Was Dennis Rodman a superstar?

[I.R.Beast]

Alot of people feel that he was... I just see him as a great role player.

[ZenMaster]

It depends on your values. It's very common to think of him as a great role player, most people only consider players who are good at scoring stars.

[NumberSix]

In the sense that he was a very famous player, yeah.

[daj0264]

more famous than pippen

[9erempiree]

The man was a superstar some even say beyond a superstar. Think of how big MJ was, Rodman was the villain and just as big.

[Flash31]

yes he was
People call Noah,Chandler,Hibbert stars

Rodman was one of the greatest and most
versatile defenders,and arguably the GOAT Rebounder.

Bill Russell was a Superstar,Rodman was too.

Scoring is not the be-all end all to be a SuperSTAR.

[Mass Debator]

No. He was a well-known star who filled a great hole on the team.

[TheReal Kendall]

I'd say yeah. Most people think he isn't because he didn't score but bball isn't all about scoring. People glorify scoring too much in bball.

[9erempiree]

Rodman was a Finals MVP candidate in 96 and should have won it rightfully so.

Horrible shooting series and he swooped up all the rebounds for Chicago.

[TheMan]

Dude ****ed Madonna...'nuff said.

[1987_Lakers]

Not even close.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Rodman became famous because of the success of Jordan's Bulls. He wasn't nowhere near as famous before that.

The entire world watched Michael Jordan play basketball during 1996, 97, and 98, and that helped catapult Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr into fame.

To answer your question, no he is not a superstar. He's just a famous role player who dyed his hair and was flamboyant on the most celebrated and watched sports team in american history. He's not a superstar on his own merit.

[9erempiree]

Dude ****ed Madonna...'nuff said.

To be fair, everyone had a piece of Madonna. Even Scottie Pippen. Unfortunately MJ didn't because his pen1s was too small.


Michael used to compete on everything. Jordan used always claim his hands were bigger, but they weren’t. Scottie was very blessed down below. And that killed Michael. Johnny said, “you should have seen the girls pippen had waiting for him everywhere we went. Madonna used to pick him up in a limo with a hot tub every time we went to L.A.Michael used to tell Madonna he could satisfy her better, to which Madonna would tell him “not a chance.””

http://www.mixmakers.net/basketball/johnny-bach-spills-his-guts-on-the-90s-bulls/

[ProfessorMurder]

He was not a superstar, or even a star. He just got a lot of publicity because he was insane and a bad ass.

He was a spectacular role player and defender, but not a star.

He was a 2 time all star, that's not a superstar.

[TheReal Kendall]

To be fair, everyone had a piece of Madonna. Even Scottie Pippen. Unfortunately MJ didn't because his pen1s was too small.



http://www.mixmakers.net/basketball/johnny-bach-spills-his-guts-on-the-90s-bulls/



:wtf: Is this a real quote?

Edit: Just clicked link

[K Xerxes]

The people that call him a 'role player' are the ones that look at the box stats and disregard defense. Rodman was, by all intents and purposes, a superstar. He didn't score, yes, but he did his role for his team's success to perfection. He led the league in rebounding for seven years in the 'era of the center' for goodness sake at 6'7.

People say he couldn't score, but was that what his team really needed? I remember Steve Kerr said that Rodman prided himself on those games where he got 0 points and 20 rebounds, and that he would pass up open shots just for those types of games.

Rodman is worthy of the HOF. He really is. He is a pioneer.

[ReturnofJPR]

Obviously, the #'s speak for themselves. But just like today (North Korean vacations), Rodman is a media wh0re if you will. He got every bit of attention as Kobe Bryant does today, and then some. Rodman always had publicity stunts too, like marrying himself at his book signings...

Plus, he was always banging supermodels...popular ones too.

The "R" in my name stands for Rodman, I should know. :pimp:

[9erempiree]

:wtf: Is this a real quote?

Edit: Just clicked link

I don't make stuff up. I am one of the few that source everything.

[9erempiree]

Rodman became famous because of the success of Jordan's Bulls. He wasn't nowhere near as famous before that.

The entire world watched Michael Jordan play basketball during 1996, 97, and 98, and that helped catapult Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr into fame.

To answer your question, no he is not a superstar. He's just a famous role player who dyed his hair and was flamboyant on the most celebrated and watched sports team in american history. He's not a superstar on his own merit.

You never watched Rodman. :facepalm

I hate to bring up stats but you have never watched him play.

2x DPOY
7x Rebounding Champ
7x Defense 1st team

[9erempiree]

The people that call him a 'role player' are the ones that look at the box stats and disregard defense. Rodman was, by all intents and purposes, a superstar. He didn't score, yes, but he did his role for his team's success to perfection. He led the league in rebounding for seven years in the 'era of the center' for goodness sake at 6'7.

