As I noted in The Case for Michael Jordan, we do not say in The Wages of Wins that Dennis Rodman was “better” than Michael Jordan. Matthew Yglesias, a writer for the American Prospect, has confirmed that story. Today he wrote the following at his blog:
Since I'm partially responsible for the confusion, I should say that now having read the whole book, it's true — The Wages of Wins doesn't argue that Dennis Rodman was better than Michael Jordan. It does argue that Rodman was an underrated player and that, generally speaking, the value of scoring is overstated and the value of rebounding understating. They conclude, however, that the CW on Jordan is more-or-less right. The most controversial Wages claims will probably be the ones about Kevin Garnett, regarding which I'll have more to say later.
I just want to thank Yglesias for helping clear up the confusion on this issue. And, of course, I am very interested in seeing what he has to say about Kevin Garnett. Just to be clear, we also said Jordan was more productive than Garnett.