Dennis Rodman and HOF

[KungPoweChicken]

I agree he should be in, mostly because of his defense and intangibles.  However, I do think that as far as rebounding we should all recognize the fact that some of those boards came at the detriment to the team's offense.  There were times he was crashing the boards before shots even went up, instances where having him aware of what was going on might've lead to an easy bucket rather than a missed shot.  Also, he was an offensive liability, especially (ironically) in his later career. 

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be in; he should.  However, I do think that there are other players in the league who probably could've rebounded like him if they decided to ignore many other facets of their games.  I mean you don't think Barkley or any other All Star big man couldn't have beaten him out had he decided to stop trying to score altogether and just rebound? 

Yeah, but who cares? Your point is moot. It's like saying, "You don't think Paul Pierce could have averaged 37 pts a game if he attempted 35 shots a night?"

[BballTim]

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be in; he should.  However, I do think that there are other players in the league who probably could've rebounded like him if they decided to ignore many other facets of their games.  I mean you don't think Barkley or any other All Star big man couldn't have beaten him out had he decided to stop trying to score altogether and just rebound? 

  Maybe. Could any of the other All-Star big men been better defenders than Rodman if they'd tried hard to be?

[sk7326]

2nd half of his career was an otherworldly rebounder ... first part of his career, when he was younger - was THE best defender of his era ... could defend all 5 positions to some degree of aplomb or another

[yoursweatersux]

I think watching the C's get wiped on the boards this season has really made me appreciate how much impact rebounding has on a game. As Pat Riley said, "No rebounds, no championships."

At the end of the day, the team who takes the most shots wins 2 out of 3 times. How do you get to take the most shots? By getting rebounds for extra possessions, and preventing the other team from doing the same.

Rodman helped his team out as much as any other hall of famer.

Sheedified: "Ring don't lie"

[Cman]

He should be in - prob my all time favorite non-Celt. Would love to have him now and see him guard LeBron.

I would love to see mid-90s Rodman guarding LBJ.  That would be fun stuff.  I'd also love to see what rule changes Stern would try to make to make it harder for Rodman to guard LBJ. 
eg:"The Crab Dribble Rule - if you touch a player 2 steps before he starts the crab dribble, shoots, and scores, then it is a shooting foul"  or some such crud.

[Jon]

I agree he should be in, mostly because of his defense and intangibles.  However, I do think that as far as rebounding we should all recognize the fact that some of those boards came at the detriment to the team's offense.  There were times he was crashing the boards before shots even went up, instances where having him aware of what was going on might've lead to an easy bucket rather than a missed shot.  Also, he was an offensive liability, especially (ironically) in his later career. 

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be in; he should.  However, I do think that there are other players in the league who probably could've rebounded like him if they decided to ignore many other facets of their games.  I mean you don't think Barkley or any other All Star big man couldn't have beaten him out had he decided to stop trying to score altogether and just rebound? 

Yeah, but who cares? Your point is moot. It's like saying, "You don't think Paul Pierce could have averaged 37 pts a game if he attempted 35 shots a night?"

Not exactly.  While I respect him for being a champion so many times, I seriously question whether he could've been more effective getting a couple less rebounds a game and playing better offense. 

I don't think anyone thinks that PP would be more effective launching 35 shots per night. 

I guess the larger point is that I see him in the same lines as say someone like Satch Sanders.  Someone who was great at one thing on many championships teams.  To me, that deserves a Hall of Fame nod.  However, I wouldn't make the statement that he was the greatest rebounder ever, especially if we're talking ability. 

[Spilling Green Dye]

So many of the accolades have to do with scoring, when not only is scoring a fraction of the measure of success, but the efficiency of scoring is really the true measure.  So what happens when you have a player who for a large stretch of prime-time NBA was the best rebounder AND likely the best defender?  You have a player who unquestionable should be in the hall of fame.

If I were in the nba hall of fame and Rodman didn't get in b/c of media bias then I would honestly feel like my place in the hall of fame was tainted.

[freshinthehouse]

I don't think Rodman is HOF worthy.  Close, but not quite.  Dude was the greatest boarder in modern basketball, and early on a fantastic defender.  But during his Bulls and Spurs years, his defense suffered because he was so concerned about the glass.  After leaving the Pistons, he was only a world-class defender in spurts (The 97 and 98 finals are prime examples).  And lest we forget the guy was abysmal on the offensive end.

[Moranis]

Rodman was far from a great shooter, but he was at least efficient with a career FG% of 52.1.  That is far from abysmal.  Later in his career he was much worse, but early on pretty much every season he was well above 50% from the floor, he even led the league one year.  For a comparison, Ben Wallace is a career 47.4% shooter from the field and is well over 10% worse from the foul line then Rodman was.

[freshinthehouse]

Rodman was far from a great shooter, but he was at least efficient with a career FG% of 52.1.  That is far from abysmal. 

FG% is a poor indicator of offensive prowess.  When all you do is shoot put-backs, you better make at least 50% of them.  Teams ignored him when they were on defense until the ball was shot.

[Who]

I thought Rodman was a large negative offensively when playing with David Robinson. It made it easier for teams to help off of him onto a post player and easier to clog the paint as a result.

The rest of time, I didn't think Rodman was that large of an issue offensively. A very good passer and a solid garbage man.

[Roy Hobbs]

I agree he should be in, mostly because of his defense and intangibles.  However, I do think that as far as rebounding we should all recognize the fact that some of those boards came at the detriment to the team's offense.  There were times he was crashing the boards before shots even went up, instances where having him aware of what was going on might've lead to an easy bucket rather than a missed shot.  Also, he was an offensive liability, especially (ironically) in his later career. 

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be in; he should.  However, I do think that there are other players in the league who probably could've rebounded like him if they decided to ignore many other facets of their games.  I mean you don't think Barkley or any other All Star big man couldn't have beaten him out had he decided to stop trying to score altogether and just rebound? 

Yeah, but who cares? Your point is moot. It's like saying, "You don't think Paul Pierce could have averaged 37 pts a game if he attempted 35 shots a night?"

Not exactly.  While I respect him for being a champion so many times, I seriously question whether he could've been more effective getting a couple less rebounds a game and playing better offense. 

I don't think anyone thinks that PP would be more effective launching 35 shots per night. 

I guess the larger point is that I see him in the same lines as say someone like Satch Sanders.  Someone who was great at one thing on many championships teams.  To me, that deserves a Hall of Fame nod.  However, I wouldn't make the statement that he was the greatest rebounder ever, especially if we're talking ability. 

It's an interesting point, and you're correct that most of the time on offense, Rodman was positioning himself to rebound rather than to score. 

The question is, is that a bad thing?  With a player of limited offensive talent like Rodman, would he have been better scoring, or better grabbing offensive rebounds and getting the ball to Jordan and Pippen to score?  He was grabbing about 18% of all available offensive rebounds; if the Bulls know that for every five shots they miss, they'll get another chance at a basket, I think they'd be willing to forego whatever additional scoring Rodman could have brought.

[Overrated]

Rodman was a beast around the basket and deserves to get in.

Part of me wishes he could get back into the NBA to just get a few minutes here and there. He's entertaining.