People say he couldn't score, but was that what his team really needed? I remember Steve Kerr said that Rodman prided himself on those games where he got 0 points and 20 rebounds, and that he would pass up open shots just for those types of games.

Rodman is worthy of the HOF. He really is. He is a pioneer.

I agree.

By far the best of April 2013.

You're like the Kobe of the 96 draft class.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XODUffzTWQ4/T-pUMv5bt-I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/Ev4yXHVxovc/s1600/1996draft.jpg

[Rake2204]

I think it depends what one means by superstar. In terms of media attention, he approached superstar status in the mid-90's. His downfall in Detroit, his visual transformation upon his arrival in San Antonio, the SI cover, the hi-jinks, the tattoos, Madonna, joining MJ and the Bulls - that all led to some elite pop culture attention for Rodman over the years.

On the court though, I'm not sure he ever fit most people's definition of a superstar. I'm not even sure if I have a precise definition myself but whatever it is, I'm not sure Rodman would be an example. He was a great player, but he was never the player on a given team, and I don't think that's because he always played with all-time teammates.

I feel like a superstar would have to have the possibility of being the top guy on a given team. Like, even in Scottie Pippen's case, he was always a second fiddle, but I think we could imagine him running a team if given the opportunity (as he did in '94). Due to some basketball shortcomings (and emotional shortcomings) I'm not sure Rodman could have ever been the man on a team.

I don't think it should be taken as an insult to call Dennis Rodman a role player. He played as hard as he could and he was exceptional as a defender and rebounder. He filled a role just about as well as you could hope someone would. But he was never meant to be a guy who would lead a team with his star level play and outstanding anchoring ability. It was as if he had a goal (to rebound and play defense) and that's what he wanted to accomplish. The manner with which he did this was exceptional, but it did not strike me as superstar-like.

[K Xerxes]

I agree.

By far the best of April 2013.

You're like the Kobe of the 96 draft class.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XODUffzTWQ4/T-pUMv5bt-I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/Ev4yXHVxovc/s1600/1996draft.jpg

That is a disgrace on my part coming from a seasoned troll.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

You never watched Rodman. :facepalm

I hate to bring up stats but you have never watched him play.

2x DPOY
7x Rebounding Champ
7x Defense 1st team

I know you're just a troll, but I will answer this.

I watched him play. I watched the entire 96,97,98 3peat by the Bulls so I know how famous he got BECAUSE of that team. He had only 2 All-star selections in 14 years. I -lived- through that era and I remember people talking about Rodman because he was going around wearing white wedding dresses and dying his hair pink. He got all this attention due to playing with Michael Jordan. Rodman wasn't anywhere near a star when he was playing for the Spurs, or the Pistons before that.


If that's the criteria you go by, then Ben Wallace was a huge superstar.

Ben Wallace :

4x DPOY (rodman only 2x)
4x All-Star (rodman only 2x)
5x All-Defense 1st team
2x rebounding leader
1x Block Champion

[3LiftHeatCurse]

The people that call him a 'role player' are the ones that look at the box stats and disregard defense. Rodman was, by all intents and purposes, a superstar. He didn't score, yes, but he did his role for his team's success to perfection. He led the league in rebounding for seven years in the 'era of the center' for goodness sake at 6'7.


People say he couldn't score, but was that what his team really needed? I remember Steve Kerr said that Rodman prided himself on those games where he got 0 points and 20 rebounds, and that he would pass up open shots just for those types of games.
.


The player you describe is a role player. Rodman being a good rebounder and defender doesn't make him a superstar. He was never a big star until he joined Jordan's Bulls, mostly because he had flamboyant hair and would wear dresses. If Rodman was a normal quiet player, nowhere near as famous as he is now. Famous role player due to Jordan.

[BoutPractice]

In the proper sense of the word, yes. Even those who know nothing about basketball know the name.

He also got close to entering history (as in, the history books, not basketball history) when he visited North Korea. His trip had a high potential to start a third world war :oldlol:

[Flash31]

I know you're just a troll, but I will answer this.

I watched him play. I watched the entire 96,97,98 3peat by the Bulls so I know how famous he got BECAUSE of that team. He had only 2 All-star selections in 14 years.


If that's the criteria you go by, then Ben Wallace was a huge superstar.

Ben Wallace :

4x DPOY (rodman only 2x)
4x All-Star (rodman only 2x)
5x All-Defense 1st team
2x rebounding leader
1x Block Champion



rodman won 2 championships before the Bulls.He was known as a star before he joined,from the BAD BOY PISTONS.
You watched him from 96-98 is not the same,its like watching Ray Allen when he was on the Celtics and Heat now and saying hes just a 3pt shooter,exceptional role player bc he spaces the floor and shoots 3 but wasnt the man,when SONICS and BUCKS is wholly different.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

rodman won 2 championships before the Bulls.He was known as a star before he joined,from the BAD BOY PISTONS.

