the slowest pace in the league (27/27), at 91.6.

1974 Bullets Pace: 106.3
1992 Pistons Pace: 91.6

So picture that. Rodman averaged 18.6 boards per game in 1992, when the league averaged 96.6 in pace, while his team had an average pace of 91.6

Hayes put up 18.1 rebounds per game in 1974 when the league pace average was 107.8, on a team that had a pace of 106.3.

The 1992 Pistons averaged 14.7 less possessions per 48 minutes than the 1974 Bullets. Yet Rodman still averaged more rebounds per game in 1992 than Hayes did in 1974.

who is Elvin Hayes? He's the guy who's 4th on the all-time rebound leader list behind Wilt, Russell, and Kareem:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career.html

in 1992, Rodman had 39 games where put up 20 rebounds or more.

pending undocumented offensive rebounding dominance of the 60's classic bigs, it seems obvious that Rodman would have dominated the glass at an even higher level on a rebound per game scale, had he played in a league where the average pace was near 120. If pace was at 107.8 in 1974, we would have to guess that it would be at least ten points higher ten years earlier, when Wilt and Russ were in their physical primes.

the main gripe against Rodman is that he came into the league at 25, had a shorter career than players we are comparing him against here, and his totals aren't as dominant as his per game numbers.

Bruno
06-02-2012, 12:18 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_per_g_career.html

Also want to point out that Rodman is 10th all-time in rebounds per game. Seven of the nine players in front of him on that list were born before 1942, and played in an era with high tempo pace. (Unseld and Cowens are the two other players born after 1942, born in '46 and '48). The second youngest player in the top ten is Cowens, who is still 13 years older than Rodman.

What i'm getting at is that every other player who's in the top ten played in an era with pace far faster than Rodman ever played in.

black1605
06-02-2012, 12:20 AM
Rodman is hands down the greatest rebounder of all time.

Bruno
06-02-2012, 12:22 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career_p.html

Does Rodman still get our automatic nod, despite the fact that Larry Bird has more total playoff rebounds???

Does playoffs not matter in a discussion of all time greats for a specific statistic?

Larry Birds not even a champion of longevity, and were talkin' about totals here.

goldenstater
06-02-2012, 12:26 AM
Thurmond was great, but Jerry Lucas, who came into the league at the same time, averaged more rebounds and more points over is career. And if the three ball was in effect back then fuggeddaboudit.

ya i hear ya but you look at the time that they were in the league together. Thurmond was a more prolific rebounder and scorer had more 20 pt ave seasons during that time and 18+ rebounding seasons. even the two years they played together in SF Thurmond was better( both really good though). what hurt Thurmonds stats were the years he left the Warriors and got hurt and his stats took a dive. he played longer than so had more opportunity to hurt his statistical averages. but man i would pay some serious money to watch that warriors teams play today, with those two down low and rick Barry shooting from anywhere the **** he wanted on the court. talk about if there was a 3 point line! how much would rick barry have averaged if there was a 3 point line back then. damn!

Bruno
06-02-2012, 12:27 AM
I think rebounds is a really hard stat to nail down in terms of a GOAT list, because of pace, because of era positional competition, but also because the league didn't start keeping track of offensive rebounds until later.

I'd say Rodman, Wilt and Russell have arguments as the greatest rebounders at their given peak.

I'd say Wilt and Russell are the obvious champions of totals, regardless of pace.

I'd say Wilt and Russell were also the most dominant on the glass in the post-season. Shaq also deserves mention for cumulative playoff rebounding, third to only Wilt and KAJ:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career_p.html

THE MTL
06-02-2012, 12:30 AM
Wilt Chamberlain's numbers are vastly inflated. He wouldnt have half the record he owns today.

llemon
06-02-2012, 12:30 AM
ya i hear ya but you look at the time that they were in the league together. Thurmond was a more prolific rebounder and scorer had more 20 pt ave seasons during that time and 18+ rebounding seasons. even the two years they played together in SF Thurmond was better( both really good though). what hurt Thurmonds stats were the years he left the Warriors and got hurt and his stats took a dive. he played longer than so had more opportunity to hurt his statistical averages. but man i would pay some serious money to watch that warriors teams play today, with those two down low and rick Barry shooting from anywhere the **** he wanted on the court. talk about if there was a 3 point line! how much would rick barry have averaged if there was a 3 point line back then. damn!

