To use a baseball analogy, you guys are trying to put a Relief Pitcher in the same category as Cy, Christy, Big Train, Koufax, Gibson, Seaver, and Ryan. They may be very good at releif pitching, but no way would you put them on the same list as the guys I just mentioned.
You didn't name 50 pitchers. Keep going, and then we'll see how ridiculous it sounds. But the analogy is flawed anyways. Rodman played 35+ MPG in his prime. He was a "full time" player.
OK, let's do it like we're in college debate club. Discuss: Rodman should be considered one of the greatest players in the history of the NBA. Me: Rodman should not be considered as one of the greatest players in NBA History: While at the top of the standings in rebound rates and leading the NBA in rebounding 7 consecutive years, Rodman was not a complete player and neither was he a "franchise" player who could be counted on to lead a team deep in the playoffs or to a championship. While playing on 5 championship teams and contributing significantly, Rodman didn't start for the Pistons and for the Bulls he was not the best or second best player. His playoff averages of 6.4 ppg and 9.9 rpg are lower than his regular season averages. Again, while a good rebounder, Rodman only occasionally took risks that would put him out of prime rebounding position. While he drew a few famous charges, he rarely went for blocks or steals that would put him out of position, a fact that is evident by his average of less than 1 steal and block per game. Rodman had a moderate level of "clutchness" when in a comfortable situation (Detroit, Chicago), but was not mentally tough enough to play through personal discord in San Antonio. In fact, during a critical playoff series, he took his shoes off and laid down on the bench. (Rodman's antics in San Antonio led him to be traded to Chicago for Will Perdue.) On offense, Rodman never commanded a double team and did not have the ability to create his own shot. Because he was never asked or expected to score, Rodman could focus on rebounding and because he was never double-teamed, it meant he usually only had to beat one person to an offensive rebounding position. All of this leads to the conclusion that Rodman was a very good role player, but role players do not belong when discussing the greatest to ever play the game. Contrast Rodman with two other players. Alvin Robertson led the league in steals 4 times. He holds the record for steals in a season. His career average would be enough to lead the NBA in steals 8 out of the last 10 years. His average of 3.67 spg in 1986 is significantly higher than any other player over the last 35 years. Robertson excelled at steals to such a degree that no player since Magic in 1981 has even come within .5 steals of his high water mark... he is arguably the best ever at steals and his steals numbers are comparable to Rodman's rebound numbers. Robertson also averaged double figures in scoring for 7 years, with a high of 19.7 and a career average of 14 ppg. His career rebound rate was 9.4 with a high of 12.3 in 1990. His FT precentage is about 20 points higher than Rodman's. He averaged 2.5 more assists per game than Rodman. Rodman, a forward, averaged 0.6 bpg compared to Robertson's 0.4. Robertson was also known as a great defensive player, rebounded exceptionally well for a 6'3" guard, almost doubled Rodman's scoring average, and significantly beats Rodman in several other categories. Robertson played in 4 All-star games compared to Rodman's two. Finally, Robertson's playoff averages increased in ppg, rpg, and apg while Rodman's went down. Yet Alvin Robertson is not remotely in the discussion of great players. Now, look at a player who is definitely one of the greatest, Hakeem Olajuwon. Olajuwon averaged double figures in rebounding 12 years, Rodman 10. Even factoring in the last sub-par years for Dream, his career rebounding average is 11.1 compared to Rodman's 13.1, a difference of 2 rebounds per game in Rodman's favor. Consider Dream was constantly double-teamed and had to carry the scoring load while excelling at blocks and steals and dishing almost 1 more assist per game than Rodman (Dream had 7 seasons of 2.9 apg or more with a high of 3.6 twice, Rodman had 2 seasons of 2.9 or more, with a high of 3.1). The difference in stats as well as clutchness, where Dream did some great things that were out of his comfort zone, and the fact that Olajuwon led a team to success as the primary player lead to the conclusion that Rodman cannot come close to matching Dream's accomplishments and should not be considered in the category of great players. There are many great players, like Olajuwon, MMalone, and Barkley who could have put up Rodman-like rebounding numbers (and almost did anyway) if their role had been limited to the one Dennis Rodman played. Yet there is no argument that Rodman could have put up the numbers and accomplished the things those three (and others) did if he was asked to do all the things they did. Rodman would have failed as a leader and he would have failed as the primary offensive option. That makes him a role player... perhaps one of, if not the best role player in the game, but still a role player and not a great player. You: Rodman should be considered as one of the greatest players in NBA History:
Just the fact that you keep comparing Rodman's defense to guys like Alvin Robertson, Mike Cage, Robinson ... how can we take you seriously? You act like you've never seen him play.
