Can't hate this guy anymore. He is not only miles ahead of everyone, he is also moral and a great person.
And then you follow it up by calling him a "role player". He's in the HALL OF FAME, which is reserved for historically great players. He was historically great in 2 of 3 aspects of the game, defense and rebounding. And he wasn't bad offensively. He didn't score but had good offensive impact due to his passing, offensive awareness and offensive rebounding. Do you think Reggie Miller was a role player since he could just shoot?
In 95/96 Rodman finished 15th in MVP voting and made the 1st All D team. He made 3rd all NBA the prior season. But you are. And Rodman had 2 rings before, and I don't believe the Spurs had the conferences best record or made the WCFs during Robinson's tenure before Rodman got there. Yet you will find all 3 in the HALL OF FAME.
Ginobili is not a star and neither is Rodman. Stars are only players who can carry a team. They are super subs or super role players to me. I don't care about "all star" selections. Thats fan votes and usually when reserves are chosen, coaches choose the best players on the best teams even if they are role players over someone who carries a team on his back but isn't winning much.
Ginobili may be a harder worker, but the talent disparity at this point is way too much. Harden is a top three, maybe top five player in this league. Ginobili is a great player, but he was never a superstar. Top 15, maybe just maybe top 10 was his peak.
Kevin McHale came off the bench for Celtics' championship runs (he won two Sixth Man of the Year awards in the mid-80s). Was McHale not a star in your eyes?
Of course he was never a superstar. That's a given. But to not be labeled Atleast a star is pretty ridiculous
McHale is a scorer. I already said it can make sense for scoring stars to come off the bench. McHale could carry a playoff team if he had his own team IMO, so yes he is a star.
Wasn't that what were taking about with Rodman and Ginobili? He's not a super star, surely not a mega star. So yeah, he's an "all star." That's fine with me. I think a super sub or super role player can be considered an all star. But, when you just say star, to me i immediately think you mean superstar as in the guy who carry a team on his back. Manu is not that.
So basically, your view is that only scoring matters, really. Defense and rebounding are nice to have, but a player's status is pretty much solely determined by how much of a scorer he is. I think that's misguided. Someone else referenced Reggie Miller, who basically did nothing but shoot from the perimeter. Rodman was actually more well-rounded and honestly probably contributed significantly more to his team's chances of winning with his defense, rebounding and passing. But I assume you consider Reggie Miller an official star because he averaged 20+ PPG?
Those are meaningless terms, though. You're saying you consider him a star because he was the highest scorer on the team. Rodman probably did more for his team, which is what "carrying" should mean. How much of the load in getting a victory did you carry.
LOL there are two sides to the ball if Reggie Miller is a star than Rodman is also a star. "Carrying" in your mind is just scoring what about rebounding and defense these are also important smh.
If they do nothing on offense, then yeah, they are role players. Lets just all pretend a rebounding specialist or defensive specialist carries just as much weight as a clutch shooter.