As for Rick Barry, check his ABA statistics.

As for Nate Thurmond, he was a HORRIBLE shooter that refused to realize that he was a horrible shooter, which was the reason he never won a Title.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 12:42 AM
So? Every team in the NBA has at least 4-5 of them now.
Whats your point?

aztr0
06-02-2012, 12:55 AM
Best of my time. Rodman, Big Ben.

llemon
06-02-2012, 01:06 AM
Wilt Chamberlain's numbers are vastly inflated. He wouldnt have half the record he owns today.

So you saw Wilt play NBA basketball?

DR_1
06-02-2012, 01:06 AM
Rodman
Malone
Love
Thurmond
Wilt

cle12152433
06-02-2012, 01:09 AM
Jerry Lucas is very underrated. The guy has been a winner his whole career. High School title in 1958, National champion in 1960, NCAA runner-up in '62 and '63, went on to have a Hall of Fame career with the Knicks, won an NBA title, and averaged 20 points and 20 rebounds for a good portion of that career.

GREATNESS ONE
06-02-2012, 01:10 AM
Worm.

llemon
06-02-2012, 01:18 AM
Jerry Lucas is very underrated. The guy has been a winner his whole career. High School title in 1958, National champion in 1960, NCAA runner-up in '62 and '63, went on to have a Hall of Fame career with the Knicks, won an NBA title, and averaged 20 points and 20 rebounds for a good portion of that career.

Lucas and Oscar deserve their place amongst the best NBA duos.

goldenstater
06-02-2012, 01:29 AM
As for Rick Barry, check his ABA statistics.

As for Nate Thurmond, he was a HORRIBLE shooter that refused to realize that he was a horrible shooter, which was the reason he never won a Title.

touche. i stand corrected.

UPRock
06-02-2012, 01:36 AM
The Worm.

I'm not opposing Big Ben as one of the best rebounders of all time, but why him over Barkley?

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 01:36 AM
So? Every team in the NBA has at least 4-5 of them now.

1966

SF- 2 guys at 6'10''+

St. Louis- 3 guys at 6'9''

Lakers- Two 7 footers, 1 6'10'', and another player at 6'9''

Bulls- 6'10'' player and 4 6'8'' players

Pistons- One 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'' and 2 6'8'' players

Bullets- one 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'', and 2 6'8'' players

Knicks- 1 6'11'', 1 6'10''. 1 6'9'' and 1 6'8''

Cinci-1 6'11'', 1 6'9'', and 3 at 6'8''

Celtics- 1 at 6'9'' and 1 at 6'8''

76'ers- 1 at 7'1'', 1 at 6'9''

The whole Russ/Wilt dominated because they played 5'6'' white guys was a dumb statement. Most teams had 2 6'10''+ players

rocket
06-02-2012, 01:43 AM
Ben Wallace!

Chronz
06-02-2012, 01:54 AM
1966

SF- 2 guys at 6'10''+

St. Louis- 3 guys at 6'9''

Lakers- Two 7 footers, 1 6'10'', and another player at 6'9''

Bulls- 6'10'' player and 4 6'8'' players

Pistons- One 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'' and 2 6'8'' players

Bullets- one 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'', and 2 6'8'' players

Knicks- 1 6'11'', 1 6'10''. 1 6'9'' and 1 6'8''

Cinci-1 6'11'', 1 6'9'', and 3 at 6'8''

Celtics- 1 at 6'9'' and 1 at 6'8''

76'ers- 1 at 7'1'', 1 at 6'9''

The whole Russ/Wilt dominated because they played 5'6'' white guys was a dumb statement. Most teams had 2 6'10''+ players