Nash was good , but not great. He avg. 13pts 7ast. . It took the NBA rule changes to make him what he is today.
Here's 50. Looks pretty ridiculous. The point was not whether Rodman is a full-time player... if I wanted to use that analogy, I would have gone the DH route. The point is that the following are great pitchers who do everything well, not just one thing. There is not one manager who would take Fingers or Gossage over anyone on this list if they were starting a team, just as no NBA coach would take Rodman as the first or second choice out of all the NBA players in history if they were starting a team. Grover Alexander Chief Bender Mordecai Brown Jim Bunning Steve Carlton Dizzy Dean Don Drysdale Red Faber Bob Feller Whitey Ford Pud Galvin Bob Gibson Lefty Gomez Burleigh Grimes Lefty Grove Waite Hoyt Carl Hubbell Catfish Hunter Fergie Jenkins Walter Johnson Tim Keefe Sandy Koufax Bob Lemon Juan Marichal Rube Marquard Christy Mathewson Joe McGinnity Hal Newhouser Kid Nichols Phil Niekro Jim Palmer Herb Pennock Gaylord Perry Eddie Plank Robin Roberts Red Ruffing Nolan Ryan Tom Seaver Warren Spahn Don Sutton Dazzy Vance Rube Waddell Hoyt Wilhelm Early Wynn Cy Young Roger Clemens Greg Maddox Randy Johnson Curt Schilling Tom Glavine
Of course I saw him play. And I wasn't comparing his defense to Robertson's or anyone else's. The comparison was between two guys who were outstanding in one category but not good enough in others to be considered great players. That you are fixated on the other players I've mentioned to illustrate my arguments (not define them) without coming back with anything other than rebound rates and the notion that Rodman was a good defensive player without addressing any of the other points... offensive limitations, declining playoff averages, modest numbers for assists, blocks, and steals, subpar FT %, leadership issues, mental toughness, etc., lead me to believe you have no ammo left. FACT: Dennis Rodman is not one of the 60 best NBA players ever. He was a very good role player who contributed to championships, played good defense, and excelled at one statistical category. No matter how much you talk about intangibles or work ethic or defense, the argument cannot be made that Rodman is a Top 60 guy. He couldn't lead a team, he couldn't dominate on offense... and he didn't want to. He was comfortable making hustle plays and rebounding. If anything else was asked of him, he couldn't hack it.
i tend to agree with rimrocker on this, though i will admit i didn't see rodman play much in order to give a firsthand opinion. being as such, my question to kelly is this: was rodman such an unbelievable defender that no one could score on him? bc that's how it sounds to me based on your responses regarding comparisons to other great defenders. and assuming he was such a great defender, why is it that his steals and blocks are so low? i love great defenders, and often feel like they usually don't get enough credit for what they do, so initially i felt inclined to give rodman the nod. but for all his defensive greatness, i just can't shake the numbers being so average. greatest rebounder of all time? i could agree with that, but putting him in the best players of all time is a tougher stretch. there just seem to be too many holes in his game, a liability at the line with no real offensive game to boast (unlike shaq, duncan, or other greats who struggle from the line). greatest role player of all time could be a good fit, as rodman was never his team's best player or leader. just my 2cents..
In the 1997 and 1998 Finals, Jazz and Bulls play 12 games. Karl Malone averages: 24.4 ppg (about 2.5 below his seasonal average) and 10.4 rpg (slightly above his seasonal average). Rodman scores 35 total points in the 12 games for an average of 2.9 ppg, about 2 below his seasonal average. Rodman rpg average out to 7.9, or about 7 below his seasonal average. In the 1996 Finals, Bulls play 6 games against the Sonics. Kemp averages 23.3 ppg (about 4 more than his seasonal average) and 10 rpg (about 1.5 less than his seasonal average). Rodman averages 8.3 ppg (about 4 points more than his seasonal average) and 14.1 rpg (a little below his seasonal average). Rodman gives you decent production in helping the Bulls win 3 championships, particularly in the first series against Seattle, but he doesn't "shut down" either of his primary covers and his numbers reflect his status: role player.
Are we discussing if Rodman is a top 2 player or top 50 player? And since when is rebounding and being perhaps the most versatile defender in NBA history "one thing." Rodman certainly wasn't any more one-dimensional than Reggie Miller. Outside of scoring, was there an area in which Rodman wasn't at least average, if not great on a historical level?
