Dennis Rodman in the Basketball HOF?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I posed this question to the webmaster of one of the most Pro-Rodman sites on the web the day after Rodman was released from the Mavericks and his answer was not encouraging. This could be a pretty one-sided thread.

To his credit:

He won seven consecutive rebounding titles as a forward.

He started on five championship teams for two different clubs.

In his prime he was a top-tier defender.

Is that enough? What is the equivalent of 3,000 hits or 500 home runs for an NBA power forward?

And then there was all of that on and off court nonsense. I s’pose headbuting an official will not help his cause much, nor will kicking a camera man.

2

I’d vote no, but it’s a fair question.

Rodman did one thing brilliantly- rebounding. I grant you, though, that on the rare occasions he felt like it, he could play smothering defense, too. On the whole, Rodman is too one-dimensional a player for me to select as a Hall of Famer.

And yet…

Lots of players who were equally one-dimensional ARE in the Hall of Fame. George Gervin did ONE thing well: score points. He was all but useless in every other phase of the game, but he did well enough in his one area of strength that he made the HOF.

That IS an inconsistency in Hall of Fame voting in all sports. It’s common for a guy whose only strength was hitting homers (Ralph Kiner, Harmon Kilibrew) to make it to the Baseball Hall, but rare for guys whose one strength was defense (Mark Belanger was the best defensive shortstop I ever saw, but he’ll never make it).

Is a guy who’s brilliant at rebounding but weak at everything else less deserving than a high scorer who’s weak at everything else?

3

First off, anyone who judges a player’s worth by the number of championships he’s won, while completely ignoring all the other players on the team, should get smacked. (Doubly so if comparing two or more such players.)

Rodman’s five championships came on two teams that were incredibly dominant in their respective eras; hence, the amount creditable to him is limited at best. During his last playoff run with the Bulls, he was practially a spectator. It’s gotten very fashionable in recent times to rag on Scottie Pippen, but at least he was a fine player up until his last chamiponship. Rodman wasn’t.

Hall of fame? If you go by just his contributions, it could go either way. He was extremely good at what he did, and there wasn’t another power forward in the league he couldn’t fight off for a rebound. However, the antics in the latter part of his career, in my mind, completely remove him from contention. Never mind the taste or good sense issues (although they are there, and shame on all the apologists who tried to minimize them); this seemingly endless foolishness was a constant distraction to the teams he was on and practically destroyed any chemistry the team may have had. As far as I’m concernced, someone who’s a big liability and a total embarrassment at any point of his career doesn’t deserve the highest honor.

4

He felt like playing it often enough to be a two-time Defensive Player of the Year and be on the NBA All-Defensive team six times.

Me, I think I’d give him the Hall nod.

5

I’d absolutely put him in. I’d also put Pete Rose in the baseball hall of fame.

6

It’s a tough call. I’d hav to ask the question: “Was he dominant for a long enough time?”

I will grant you that if he were as good offensively as he was defensively, he’d be a shoo-in, and probably one of the 50 greatest players ever.

7

I don’t think he should be penalized for erratic behavior. That said, I don’t know if someone who only plays half the game deserves it. Plus, James Worthy isn’t in yet after two chances! That is the real crime!

8

This statement logically is missing something. Player A plays on two incredibly dominant teams, therefore the amount creditable to Player A is limited at best. Does not follow.

Rodman’s contributions to his championship teams were significant. He started the lions share of the games, logged heavy minutes, lead his teams and the league in rebounding and played some very inspired defense.

No one’s contribution is unlimited, so I guess it’s safe to say that Rodman’s contribution was limited, but limited at best sounds like minimal and that simply was not the case.

Regarding championships won vs. a players worth, I would say that it is necessary to play on a championship team but not sufficient. In many sports, right or wrong, it is more difficult to become enshrined in a hall of fame without having participated on a championship team. Ergo, some believe that championship participation is necessary for enshrinement. However, it would be silly to say that championship team participation is sufficient for enshrinement. Steve Kerr participated on four consecutive championship teams and although he is a great guy and at one time was the career 3pt shooting percentage leader, not many consider Kerr a good candidate for the hall of fame.

9

No.

His weird personality aside, Rodman really isn’t a Hall of Fame type player. His career wasn’t especially long (878 games) so he wasn’t an iron man, and he didn’t actually play an unusual share of minutes for a starter.

