It's probably an easy guess that we talk to (or read?) different people. But I had always thought of the Pistons years as his prime;

Me too. They were his prime. He was a good player then. But seriously, nobody was talking him up for the Hall of Fame. Nobody talked him up for the Hall of Fame until late in his career, or after he retired, after he'd had those three all-rebound years with the Bulls.

And had his best rebounding totals, which are what make everyone go ga-ga.

He had his best rebounding years, per game, in his late Detroit years, after the championships. He never led the league in rebounding until 1992, two years after the last championship, when the Pistons had become a 48-win third-place team. At that point, he had become the player he would be in Chicago.

During the two championship years in Detroit, he averaged 13-14 rebounds and 12-13 points per 40 minutes. During the late Detroit years, when he first was leading the league in rebounding, and then through San Antonio and Chicago, it was more like 18 rebounds and about 5-7 points per 40 minutes.

People talking about Rodman the Hall of Famer are talking about Rodman the rebounder. That's not the player who won two championships in Detroit.

By the way, most similar player to Rodman at the same age for the two Detroit title years: Larry Smith.

I don't think it is a stretch that his last three full years, those in Chicago, weren't his best. His rebounds went down with the scoring, and his D was less impressive as well.

His rebounds didn't go down, his minutes did. On a per-minute basis, his rebounding was fairly constant from 1992 to 1997 (the middle year in Chicago), and then dipped a bit in '98, though still much higher than in the early "prime" Detroit years pre-'92. Scoring, he averaged 17 per 40 minutes his first two years, then 12-13 the next two, the championship years, then down to 9 in 1991, and then a fairly steady decline after that.

My point here is that Rodman was very much the same player in Chicago as he had been in his last few years in Detroit and his two years in San Antonio. He didn't really decline until that third year in Chicago, and even then only a little. The guy was a specimen. For the bulk of his career, two-thirds of it, he was that guy I wrote about, the all-rebound, no-score guy. The guy whose gaudy rebounding totals make people argue that he should be in the Hall. I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame, I don't think he was as good in his last eight years as he was in those first four, and I don't think he'd have been a Hall of Famer if he'd played for 12 years the way he did in those first four, though he might have been a next-level-down guy.

I can certainly see the argument that Rodman should have gone for a few more putbacks, but I don't think that means he "sacrificed" offense for rebounding. Again, it is worth noting that his best rebounding year was also his second best scoring year. He was pulling down more boards before his scoring dropped off, not after.

Yes, on a per-game basis, his best rebounding year (1992) was his second best scoring year. But that's just because he had a career high in playing time, averaging 40 minutes a game for the only time in his career.

But we're talking about how he played, what he did. On a per-minute basis, his best rebounding year was 1995 in San Antonio, which was his seventh best scoring year. His best scoring years were, in order, his second, first, third, fourth and (tie) fifth-sixth years. His worst rebounding years were, in order his first, (tie) second-fourth, third and fifth. On a per-minute basis, 1992 was his third best rebounding year and his tied-for-fifth best scoring year. The transition was underway.

He absolutely scored less as he rebounded more. They were directly connected to each other.

KStone said: he states that Rodman was a liability on offense which he wasn't. Ben Wallace is a liabilty on offense.

Again, per 40 minutes, Ben Wallace scores more than the rebounding Rodman did.

Wallace points per 40 minutes, last 3 years:

2004: 10.1

2005: 10.8

2006: 8.3

Career: 8.5

Rodman, three best points-per-40-min. starting in 1992, the first year he led the league in rebounding:

1992: 9.7

1995: 8.9

1993: 7.8

Career from 1992 on*: 7.0

* I threw out his partial seasons with the Lakers and Mavs at the end, when he really didn't score. We're talking 3 points per 40 minutes.

Rodman was a better passer, but not by enough to make him less of an offensive liability than Wallace.

That is, the '92-and after, rebounding Rodman. The early Rodman was a better player than Wallace, who, by the way, is kind of overrated.