PDA

View Full Version : Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list



vnzla81
02-13-2010, 12:24 PM
http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/02/12/hall.of.fame/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1




DALLAS -- Dealing a very public rebuke to Dennis Rodman with very private methods, a screening committee from the basketball Establishment ended the debate over his candidacy for the Hall of Fame by indicating there was never really much debate in the first place.



The lightning-rod question of whether Rodman would make the Hall or fall just short as payback for years of controversy and antics as an immensely productive power forward was answered Friday as 19 finalists from across the sport were announced and he was nowhere to be found.

Seven consecutive seasons of leading the league in rebounding is the greatest streak ever, first- or second-team All-Defense in a coaches' votes eight seasons in a row, Defensive Player of the Year twice in a media vote, an important member of five title teams with the Pistons and Bulls, but bounced in the first elimination.

That wasn't the only surprise when the list was released as part of All-Star weekend. Mark Jackson -- No. 3 all-time in assists Mark Jackson -- likewise went from apparent close call to not even advancing to finalist. A point guard with more assists than anyone in league history except John Stockton and Jason Kidd... and unable to so much as get in contention for the Class of 2010.

The Jackson call at least seemed to be career driven -- the passing number is superb, but he was an All-Star once, never made even third-team All-NBA and averaged more than nine assists a game just twice. He is the epitome of a player who had a long, successful career but was never considered great.

Rodman's elimination, though, was clearly about sending a message. Or at least probably clearly. Few explanations are absolute in the shadowy world of Hall campaigns, where election totals are never announced to know how close a candidate came and names of voters are never released. The only information available is that the electorate is comprised of executives, former players and coaches, and veteran media members, with approval needed from five of the seven judges to advance and from 18 of 24 members of the separate panel that will decide the inductees.

Jerry Colangelo, the former Suns owner who is chairman of the Hall, said he will push for better transparency in the process. He said that Friday, when Rodman and Jackson were eliminated without any sense of the vote or who did the deciding. It was left to secrets and speculation, with one voter who did not want to be identified saying "of course" The Worm was done in by his self-inflicted image, and Brendan Malone, an assistant coach as Rodman rose to prominence in Detroit, speaking what a lot of people were thinking.

"I think that there is a prejudice against him because of his off-court conduct or whatever, the perception that people have of him," Malone said. "They say, 'He can't be in the [Hall of Fame] because of his bizarre lifestyle. But what they should do is sit back and see what he had done for two championship-caliber teams and what they would have been without him."

Said Bill Walton, one of several Hall of Famers who attended the announcement: "Dennis changed the game of basketball in a lot of ways. A real force who played on five championship teams, some of the greatest teams ever, and a dynamic power in the history of basketball. And if I were in charge, things would be different."

Asked if he was surprised Rodman didn't at least make the first cut, Walton said, answering the question without actually answering it: "I liked what Jerry Colangelo said about transparency. I think that's good in all aspects of life. Shine the bright lights in there."

The induction class will be headlined by Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen and the 1992 U.S. Olympic squad, the original Dream Team, each considered a lock to receive the necessary 18 of 24 votes to reach Springfield, Mass. Lakers owner Jerry Buss, New Jersey high school coach Bob Hurley Sr., Dennis Johnson, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Don Nelson in the coaching category, Jamaal Wilkes, long-time coach Tex Winter, and the 1960 U.S. Olympic team were the others from the North American committee to become finalists.

Also advancing were Cynthia Cooper, former coach Harley Redin and the All-American Red Heads from the women's committee; former Soviet coach Vladimir Kondrashin and Brazilian player Maciel (Ubiratan) Pereira by the international committee; and Richard Guerin and Gus Johnson via the veteran's committee. Inductees will be announced April 5 at the Final Four in Indianapolis.

Dece
02-13-2010, 12:28 PM
Can't really take the HoF serious if Rodman isn't in it... should be a no brainer instant selection.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 12:36 PM
I don't know. The guy couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and that's still 1/2 the game. And the part that gets recognized and rewarded the most.
7 pts a game isn't HOF.

Shade
02-13-2010, 12:39 PM
I think it's a borderline call. Remember, the Bulls did win championships without the Worm.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 12:45 PM
Over the last 26 seasons, seven of the eight highest rebounding averages all belong to Dennis Rodman. I have no idea why anybody would even consider him borderline. It's an insult to the game.

He was so far ahead of his peers in what he did. He was averaging 4 and 5 rebounds more per game than the next best rebounder in the NBA for the better part of a decade. And he began that streak only after back to back DPOY awards.

The man was also an all-defensive team selection for 9 consecutive seasons. 8 of those, he made the first team.

He also was a key component of the two best defensive teams of all time, and won 5 championships.

I really don;t know how much more needs to be said. Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot. Absurd.

vnzla81
02-13-2010, 01:00 PM
Over the last 26 seasons, seven of the eight highest rebounding averages all belong to Dennis Rodman. I have no idea why anybody would even consider him borderline. It's an insult to the game.

He was so far ahead of his peers in what he did. He was averaging 4 and 5 rebounds more per game than the next best rebounder in the NBA for the better part of a decade. And he began that streak only after back to back DPOY awards.

The man was also an all-defensive team selection for 9 consecutive seasons. 8 of those, he made the first team.

He also was a key component of the two best defensive teams of all time, and won 5 championships.

I really don;t know how much more needs to be said. Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot. Absurd.

I agree with you Rodman should be in for sure and for Mark jackson Im not sure.

d_c
02-13-2010, 01:01 PM
Can't really take the HoF serious if Rodman isn't in it... should be a no brainer instant selection.

