A lot of people seem to look mostly at scoring averages. Rodman was so unique. I don't know if we'll ever see another player like him. The strategy that he put into rebounding the ball was unparalleled. He made it a science. And his defense was just as much mental as it was physical.
I managed to finish reading the article, and the further I went the more obvious the author is completely clueless about the entire concept of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. He really does think it's just the NBA Hall of Fame and fails to consider players' college, international, Olympic and ABA contributions. That's pretty obvious when Sabonis was 2nd on his list of least deserving Hall of Famers. It's articles like this, back when anyone could write an article for them, that give The Bleacher Report such a bad reputation. This article was from 2011, Now that they have paid contributors, they should go back and purge their archives of crap like this. BNM
Is bleacher report really that bad? Again ,I just googled and they came up first. I actually loved Rodmans game, but was on the side of, not a HOF because he never had a complete game of sorts. But if this auther did mix the two up ( I didnt even know of the second) then yes. Piss poor research.
Just my opinion, but I think it's pretty lame to consider a player's college accomplishments for hall of fame worthiness, unless that player's college career was significant to basketball as a whole. Coaches are a different story, because they can spend entire careers in college, but just because a player was great in college doesn't mean he (or she) should merit hall consideration unless that excellence translates to the next level. I mean, is Dajuan Wagner a hall of famer because he scored 100 points in a high school game? I certainly hope not... Just my two cents.
Worthy is a worthy choice. I was sick of his publicity by his second year. A good place to start is Lakers and Celtics, since they have dominated the media since the NBA started. The media liked Barkley because he talked a lot, slowly while they took notes of every word (not on purpose, he's just stupid). They loved him when he declared his ambition to become Republican governor of Alabama. The Top 50 of All Time had Celtics like Bill Sharman on the list. I don't know which of them are in the Hall of Fame.
Sorry Portland fans but Clyde Drexler, hands down. All World talent, 10 cent brain, heart and work effort MIA......
Yao and Walton had their careers ruined by injuries and were pity votes for the Hall of Fame, but I like them being in there. Ralph Sampson..is he in the HOF? I don't pay attention to awards. I go by my own memories.
With 5 men on the floor, the average contribution is 20%. If you do 33% of the job, you're a great player. The standard is low to be considered dominant. So most great players are overrated in a 5-man sport. You guys should have seen Jabbar as a Buck. Every play went to him, and he produced. Don't evaluate him by his quiet Laker years. Unless you carry the team on most plays, you're overrated. That's why tennis players should be given prominence in the NBA. You don't just pass off to a teammate when there are no teammates.
What was George Mikan like to watch? Kareem never looked like he was running back on defense with any purpose.
Richmond was a six time all star for the Kings. You must be thinking of someone else. If I were to compare him with a player today, it'd be Melo. He was big and strong for his position and scored at will.