Rodman was an efficient but non-impact scorer, averaging only 7.5 points per game, which is bad for a forward. He didn’t block shots, didn’t get many steals, couldn’t hit free throws to save his life, and didn’t pass well. When you get right dow to it, he was arguably the most one-dimensional player in modern basketball history. No matter how wella guy rebounds, if he can’t pass or shoot or steal the ball or hold on to it, “Hall of Fame” is a ridiculous stretch.

He was GOOD, but he wasn’t great, and he was overrated anyway. Rodman wasn’t nearly as good a player as Antonio Davis, and nobody’s going to put Antonio Davis in the Hall of Fame. His entire argument rests on rebounds and being a teammate of Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan, and that isn’t enough.

10

No sports polls in Cafe Society, pliss. Thenk yew.

11

:wally :wally :wally :wally

Let’s see, on the one hand we have Mr. One -Dimensional Player–Rodman, on the other we have quite possibly the most self-centered, selfish and ego-maniacal player in the history of major league baseball, who while he does hold the record for most hits, also violated the rule against betting on mlb baseball for, oh, around 10-15 years. But it’s ok 'cause it was Pete Rose.

Oh, just GO AWAY.

Jonny Bench said it best when he responded to taunting from Rose’s “fans” at the HOF induction ceremonies a few years back. The “fans” were bleating and screeching, “We want Pete in!! We want Pete in!!” Bench responded,“You can have him.”

It’s actually very, very, very simple. All Rose has to do is stop lying and admit that yes, he did bet on baseball, in fact he bet on his own team and then say that it was a mistake and a terrible thing to do, and they will fucking roll out the red carpet for him.

But that will never happen, because of the qualities that Rose has that I mentioned above.

Hope you’re having fun calling reporters, “fags,” Charlie Hustle.:wally :wally :wally

12

I like Antonio Davis, but he’s no Dennis Rodman by a longshot. In addition to being the best rebounding forward in the history of the NBA, Rodman was a fantastic defender. Two Defensive Player of the Year Awards is one more than Jordan won, and two more than Pippen. I was at the finals in 97 and 98, and Rodman relentlessly dogging Karl Malone up and down the court was a big part of those series. He also averaged 2.5 – 3 assists a game while with Chicago, which is above average for a power forward, so he was a decent passer. To my mind he was good at pretty much everything but scoring, which is all people care about.

I’m not sure if I’d vote for him for the Hall of Fame or not, but if I was putting a team together, I’d take him over Billy Cunningham, or Tom Heinsohn, or George Gervin, all Hall of Famers.

13

If Dennis Rodman averaged 15-20 points a game, he and not MJ would be regarded as one the best ever.

In the finals between Seattle and Chicago, Rodman dominated the first three games so much by giving Chicago two minutes of possesion each time they have the ball, Seattle had to resort to double team him on their defensive end to win back two games (MJ and Pippen were shooting horribly).

When Utah played Chicago, Moses Malone had to resort to eighteen foot jump shots and not his inside game. Shaq ran to LA partly because he couldn’t face Orlando fans after he got schooled by Rodman when Chicago played Orlando in the playoffs.

If that’s one-dimensional then that’s some dimension.

14

Yes, I know he won that award twice, and I know he played well at time. Again, I’m not saying he was BAD. But frankly, what we have here is a good defensive player - I simply do not believe he was “a fantastic defender,” despite the two DPY awards - who didn’t do anything especially well EXCEPT rebound. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t make him a great player. If I had a choice between Dennis Rodman and Antonio Davis I’d pick Davis seven days a week; Davis can rebound, AND score, and hit the odd foul shot, and play D. I bet most NBA coaches would, too.

The basic test for admission to any sport’s Hall of Fame, IMHO, is whether or not the player in question is the best player who has ever played the sport who ISN’T in the Hall of Fame; if you can’t say that, you should be electing someone else. I don’t think Rodman is one of the thirty best players in basketball history who isn’t in yet. He isn’t Yinka Dare or anything, but I think he’s badly underqualified for HoF induction.

15

And if Phil Mickelson had won 8 majors, he and not Tiger Woods would be regarded as the greatest golfer ever.

And if were rich and handsome, I and and not Richard Gere would have married Cindy Crawford.

And…

16

Reggie Jackson is in the HoF in large part because he was good copy. He has the lowest batting average of any outfield in the hall (.262 I think).