The Basketball HOF is the only HOF that you really shouldn't take seriously regardless of what happens to Rodman.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 01:02 PM
I'm not really sure about Mark Jackson, either. He wasn't really better than his peers at any point of his career. He just played longer than %99 of them.

He probably tops my list as the best PG of his era not to make the HOF.

Brad8888
02-13-2010, 01:14 PM
Rodman not being in the HOF is wrong. Without Rodman on the Bulls in '98, the Pacers likely win the title going away, and that is just one series. Rodman was instumental in both the Bulls dominance during his time there, and also provided much of the toughness of the Pistons during their Isiah Thomas run, no disrespect to Laimbeer.

Unquestionably, Rodman's lifestyle choices are what is stopping his induction, and while I don't like many of those lifestyle choices, I don't think they warrant his being excluded.

spreedom
02-13-2010, 02:11 PM
I agree that Rodman should be a first-ballot hall of famer. However, I can also see the selection committee's point of view -- the guy's offcourt baggage significantly outweighs his merits as a player. And that's really going to prevent his induction for at least a couple of years. Which is a shame, but also completely Rodman's fault.

LoneGranger33
02-13-2010, 02:54 PM
Maybe the cameraman he kicked was one of the "veteran media members".

Thesterovic
02-13-2010, 06:05 PM
Have you guys seen Celebrity Rehab? Rodman has parties every night in his house with 400+ people in his house he doesn't even know.

PacerDude
02-13-2010, 06:42 PM
Well, it is the Hall of Fame - Not the Hall of Stats. Rodman was famous for basketball. 99% of basketball fans know what he did for the teams he played on. The other 1% know him because of the wedding dress. He's famous for basketball - he's in.

And I think it would be fun to be one of the aforementioned 400. :dance:

cinotimz
02-13-2010, 06:43 PM
Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot = Absurd.

Fixed.

What next? Rip Hamilton is the closest thing to Jordan?

Lol.

Only thing similar between Russell and Rodman is their ability to shoot free throws and they both played on some teams that had some great players. Difference is Russell was one of them and Rodman was not.

If there ever is an Effort Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Looney Toon Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Partying Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Basketball Hall of Infamy, then put him in.

But if he would ever get in the Hall of Fame for basketball, they should just shut the place down.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 06:51 PM
do not edit other people's posts and quote them. It's breach of forum etiquette, and you should already have a PHD in that, considering how many times you're had the riot act read to you.

I realize you love to come in and subtly set fire to general basketball discussion with your mean-spirited behavior. It's not happening in this thread. Sorry.

cinotimz
02-13-2010, 07:17 PM
Russell averaged 15 points, 22 rebounds, and 4 assists for his career and its a shame they didnt track steals and blocks back then. He was considered the best player on a team that won 11 championships in the 13 seasons he played with them. He was widely considered one of the greatest team leaders of all time. Dennis averaged 7 points, 13 rebounds and less than 2 assists as well as less than a block and a steal a game. He was widely regarded as a looney toon and most agree that the teams he won championships with wouldve won them without him.

So I can see why you would rather call people names than actually look at the facts. And i do find it ironic that someone who lectures on forum etiquette stoops to namecalling in the very same post. I think Im entitled to my opinion just as much as you or anyone else. And it certainly appears I'm handling my teams losing a bit better than some Pistons fans I know. But then again, thats the difference between reasonable and unreasonable expectations.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 07:28 PM
I'm not really sure about Mark Jackson, either. He wasn't really better than his peers at any point of his career. He just played longer than %99 of them.

He probably tops my list as the best PG of his era not to make the HOF.

Rodman > Jackson....and I don't like saying that.

Honestly, I think Rodman is borderline HOF. He did not have a complete game and IMO is not significantly better than Dale Davis. Other than rebounds, I do not see a HOF player there. His defense was very good, yes. But his value came from the fact he could focus on rebounding without worrying about being part of the offense. The dude had very few blocks and paltry assist numbers...which go a long way to explaining how he racked up so many boards...and is just further proof of his incomplete game.

I guess if you can make it to the HOF by being one of the best rebounders in history, he should be there. Otherwise, I agree with the committee.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 07:32 PM
If being a great winner, rebounder and a great defensive player makes you incomplete, then why is Russell in the HoF? He's not in there for anything he did offensively.

Does Nique not get in either, along with every other player in the hall of fame that never played defense?

You make it sound like anybody could have averaged 18 rebounds a game if they weren't a go-to guy on offense. That's simply untrue.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 07:42 PM
If being a great winner, rebounder and a great defensive player makes you incomplete, then why is Russell in the HoF?

I never saw Bill Russell play. He had gaudy numbers, but I suspect that's because he played 50 years ago. But you really cannot compare one era versus another...or the players.

Russell did have much better rebound numbers than Rodman...which is his claim to fame. But all things considered, I think Russell is overrated and was fortunate to play on very good teams. Still...his numbers (points, rebounds and assists) indicate that he was better than Rodman.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 07:43 PM
Russell did not have much better rebound numbers, compared to his peers, which is what you go by. Rodman was far and away a better rebounder than anybody in his era.


I think Russell is overrated and was fortunate to play on very good teams.

Oh boy, now you've done it....

At least you're being consistent, though.

cinotimz
02-13-2010, 07:45 PM
If being a great winner, rebounder and a great defensive player makes you incomplete, then why is Russell in the HoF? He's not in there for anything he did offensively.


Great whiner or winner? Rodman was a great whiner, Russell was a great winner. Arent going to get many people to agree with you that Rodman was a winner, let alone a great one.

