Rodman's "personality" and his one-dimensional play inspire numerous articles and debates about his value. He has been traded for an All-Star (Sean Elliott) and for a career reserve (Will Perdue) only two years apart. He has been credited with making the Spurs and Bulls great, but the Spurs don't miss him this year and the Bulls did just fine with Rodman serving a six-game suspension for trying a professional wrestling move on a ref. These conflicting facts allow pundits to pass judgment on the Worm based solely on their opinion of his personality, justifying it with the reasoning that their own distraction with Dennis Rodman also afflicts his teammates.
But it is now imperative to attach a value to Dennis Rodman as a basketball player. He is playing for possibly the greatest team in NBA history and we need to know how much credit he deserves for that. If the Bulls decide that he doesn't deserve much credit and release him at the end of the season, someone else will inevitably pick him up. That team needs to know whether this Tasmanian Devil in tights will help them or hurt them on the court.
Rodman's playing time increased his second season, playing 26 minutes per game and rewarding the team by doubling his points and rebound averages. He also began earning a reputation as a defensive stopper, one that would lead to a string of selections to the All-Defensive Team the following year. He was a fixture in a great forward rotation including Adrian Dantley, Rick Mahorn, and John Salley. The team won the Eastern Conference, beating Larry Bird's Celtics in six games to avenge the previous year's loss that featured Rodman's off-color comments and another head-butt, this one between Adrian Dantley and Vinnie Johnson that possibly cost Detroit the series. When the '88 series was over, the media went looking for a comment from Rodman, but none came. He seemed to be trying to be a good kid.
Though the Pistons lost to the Lakers in the Finals of '88, the Pistons then won back-to-back titles with a steady Rodman contributing to the featured defense. In a now famous magazine cover, the Pistons were labeled "Four Men And A Baby", but the baby was Bill Laimbeer. Rodman still had respect.
Perhaps team success was not enough for Dennis Rodman. Perhaps personal turmoil outside the game got to him. Whatever caused it, Dennis Rodman changed over the next two years from an exuberant and valuable role player to a player with an extreme and volatile role. He began to talk as madly as he rebounded. He decided not to go to practice and not to shoot the ball so that he could concentrate on rebounding and shooting his mouth. His performance on the court became intertwined with his behavior off the court. The unique contribution he was making through his extreme rebounding was complicated by the unique contribution he was making through his behavior.
From a detached and analytical perspective, what is left is a player that contributes enormously to his team through defense and rebounding, while simultaneously hurting his team by passing up open five foot shots. Is there a way to balance the positive with the negative, if only for his oncourt performance?
The Detroit Pistons' final year with Dennis Rodman was mediocre, going 40-42 and missing the playoffs. Since the core of the championship team from three years prior was still there -- Joe Dumars, Isiah Thomas, and Bill Laimbeer -- it was difficult to pin down a reason for the team's failure. The best explanation was probably just the age of the team, already one of the oldest teams in the league when they won the title in 1990. But it was also tempting to blame it on the unusual personalities of the team. From "moody" Mark Aguirre to "streaky" Isiah Thomas to "selfish" Orlando Woolridge to "troublesome" Alvin Robertson, there were plenty of players to blame. Of course, coach Ron Rothstein lost his job out of the mess. And, yes, Dennis Rodman got criticized wholly for not caring about the team and was promptly traded.
The 1994 season was supposed to be smoother, if not necessarily better, for the Detroit Pistons. Replacing Dennis Rodman was good citizen and potential All-Star Sean Elliott. Mark Aguirre and Orlando Woolridge were gone. Lindsey Hunter was drafted to be tutored by the aging, but still great, Isiah Thomas. Don Chaney, 1991 Coach of the Year, was hired to conduct the team to respectability. But respectable, they were not. Sean Elliott suffered through a disastrous year, one that doesn't look right in the context of the rest of his career. Other players supposed to pick up the offense were Terry Mills, Allen Houston, Cadillac Anderson, and a lot less. Mills was already a decent NBA player, but Houston was nothing like he is now. Anderson was as good as he is now, which isn't saying much. Lindsey Hunter may have been learning from Isiah Thomas, but he was learning the wrong things, shooting 38% and dying just to do as well as Thomas' career low 42%. The biggest loss, however, was Bill Laimbeer, who retired after 11 games. As was said so often about Laimbeer, everyone hated him, but no one doubted the contribution he made to the Pistons. The sum of the personnel was a woeful 20-62 season, twenty games off of the previous season. And, even without Dennis Rodman, it wasn't smooth.
Down in San Antonio, The Great Rehabilitator, John Lucas, felt like he could mesh his new curiosity into a team that needed rebounding and, perhaps, a little character. The Spurs were coming off a 49-33 season that just wasn't very satisfying. They had been stuck in that 45-55 win area since the arrival of David Robinson in 1990. They always thought the personnel was there to get to the Finals, but three years without improvement made them trade Elliott for Rodman, feeling it would make them tougher. It was a gamble at the time, but one that, by most accounts, paid off with a 55-27 record at the end of the season. The Spurs, however, lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Utah Jazz, an earlier exit than in 1993. John Lucas got the blame, getting fired and replaced by Bob Hill the following off-season. The verdict was still out on Rodman.
