LeBron's dominance isn't short lived. He's been dominating for a decade now. He didn't get star teammates, which is required to win titles 95% of the time, until 2011. He hasn't missed the Finals since and even got there without a stellar cast once. Other players like Jordan and Kobe haven't even won a playoff series without another star on the roster.
gotcha so your saying he is vain. if thats the case yes i agree with you. Any human being prefers to be praised by people that know him rather than people who dont see him. So to care more about those other people is being vain so yes i can agree with you now how Harden does not care about the players award
Let's look at the 96 Bulls roster that went 72-10: Randy Brown, Jud Buechler, Jason Caffey, James Edwards, Jack Haley, Ron Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kerr, Kukoc, Luc Longley, Rodman, John Salley, Dickey Simpkins, and Bill Wennington. On paper, other than Jordan and Pippen, nobody is a legitimate star. And let's not forget, Pippen wouldn't have become Pippen if he didn't train and play with Jordan and the Bulls. Rodman, while an all world defender and rebounder, brings nothing in scoring. The rest are all just really good role players who play well within the system that Jackson drew up. And this is the ONLY team in the HISTORY OF THE NBA that won 72 games in a season and the ring. So let's not go and diminish Jordan's place in basketball history, shall we? I'll give you Kobe, but stay away from Jordan. While in Cleveland, Lebron was the benefactor of a really lousy conference and good (but not great) supporting cast. If Lebron had played in the west, he wouldn't have had that many runs into the Finals. And when you say a decade, can we not forget about Kobe??? The guy who's on his farewell tour???? Kobe took the Lakers to the NBA Finals from 07-10, a stretch of three years where he's at his absolute prime. He won 2 rings from that period, which is no joke. When he's done with the game, he'll be ranked arguably as the second great SG of all time behind MJ. And that's no small feat.
Not only was Dennis Rodman a legitimate star, but he's in the HOF. Do you think Bill Russell was a legitimate star? Based on your arguments, you shouldn't.
LeBron had to play the Wizards in the first round his first 3 playoff trips. 41 win Wizards as a first round opponent compared to MJ having played the Celtics in their prime twice. And a Bucks team with 3 all stars and a top 5 defense. Every single team that beat MJ's BULLS besides the Bucks who lost to Moses and Doc, won or reached the NBA Finals. That's incredible. The toughest team LeBron ever beat? The Pistons 3 years after they had won it, and without Larry Brown and Ben Wallace. LeBron teams have beaten 7 total 50 win teams in his career which is already as long as MJ's career. MJ in that time frame beat 20 50 win teams. 2 of LeBrons 50 win victories were against Western teams in the finals when he had the best team in the NBA in the Heat. That leaves 5 opponents he ever beat in his conference his ENTIRE career. The Pistos minus Ben Wallace and Larry Brown. Last seasons overachieving anomaly Hawks. The Bulls with ROSE as MVP. The Bulls last year without Rose. And the Indiana Pacers with just starting to come into his own Paul George. So pre last playoffs, he had played and beaten 3 total 50 win teams in his conference in his over a decade long career. LeBron has had the easiest road to post season success of any superstar ever that i can think of.
Dennis Rodman deserves to be in the HOF because he is ONE OF THE GREATEST REBOUNDERS in NBA history, probably after Chamberlain and Russell. He has helped two teams to a total of five championships. He's also won 2 defensive player of the year awards and an 2x All Star, but with the Pistons and not the Bulls. However, during his time with Chicago, he never made it as an All-Star. While Dennis is an excellent rebounder and defender, he contributes almost nothing on offense. My definition of "star" is defined by a combination of official accolades, stats, and awards. Here are the "highlight" comparisons of both: Bill Russell: 12x NBA All-Stars, 1x All Star MVP, 11x champs, 5x MVP, 4x rebounding champ, and a crap load of other awards that too much to write here. Considered by many to be the greatest center of all time. Averages in the regular season: 15.1 PPG and 22.5 RBG Dennis Rodman: 2x NBA All-Stars (with Pistons), 5x champs, 7x rebounding champ, and 2x DFPOY. Averages in the regular season: 4.0 PPG and 13.1 RBG While he was a "star" in Chicago in terms of his celebrity status and off-court antics, he was never on the same level as the other all-stars of his time.
I want to say Rodman is a star, but i kind of want to believe a lot of that has to do with his WWE personality. He is IMO and advanced stats point to it, the greatest rebounder of all time and he's only 6'7. He is without a doubt a top 10 defender of all time. His 3 seasons with the Bulls, he had an AST% of over 10-11 AST%. That's pretty good. But, nothing else. No shot blocking. No scoring down low, no shooting. No ball handles. No steals. No FT's. Save for the incredible rebounding % and the getting into his opponents head, is Draymond Green a more valuable player to a team? Draymond can just do so many more things while still being a candidate for DPTOY and still having the ability to get into players heads without the unpredictable kicked out of a game personality/attitude. Rodman missed a lot of games. Rodman only played 64 games during the 72 win season, and only starting in 57 of those games. He only played 55 games in the 69 win season in 97. 98 was crucial that he played 80 games(started 66) because Scottie Pippen only played 44 games. 98 was MJ willing that team by himself and they still got another 62 win season. I guess the question is do you consider Draymond Green a star? Many do and many don't.