Russell averaged over 15 points and 4 assists for his career. Thats pretty significant offensive numbers.

And comparing the rebounding prowess is plain silly. For his career, Russell averaged 9 more rebounds per game than Rodman. How many guys average 9 rebounds per game? Let alone 9 more than another great?

Come to think of it, debating Russell and Rodman is just plain silly. Maybe we should go to Rip and Jordan. It cant be any sillier.

Greatness is defined in many ways. You wont find many of those qualities in Rodman when it comes to basketball. Most of the guys that end up in the Hall could be considered team leaders. Rodman was closer to a team destroyer than anything else.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 07:47 PM
If being a great winner, rebounder and a great defensive player makes you incomplete, then why is Russell in the HoF? He's not in there for anything he did offensively.

Does Nique not get in either, along with every other player in the hall of fame that never played defense?

You make it sound like anybody could have averaged 18 rebounds a game if they weren't a go-to guy on offense. That's simply untrue.

Rebounds are not worth as much as points. One rebound gives your team a chance to score...which they might 50% of the time. That's why Nique is in the HOF and why Rodman minus the baggage would be borderline.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 07:47 PM
Again, yore just troll-baiting, as evidenced by the fact you keep bringing up Rip Hamilton in this thread. And you're throwing slop against a wall by saying a guy with 5 championship rings wasnt a winner.

This thread really is better off without you.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 07:49 PM
Russell did not have much better rebound numbers, compared to his peers, which is what you go by. Rodman was far and away a better rebounder than anybody in his era.



Oh boy, now you've done it....

At least you're being consistent, though.

Russell's FG% was putrid for a big. Yes, he's a good player...but people talk about him like he was equal to Wilt Chamberlain. Yes, he's over-rated and fortunate to play on a great team. The point you make about Rodman's boards being better compared to era backs that up. Good point!

Kstat
02-13-2010, 07:51 PM
Rebounds are not worth as much as points. One rebound gives your team a chance to score...which they might 50% of the time. That's why Nique is in the HOF and why Rodman minus the baggage would be borderline.

Are we really going to debate this?

You can't score without the ball. Only a small fraction of defensive stops end via steals or blocked shots. The rest end with someone from the other team chasing down a missed shot. Same goes for offensive rebounds creating extra possessions/shots.

This is the first time in my 6 years here that I've heard someone argue that one-dimensional scorers are inherently more valuable than defensive stoppers.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 08:03 PM
Are we really going to debate this?

You can't score without the ball. Only a small fraction of defensive stops end via steals or blocked shots. The rest end with someone from the other team chasing down a missed shot.

This is the first time in my 6 years here that I've heard someone argue that one-dimensional scorers are inherently more valuable than defensive stoppers.

Just ask yourself if a GM would trade Rodman to acquire Nique. I like defense as much as the other guy...probably moreso, but Nique's offense could transcend even a great defender. Also, Rodman had about 7 years of spectacular rebounding. Nique had 12 years of spectacular scoring.
Take your pick man. The committee did.

Edit: BTW, as great as Rodman was on D...Nique had double the steals and matched him on blocked shots.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 08:06 PM
The Bulls went from a 2nd round knock-out in 1995 to a 72-win dynasty in 1996. They added only two key pieces that offseason, and the difference wasnt Ron Harper.

Does that same Bulls team win 72 games with Nique instead of Rodman? I don't think there's any way.

Hicks
02-13-2010, 08:07 PM
The Bulls went from a 2nd round knock-out in 1995 to a 72-win dynasty in 1996. They added only two key pieces that offseason, and the difference wasnt Ron Harper.

I'm sure Jordan's first full year back with the team had nothing to do with it.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 08:08 PM
they had him in 1995. He was in better shape the next year but that was not the main reason behind that ridiculous increase in efficiency.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 08:10 PM
they had him in 1995.

At the very tail end of the season...and he was quite rusty.

As to your point, the fact Rodman meant more to that Bulls team does not mean necessarily that his market value was better across the board...or that he's more worthy to be in the HOF. He was an important piece....

Edit: Jordan played 17 games in 95...not exactly enough to get in game shape...and it showed.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 08:11 PM
I think more teams in position to win a title would have preferred Rodman. Teams at the bottom that wanted to sell tickets moreso than win games would have preferred Nique.

It is much, much harder to find a player of Rodmaan's caliber than it is to find a player that can score like Nique.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 08:21 PM
I think more teams in position to win a title would have preferred Rodman. Teams at the bottom that wanted to sell tickets moreso than win games would have preferred Nique.

It is much, much harder to find a player of Rodmaan's caliber than it is to find a player that can score like Nique.

I look at teams like todays Lakers, Celtics and Magic...and none of them need a Rodman. The best team of the decade was probably the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe...and they didn't need a Rodman. The Bulls won without Rodman...and they won with Rodman. IDK, KStat. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not all that impressed by Nique and think he may be borderline too...but he's in. I wouldn't put Rodman in because I think there were bigger holes in his game. JMHO.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 08:29 PM
They don't have a rodman, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't want one. Nobody in today's game really compares to Rodman.

vnzla81
02-13-2010, 08:32 PM
I think more teams in position to win a title would have preferred Rodman. Teams at the bottom that wanted to sell tickets moreso than win games would have preferred Nique.

It is much, much harder to find a player of Rodmaan's caliber than it is to find a player that can score like Nique.