That's like saying Robert Horry is a known superstar when he went to the Spurs simply because he won rings as a role player with the Rockets/Lakers.

Famous role player. Nothing more.

[K Xerxes]

The player you describe is a role player. Rodman being a good rebounder and defender doesn't make him a superstar. He was never a big star until he joined Jordan's Bulls, mostly because he had flamboyant hair and would wear dresses. If Rodman was a normal quiet player, nowhere near as famous as he is now. Famous role player due to Jordan.

The fact that you describe him as a 'good' rebounder and defender indicates how seriously you should be taken.

The fact that you tried to compare Horry to Rodman puts the nail in your coffin.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

The fact that you describe him as a 'good' rebounder and defender indicates how seriously you should be taken.

The fact that you tried to compare Horry to Rodman puts the nail in your coffin.

You're stupid.

I'm done with this thread because we have too many kids in here who don't know how Rodman gained a ton of fame due to playing on the Bulls during Jordan's comeback.

[9erempiree]

That's like saying Robert Horry is a known superstar when he went to the Spurs simply because he won rings as a role player with the Rockets/Lakers.

Famous role player. Nothing more.

:facepalm

Comparing him to Horry and he's a famous role player?

Try hall of famer.

[K Xerxes]

You're stupid.

I'm done with this thread because we have too many kids in here who don't know how Rodman gained a ton of fame due to playing on the Bulls during Jordan's comeback.

I'm sorry for wasting your time, sir. I'm sure your children would be proud to hear that their mature father is insulting a user on an internet forum.

[9erempiree]

You're stupid.

I'm done with this thread because we have too many kids in here who don't know how Rodman gained a ton of fame due to playing on the Bulls during Jordan's comeback.

Move along people nothing to see.

He wasn't old enough to watch Rodman. Only knows him as a Bull.

:facepalm

[Flash31]

That's like saying Robert Horry is a known superstar when he went to the Spurs simply because he won rings as a role player with the Rockets/Lakers.

Famous role player. Nothing more.


yes bc Rodman was a role player like Horry
wow in that case
Bill Russell was not a Superstar,he was just a role player,Magic was just a role player bc he facilitated and wasnt a huge scorer,yeah role players.

[fpliii]

He likely had superstar-level impact when he was at his best. You by no means have to be an elite scorer to be a superstar (and some elite scorers are definitely not superstars, they don't always go hand-in-hand, though obviously they sometimes do).

[Crystallas]

Yeah, he was a superstar.

Superstar =/= basketball skill. LOL @ those of you who think these are exclusive to each other. While an athlete's skill can boost them into stardom, it is not the lone criteria.

[jstern]

I say yes, simply because put him on any team and that team is going to be significantly better, win a lot more games. I mean when he joined the Lakers they won 11 games in a row. A team that finished 31 - 19. His impact is very was big. And he wasn't a liability on offense like so many like to think.

[Rake2204]

rodman won 2 championships before the Bulls.He was known as a star before he joined,from the BAD BOY PISTONS.
You watched him from 96-98 is not the same,its like watching Ray Allen when he was on the Celtics and Heat now and saying hes just a 3pt shooter,exceptional role player bc he spaces the floor and shoots 3 but wasnt the man,when SONICS and BUCKS is wholly different.Again, it all depends on one's definition of superstar but for an intents and purposes, Dennis Rodman was a role player on those Bad Boys teams (and again, that's not a bad thing). He was a spot starter who brought to the table exactly what that team needed - incredible energy, rebounding, and defensive scrappiness. He was contributing similarly to many other role players on that squad. I feel Isiah Thomas was the only superstar on those Pistons teams. Even in the case of Joe Dumars, I always viewed him as a solid star, but not necessarily an upper echelon guy (aka superstar).

I'd say Rodman comfortably flirted with stardom as his role with Detroit increased post-Bad Boys but even then, I'm not sure anyone in this town ever felt he was an absolute superstar (basketball-wise). We loved his heart, his energy, his rebounding ability, and even some of his antics but I think we always knew he was more of a guy flourishing in a role as opposed to a top dog reigning supreme above all (which is probably more in line with my definition of super star).

[diamenz]

wow... madonna picking up pipp in a hot tub limo just for the size of his tool. on top of that, her picking him over mj? i can't imagine the confidence boost that must give a man.

lol @ this heat guy calling rodman a 'good' rebounder. being a heat fan suits you well.

