Rodman into Hall of Fame

[bdm860]

Disregarding what we all might prefer the Hall criteria to be, isn't it fair to say that in a Hall of Fame that includes K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders, Rodman's inclusion is an absolute no-brainer?

If anything, I think we'd see more of an argument about Chris Mullin getting in (of course his dominance at St. Johns probably helped him out).  I think we have a perfect example of a offense only player vs a defense only player right here in this class.

[Roy H.]

Disregarding what we all might prefer the Hall criteria to be, isn't it fair to say that in a Hall of Fame that includes K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders, Rodman's inclusion is an absolute no-brainer?

If anything, I think we'd see more of an argument about Chris Mullin getting in (of course his dominance at St. Johns probably helped him out).  I think we have a perfect example of a offense only player vs a defense only player right here in this class.

I was more addressing the issue of whether role players belong in the Hall.  Jones and Sanders both put up mediocre stats, and were known as defensive role players.  If they're in the Hall, I think it's hard to argue that Rodman doesn't belong, especially since he was a more dominating player.

[BballTim]

It all comes down to where you draw the line then. Assuming that we all agree that Bruce Bowen was a dominant defender, same for Ron Artest, why shouldn't they be in the HOF? And Artest could score a little and has a ring.


And really, why not Ben Wallace?

Rodman was a good player. Better than a role player. HOF'er though? I think I need a little convincing.

  Can any of those players claim to be the most dominant rebounder in the history of the game as well as being a dominant defender? Rodman the defender wouldn't be enough to get in. Rodman the rebounder probably wouldn't be enough. Combine the two, though. It's fairly impressive.

We've seen it boiled down to "defense is 50%' of the game so Rodman should get in, just like certain players are only great offensively. It's fair to say that Bowen and Wallace were dominant defensively, why can't they get in? Because they weren't the most dominant of all time defensively?

Let's say we include rebounding in this. Wallace was certainly a dominant rebounder. So he was dominant defensively and with boarding the ball. Why can't he get in?

Wallace has a better career PER, a better career rebounding rate AND a better career dRTG. So actually, to your question, Wallace was a better rebounder for his career than Rodman. He just didn't play next to MJ and Pippen. Wallace also was a significantly better shot blocker, had more steals, etc etc.

(As an FYI - Rodman does have a better career WS/48, for those of you that care about that stuff.)


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wallabe01.html


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodmade01.html

  It's true that Rodman wasn't a great rebounder earlier in his career but he completely dominated the category for a long period of time. He had 8 years better than Wallace's best year, 6 of those years more than 10% better than Wallace's best year. Comparing Wallace to Rodman as rebounders is probably worse than comparing Kobe to MJ as scorers.

[fairweatherfan]

I've always seen rebounding as kind of the special teams of basketball...with every kick being onside. 

I don't think Rodman was the greatest rebounder ever - Wilt is first with Russell a close second - but he's the greatest rebounder of the post-merger league.  And there's no close second.  Add the lockdown defense at 3-4 positions and 5 rings and this isn't really a borderline case no matter how little he scored.

[Bahku]

I would like nothing better than to use the excuse of Rodman's freakish behavior and bizarre personality to keep him out of the HOF, cuz I just plain dislike the guy intently, but there is no denying that he was one of the most dominant defensive players of his age, and that he deserves admission. Believe it or not, I have a much harder time validating or even understanding the Chris Mullen nod ... IMHO he just does not come close to qualifying, and is one of the most questionable enrtants in recent memory.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Chris Mullin was great. Enough said.

[BballTim]

I don't think Rodman was the greatest rebounder ever - Wilt is first with Russell a close second - but he's the greatest rebounder of the post-merger league.  And there's no close second. 

  I would agree with this and point out that it's hard to overstate how much he dominated rebounding in the post-merger era, much more than anyone dominated any statistical category.

[Roy H.]

I would like nothing better than to use the excuse of Rodman's freakish behavior and bizarre personality to keep him out of the HOF, cuz I just plain dislike the guy intently, but there is no denying that he was one of the most dominant defensive players of his age, and that he deserves admission. Believe it or not, I have a much harder time validating or even understanding the Chris Mullen nod ... IMHO he just does not come close to qualifying, and is one of the most questionable enrtants in recent memory.

I think that Mullin gets in because of his five year stretch of absolutely excellent offense.  The rest of his career he was simply very good, but for those five years, he was elite.  I personally go back and forth over whether five Hall of Fame years  makes you a Hall of Famer, but the guy did average 20 points for his career, and did so extremely efficiently.  I just would have liked to see him win a bit more.