I agree, there is not player in the NBA like Rodman, everybody keeps comparing him to other players(Blair is one) but there would never be somebody like him, every team needs somebody like him, hell people in this blog keeps talking about how much we need a guy like Antonio Davis, Rodman hands down was better than him.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 08:36 PM
Yes, there are no players like Rodman. Probably never have been. However, there are many, many PF's over the years who have had a few less boards but they did have an offensive game to go with it. That's why I believe his baggage is not the only thing keeping him out.

vnzla81
02-13-2010, 08:41 PM
Yes, there are no players like Rodman. Probably never have been. However, there are many, many PF's over the years who have had a few less boards but they did have an offensive game to go with it. That's why I believe his baggage is not the only thing keeping him out.

There was never a need for him to score, he played with Jordan, Pippen, Toni and Luc Longley. His speciality was to play D and get his hands in every rebound he could.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 08:48 PM
There was never a need for him to score, he played with Jordan, Pippen, Toni and Luc Longley. His speciality was to play D and get his hands in every rebound he could.

I agree. That's all he had to even think about on most of the teams he played on. Anyway, this has run it's course. BTW, I think some people may argue that Nique doesn't deserve the HOF...and I'd just about agree. He put up numbers on bad teams for years. Nevertheless, the HOF to me is a place for the Malones, Chamberlains, Birds, Moses, Jordans, Pippens, etc...guys that had complete games.

Reggie Miller will probably get in simply due to his 3 pt prowess and clutchiness, but it's not a slam dunk. Also, there's no question that Miller is more valuable than Rodman considering the match-up in 1998. ...and Miller didn't even have gaudy numbers. Take Miller of the Pacers and we would be garbage. Take Rodman off the Bulls and they'd still be the second best team in the league.

Edit: Let me correct something. Miller is going to get in...almost without a doubt...on the basis of his career but also because he's still involved in the NBA and has the right "network". I suspect that's a bit of a factor. Anyway, he would get my vote regardless.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 09:00 PM
Yes, there are no players like Rodman. Probably never have been. However, there are many, many PF's over the years who have had a few less boards but they did have an offensive game to go with it. That's why I believe his baggage is not the only thing keeping him out.

Saying there have been many PFs with a few less rebounds than Rodman (which there haven't, its closer to 7-8 less), is like saying "there have been many, many shooting guards with 10 fewer points per game than Michael Jordan."

Points are easier to come by than rebounds.

BlueNGold
02-13-2010, 09:31 PM
Saying there have been many PFs with a few less rebounds than Rodman (which there haven't, its closer to 7-8 less), is like saying "there have been many, many shooting guards with 10 fewer points per game than Michael Jordan."

Points are easier to come by than rebounds.

Almost all of the great rebounders in the HOF had offensive games too. From Chamberlain, to Russell, to Lucas, to Pettit, to Bellamy, to Elvin Hayes, to Moses Malone, To Nate Thurmond...all of these guys could put it in the hole. The only guy in the HOF like Rodman is probably Wes Unseld. I suppose Unseld is some proof Rodman might deserve to be in...but even Unseld was significantly better offensively.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 09:57 PM
Russell did not have much of an offensive game. translate his numbers to rodman's via the generation gap, and they probably scored about the same.

And all of those guys you mentioned played before Rodman's day. It goes to prove there was no other peer in his class.

Again, compare Rodman to his peers. He was the best defensive PF of his era, as well as the best rebounder, period. The distance between Rodman and the next best at his craft was the biggest gap in league history.

Take a look at 1997. Rodman averaged 16.1 rebounds a game. The next best rebounder was Mutombo with 11.6. Only 9 players in the entire league even broke double figures.

He was doing things most players couldn't fathom doing.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 11:17 PM
If being a great winner, rebounder and a great defensive player makes you incomplete, then why is Russell in the HoF? He's not in there for anything he did offensively.

Does Nique not get in either, along with every other player in the hall of fame that never played defense?

You make it sound like anybody could have averaged 18 rebounds a game if they weren't a go-to guy on offense. That's simply untrue.

15 is more than twice 7 ppg. 7ppg is an afterthought, no make that NO thought in the offense. Russell was a main cog in the Celtic offense as well as being the BEST defender in the game AND averaging MORE THAN TWENTY rebounds over his career. That's QUITE a difference, including the offense.

Nique? Are you suggesting that defense is valued (paid) in ANY way as much as offense in the NBA??? Simply not true. Never has been.
Bruce Bowen was the best defender (arguably) in the league for several years. How well was he paid? All star teams?
We ADMIRE defense. We pay for offense.

His career average is 13 rpg, not 18. He averaged 18 for TWO seasons.
He was a VERY good rebounder and defender. With NO offense and poor playmaking and passing skills. He's VERY borderline in any subjective analysis using normally valued criteria. If you want to put a special emphasis on his defense because his offense was so poor that's up to you. But then you do root for the Pistons eh? :D

As a fan of his you CAN"T be objective. Face it.
No difference with me and my Bears. I CAN"T BELIEVE they won't vote Richard Dent into the HOF. Blows my mind.
But then I'm a Bears fan. :banghead:
It's not JUST that we have an overvalued opinion of our own guys, but also that we've watched them so many times. We understand the little things they do, the playing hurt, etc, but that stuff doesn't really get valued in HOF type situations.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 11:19 PM
A fan of his? Dennis Rodman played more than half his career outside of Detroit. I'm stating facts.

And Russell's 20 rebounds was not as dominant compared to his peers as Rodman's 15. You cannot compare the numbers straight up, you have to do it versus the eras they played in.