[Rake2204]

rodman won 2 championships before the Bulls.He was known as a star before he joined,from the BAD BOY PISTONS.
You watched him from 96-98 is not the same,its like watching Ray Allen when he was on the Celtics and Heat now and saying hes just a 3pt shooter,exceptional role player bc he spaces the floor and shoots 3 but wasnt the man,when SONICS and BUCKS is wholly different.Again, it all depends on one's definition of superstar but for an intents and purposes, Dennis Rodman was a role player on those Bad Boys teams (and again, that's not a bad thing). He was a spot starter who brought to the table exactly what that team needed - incredible energy, rebounding, and defensive scrappiness. He was contributing similarly to many other role players on that squad. I feel Isiah Thomas was the only superstar on those Pistons teams. Even in the case of Joe Dumars, I always viewed him as a solid star, but not necessarily an upper echelon guy (aka superstar).

I'd say Rodman comfortably flirted with stardom as his role with Detroit increased post-Bad Boys but even then, I'm not sure anyone in this town ever felt he was an absolute superstar (basketball-wise). We loved his heart, his energy, his rebounding ability, and even some of his antics but I think we always knew he was more of a guy flourishing in a role as opposed to a top dog reigning supreme above all (which is probably more in line with my definition of super star).


I say yes, simply because put him on any team and that team is going to be significantly better, win a lot more games. I mean when he joined the Lakers they won 11 games in a row. A team that finished 31 - 19. His impact is very was big. And he wasn't a liability on offense like so many like to think.Again, this topic is loose because we all have different definitions of superstar, but I think someone can have a great impact on a team without being a superstar. The general term is glue guy. I think Rodman was a very rich man's glue guy. No one would ever acquire him to be the piece, but if his mind was right, he was a monumental role piece.

And regarding his offense, I do not believe he was completely inept, but I definitely think it's fair to label that aspect of his game a liability. I know those Rodman three pointer videos exist out there, but there's a reason those have hundreds of thousands of views... because it wasn't something he was doing with regularity. He could typically make layups and he was just terrific at filling lanes, but he could not create one single bit of offense on his own. I don't mean he wasn't an iso guy. I mean, if the ball ends up in his hands with 10 seconds on the shot clock with no other options, it's almost certain that's going to be a problem.

I think his offense became so criticized that it actually became underrated for a few, then enough people realized that and now his offense has kind of become overrated. He wasn't hapless. But he also wasn't a guy who volunteered to not be awesome on offense even though he could have and instead just focused on rebounding. I believe rebounding and defense was the only way Rodman could have ever survived on the NBA level, and more power to him for recognizing that.

[tmacattack33]

That is a disgrace on my part coming from a seasoned troll.

:roll:

[NBASTATMAN]

Rodman was a Finals MVP candidate in 96 and should have won it rightfully so.

Horrible shooting series and he swooped up all the rebounds for Chicago.


If Rodman would have done a decent job defending Kemp he probably would have won the MVP... But he got his arse handed to him by Kemp in that series.. His rebounding was great though..:rockon:


Rodman was a star on the court.. Off the court he was a superstar .. His playoff rebounding numbers are wack for a guy people call the GOAT REBOUNDER.. :confusedshrug:

[andgar923]

Alot of people feel that he was... I just see him as a great role player.
He was famous for his 'off' the court antics, not sure if that qualifies him as a basketball superstar in the usual term. He's more like a celebrity in the same vein of Charlie Sheen.

[1987_Lakers]

To be fair, everyone had a piece of Madonna. Even Scottie Pippen. Unfortunately MJ didn't because his pen1s was too small.



http://www.mixmakers.net/basketball/johnny-bach-spills-his-guts-on-the-90s-bulls/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J782jBp_pW0

[3LiftHeatCurse]

He was famous for his 'off' the court antics, not sure if that qualifies him as a basketball superstar in the usual term. He's more like a celebrity in the same vein of Charlie Sheen.

Exactly. If he was a quiet normal person that didn't wear wedding dresses and dye his hair pink/yellow/orange whatever.. he would not be as famous.

Ben Wallace is not a superstar, and his resume rivals Rodman's. 4x DPOY.....

[97 bulls]

A "super star" simply means you shine brighter than the rest of the"stars". Rodman reached rockstar status. He stole the limelight from Jordan in the finals when he took that trip to Vegas during the Finals. Hes was also a trend setter. He made having multiple tats mainstream. He made dying youre hair cool. I even feel he pioneered the mindset that its ok to be gay. Hes a superstar.

As far as his on the court play, as its been said, every team hes been on has improved. He was the best player on the 92 Pistons team that won 47 games. Did he score? No but his impact was no less than that of a great scorer. He dominated games, he took over games. He was by no means a "role player" in ths sense that he was only good at one thing. He was not a specialist. Tony Allen is a specialist (defense), Jason Terry is a specialist (offense). Thise types if guys specialize in one aspect of basketball. Theres four main parts to basketball....Offense, Defense, Rebounding, and Passing. Rodman was great at two. And arguably greatest ever at those two. He was an excellent passer, and scored very little by choice. Again another aspect he pioneered. He made it cool to play defense, hustle, and rebound. He was the flip side of Charles Barkley.