[BballTim]

I would like nothing better than to use the excuse of Rodman's freakish behavior and bizarre personality to keep him out of the HOF, cuz I just plain dislike the guy intently, but there is no denying that he was one of the most dominant defensive players of his age, and that he deserves admission. Believe it or not, I have a much harder time validating or even understanding the Chris Mullen nod ... IMHO he just does not come close to qualifying, and is one of the most questionable enrtants in recent memory.

I think that Mullin gets in because of his five year stretch of absolutely excellent offense.  The rest of his career he was simply very good, but for those five years, he was elite.  I personally lean toward your thinking that five Hall of Fame years doesn't make you a Hall of Famer, but the guy did average 20 points for his career, and did so extremely efficiently.  I just would have liked to see him win a bit more.

  Five great years sandwiched between alcohol and injuries. He gets a lot of credit for cleaning up his act after heading down the road to wasting his career.

[Bahku]

I would like nothing better than to use the excuse of Rodman's freakish behavior and bizarre personality to keep him out of the HOF, cuz I just plain dislike the guy intently, but there is no denying that he was one of the most dominant defensive players of his age, and that he deserves admission. Believe it or not, I have a much harder time validating or even understanding the Chris Mullen nod ... IMHO he just does not come close to qualifying, and is one of the most questionable enrtants in recent memory.

I think that Mullin gets in because of his five year stretch of absolutely excellent offense.  The rest of his career he was simply very good, but for those five years, he was elite.  I personally go back and forth over whether five Hall of Fame years  makes you a Hall of Famer, but the guy did average 20 points for his career, and did so extremely efficiently.  I just would have liked to see him win a bit more.

As BC stated, Mullen was a great player, but to me entrance into the Hall requires much more than "great", it requires "exceptional", and not just for a few years, but for the majority or entirety of their career ... Mullen comes up short in both those areas for me, but to each his own. Always liked Chris, and I congratulate him, but comparing him to the qualifications of most other members, just leaves me shaking my head a bit. Personal opinion, as with most such topics.

[thirstyboots18]

I don't think Rodman was the greatest rebounder ever - Wilt is first with Russell a close second - but he's the greatest rebounder of the post-merger league.  And there's no close second. 

  I would agree with this and point out that it's hard to overstate how much he dominated rebounding in the post-merger era, much more than anyone dominated any statistical category.

The point is not that he was the best ever...unless you want to limit the Hall of Fame to about 25 players...the "best" at each position overall, and the "best" in each stat.  The point is that he was great for a long period of time, and stood out among other "greats" in more than one category...championships, rebounds, and defense.  He played with and against other "greats" and was still voted to best defensive teams,  etc.  Rodman was a very important piece to each of his championship teams, not a end of bench towel waver.

[JSD]

I think rings should go along with numbers. While Rodman's not Timmy D, he's certainly not Robert Horry either.

I don't mind this selection. The guy was a monster on the glass for a decade and has 5 rings.

[Brendan]

Well we'll never know, but Rodman also played on teams that didn't need his offense. Specifically the late 90s Bulls teams, without Rodman I don't think they win (even placing a very good player on the team.) They needed someone who could guard the other teams tough post players and not use possessions. That's a versatility you over look at your own cost. When you play with elite scorers like MJ and Pippen (plus other solid options) knowing your role is very useful. I'm sure he could have crammed up a couple more shots a game, jacked up his utilization and scoring, but would the team be better?

He dominated rebounding historically for a long time. This is not Ben Wallace I was good for a few years, Rodman was the best rebounder in NBA modern history for a long time. He was also an ace defender who could cover almost any other player. That's a huge luxury for a team.

Also its not like he had no offensive value - his offensive rebounding created LOTS of points.

[fairweatherfan]

I don't think Rodman was the greatest rebounder ever - Wilt is first with Russell a close second - but he's the greatest rebounder of the post-merger league.  And there's no close second. 

  I would agree with this and point out that it's hard to overstate how much he dominated rebounding in the post-merger era, much more than anyone dominated any statistical category.

I'm gonna amend this and say that Moses Malone is a fairly close second post-merger.  But Rodman's definitely first.

[soap07]

Code: [Select]

  It's true that Rodman wasn't a great rebounder earlier in his career but he completely dominated the category for a long period of time. He had 8 years better than Wallace's best year, 6 of those years more than 10% better than Wallace's best year. Comparing Wallace to Rodman as rebounders is probably worse than comparing Kobe to MJ as scorers.

The point is, though, that I don't see the clamoring for the Wallace's and Bowen's of the world to get in like there is for Rodman. I'm sure we can all three were dominant on one side of the ball. Yet, only one will get into the Hall.

One poster earlier mentioned that he thinks that Wallace gets in too. I don't see it, nor do I think he should.