And Calling Russell a main cog in the Celtic offense is silly. He was the 4th or 5th option. The difference was in Russell's day every team was averaging 120ppg. Rodman played for a Pistons team that averaged 104 and a Bulls team that barely broke 100. If Rodman was playign with those Celtics, he'd have averaged close to 20 as well on all those easy fast break layups/dunks Russell finished off.

Offensively, Russell was every bit as worthless offensively in the halfcourt as Rodman was.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 11:24 PM
I think more teams in position to win a title would have preferred Rodman. Teams at the bottom that wanted to sell tickets moreso than win games would have preferred Nique.

It is much, much harder to find a player of Rodmaan's caliber than it is to find a player that can score like Nique.

Sorry, but that's loony talk when we're talking NBA. You can't be serious with that last comment?
All anybody wants in the NBA is the "GO TO" scorer who can get his shot off at any time and want the ball in crunch time.
They'll trade 3 top defenders to get 1 guy that can't do that.
silly argument.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 11:27 PM
A fan of his? Dennis Rodman played more than half his career outside of Detroit. I'm stating facts.

And Russell's 20 rebounds was not as dominant compared to his peers as Rodman's 15. You cannot compare the numbers straight up, you have to do it versus the eras they played in.

And Calling Russell a main cog in the Celtic offense is silly. He was the 4th or 5th option.

You are stating your opinions.
Just as everyone else is.
Averaging 15pts Means he WAS, and not seeing that is the silly part. He was the third option most of the time, and they ran a lot of high post sets THROUGH him. He was a VERY good passer, as were all the Celtics.
That last remark is silly.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 11:28 PM
Rodman was a very good passer as well. They didnt run the offense through him obviously, but he wasnt a scorer either.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 11:28 PM
I agree, there is not player in the NBA like Rodman, everybody keeps comparing him to other players(Blair is one) but there would never be somebody like him, every team needs somebody like him, hell people in this blog keeps talking about how much we need a guy like Antonio Davis, Rodman hands down was better than him.

The discussion is whether Rodman is HOF material, not whether he was a valuable piece or not.
Of course he was.

Kstat
02-13-2010, 11:29 PM
Sorry, but that's loony talk when we're talking NBA. You can't be serious with that last comment?
All anybody wants in the NBA is the "GO TO" scorer who can get his shot off at any time and want the ball in crunch time.
They'll trade 3 top defenders to get 1 guy that can't do that.
silly argument.

That makes no sense because there is no defender right now the caliber of Dennis Rodman. On the other hand, there are a handful of scorers like Nique.

Defense trumps offense in the NBA more often than not. That's a fact. Defense wins championships. The team that wins the finals is almost always the better defensive one.

MLB007
02-13-2010, 11:30 PM
A fan of his? Dennis Rodman played more than half his career outside of Detroit. I'm stating facts.

And Russell's 20 rebounds was not as dominant compared to his peers as Rodman's 15. You cannot compare the numbers straight up, you have to do it versus the eras they played in.

And Calling Russell a main cog in the Celtic offense is silly. He was the 4th or 5th option. The difference was in Russell's day every team was averaging 120ppg. Rodman played for a Pistons team that averaged 104 and a Bulls team that barely broke 100. If Rodman was playign with those Celtics, he'd have averaged close to 20 as well on all those easy fast break layups/dunks Russell finished off.

Offensively, Russell was every bit as worthless offensively in the halfcourt as Rodman was.


LOL, ok. Your lack of knowledge about Russell and hoops back then really ought to keep you from going on and on. Pointless to continue when you haven't a clue.
I"m out. ;)

Kstat
02-13-2010, 11:32 PM
If you say so. Let me know when they dig up some footage of russell making any shot other than a dunk or a layup, and then tell me which ones of us is clueless.

For his career. Rodman was both a better shooter from the field AND from the FT line than Bill Russell. Chew on that from your ivory tower.

The distance between Rodman's FG% and Russell's is eight percent. A gigantic gap by basketball standards. And this is between two guys that shot almost exclusively layups and dunks.

vnzla81
02-13-2010, 11:54 PM
this should put him in the HOF


Top career rebounding averages, 1973-present

Player Minutes per game Off. rebounds Def. rebounds Total rebounds Games Rebounds per game
Dennis Rodman 31.7 4,329 7,625 11,954 911 13.1
Dwight Howard 35.8 1,624 4,019 5,643 448 12.6
Moses Malone 33.9 6,731 9,481 16,212 1,329 12.2
Charles Barkley 36.7 4,260 8,286 12,546 1,073 11.7
Tim Duncan 36.7 2,899 8,034 10,933 936 11.7



Top rebounding seasons, 1973-present

Season Player Team Rebounds per game
199192 Dennis Rodman Detroit Pistons 18.7
199293 Dennis Rodman Detroit Pistons 18.3
197374 Elvin Hayes Capital Bullets 18.1
197879 Moses Malone Houston Rockets 17.6
199394 Dennis Rodman San Antonio Spurs 17.3
197576 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Los Angeles Lakers 16.9
199495 Dennis Rodman San Antonio Spurs 16.8
199697 Dennis Rodman Chicago Bulls 16.1

PaceBalls
02-14-2010, 12:12 AM
Yea, the worm was always underrated. He definately should be in the HOF.
He was always one of the best defenders, and look at those crazy rebounding numbers, along with MPG and compare the off/def rebound ratio.

I remember he tried out for Houston less than 2 years ago. Let's get him on the Pacers for the rest of the year! Rodman at 50yo would totally abuse Troy and Roy in practice. ;)

1984
02-14-2010, 12:26 AM
Can't really take the HoF serious if Rodman isn't in it... should be a no brainer instant selection.