From 1993 to 1994 then, the Pistons went from a 40-42 team with Dennis Rodman to a 20-62 team without him. The Spurs went from a 49-33 team without Rodman to a 55-27 team with him. The Pistons had a lot of other factors involved in their decline. The Spurs improvement was muddied by their early exit in the playoffs.
In 1995, the San Antonio Spurs were supposedly distracted. Rodman missed the first 17 games of the season because he didn't want to play. The Spurs struggled to an 8-9 record. This was despite the return of Elliott from Detroit and Avery Johnson from Golden State, plus the continued solid shooting of Vinnie Del Negro. When Rodman returned, the Spurs won six straight, having their string ended in an overtime game to Atlanta. They then won six more in a row. The Spurs were on their way to a smooth and successful season. Then two things happened in mid-March. Rodman got hurt, missing all but six more games, and Michael Jordan returned to the Bulls. The Spurs may have flinched at one or both of those events, but it didn't show, as they reeled off their 15 wins in a row to earn themselves the number one seed in the Western Conference playoffs. In those playoffs, the Spurs didn't fold, nor did they look bad, but they did lose to the Houston Rockets in a great Western Final. They lost three times at home, but the Orlando Magic also got swept at home by the Rockets. The series loss appeared to be more about an inability to stop Hakeem Olajuwon and all of the Rockets' three pointers than about Dennis Rodman. The Spurs 62-20 record was good on paper, but the Spurs felt they did it despite Rodman, not because of him, so he became a Bull.
It is now 1996 and the Spurs sans Rodman have the second best record in the Western Conference. The only controversy surrounding the team is whether they gave up on Rodman too early, a controversy that distracts them less than Rodman himself. As pointed out in the media, the Spurs do have the same record they had at this time last year, but the Spurs began their 15 game winning streak last year when they had the record they now have during their current winning streak. In other words, it is unlikely that the Spurs will match their 62-20 record of 1995. Perhaps they will win the Western Conference because Rodman's distraction was apparently worse during all the attention of the playoffs. It can't be said for certain yet, but it appears that the Spurs lost a little by trading Rodman for Will Perdue. Given that Perdue is not very highly regarded, this isn't saying much for Rodman.
The Chicago Bulls of 1996 with Rodman have a chance to be the best team in history. There has been controversy with ejections and the head-butt incident, but it has not been the distraction that it apparently was for San Antonio. The Bulls are dominating, winning with Rodman and winning without him. Of course, the biggest reason for Chicago's dominance is the return of Michael Jordan. There can be no doubt that without the greatest show on hardwood, the Bulls would not be challenging 70 wins. Yet, without the greatest hardhead in the show, the Bulls are 15-3, a mark that is slightly off of their overall season record. That being fact, Rodman's contribution to the Bulls has been to shore up an uncertain rebounding team. With Horace Grant departed in 1995, Chicago's defensive rebounding percentage was 68.2%, just below the league average. With Rodman to replace him this year, Chicago's defensive rebounding percentage is 70.9%, seventh best in the league. His other defensive contributions have been unspectacular on a team with two other players who could be first-team All Defense in Jordan and Pippen. His offensive contributions are negative, except for his offensive rebounding, which is all this team needs.
In summary, the teams Rodman has left have performed worse after his departure and the teams Rodman has joined have performed better upon his arrival. There are definite qualifiers that must be noted when evaluating this information, such as the important personnel changes in Detroit and Chicago. But the bottom line is that Rodman's teams generally win and win more when he is there than when he is not.
What follows are the numbers for the teams that Rodman has affected since 1993.
| Team/Season | #Games with Rodman | Win/Loss | Offensive Rating | Defensive Rating | Off. Reb. % | Def. Reb. % | FG% | Assist/ Turnovers | Def. FG% | Def. Assist/ Turnovers |
| Detroit '93 | 62 | 42-40 | 105.3 | 106.8 | 0.346 | 0.678 | 0.453 | 1.68 | 0.481 | 1.68 |
| Detroit '94 | 0 | 20-62 | 100.9 | 109.1 | 0.284 | 0.661 | 0.452 | 1.43 | 0.473 | 1.79 |
| San Antonio '93 | 0 | 49-33 | 107.8 | 105.1 | 0.278 | 0.701 | 0.490 | 1.64 | 0.458 | 1.68 |
| San Antonio '94 | 79 | 55-27 | 108.5 | 102.8 | 0.356 | 0.705 | 0.475 | 1.58 | 0.446 | 1.73 |
| San Antonio '95 | 49 | 62-20 | 110.1 | 104.0 | 0.309 | 0.723 | 0.484 | 1.54 | 0.454 | 1.59 |
| San Antonio '96 | 0 | 49-18 | 109.6 | 102.1 | 0.274 | 0.696 | 0.480 | 1.71 | 0.439 | 1.44 |
| Chicago '95 | 0 | 47-35 | 107.7 | 102.6 | 0.329 | 0.682 | 0.476 | 1.52 | 0.457 | 1.15 |
| Chicago '96 | 52 | 60-8 | 112.8 | 100.6 | 0.366 | 0.709 | 0.480 | 1.72 | 0.450 | 1.16 |
There are only three categories consistently affected by Rodman's presence: offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, and, surprisingly, offensive efficiency. Every time Rodman was traded, the team he left got worse in rebounding and offensive efficiency, whereas the team he joined improved in the same categories. The rebounding figures make sense, but it has never been clear whether Rodman's presence hurts or helps an offense. This is an indication that his offensive rebounds outweigh his lack of offensive desire. But there are two important factors to consider. First, this is only two changes of teams, which is not a lot of information. Second, when looking at traded players through team statistics, the picture we see is, at best, the difference between players who were perceived as roughly equivalent by the teams that made the trade. In other words, Rodman apparently makes his teams better at rebounding and offense than the players he was traded for.