Did you account for the fact that players were measured without shoes back in those days? It adds about an inch to league averages.

dodie53
06-02-2012, 01:57 AM
the worm

Becks2307
06-02-2012, 04:01 AM
Dennis Rodman

I will however admit that Kevin Love may already be the most skilled rebounder ever. At least top 5 for now in terms of pure rebounding skill.

the avenger
06-02-2012, 05:18 AM
Anyone not including Barkley on the list:facepalm: guy was 6'4 and averaged a double double for 15 straight seasons in the NBA = only player in NBA history to do that.

You can't ignore Russell and Chamberlain. Nutmbers aren't everything, but their stats are really too impressive.

Rodman is the all time best rebounder I think, but his game was of course focused on rebounding and defense. He still did it though...

Last man on my list is Moses Malone, this guy was a beast. Grabbed a lot of boards on offense, not the easy ones on the other side of the court.

knickfan33
06-02-2012, 05:25 AM
Simple enough. List the five guys who you think were the best rebounders of all time.

Here's my list:

1. Wilt
2. Russel
3. Rodman
4. Ben Wallace
5. Moses Malone

Who you got?

Edti: Kevin Love and Dwight Howard are the best of this generation, and one of them may very well be ranked hight than Moses in my estimation if their careers continue they way they have been going.

rodman is numero uno.... bill and wilt played ina league full of 6 foot white guys.

kArSoN RyDaH
06-02-2012, 05:38 AM
Dennis Rodman. Easily the best rebounder of ALL TIME! So underrated as a player for the Bulls and in NBA history for that matter.

John Walls Era
06-02-2012, 06:59 AM
The Worm

JasonJohnHorn
06-02-2012, 07:28 AM
Michael Cage was a pretty good rebounder to at one time. and Bill Laimbeer.

Reversed86Curse
06-02-2012, 09:01 AM
Does 'Best' Rebounder mean best stats or best in terms of ability?

I usually don't like to down play the pre-1970 era of NBA basketball, but in terms of quality of talent over all, I don't think you can discount that from the 'best ever' discussion. Pace and lack of total athletic talent have to be taken into account vs other eras; of course Russell, Wilt and select other players are going to have some huge stats. Hawkeyes right in terms of averaging the equation.

The answer is Rodman. He was a freak rebounder in a league that had vastly more competition and better opposing talent.

Swashcuff
06-02-2012, 09:15 AM
Rodman


then start thinking about it.

This :laugh2:

Raps18-19 Champ
06-02-2012, 09:24 AM
Rodman.

Raph12
06-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Rodman easily, Wilt and Russell are overrated due to the pace and missed FGs of the game in the 50s/60s... You should also make it clear whether you mean, best prime, best peak, best career numbers, etc.

Any list should have DRod, Big Ben and Dwight on it though as they meet all 3 levels of criteria.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Whats your point?

He was stating that every team had a 6'9" guy that Wilt/Russell had to deal with, so the belief that they were simply bigger than anyone they faced isn't true. My point is, so? Now there are plenty of big guys. Playing against 1-2 guys near your height is much different then seeing them littered across the other teams bench. Russell, and especially Wilt, were the biggest guy on the floor nearly all the time.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 11:49 AM
1966

SF- 2 guys at 6'10''+

St. Louis- 3 guys at 6'9''

Lakers- Two 7 footers, 1 6'10'', and another player at 6'9''

Bulls- 6'10'' player and 4 6'8'' players

Pistons- One 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'' and 2 6'8'' players

Bullets- one 7 footer, 1 6'10'', 1 6'9'', and 2 6'8'' players

Knicks- 1 6'11'', 1 6'10''. 1 6'9'' and 1 6'8''

Cinci-1 6'11'', 1 6'9'', and 3 at 6'8''

Celtics- 1 at 6'9'' and 1 at 6'8''

76'ers- 1 at 7'1'', 1 at 6'9''

The whole Russ/Wilt dominated because they played 5'6'' white guys was a dumb statement. Most teams had 2 6'10''+ players

I never say that. My point, again, was that you pull up the rosters now, and there are multiple times as many guys over 6'9". Being 7'1" doesn't automatically make you bigger than 99% of the NBA anymore.