You guys dont know what youre talking about

[97 bulls]

Exactly. If he was a quiet normal person that didn't wear wedding dresses and dye his hair pink/yellow/orange whatever.. he would not be as famous.

Ben Wallace is not a superstar, and his resume rivals Rodman's. 4x DPOY.....
Lol, If Rodman played in the same era that Wallace played, hed have DPOYs

[Harison]

Depends on definition. If it has to include scoring, then no. Other than that he was a superstar - sensational at what he did, and also was very famous for his antics (popularity is a part of superstar definition).

Lets take Nash for example, was he a superstar? Of course, and yet he havent played a lick of defense. Why elite passing and solid scoring makes one a superstar, and elite defense with elite rebounding plus popularity doesnt? Just solid role players dont have an argument for GOAT rebounder or defender.

IMO Rodman was a superstar, at least he has a better argument than some of other superstars like Rose, etc.

[DMV2]

Extraordinary role player. Like a complete role player on the defensive end.

And he was also popular for his on and off the court antics.

[Round Mound]

[B]He Wasn

[Xiao Yao You]

no

[Carbine]

Superstars can lead teams by themselves to regular season success and deep playoff runs.

Rodman was not capable of doing this, IMO.

He was a star, a great one.....but not a superstar.

[Bigsmoke]

the Heat can use him right now.

[Duncan21formvp]

I don't think anyone who only made 2 allstar games in his career can be considered a superstar when they played 10+ seasons.

[VIP2000]

I don't think anyone who gets traded for Will Perdue straight-up can be considered a superstar.

All-time great rebounder and defender? Yes. Champion? Yes. Hall-of-Famer? Arguably yes.

But Rodman is not someone you can build a team around. I would say he's a star (and a big reason why he was so well-known is because of his off-court antics) but not a superstar.

[CAstill]

A "super star" simply means you shine brighter than the rest of the"stars". Rodman reached rockstar status. He stole the limelight from Jordan in the finals when he took that trip to Vegas during the Finals. Hes was also a trend setter. He made having multiple tats mainstream. He made dying youre hair cool. I even feel he pioneered the mindset that its ok to be gay. Hes a superstar.

As far as his on the court play, as its been said, every team hes been on has improved. He was the best player on the 92 Pistons team that won 47 games. Did he score? No but his impact was no less than that of a great scorer. He dominated games, he took over games. He was by no means a "role player" in ths sense that he was only good at one thing. He was not a specialist. Tony Allen is a specialist (defense), Jason Terry is a specialist (offense). Thise types if guys specialize in one aspect of basketball. Theres four main parts to basketball....Offense, Defense, Rebounding, and Passing. Rodman was great at two. And arguably greatest ever at those two. He was an excellent passer, and scored very little by choice. Again another aspect he pioneered. He made it cool to play defense, hustle, and rebound. He was the flip side of Charles Barkley.

You guys dont know what youre talking about

:cheers:
These guys have no clue about the cultural impact of Rodman. This fool was all over tabloid magazine and mainstream media like Oprah lol. My mom knew he was lol. This fool had popular books. When he was on the Spurs; If you collected basketball cards the electric court series had it to where you could get his cards in different hair colors, those were bad ass. He's always been a media whore that's what makes an allstar a superstar...the media! lol

[97 bulls]

I don't think anyone who gets traded for Will Perdue straight-up can be considered a superstar.

All-time great rebounder and defender? Yes. Champion? Yes. Hall-of-Famer? Arguably yes.

But Rodman is not someone you can build a team around. I would say he's a star (and a big reason why he was so well-known is because of his off-court antics) but not a superstar.
Rodman was used as a scapegoat for the debacle that was the Spurs and David Robinson vs The Olajuwan led Rockets. He verbally called out Robinson for not having heart, and taking winning seriously. I remember in an interview were he said he was frustrated because the Spurs didnt mind losing. Theyd be on the sidelines joking and discussing what they were gonna do after the game. He played all out. The Spurs didnt, he called them out, and was no longer wanted.

Youd be an idiot if you seriously believe the trade between for Rodman was an even swap.

And what constitutes "building around"? God I hate that term. That Bulls team needed Rodman as much as Jordan or Pippen. You gonna tell me that if 1992 Rodman were to play on the 04 Pistons, that hes not the best player on that team? He was the best player on a team that won almost 50 games.