I don't know if Rodman is a hall of fame player, or Jackson for that matter. Rodman had a very one-sided game - then again that side was very good. I think Jackson needed a championship in order to be legitimized for the hall of fame, it's a shame to me because I am so attached to Jackson.

BlueNGold
02-14-2010, 12:31 AM
this should put him in the HOF

You are doing a great job of making my point. Just look at the list of names.

Everyone knows Rodman was a great rebounder. What you and KStat seem to ignore is that guys like Malone, Barkley, Duncan, Hayes and Jabbar...grabbed their share of rebounds, but were dominant offensive players TOO. They had to expend energy on the offensive end...when Rodman was just dancing around looking for another board. He was never a threat offensively which allowed his guy to rest comfortably on defense. I wonder what would happen if someone rested while guarding Barkley.

Dwight Howard is a pup and already has an offensive game that blows away Rodman along with the ability to block shots and dominate the game physically. There is no comparison between those players and Rodman.

Yes, Rodman was a rebounding machine extraordinaire. I get it. So is Marcus Camby who can block shots and score. Other than boards, Rodman has little to show. Very few blocks for such a "great defender". Very few steals too. If I remember correctly, he also never helped on D. The fact he disrupted multiple teams over the years is why there's no chance he makes the HOF....but his overall talent level is borderline anyway.

Edit: Rodman's percentage of offensive boards was very high...almost certainly because he spent his time positioning for a board rather than trying to contribute at the offensive end. That's the issue. There are very few players in the HOF with a weaker resume' at the offensive end. I don't think his defense was extraordinary like his rebounding numbers....simply not enough to make up the difference when you have numerous guys like Barkley and Duncan in the HOF doing it at both ends...and no GM in the world would deal them from Dennis.

PaceBalls
02-14-2010, 12:35 AM
If you had any doubts about Rodman, watch this. The song belongs in the hall of fame too.

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/6Jmh0GxbBEc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/6Jmh0GxbBEc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Kstat
02-14-2010, 12:52 AM
You are doing a great job of making my point. Just look at the list of names.

Everyone knows Rodman was a great rebounder. What you and KStat seem to ignore is that guys like Malone, Barkley, Duncan, Hayes and Jabbar...grabbed their share of rebounds, but were dominant offensive players TOO. They had to expend energy on the offensive end...when Rodman was just dancing around looking for another board. He was never a threat offensively which allowed his guy to rest comfortably on defense. I wonder what would happen if someone rested while guarding Barkley.

Dwight Howard is a pup and already has an offensive game that blows away Rodman along with the ability to block shots and dominate the game physically. There is no comparison between those players and Rodman.

Yes, Rodman was a rebounding machine extraordinaire. I get it. So is Marcus Camby who can block shots and score. Other than boards, Rodman has little to show. Very few blocks for such a "great defender". Very few steals too. If I remember correctly, he also never helped on D. The fact he disrupted multiple teams over the years is why there's no chance he makes the HOF....but his overall talent level is borderline anyway.

Edit: Rodman's percentage of offensive boards was very high...almost certainly because he spent his time positioning for a board rather than trying to contribute at the offensive end. That's the issue. There are very few players in the HOF with a weaker resume' at the offensive end. I don't think his defense was extraordinary like his rebounding numbers....simply not enough to make up the difference when you have numerous guys like Barkley and Duncan in the HOF doing it at both ends...and no GM in the world would deal them from Dennis.

Again, you're comparing Rodman to Marcus Camby. That's like comparing Karl Malone to Troy Murphy.

Dwight Howard was nowhere near as effective a defender as Rodman, nor was camby. The fact they have DPOYs is a testament to how today's game is lacking dominant defensive players.

Would most GMs rather have Barkley in his prime than Rodman? Yeah. But Barkley is a 1st ballot HoFer. That's not saying much.

Sorry, I can't follow you that Rodman only got his rebounds because he was a poor offensive player and only had to expend his energy rebounding.That's just silly. Rodman probably expended more energy hustling down those rebounds than any other player in the NBA did at anything. It's really, really difficult to dominate the glass like he did for that long at 6'8."

If it was so easy for Rodman to grab rebounds and defend like he did, then how come no other player sans ben Wallace one season, has ever come close to being as dominant as Rodman was for SEVEN seasons? I mean, there are plenty of bigs in the NBA that can't score, right? How come none of them average 18 rebounds per game?

And yes, he disrupted the spurs. He also won 5 championships with the Bulls and Pistons. You can't use that argument at all.

BlueNGold
02-14-2010, 01:03 AM
If Rodman had expended energy carrying the load of 20+ppg like nearly ALL HOF's, he would hardly have the energy to dominate the boards the way he did. He wouldn't be in position many times to do it either. His boards were because he was a very physical player who focused on that one aspect of the game more than anything else. The definition of one dimensional. Yes he was built to rebound. Yes he was a very important piece on the Bulls in particular, but when you consider the entire work...it doesn't measure up to most guys in the HOF. I'm sure there are guys in the HOF that you can argue about like Nique and I can respect that, but we are talking guys who are borderline. I'm signing off on this one. Just drop me a line when he gets admitted....and I don't mean to the psych ward...lol.

Kstat
02-14-2010, 01:04 AM
ok, enough of this "expended energy" stuff. Rodman worked harder at defense and rebounding than %98 of the NBA did at everything they did. The guy was mr. hustle for a decade.

And if all he did was stand under the hoop and look for rebounds, he wouldn't be making the all-defensive 1st team every year. That argument is also false.