One might interpret the team results to indicate is that Rodman helps his teams win a little more than Will Perdue and a lot more than Sean Elliott, something that makes no sense. In truth, Perdue was a decent player with the Bulls in '95, producing average offensive numbers and doing a respectable defensive job, for a net winning percentage of about 66%. Elliott was pitiful in his season with the Pistons, shooting 46% and contributing nothing to a team in chaos; his net winning percentage was about 18%. For simplicity sake, using a comparison between the players indicates that Rodman's net winning percentage is something a little better than 66%. Since Rodman now plays a modest role on a team with a winning percentage of near 90%, this percentage seems a little low.
Rodman's positive influence on a team comes through his rebounds. Offensively, he increases the number of chances his team has to score by keeping possessions alive. On a margin, Rodman has increased the Bulls offensive rebounding percentage 3.7%. If the Bulls were getting offensive rebounds at the same rate as last season, they would have had 104 fewer. Given the Bulls current proficiency at scoring, this works out to be 100-120 points they would likely not have scored for the same number of possessions. This translates to a reduced offensive rating of 111.0-111.2. With their current defensive rating of 100.6, this reduces their win total by about two games. For a team closer to 0.500 than the Bulls, this point difference would have been more significant, perhaps about four games.
Defensively, which is why Chicago obtained Rodman, Chicago has improved by 2.7% in their rebounding percentage. This means that they have picked up about 77 extra rebounds, which would have led to about between 68 and 78 more points allowed. With the Bulls' current offense, this would have meant a loss of an additional one to two games.
This simple approach gives an idea of how much Rodman's rebounds help the Bulls team, which is about two to four additional wins over 68 games. Over 82 games, it may be three to five additional wins. Note that this is clearly enough to reduce the Bulls' chances at 70 wins, but also not enough to lower the Bulls chances at a title by very much.
Rodman's overall value to the Bulls is more than rebounding, but rebounding is his primary contribution. His lack of offense and his man-to-man defensive skills, which have eroded since the early '80's, are not accounted for. On a team as good as the Bulls, these other factors are not as important. They have tremendous scorers elsewhere in Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc, all of whom could lead a club in scoring. They also have tremendous man-defenders, making only the team defense provided by Rodman's rebounds relatively important.
This approach, however, is not very rigorous. For instance, it credits Rodman entirely with the increase in the Bulls' rebounding, which could be an underestimate or an overestimate. This approach would not make sense to use on a team that required more than rebounding from him. If you put Rodman on the Clippers, they would need him to also score because they don't have scorers. In other words, his offense could not be just ignored if his teammates needed offense. (Actually, by being such a nonfactor offensively, Rodman helps himself get offensive rebounds because defenders forget about him and more frequently don't have a body on him when a shot goes up.) Despite these pitfalls, this method has two things going for it in the current situation: it's simple and it accounts for Rodman's primary contribution to his current club.
What about the San Antonio Spurs? What did they lose by giving Rodman up? Fortunately, the Spurs are not unlike the Bulls in that they are a very good team with offensive weapons at a number of spots and they play good man-defense. So it is consistent to state that the Spurs lost what the Bulls gained, which is perhaps a couple games. And some piece of mind. When the playoffs roll around at the end of April, the Spurs will not have distractions (maybe... see below). The Bulls will, but they will also have the best team in the league. I can't measure "distraction" very well. This spring may be the best time to do it.
There is no doubt that this headline was intended to praise David Robinson, but the mention of "character" was probably a shot at Rodman. In the accompanying article, San Antonio Coach Bob Hill is quoted as saying, "You've got to have talent, that's a given. But the biggest challenge is to get talented people with character. I think that is what we've done."
He also said of Charles Smith, "He fit in with everybody else so well. He's very mature, very bright and he's a professional."
Somehow, I think the Spurs are still a little distracted by Rodman.