Hangtime
06-02-2012, 12:32 PM
What Rodman did in his time was phenomenal. After all he did play in an era where Mutombo, Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq and Mourning were all playing in their primes. It really makes what Rodman did all the more impressive. And I won't take anything away from him even though all those guys also focused on scoring, blocking shots, commanding double teams etc.

Rodman was more of a specialist at what he did. His job was primarily focusing on those boards. He took pressure off of Robinson, a great rebounder as well.
Having said that I still put Wilt and Russell ahead of him. Not for the inflated pace numbers of the 60's. Their avgs may go down, but nothing tells me they still wouldn't have been great rebounders in the late80's and 90's. Still have height, athleticism, quickness and intelligence at positioning themselves. I think the numbers of rebounds still would have been close to or if not more than Rodman's. Just my opinion, who really knows. They would be facing some of the same bad teams ( and there were many) that Rodman faced.

khaleesi
06-02-2012, 12:40 PM
I would assume your rebound rate would drop if ....

1) You had to score 40 per night,
2) Play 45 minutes per game
3) Run up and down the court at a very high pace

... which is why Rodman's numbers in comparison to Wilt or Russell or Kevin Love are a joke. Which is why most comparisons to yesterday's greats are a joke.

If all Love needed to do was rebound like Rodman he'd get 25 RPG. Wilt, make it 40. Wilt was Shaq but in shape.

Hangtime
06-02-2012, 12:56 PM
I would assume your rebound rate would drop if ....

1) You had to score 40 per night,
2) Play 45 minutes per game
3) Run up and down the court at a very high pace

... which is why Rodman's numbers in comparison to Wilt or Russell or Kevin Love are a joke. Which is why most comparisons to yesterday's greats are a joke.

If all Love needed to do was rebound like Rodman he'd get 25 RPG. Wilt, make it 40. Wilt was Shaq but in shape.
Of course the rebound rate would drop off given pace which is why you can't compare numbers for numbers and I don't think anybody is doing that. If they went from 23 rebounds a game to let's say 17 or 18 they are right there with Rodman. Russell was one guy who was defensive and rebound oriented so whose to say he is not putting up those numbers. What if he plays PF instead?

It's all speculation. The game evolved and so did the players. Just because they benefitted from a high paced era doesn't mean a slower pace would have made them that much worse rebounders in their primes. Kevin Love is not the most athletic guy on the floor amongst big men yet he snags the hell out of rebounds. Not to mention playing a variety of different teams in the 90's as opposed to 8 or 9. It's all relative.

bagwell368
06-02-2012, 01:09 PM
Love this! Thurmond is one of the most underrated players of all time. It was hard for me to leave him off my list, but I'm glad to see somebody appreicates what this guy did. The first guy to record a quadrouple double! He would have tore $#!T up if he'd played today.

Thurmond could play D - perhaps even now. He was a meh shooter however. He was good between age 25-31. Deserves to be in the HOF. Not near the top however. Not a top 10 Center. Not a top 5 rebounder either.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 01:12 PM
Whats your point?

He was stating that every team had a 6'9" guy that Wilt/Russell had to deal with, so the belief that they were simply bigger than anyone they faced isn't true. My point is, so? Now there are plenty of big guys. Playing against 1-2 guys near your height is much different then seeing them littered across the other teams bench. Russell, and especially Wilt, were the biggest guy on the floor nearly all the time.
But there is only one center on the court and those centers have to face Wilt/Kareem many more times in a season.

I would love to see the actual numbers

Chronz
06-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Simple enough. List the five guys who you think were the best rebounders of all time.

Here's my list:

1. Wilt
2. Russel
3. Rodman
4. Ben Wallace
5. Moses Malone

Who you got?

