Rodman into Hall of Fame

[BudweiserCeltic]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Even with crappy defense, Jordan and Kobe for example would be 50 times the players and more important to winning games than someone like Rodman.

That X player is great defensively is of little impact if the rest of the team are poor defenders. But a great offensive player by himself can make a team a very good offensive team.

[fairweatherfan]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Even with crappy defense, Jordan and Kobe for example would be 50 times the players and more important to winning games than someone like Rodman.

That X player is great defensively is of little impact if the rest of the team are poor defenders. But a great offensive player by himself can make a team a very good offensive team.

Much like great offensive players, great defenders have a knack for making those around them look better on that side of the ball.  Pierce and Ray were "bad defenders" until KG showed up. 

Ask any GM if he'd rather have an offensively-oriented role player or an all-time elite defender and rebounder who can't score.  They aren't on the same plane at all.

[Boris Badenov]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Two words: Bill Russell.

[CeltsAcumen]

Really?  People are debating this guy?  Dennis Rodman does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.  He isnt even close.  Maybe they could put Ben Wallace in as well or Charles Oakley.

Dennis Rodman might be one of the most overrated players in NBA history.

[dark_lord]

I have always been a big rodman fan and am very happy he will be inducted. 

[2short]

Really?  People are debating this guy?  Dennis Rodman does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.  He isnt even close.  Maybe they could put Ben Wallace in as well or Charles Oakley.

Dennis Rodman might be one of the most overrated players in NBA history.

well i believe 2 people called him the greatest rebounder in nba history
russ & wilt would disagree 

I think the hall is watered down in recent years.  Rodman outworked everyone for rebounds, he was a very good defender, he was also a lot of what was wrong with the nba.  He was a cheap shot artist, anyone who doesn't think so ?  He really only worked at 2 parts of his game.   I just can't see it.

[soap07]

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.

[soap07]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Two words: Bill Russell.

Shameless self promotion: I am currently producing a documentary on Bill Russell. As part of it, I got to interview Tommy and Satch for it. By my memory, both of them referred to Russell's offense as terrible, which I kind of found funny. The guy averaged 15 points a game for his career, certainly by my standards, not terrible.

[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.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Two words: Bill Russell.

First of all, Bill Russell is a much better player than Rodman. Second of all, he was a great leader. Third of all, he also carried a decent portion of the scoring load for his teams.

[thirstyboots18]

Defense is my favorite part of the game to watch.  Rodman wasn't just a lucky rebounder, he put the effort and the work into it.  Every time I saw the replay of Magic trying to get Bird to take a shot, I thought of Dennis Rodman passing up shots!  I know it is not the same, but Rodman could score...he just chose to focus on rebounding.  (You can say this was selfish or unselfish, how you felt about him mostly reflected his off court activities.)   I liked watching his effort on court.  There are lots of people whose extracurricular activities don't impress me, but their sports skills do (Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Dennis Rodman, M. Jordon in basketball, Pete Rose, Roger Clemens, A-Rod in Baseball, O.J. Simpson in Football.  But they are, or were, great players all, and should be in the Halls of Fame, IMO.  Magic Johnson is in the Hall of Fame...does that mean that the NBA advocates his former lifestyle?  They are all men and make personal mistakes that should be judged separately from their sports achievements, IMO.

[soap07]

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

[BudweiserCeltic]

Offense has and will always be more important than defense as far as individual impact on the game goes. That's why defensive players/rebounders that don't bring anything to the offensive table are simply role players.

So yes, someone who's an awesome scorer but doesn't bring much defensively is more deserving of the hall, than someone who's a monster defensively and brings little offensively.

Even with crappy defense, Jordan and Kobe for example would be 50 times the players and more important to winning games than someone like Rodman.

That X player is great defensively is of little impact if the rest of the team are poor defenders. But a great offensive player by himself can make a team a very good offensive team.

Much like great offensive players, great defenders have a knack for making those around them look better on that side of the ball.  Pierce and Ray were "bad defenders" until KG showed up.

"KG" wasn't what made them better defenders. The team as a whole became defensive minded. No doubt that KG has a big impact defensively, but these people have been playing very good individual defense, particularly Pierce regardless of KG being there or not.

[bdm860]

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

Why are we assuming Ben Wallace isn't getting into the Hall?  I think he'll make it in too.

Bruce Bowen, no.

[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?