Yes. Go back and read the posts. And nobody has addressed his team and leadership issues. We're discussing whether a guy belongs on the list of the Top 60 basketball players of all time and all you can come back with is this: If he's even average, he's not one of the Top 60 and in fact many of his numbers are below average. And really, "outside of scoring?" According to Kelly, that's half the measure of a player. Rodman was not a complete player and does not deserve consideration as one of the greatest 60 players the NBA has produced. Again, that's not to say he wasn't an integral part of championship teams and that's not to say he wasn't a great rebounder. I'm saying he wasn't a complete enough player to be considered one of the Top 60 in NBA history.
Haha. Nice job misquoting me. Yes, my only standard for Rodman is that he just be average. You said that Rodman was one-dimensional. Well, yes, that's true if the only two dimensions in basketball is scoring and everything else. He only did everything else ... I guess he was a one-trick pony. No. Offense is half the measure of a player. Rodman produced on the offensive end. He was a good passer, and in his younger days he was excellent running the court. Oh, and also happened to be the best offensive rebounder of his generation. He was probably responsible for more second chance points than any other player in the league while he was playing. Even when he didn't get the ball, his activity forced the other team to overcommit to box him which could lead to easier rebounding opportunities for teammates. I don't know how you're defining "completeness" for a basketball player. Reggie Miller was a 6'7 SG who averaged 3 rebounds a game for his career, and he certainly wasn't known for doing a hell of a whole lot on the defensive end. You can run down the list and find many players with more holes in their game. So what if you couldn't use Rodman as a goto score. A coach would have been out of his mind to use Magic or Bird as a defensive stopper, but that doesn't disqualify them from the list. Rodman was the greatest rebounder and one of the greatest defenders ever. Those things may not grab a lot of attention from the fans, but they absolutely impact winning. I don't buy the "he's just a role player" argument. Everyone is a role player. What matters is the extent to which that role leads to wins. Just based on what players do while on the court to impact winning, I think Rodman deserves to be in there. I do have similar reservations about his attitude. He became to absorbed in his own image, sometimes to the detriment of the team. If you want to keep him out based on that, I can understand (though I don't agree). But if we base it purely on basketball, to me he's definitely a top 60 player.
As much as some of us may refuse to include Rodman in the Top 60 because of his personality I think he should be there. The main argument for excluding him is that he wasn't a complete player, etc. I'll agree that Rodman wasn't a complete player but the fact that he was one of the best on ball defenders and team defenders in the history of the game puts him in that group. Defense is overlooked by the fans and the fact that he changed games with his defense/rebounding says a lot. How many GREAT defenders really exist? His ability to take away the post and limit a lot of the great players on that list was ridiculous. The guy always gave Olajuwon, Barkley, Malone, etc. fits. He changed the complexion of countless games, and frustrated opposing offenses. The guy was even versatile enough to body up on guards. If I could choose one defender to guard Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon, Kemp, etc. in a playoff game I'd take Rodman.
I'm talking versatility here. You put Russell, Wilt or Kareem on Barkley/Malone in their primes then it would be a mismatch defensively. The only one of those with the versatility to guard different positions would be Olajuwon. Rodman could not only D-up guards and pf's but he even gave Centers all kinds of trouble.
Nightmares of him picking up MJ full-court during the 88 and 89 playoffs, when Collins had Jordan playing point guard ...
I would like to see how bad Stockton's defense would be if he couldn't touch anyone as well. Stockton was the best unfortunately. The only flaw he had I think is that he didn't shoot enough. If he tried to carry the load a little more I think Utah could have won some championships. Similar to what Nash is doing now. Although they shouldn't sniff a championship.
Then you would lose that matchup. As far as I can tell, Rodman and Barkley never met in the playoffs (that's wierd.). Still, in Rodman's first year with the Bulls, Chuck averaged 27.5 ppg and 16 rpg against them. As I noted before, Kemp increased his scoring average by 4 points in the Finals against the Bulls. Malone averaged 24.4 ppg in his 12 Finals games against the Bulls. And really, Olajuwon? You think he got all those points against the Admiral? They tried Rodman on him and it was worse (from their perspective). If Rodman didn't knock away the entry pass, Dream ate him up. Again, I'm not trying to diminish Rodman's rebounding skill or his defense or his hustle. I just don't think he has enough to be considered one of the Top 60 of all time, especially when you factor in his negatives.