Edti: Kevin Love and Dwight Howard are the best of this generation, and one of them may very well be ranked hight than Moses in my estimation if their careers continue they way they have been going.

rodman is numero uno.... bill and wilt played ina league full of 6 foot white guys.
link?

bagwell368
06-02-2012, 01:14 PM
He was stating that every team had a 6'9" guy that Wilt/Russell had to deal with, so the belief that they were simply bigger than anyone they faced isn't true. My point is, so? Now there are plenty of big guys. Playing against 1-2 guys near your height is much different then seeing them littered across the other teams bench. Russell, and especially Wilt, were the biggest guy on the floor nearly all the time.

Until 1960 Russell had almost no competition at his size. By 1966 everyone had an actual real 6' 10" Center - with maybe off the top of my head the Royals being he exception.

Look at Russells offensive output and rebounding after 1965, not the same and it wasn't just him getting old.

Wilt straddled the newer era a bit longer/better as I recall it.

Rodman is the best. WIlt and Bill next. Big arguments pick up at that point.

khaleesi
06-02-2012, 01:17 PM
Of course the rebound rate would drop off given pace which is why you can't compare numbers for numbers and I don't think anybody is doing that. If they went from 23 rebounds a game to let's say 17 or 18 they are right there with Rodman. Russell was one guy who was defensive and rebound oriented so whose to say he is not putting up those numbers. What if he plays PF instead?

It's all speculation. The game evolved and so did the players. Just because they benefitted from a high paced era doesn't mean a slower pace would have made them that much worse rebounders in their primes. Kevin Love is not the most athletic guy on the floor amongst big men yet he snags the hell out of rebounds. Not to mention playing a variety of different teams in the 90's as opposed to 8 or 9. It's all relative.

Which is why, end of day, the stats help one sort things out a bit but they are not he final word on who is the best rebounder. I think you need to really look at guys play to comment.

khaleesi
06-02-2012, 01:19 PM
Until 1960 Russell had almost no competition at his size. By 1966 everyone had an actual real 6' 10" Center - with maybe off the top of my head the Royals being he exception.

Look at Russells offensive output and rebounding after 1965, not the same and it wasn't just him getting old.

Wilt straddled the newer era a bit longer/better as I recall it.

Rodman is the best. WIlt and Bill next. Big arguments pick up at that point.

You mean 32 year old Bill Russell??????????????????? Not age at all, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No he was going to play the same at 32 as he did at 25. By 1966 he was already a ten year vet only 3 years from retirement. Traveling on yellow school buses and dealing with segregation and all the nonsense.

People also forget Rodman had very little wear and tear on his body till he started to play serious minutes in his late 20's. He also had little to no responsibilities on the Offensive end.

khaleesi
06-02-2012, 01:28 PM
But guys who simply get the ball when needed, sheer greatness rebounding ...

Malone
Rodman
Barkley
Wilt
Russell
Love

Hangtime
06-02-2012, 01:31 PM
Until 1960 Russell had almost no competition at his size. By 1966 everyone had an actual real 6' 10" Center - with maybe off the top of my head the Royals being he exception.

Look at Russells offensive output and rebounding after 1965, not the same and it wasn't just him getting old.

Wilt straddled the newer era a bit longer/better as I recall it.

Rodman is the best. WIlt and Bill next. Big arguments pick up at that point.

His rebounding remained fairly steady through 67. His last two years at ages 33 and 34 was a bit of a decline. But isn't that typical with most basketball players? Not to mention his responsibilities as a player-coach.

Hangtime
06-02-2012, 01:45 PM
You mean 32 year old Bill Russell??????????????????? Not age at all, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No he was going to play the same at 32 as he did at 25. By 1966 he was already a ten year vet only 3 years from retirement. Traveling on yellow school buses and dealing with segregation and all the nonsense.

People also forget Rodman had very little wear and tear on his body till he started to play serious minutes in his late 20's. He also had little to no responsibilities on the Offensive end.