I agree with you in that we need to look at Rodman's career with some perspective. He's was a high profile player during his time with the Bulls and he was tremendous defensively/rebound wise, but he doesn't qualify as a star in the traditional sense. I think we think about him a lot during the 90s due to his celebrity status and the overall success of the Bulls. If he played on a mediocre team, I don't think anyone would've called him a "star". In terms of reputation and status, he'd be more like a Tyson Chandler/Ben Wallace type. His antics and role on the Bulls really augmented his status. It's like Kim Kardashian...she's really not that talented. But she knows how to brand herself and thus she's a pretty big deal. But is she a star in the celebrity sense? Yes and no. She's got no talent but people still care about her, and if that's your measuring stick, then she's a star.
Sorry, but that's just silly. Accolades/stats/awards are highly dependent on eras. Russell played when the NBA was in its infancy. Rodman played when basketball was an international sport. By your own words, Rodman was arguably the greatest rebounder in modern-day basketball, and he's an elite defender. How is that not a star? There are two sides to basketball, offense and defense. If you deny that Rodman was a star b/c he was elite on defense while limited on offense, do you also deny that James Harden is a star since he's elite on offense but limited on defense?
If you replaced Rodman with Draymond Green, do you think the Bulls still win those 3 titles? Conversely, if you replaced Green with Rodman, do you think the current Warriors would be a better team? I don't consider Green to be a star. I think he's an extremely versatile player, but I attribute his success to the Warriors' system (especially Curry). If Green were to change teams, I don't think he'd be nearly as effective as he is right now.
Isn't he on pace to have the best PER of all time? Better than all of Wilt's seasons, Jordan' seasons or LeBron's seasons. This dude is something special. You're watching an all time great right before your eyes. Don't hate.
Unfortunately the league, and basketball for that matter, don't always treat every aspect of the game the same way. In an ideal basketball world, offense and defense are valued equally. But we don't live in that world, do we? Since the beginning of basketball (and pro sports) offense has always been valued higher than defense. Why? Because it's EXCITING TO WATCH! It fills up seats. When the outcome is determined by one number being higher than another, points on the scoreboard is highly valued although a lot more than just scoring contribute to that outcome. Look, I'm not saying Rodman is not a star. I'm just saying that he wasn't a star in the traditional basketball sense during his stint with Chicago. He's an excellent and HOF basketball player but you don't see Rodman jerseys flying off the shelves and him being voted into the All-Star games. He wasn't even a top five option on the Bulls!! In the Bulls hierarchy, it was Jordan>Pippen>Kukoc>Harper>Kerr. The ultimate litmus test for a star is how expendable are you to the team? Could the Bulls have won rings without Rodman on the team? Yes! Could the Bulls have won rings without Jordan and Pippen? NO! Could the Rockets be relevant without Harden? NO! Because he's their number one option!
More so than you think. We aren't paying Dwight Howard a max contract for his offense, are we? Who cares what his offensive role was? He was a star because of his defensive dominance. You don't make the HOF if you aren't a star. Can you prove any of that? NO! Can you even make a reasonable argument supporting that contention? NO! The 1995 Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, but not Rodman. They were knocked out of the ECF. The 1996 Bulls had Rodman, and they won a championship.
Uh..yes I can. It's called the 1991-1993 Bulls???!! Btw, Jordan this have a full season in 95. He came back midway and wasn't in shape to compete fully. Plus, you did NOT just correlate the Bulls being knocked out of the ECF due to Rodman's lack of presence on that team.....omg....this conversation has gone full r****d mode.
In the 1991-1993 championships, Jordan and Pippen were at the top of their games (better than 1996-98), and they had a very solid frontcourt in Grant/Cartwright. And regarding 1995 Jordan, stop making excuses. He was fine. Look at his stats. The Bulls didn't advance b/c they didn't have a good front court. 1995 Bulls - lost to the Magic in the ECF in 6 games. 1996 Bulls (added Rodman; lost BJ Armstrong) - Swept the Orlando Magic and eventually won the title. Given these facts, why don't you think Rodman was crucial to beating the Magic and winning the title?
You asked me a simple question of "Can you prove to me that the Bulls can win championship without Rodman?" I did, by offering you the 91-93 Bulls. Nobody is debating about their frontcourt or whether Jordan/Pippen are at their peaks or not. In your mission to prove to me that Rodman is some kind of star, you have singlehandedly elevated his status to the greatest and most important Bulls player in the modern era.... But anyway, let's bring the conversation back to Steph Curry. He is arguably going to end up hijacking Lebron's title as the most important player of this generation once all is said and done. Because let's be honest, although rare, we've seen other players with Lebron-like dominance before. If not, even more dominant. But we've never witness anything like what Steph is currently doing. And yes, his PER is off the charts. This is historical stuff man...let's not undermine his accomplishment.
He didn't come back midway. He came back for only the last 17 games of the season in which the Bulls were barely staying over .500 before MJ came back.
Bulls lost in the ECSF in 95 in 6 games. Magic beat the Pacers in Game 7 in the ECF in 95. Come on, everyone in Houston was anxious awaiting to see who we'd play. If you argue Draymond isn't a star, is it so unbelievable to you that someone would argue Rodman isn't a star?
Rodman is a modern-day player who is in the HOF. You don't get into the HOF w/o being a star. So yes, I find it unbelievable that someone would argue he wasn't a star.