And you show youre bias by calling a first ballot hall of famer "arguably" a hofer. Hell he was the headliner.
And again, he pioneered making defense and hustle popular. I feel people respect defense now much more than they did even in the 90s. Its acknowledged now. If Rodman played today hed have at least 5 allstar appearances.

[Rake2204]

Rodman was used as a scapegoat for the debacle that was the Spurs and David Robinson vs The Olajuwan led Rockets. He verbally called out Robinson for not having heart, and taking winning seriously. I remember in an interview were he said he was frustrated because the Spurs didnt mind losing. Theyd be on the sidelines joking and discussing what they were gonna do after the game. He played all out. The Spurs didnt, he called them out, and was no longer wanted.

Youd be an idiot if you seriously believe the trade between for Rodman was an even swap.

And what constitutes "building around"? God I hate that term. That Bulls team needed Rodman as much as Jordan or Pippen. You gonna tell me that if 1992 Rodman were to play on the 04 Pistons, that hes not the best player on that team? He was the best player on a team that won almost 50 games.


And you show youre bias by calling a first ballot hall of famer "arguably" a hofer. Hell he was the headliner.
And again, he pioneered making defense and hustle popular. I feel people respect defense now much more than they did even in the 90s. Its acknowledged now. If Rodman played today hed have at least 5 allstar appearances.With respect, do you have any links featuring Rodman's lines about the Spurs laughing and not caring after losing? I've always heard the exchange about Robinson trying to get Rodman in touch with god and Rodman trying to get Robinson to be more aggressive (i.e. both players trying to get the other to be someone they're not) but I haven't heard about the Spurs being cool with losing before.

I agree with you that Will Perdue being dealt for Dennis Rodman was not a fair swap. Rodman had alienated himself in San Antonio and they were not willing to offer him a contract extension. He was suspended at the beginning of that '95 season, took a leave of absence, then returned only to separate his shoulder in a motorcycle accident. He played wonderfully when he actually played, but the showing up late for conference finals games and taking one's shoes off while on the bench all the while blaming everything on the coach made it tough for Rodman to be relied upon in that particular situation and in turn severely damaged his trade stock.

I think the Bulls learned from the Spurs' mistake, and it was to their benefit. Chicago was a great fit because 1) winning tends to overshadow any and all off court issues and 2) they were able to look at how San Antonio tried to handle Rodman (insisting he come to things on time and play every game, like a normal player) and decided to loosen things up a little to keep him in touch.

And again, as much as I like Rodman, I think the '92 version is getting a little overrated here. I do not believe he'd have been the best player on the 2004 Pistons. In fact, I think it's very debatable he was best player on that '92 team. Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas were still the cornerstones of the franchise at that time and while Thomas wasn't what he was in the late 80's, he was still putting in work (19 & 7). That team won 48 games because they were still a deep squad with a lot of talent (just older, thus no longer contenders), not because Rodman led a group of upstarts toward over-achievement or something.

I think his trade from Detroit to San Antonio more closely resembled his true worth (as opposed to the Perdue deal). Even then, San Antonio knew they were acquiring a potential question mark, but giving up a solid All-Star in Sean Elliott seemed to be accepted as relatively fair compensation at the time. Had he been a true superstar, even with his emotional issues, I think his services would have demanded more than a Sean Elliott.

[1987_Lakers]

Now 97 bulls considers Rodman to be a superstar.:oldlol:

[buddha]

http://www.mixmakers.net/basketball/johnny-bach-spills-his-guts-on-the-90s-bulls/

"The day before game 4 of the Bulls Suns finals with the Bulls leading the series 2-1. Michael and Charles Barkley went golfing. They played 48 holes of golf. And Michael bought Charles a $20,000 diamond earring. Johnny asked MJ,

[97 bulls]

With respect, do you have any links featuring Rodman's lines about the Spurs laughing and not caring after losing? I've always heard the exchange about Robinson trying to get Rodman in touch with god and Rodman trying to get Robinson to be more aggressive (i.e. both players trying to get the other to be someone they're not) but I haven't heard about the Spurs being cool with losing before.

I agree with you that Will Perdue being dealt for Dennis Rodman was not a fair swap. Rodman had alienated himself in San Antonio and they were not willing to offer him a contract extension. He was suspended at the beginning of that '95 season, took a leave of absence, then returned only to separate his shoulder in a motorcycle accident. He played wonderfully when he actually played, but the showing up late for conference finals games and taking one's shoes off while on the bench all the while blaming everything on the coach made it tough for Rodman to be relied upon in that particular situation.

I think the Bulls learned from the Spurs' mistake, and it was to their benefit. Chicago was a great fit because 1) winning tends to overshadow any and all off court issues and 2) they were able to look at how San Antonio tried to handle Rodman (insisting he come to things on time and play every game, like a normal player) and decided to loosen things up a little to keep him in touch.