Jose Canseco destroyed any (albeit slim) chance he had of getting in by being a jerk.

There’s no way Rodman is getting in. I think even if he was a model citizen, it would be a stretch to say he deserves it.

17

The difference between Reggie Jackson and Dennis Rodman is that Rodman was legitimately not a very good offensive player. Jackson WAS a good offensive player - in fact, he was great. His batting average belies he fact that he actually got on base quite a bit, had power, and was a good baserunner. Jackson was a better hitter, IMHO, than Pete Rose, who hit .303, or George Brett, who hit .305, and was probably as good as Rod Carew, who hit .328

Jackson was an absolute no-questions-asked Hall of Famer; it would be unthinkable for a player with his qualifications to be denied. If Jackson had been quiet and non-controversial he would still have been elected on the first ballot. He was way, way better than Jose Canseco overall, although Jose’s MVP year was as good as any one Jackson year.

A better baseball comparison to Dennis Rodman would be Bill Mazeroski, who was a somewhat poor hitter but as great a defensive player as has ever lived, although he didn’t wear dresses or dye his hair. Mazeroski is a fairly questionable HoF selection. I think Rodman would be, too.

18

Reggie jackson is and was a bigger asshole then canseco could ever be. And who has said Canseco was a jerk? The reporters of course.

And why did they say this?

Because Canseco wouldn’t talk to them about his off-the-field activities, which is perfectly reasonable since they hadNOTHING to do with how he played on the field.

Yet another example of why the writers/reporters shouldn’t do the voting for the HOF

19

WSL-

We get the idea already! You don’t like sportswriters decing who gets awards. You’re not the only one.

Problem is, there’s NOBODY out there better qualified or less biased than the sportswriters. Every year, the fans make ridiculous choices for the All-Star teams. Every year, managers play favorites by picking their own players for the All-Star team. So, obviously fans and managers are no smarter or less “biased” than the sportswriters.

That leaves, who, the players? Please. Players are as lazy, ill-informed, and biased as any other group. You think Robin Ventura would have voted for Nolan Ryan as a Hall of Famer? Think Johnny Roseboro would have voted for Juan Marichal?

 Who, then? Some panel of geeky sabremetricians, with piles of computer printouts to determine who's really good?

  Look, if you're still steamed about some great inustice in the MVP or Cy Young voting a few years back, get a grip. Baseball is only a game, and it's just not that important who wins awards.

More importantly, you CAN’T "take " the MVP or Cy Young Award voting away from the sportswriters, because… (drumroll) it’s THEIR award! THEY created it, and they can give it to whomever they want.

  If the players don't like the choices, well, there's NOTHING stopping the players from starting their own annual award, and giving it to their favorites. For that matter, there's nothing stopping YOU from creating your own award, and bestowing it on whomever you deem deserving.

 Whether we're talking about the Oscars, the Tonys, the Pulitzer Prize for Literature, or the Cy Young Award, one fact remaisn clear: these are frivolous, silly awards. Most voters take the job fairly seriously, and try to make good choices, but they're never going to please everybody. NO group of voters could. If you get angry about the winners (I thought "American Beauty" stunk to high heaven, but I don't obsess over all the Oscars it won), you're taking the whole thing too seriously.

 In my opinion (which carries no weight whatever), Dennis Rodman isn't quite good enough to merit a spot in the Hall of Fame. We'll see if the voters feel differently. But if he doesn't make it, and you think he should, relax! It's not that important. 

 Personally, I think there are a LOT more undeserving players IN various Halls of Fame than there are deserving players being kept OUT. But if you disagree, hey, it'sa free country. You can always start your OWN "hall of honor," and put up a plaque for any player you like. You want Jose Canseco is YOUR hall, it's no skin off my nose.
20

[minor hijack]

You know, one of the things that really irks me is the idea that somehow, by applying something other than the “looks good” test and actually studying baseball through the use of statistics, one automatically becomes someone who “doesn’t understand” or “doesn’t love” or “takes the fun out of” the game. I mean, really, that’s a tremendously ludicrous position, and it’s all too common. I would posit that having a few more voters who actually understand statistics would be of great help in keeping some of the more egregiously undeserving candidates out of the various Halls of Fame.

That said, I agree with astorian that in the grander scheme of things, it’s really not all that important.

[/minor hijack]