He was far and away better at what he did than the rest of his peers, by the biggest margin in history. And he has five rings. By definition that makes him a HoFer.

In the grand scheme of things, guys that score 20+ and don't win are a dime a dozen. Finding elite (not very good, elite) defensive cogs that also dominate the glass and win championships is very, very rare.

Pacersfan46
02-14-2010, 01:20 AM
Just being a unique player doesn't make someone HOF worthy. Being dominant in one facet of the game doesn't make someone HOF worthy. Being (at best) the 3rd best player on 5 different teams that won titles, and all had at least 2 HOF players on those teams .... doesn't make someone HOF worthy.

He's was very good at what he did, but I certainly don't think it makes him HOF worthy. I think they let in too many players already. Hell, they need to start calling it the "Hall of Good". That's all it seems to take to get consideration anymore for any sport. Bah.

-- Steve --

Kstat
02-14-2010, 01:46 AM
Robert Parish was at best the 3rd best player on the celtics. Guess he doesnt deserve to get in either.

Kemo
02-14-2010, 02:01 AM
Fixed.

What next? Rip Hamilton is the closest thing to Jordan?

Lol.

Only thing similar between Russell and Rodman is their ability to shoot free throws and they both played on some teams that had some great players. Difference is Russell was one of them and Rodman was not.

If there ever is an Effort Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Looney Toon Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Partying Hall of Fame, then put him in.

If there ever is a Basketball Hall of Infamy, then put him in.

But if he would ever get in the Hall of Fame for basketball, they should just shut the place down.

Ya Russell WAS the great player on a very good team ... While Rodman WAS the good teammate playing next to a great player... lol

Pacersfan46
02-14-2010, 02:08 AM
Robert Parish was at best the 3rd best player on the celtics. Guess he doesnt deserve to get in either.

You do this to every point made, you try to take 1 person's situation and make it apply to Rodman. It doesn't. Parish scored, played defense, rebounded and blocked shots. He wasn't one dimensional. That's a huge difference.

Another difference is that Parish was the 2nd best player on the Celtics teams until he was at least 31. They also won 2 titles in that time.

-- Steve --

Kstat
02-14-2010, 02:25 AM
well, everybody else seems to have no problem comparing Rodman to role players like Dale Davis and Marcus Camby, so why not?

I take issue with the 1-dimensional tag. Rodman was a dominant defender and a dominant rebounder. Last I checked, that's two things. There are plenty of HoF players that were great at two things and below average in everything else.

It's a silly notion that only players that were great scorers should be in the hall. There's a lot more to the game than just scoring.

Psycho T
02-14-2010, 07:47 AM
He should be in the HoF.

Putnam
02-14-2010, 08:37 AM
63 posts in this thread. And not one of them (unless I missed it) asserts the key point about this discussion:

Halls of Fame are bogus.



.

Pacersfan46
02-14-2010, 08:50 AM
63 posts in this thread. And not one of them (unless I missed it) asserts the key point about this discussion:

Halls of Fame are bogus.

:)


I think they let in too many players already. Hell, they need to start calling it the "Hall of Good". That's all it seems to take to get consideration anymore for any sport. Bah.

danman
02-14-2010, 10:55 AM
Eh, Rodman was a bit overrated as a defender. He was very good, but hardly dominant. Moreover, a lot of his edge there was on cheap tactics. The Laimbeer tradition of basketball.

Awesome rebounder though.

The other thing that bugs me was not really Rodman's fault. During his career, the defensive rules were such that you could not sag off a guy unless you went to the ball. The Bulls and Spurs just parked Dennis way off on the weakside and he'd wait until the shot went up.

Or put another way, Rodman would be a much bigger liability on offense in today's game.

Rodman never had to expend any energy on the offensive end.

He's close, I think. I'd imagine the thing dragging him down is the locker room poison that swirled around him. If he was a stand up guy instead of a pill, he'd be viewed like Wes Unseld.

BlueNGold
02-14-2010, 12:36 PM
Eh, Rodman was a bit overrated as a defender. He was very good, but hardly dominant. Moreover, a lot of his edge there was on cheap tactics. The Laimbeer tradition of basketball.

Awesome rebounder though.

The other thing that bugs me was not really Rodman's fault. During his career, the defensive rules were such that you could not sag off a guy unless you went to the ball. The Bulls and Spurs just parked Dennis way off on the weakside and he'd wait until the shot went up.

Or put another way, Rodman would be a much bigger liability on offense in today's game.

Rodman never had to expend any energy on the offensive end.

He's close, I think. I'd imagine the thing dragging him down is the locker room poison that swirled around him. If he was a stand up guy instead of a pill, he'd be viewed like Wes Unseld.

I agree with this. I think he's close too. The fact is, I think there are players in the HOF who have been admitted that may not be as good as Rodman overall. That doesn't change the fact he is borderline.

Ponder this. Is Reggie Miller an absolute lock for the HOF? He might be...but was he as good as DWade or Kobe or MJ or numerous other SGs? Not even close.

Now, ponder this. Who is better...Rodman or Miller? Whose market value is higher? Imagine the '98 Bulls without Rodman versus the '98 Pacers without Miller. Who really was more important to their respective teams? Without a doubt in my mind, Miller has to be the answer to that question. The Pacers would certainly not be a contender without Miller. In contrast, the Pistons and Bulls would have been...and in fact they were before Rodman arrived in Chicago and San Antonio.

