The W
Views: 101518729
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.12.14 1804
The W - Basketball - Jackson and Rodman; Hall of Fame Worthy?
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 3.23
Pages: 1
(307 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 440 days
Last activity: 440 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.59
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/12/01/rodman.jackson/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

From an article from NBA.com, there is an article that debates of whether Mark Jackson and Dennis Rodman deserve to be in the in Springfield, Mass.

Both candidates have arguments for (and against) them to be enshrined with the greats that played the game.

Analysis:

Mark Jackson is probably more deserving than Rodman when it comes to the Hall. Jackson is argubaly one of the most underrated players in recent memory. He helped Indiana and New York get to the playoffs and is 3rd all time on the assists lists. However, he wasn't a part of any All NBA second or third teams and was an all-star once. Does that outweigh his importance and how far up he is on the list for assists?

The case for Rodman; 2 time Defensive Player of the Year and at 6-7, he rebounded like crazy and was a part of 5 championship teams with Detroit and Chicago. However, his antics and behavior have always been in question. There have also been parts in his game that needed improvement such as the offensive side and as the article says, he may have went off his man to get more rebounds. The question here is does his defensive accolades outweigh his antics and other voids in his game in order to go to Springfield?

My guess is that neither will get into the Hall and if I had to pick one over the other, it would be Mark Jackson based that he was more steady on the court with his play and behavior. However, I consider them both good role players for the respective clubs.

Your thoughts and analysis.................
Promote this thread!
Above Average 1
Salami








Since: 27.4.03
From: Nova Scotia Canada

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 4 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.00
I don't really follow basketball, but I think all sports hall of fame inductees should be decided based on there skills in there particular sport. So I don't think Rodman's outside antics should be considered in deciding if he is worthy to be in the hall.
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.75
Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I can't believe there's any question as to whether Rodman belongs in the Hall. There might never again be a player that size who rebounds that well. Without him, there's a good chance MJ and Scottie would have retired with a few less championships.

- StingArmy
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 511 days
Last activity: 471 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.38
For what it's worth, Simmons has Rodman at #69 in his book (the top 95 are his NBA Hall of Fame "pyramid") and he says he's the player that just misses out on his wine cellar team (the idea being that you should select your all-time team like a wine snob; a name isn't enough, you must also mention which vintage was the best. The '89 Rodman just missed out because him and '01 Kobe together violate Simmons' "one head case per team rule").

And unless I miss it, he never mentions Mark Jackson's name once. And Jackson was only a one-time All-Star? The voters only thought that he was one of the four or five best guards in one year of his career? That says a lot to me.

I don't know much about Mark Jackson's career, but unless he was as good or better than Jason Kidd (9 time All-Star) or Steve Nash (6 time All-Star), then I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. He's the NBA version of a good but not great player who had a long career.
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 440 days
Last activity: 440 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.60
I agree about Mark Jackson; one of the best role players that I can think of (and I have been following the NBA for nearly 20 years) but not on the upper-echelon level. In my initial post, I wanted to see what people would bring to the discussion and I also believe in order to be in the Hall, you can't just have a good career, but a career that helped changed the game on a different level (aka, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Cousy, Tim Duncan, Kobe, and anyone can fill this list to another 100 pages).
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.53
I think it's fairly obvious that Rodman SHOULD (and Jackson shouldn't) but maybe the bigger question is will he? I'm not really familiar with how the NBA Hall of Fame voting normally goes since baseball is the only Hall of Fame I care about. Do the voters typically care about behavioral issues?



Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
I think Rodman should be in without question.

Very few guys could control a game with defense. Dennis Rodman could do that. I believe he should have been the MVP of the 96 Finals for the way he took Kemp off his game and flustered the Sonics while controlling the boards. Yes he was a headcase, but he was a major contributor to 5 NBA championship teams, and one of the best rebounders in NBA history.




2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
ekedolphin
Scrapple








Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 186 days
Last activity: 24 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.95
    Originally posted by The Game
    Jackson [...] helped Indiana and New York get to the playoffs and is 3rd all time on the assists lists.


Jackson actually helped the Pacers get to the 2000 NBA Finals, as a matter of fact, and was a stark upgrade from (upon first arriving) Pooh Richardson and (upon his return) Travis Best as a starting point guard. If you ask me, Jackson, along with my favorite player of all-time, Rik Smits, should have their #13 and #45 jerseys retired by the Pacers. (Jackson's #13 has been issued since his departure; Smits's has not).

Jackson is definitely Hall-of-Fame worthy in my estimation, and so is Rodman-- despite the latter's behavorial issues.



"You're about as much fun as a divorce-- which is not a bad idea."
"I want custody of me."

--Michael Knight and KITT, Knight Rider

Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals

Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!

Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006

The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 440 days
Last activity: 440 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.60
    Originally posted by ekedolphin
      Originally posted by The Game
      Jackson [...] helped Indiana and New York get to the playoffs and is 3rd all time on the assists lists.


    Jackson actually helped the Pacers get to the 2000 NBA Finals, as a matter of fact, and was a stark upgrade from (upon first arriving) Pooh Richardson and (upon his return) Travis Best as a starting point guard. If you ask me, Jackson, along with my favorite player of all-time, Rik Smits, should have their #13 and #45 jerseys retired by the Pacers. (Jackson's #13 has been issued since his departure; Smits's has not).

    Jackson is definitely Hall-of-Fame worthy in my estimation, and so is Rodman-- despite the latter's behavorial issues.


I will still stand that Jackson was one of the best role players that I could ever remember. Do I think he is Hall of Fame worthy? No but I do I agree that his number should be retired along with Rik Smits (another good underrated player back then).

The reason why Smits wasn't an all-star was because the NBA was populated with centers such as Shaq in his prime, Patrick Ewing, 'Zo and some others. And I liked Smits because he was quiet (which could have been a reason why he didn't receive as much attention) but I am 100% sure any person who played with him (or against) would say his game spoke loud even if he wasn't. Reggie Miller may have been the most famous Pacer and the most likely Pacer to get into the Hall, but the importance of Jackson and Smits was just as important (heck, arguably even more important).

Smits number should be retired also because as far as I am concerned, the valuable role-playing of Jackson and Smits was a good reason why the Pacers were a headache in the playoffs and ultimately going to Finals nearly 10 years ago.
Thread rated: 3.23
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Greg Oden Out for Season (again)
Next thread: 0-18
Previous thread: Iverson signs with Sixers
(307 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
You mean like #1-pick-Toronto-bound"? Because that wasn't happening anyway.
- JayJayDean, Redick charged with DWI (2006)
The W - Basketball - Jackson and Rodman; Hall of Fame Worthy?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.144 seconds.