He actually had his best year at rebounding at ages 29 and 30 but yeah, it was inevitable his decline was going to start soon.

CoffeeJanitor
06-02-2012, 02:03 PM
I would assume your rebound rate would drop if ....

1) You had to score 40 per night,
2) Play 45 minutes per game
3) Run up and down the court at a very high pace

... which is why Rodman's numbers in comparison to Wilt or Russell or Kevin Love are a joke. Which is why most comparisons to yesterday's greats are a joke.

If all Love needed to do was rebound like Rodman he'd get 25 RPG. Wilt, make it 40. Wilt was Shaq but in shape.Yep....This is what makes this so difficult. Who knows what rebounding numbers Russel or Wilt would have had if their only job was to grab boards and play D.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 02:43 PM
But there is only one center on the court and those centers have to face Wilt/Kareem many more times in a season.

I would love to see the actual numbers

Understood. But the league is taller now. You aren't dealing with just your guy in the paint going after a rebound. The players at each position simply were smaller back then.

And again, it was simply a response to someone saying people claim Wilt faced 6'5" white guys, and he said "there was a 6'9" guy on each roster". So? There are multiple now.

That was all I was getting at.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 02:44 PM
Yep....This is what makes this so difficult. Who knows what rebounding numbers Russel or Wilt would have had if their only job was to grab boards and play D.

Explain Love and Dwight then.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 02:51 PM
But there is only one center on the court and those centers have to face Wilt/Kareem many more times in a season.

I would love to see the actual numbers

Understood. But the league is taller now. You aren't dealing with just your guy in the paint going after a rebound. The players at each position simply were smaller back then.

And again, it was simply a response to someone saying people claim Wilt faced 6'5" white guys, and he said "there was a 6'9" guy on each roster". So? There are multiple now.

That was all I was getting at.
Yeah I still don't see the point, the other poster was correctly pointing out the fact that people were exaggerate his superiority athletically.

Your response seemed like you were backing the childish response. Id love to see the actual #s.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 02:53 PM
Yep....This is what makes this so difficult. Who knows what rebounding numbers Russel or Wilt would have had if their only job was to grab boards and play D.

Explain Love and Dwight then.
Who's the better between them?

Chronz
06-02-2012, 02:54 PM
Until 1960 Russell had almost no competition at his size. By 1966 everyone had an actual real 6' 10" Center - with maybe off the top of my head the Royals being he exception.

Look at Russells offensive output and rebounding after 1965, not the same and it wasn't just him getting old.

Wilt straddled the newer era a bit longer/better as I recall it.

Rodman is the best. WIlt and Bill next. Big arguments pick up at that point.

His rebounding remained fairly steady through 67. His last two years at ages 33 and 34 was a bit of a decline. But isn't that typical with most basketball players? Not to mention his responsibilities as a player-coach.
When did Rodman decline?

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 03:25 PM
Yeah I still don't see the point, the other poster was correctly pointing out the fact that people were exaggerate his superiority athletically.

Your response seemed like you were backing the childish response. Id love to see the actual #s.

I would be interested in seeing the actual heights as well.

And no, I wasn't agreeing with the posters he was replying to. He simply made it seem like a big deal that each team had a guy around 6'9". Rodman dealt with a couple of those at a time, everytime he played.

I mean, everyone has to agree that players are simply bigger now. Wilt was the equivalent of an even bigger man in today's NBA compared to his competition back then.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2012, 03:27 PM
When did Rodman decline?

Dude, Rodman was like 36-37 before we noticed his rebounding/defensive dominance slipping to a noticeable degree. The guy was a freak athlete.

stejay
06-02-2012, 03:28 PM
1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Rodman

still1ballin
06-02-2012, 03:40 PM
any list starts with Pau Gasol.

Fixed







































:laugh2:

jk eric

Hangtime
06-02-2012, 04:50 PM
When did Rodman decline?