And again, as much as I like Rodman, I think the '92 version is getting a little overrated here. I do not believe he'd have been the best player on the 2004 Pistons. In fact, I think it's very debatable he was best player on that '92 team. Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas were still the cornerstones of the franchise at that time and while Thomas wasn't what he was in the late 80's, he was still putting in work (19 & 7). That team won 48 games because they were still a deep team with a lot of talent (just older, thus no longer contenders), not because Rodman led a group of upstarts toward over-achievement or something.
I dont have that link. But I remember that conversation. Youre basically saying the same thing. Robinson wasnt a throat slitter. Rodman knew what was eeded to get to the top.

Under what measure was either Thomas or Dumars better than Rodman in 92? Rodman was an allstar, like the other two, and he was top 10 in the MVP voting. His stats rivaled Bill Russel. And he shot 32% from 3. He was comming off a DPOY and unlike Thomas and Dumars made the allnba team. He was better than the other two.

[97 bulls]

Now 97 bulls considers Rodman to be a superstar.:oldlol:
Oh please. You werent even born then.

[1987_Lakers]

Oh please. You werent even born then.

And you were?:oldlol:

Keep making yourself look delusional.

[WayOfWade]

On the court, not so much. Off the court, I'd say yes.

[deja vu]

I think the word "superstar" gets thrown around too easily and loosely in these parts. IMHO that term should be reserved for franchise-level players like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, and Carmelo. Good players but who are not (or not yet) franchise-level players like Kevin Love, Paul George, Jennings, etc. should be considered stars or all-stars.

That said, I believe that Rodman is a very famous star but not a superstar like in the mold of Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Barkley, Hakeem, etc. He is one of the best rebounders and defenders in NBA history but he's not a franchise-level player who can be the main man or cornerstone of a team. Sure, he's one of the most famous players in the 90s partly due to his off-court and on-court antics but that's not what makes a superstar. His contribution to title-winning teams cannot be denied, however.

[I<3NBA]

he made a movie. he's a superstar.

[Soundwave]

Is he a player you build a franchise around? No.

Was he as famous in the late mid/late 90s than basically every player playing today? Yes.

So it's hard to say. He was a good player, but he was an even bigger celebrity.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I think it depends what one means by superstar. In terms of media attention, he approached superstar status in the mid-90's. His downfall in Detroit, his visual transformation upon his arrival in San Antonio, the SI cover, the hi-jinks, the tattoos, Madonna, joining MJ and the Bulls - that all led to some elite pop culture attention for Rodman over the years.

On the court though, I'm not sure he ever fit most people's definition of a superstar. I'm not even sure if I have a precise definition myself but whatever it is, I'm not sure Rodman would be an example. He was a great player, but he was never the player on a given team, and I don't think that's because he always played with all-time teammates.

I feel like a superstar would have to have the possibility of being the top guy on a given team. Like, even in Scottie Pippen's case, he was always a second fiddle, but I think we could imagine him running a team if given the opportunity (as he did in '94). Due to some basketball shortcomings (and emotional shortcomings) I'm not sure Rodman could have ever been the man on a team.

I don't think it should be taken as an insult to call Dennis Rodman a role player. He played as hard as he could and he was exceptional as a defender and rebounder. He filled a role just about as well as you could hope someone would. But he was never meant to be a guy who would lead a team with his star level play and outstanding anchoring ability. It was as if he had a goal (to rebound and play defense) and that's what he wanted to accomplish. The manner with which he did this was exceptional, but it did not strike me as superstar-like.
GREAT POST

[/thread]

[Rake2204]

I dont have that link. But I remember that conversation. Youre basically saying the same thing. Robinson wasnt a throat slitter. Rodman knew what was eeded to get to the top.

Under what measure was either Thomas or Dumars better than Rodman in 92? Rodman was an allstar, like the other two, and he was top 10 in the MVP voting. His stats rivaled Bill Russel. And he shot 32% from 3. He was comming off a DPOY and unlike Thomas and Dumars made the allnba team. He was better than the other two.I mean, not to split hairs, but I think there's a difference between Rodman saying Robinson wasn't a physical center and Rodman saying the Spurs didn't care about winning and laughed all the time after losses. The former correctly suggests Robinson preferred operating while facing up, beating people with his speed instead of brute, and running the floor. The latter suggests something else entirely and as a result, I feel I'd have to see a quote referring to such an accusation, because it seems to be in great contrast to how those contending Spurs teams operated back then.

Now, in regards to '92 Rodman, I'm not really sure if I can correctly put this into words. We knew he was a great player, but it was never a situation where it was like, "And now here's Dennis Rodman and the Detroit Pistons coming to town to take on the Milwaukee Bucks." He was doing great things, but he never really got to that superstar status, particularly with the aforementioned Thomas and Dumars on his squad.