Clutch play in the playoffs will get Miller in the HOF. Without that, his 3pt records might be enough...but without question he would be borderline. Bottom line: If Miller is arguably borderline, Rodman is most definitely in the same boat or worse. For Miller, people will say that he entered the league at just the right time (for the shorter three) and the Pacers ran plays to get him open so he could rack up numbers...and that would be partially true. The same goes for Rodman. People will say he won championships because he played on great teams like the Bulls, Pistons and Spurs...and played alongside HOF'ers like Pippen, Jordan and Duncan...which allowed him to play the effort game and focus almost exclusively on rebounding...and if he'd played with the Hawks like Dominique, he wouldn't have a single ring. People will say he didn't expend effort on offense. Impressive as he was, there would be some truth to that even if Rodman was a better player than Dale Davis or Marcus Camby. But Dale Davis and Marcus Camby are not getting anywhere near the HOF....and overall, Rodman's game is not impressive compared to the vast majority who are in the HOF. Borderline doesn't mean I don't think it's possible or would be a travesty btw...

Kstat
02-14-2010, 12:59 PM
Who's a better player, Chris Mullin or Robert Horry?

Imagine the 2000 Pacers without Mullin, then imagine the 2002 Lakers without Horry....

You know, because its very easy to compare one player still in his prime vs another at the end of his career....talk about picking cherries.

Stryder
02-14-2010, 01:17 PM
I'm not going to read all of the rubbish in this thread. I stopped as soon as I saw someone call Bill Russell "overrated". That one statement totally invalidates the posters thoughts on the matter; therefore, all discussion/debate from that point is invalid.

Sorry, everyone has opinions, but some are more valued than others. It's a fact of life.

Kstat
02-14-2010, 01:28 PM
I'm not going to read all of the rubbish in this thread. I stopped as soon as I saw someone call Bill Russell "overrated". That one statement totally invalidates the posters thoughts on the matter; therefore, all discussion/debate from that point is invalid.

Sorry, everyone has opinions, but some are more valued than others. It's a fact of life.

Told you that one was going to come back to bite you....

BlueNGold
02-14-2010, 04:24 PM
Told you that one was going to come back to bite you....

I figured someone would misintrepret that...given all the props Russell gets on this board.

First, I never said Bill Russell was not a great player. The statement was about how he is rated...not specifically how good he is. The fact is, the greatest player in the history of the NBA could be over-rated...but still be the greatest.

Misinterpretations...:rolleyes:

Anyway, Russell was a great defender, great rebounder and played on great teams. But nobody ever talks about his putrid FG% for a "big"...which is why I think people over-rate him. I'm not taking anything away from him that he doesn't deserve. The dude is definitely worthy of the HOF...so let's not get carried away. He's just not better than Wilt Chamberlain as some people have stated on this board. That is where he is over-rated...and that's the part that's rubbish.

Edit: While Russell was no Wilt Chamberlain, which is the main reason I called him over-rated, he still beats Rodman by a mile. For one, Russell was a Ben Wallace level shot-blocker...another facet of the game Rodman didn't bring to the table:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090509010027AAfkli4 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090509010027AAfkli4)
Source: Yahoo Answers.

In fact, I would say Russell was more of a Ben Wallace plus offense....not a Dennis Rodman plus offense.

Second, Russell was regularly responsible for guarding the center...and more important had to regularly score against the opposing center. In contrast, Rodman only had a couple responsibilities on the floor. Imagine Rodman trying to score on regular basis against a larger version of Dwight Howard (i.e. Wilt). Russell adequately did that job...and Rodman would never have tried it and would have swallowed the basketball if he did try. If Russell had Rodman's skills on offense, he'd still be a better player. That's how big of a gap we are talking about here.

Stryder
02-14-2010, 06:22 PM
Still rubbish, no matter how much you type...

Just sayin'.

Again, some opinions are more valued than others.

spreedom
02-24-2010, 12:11 PM
Russell was 100x the player Wilt was... if you have any doubts please read Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball. It might be a biased viewpoint, but he makes about 50 great points that indicate why Russell is one of the 3 or 4 best players ever, despite what any numbers say.

cordobes
02-24-2010, 01:02 PM
I wouldn't compare him to Russell, but Rodman was too dominant as a defender and rebounder to not be in the HoF. I suppose one can call him a role-player because he couldn't create shots or shoot, but he was a game changer with his non-scoring contributions. I distinctly remember thinking "Rodman is taking over this game".

His behaviour with the Spurs was a shame and he was a stat hog later in his career, but that doesn't seem enough to keep him out, IMO. If KC Jones made the HoF, there's no reason to keep Rodman out of it.
-

pacergod2
02-24-2010, 04:30 PM
I think Robert Horry should be considered at least. The man did every aspect of the game very well. He was clutch and has 7 rings in an era where that has become increasingly difficult. He always did what was asked of him and was always a key player at the end of games. He perfected the pick and roll/pick and pop. He was a terrific rebounder. He could score the ball extremely well. He was a very good passer. Played great defense. He was a very good shooter, with range. He epitomized hustle. The guy always did what his team needed because he was so adaptive with his game. If the team needed him to score, he would. If they needed rebounding, he would. He took every characteristic of the game and was so good at them all that he could change his roles mid game. He was always one of the most effective players in the NBA, stats aside. He is the reason his teams were always propelled to championship caliber. Was he Hakeem, or Shaq or Kobe, or Duncan. No. Would those players have the number of rings they do now without him? No.

I don't think he will get in, but I just think that he is the exact player that gets overlooked in every way shape and form when it comes to stats and All-Star games and most players would prefer to have him as a teammate than90% of All-Stars. I would take Robert Horry over Amare Stoudemire 10 times out of 10.