Rodman was still beastin on the boards at 36, his last with the Bulls. He even played 80 games that year. He missed quite a few the previous 3 years due to injury. After that season, Rodman clearly didn't care about basketball anymore as he was getting cut by Lakers and Mavs. Guy probably could have played till 40 since rebounding was all he needed to do.

NoahH
06-02-2012, 06:00 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=15&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_pct_career.html


Rodman has the 5 highest seasons at rebound rate, and has the highest career rebound rate, fairly easily.

Agreed. Rodman. Wilt might have averaged more, but that was a different era.

bagwell368
06-02-2012, 07:33 PM
His rebounding remained fairly steady through 67. His last two years at ages 33 and 34 was a bit of a decline. But isn't that typical with most basketball players? Not to mention his responsibilities as a player-coach.

He only coached the defense. Red still had executive control/planning control and Havlicek coached the offense. The load on Russell in game was not very great.

His offense and rebounding fell off. His FG% never made top 10 again after '50 or '61. He didn't lead the league in rebounding after 1965. His FGA also went down after 1965 and especially 1962. The Celts had to import a very tough 4 to cover Russell's back the last 3 years (Bailey Howell).

bagwell368
06-02-2012, 07:40 PM
You mean 32 year old Bill Russell??????????????????? Not age at all, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No he was going to play the same at 32 as he did at 25. By 1966 he was already a ten year vet only 3 years from retirement. Traveling on yellow school buses and dealing with segregation and all the nonsense.

People also forget Rodman had very little wear and tear on his body till he started to play serious minutes in his late 20's. He also had little to no responsibilities on the Offensive end.

Excuse me young man but - the competition Russell faced became stiffer over time and Russell's slide on offense began as early as 1960 (see his FG% top 10 finishes). As an eyewitness to Russells last 4 years his offensive rebounding was not that great - Bailey Howell had the role of in the trenches rebounder - Russell got fat on d rebounding.

Russell was an excellent passer but outside of that was a put back/lay-up master that rarely shot outside of 7 feet - similar to a good extent to Rodman.

It's pretty funny to be yelled at by people that never saw the man play.

dh144498
06-05-2012, 05:42 PM
I think I've read somewhere a long time ago about how Rodman would observe players during warm-ups when they shoot, see how they spin the ball when they shoot it, and remember it. This helped his anticipation of where the ball will rebound when it misses. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, that's :worthy::worthy: worthy. Just to show how high basketball IQ he had.
Anyway to end my babbling, I think Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time.

Hawkeye15
06-05-2012, 05:52 PM
I think I've read somewhere a long time ago about how Rodman would observe players during warm-ups when they shoot, see how they spin the ball when they shoot it, and remember it. This helped his anticipation of where the ball will rebound when it misses. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, that's :worthy::worthy: worthy. Just to show how high basketball IQ he had.
Anyway to end my babbling, I think Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time.

Even more though. Rodman watched video of countless players and where their misses tended to go.

Kevin Love has admitted to doing the same thing.

Nick O
06-05-2012, 05:53 PM
Rodman
RUSSELL (19rbs per 36min) he needs more love on this thread
Thurmond
Wilt
Mutumbo

big love tho too Jerry Lucas , Shaq, malone, unsled and a personal preferance of mine Reggie Evans best pure rebounder in the game today.

airronijordan
06-05-2012, 06:14 PM
Dennis Rodman was the best rebounder of all time

Lakersfan2483
06-05-2012, 09:21 PM
Rodman
Wilt
Russell
K. Love
Thurmond
D12
Jerry Lucas

Chronz
06-05-2012, 10:04 PM
Rodman
Wilt
Russell
K. Love
Thurmond
D12
Jerry Lucas

Klove above D12 and Thurmond, interesting

Underdogz∞
06-05-2012, 10:16 PM
Dennis Rodman
Dave Debusshure
Larry Bird
Elgin Baylor
Shawn Marrion

Props to the rebounders who arent Centers and Power Forwards but still rebound with the best of them.

Wolfman01
06-05-2012, 10:16 PM
Charles Barkley was a great rebounder also.