Even if we were to make the argument that Rodman's statistics eclipsed that of any other Pistons that season, there were still some things missing (in terms of what's often used to define a superstar). He was still a malcontent with emotional issues who couldn't always be relied upon. He wasn't necessarily out of control in '92, but he wasn't someone who was going to be leading a team by example or otherwise. As such, he was often left to be more of a cog in the machine as opposed to running the entire machine (like I feel a superstar would).

Rodman rebounded like an animal in '92, he hit a three pointer once every two games or so, filled lanes very well, jumped over chairs and he played really pesky defense. The rebounding was historic, but it never felt like we were watching a superstar. He wasn't a headlining All-Star like a Jordan, Ewing, Drexler, or Barkley (players I found to be superstars). He didn't necessarily have a portion of his game teammates could look to him and say, "Hey, we're in a bind, we need you to make a direct impact right this moment to lead us to victory." Yes, if he were responsible for a big man-to-man defensive stop in a big moment, he could often provide that, but I feel a superstar should be responsible for more. He wasn't a scoring option, he wasn't a rim protector, and his effect tended to be more dependent upon the situation than anything else.

I think offensive players get the superstar advantage in many instances because scoring is a way to directly impose one's will upon a ball game. Rodman playing really good floor defense didn't necessarily carry the same weight. He could make a big stop, but he didn't exactly strike fear into an entire offense (like an elite rim protector might) so again, it often felt as if he was filling a series of roles very, very well as opposed to being a superstar who could be relied upon to always lead his team to victory by doing it all.

This all sounds like a criticism of Rodman, but that's surely not my intention. The all-time greatest role players should be Hall of Famers. Rodman would have never made sense as a number one or likely even number two guy on a team. But he provided something absolutely essential to winning ball games (when his mind was right). And he provided it better than most else in history. He was not a superstar, but he was still something special.

[Nezty]

I think the word "superstar" gets thrown around too easily and loosely in these parts. IMHO that term should be reserved for franchise-level players like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, and Carmelo. Good players but who are not (or not yet) franchise-level players like Kevin Love, Paul George, Jennings, etc. should be considered stars or all-stars.

That said, I believe that Rodman is a very famous star but not a superstar like in the mold of Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Barkley, Hakeem, etc. He is one of the best rebounders and defenders in NBA history but he's not a franchise-level player who can be the main man or cornerstone of a team. Sure, he's one of the most famous players in the 90s partly due to his off-court and on-court antics but that's not what makes a superstar. His contribution to title-winning teams cannot be denied, however.


To you Carmelo is a franchise player/superstar just because he can score? Because that's basically all he can do. A guy like Rodman has a bigger impact in a game than Melo due to his defense and rebounding.

[97 bulls]

I think offensive players get the superstar advantage in many instances because scoring is a way to directly impose one's will upon a ball game

This is the problem right here. You dont see defense as having the same impact as offense. Why does scoring a basket on a defender hold more weight than a defender keeping a player from scoring 2 points? Ill never understand this logic. Especially when were referencing professional basketball players. All pro ball players can score. Theres shoukd be a premium on players that can have a direct effect on those players ability to score.


Rodman took over games. He did with his rebounding and his ability to defend the other teams best player.

I find it funny that you feel Rodman wasnt the type of player a team could lean on when needed. Because he did just that in 96 vs Seattle. The Bulls offense was stagnant. His rebounding gave the Bulls multiple opportunities to score. Or how bout when Shaq was abusing Longley during the ECF? Jackson turned to Rodman for help defending Shaq. Not Jordan or Pippen, but Rodman. The same applied for Mourning, Kemp, and Malone. He also took on the tough defensive assignments with Detroit. Be it Jordan, Magic, Worthy, Pippen, Bird etc. He took over and dominated games.

[97 bulls]

To you Carmelo is a franchise player/superstar just because he can score? Because that's basically all he can do. A guy like Rodman has a bigger impact in a game than Melo due to his defense and rebounding.
Exactly. Dennis Rodmans can impact a game just as well as Melo can.

[Bandito]

Fvck no

[kNicKz]

Rodman became famous because of the success of Jordan's Bulls. He wasn't nowhere near as famous before that.

The entire world watched Michael Jordan play basketball during 1996, 97, and 98, and that helped catapult Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr into fame.

To answer your question, no he is not a superstar. He's just a famous role player who dyed his hair and was flamboyant on the most celebrated and watched sports team in american history. He's not a superstar on his own merit.

I can't even begin to delve into the fail that this post contains.

Dennis Rodman is one of the most athletic players to ever play the game. On top of that he is one of/ if not the best rebounders to ever play with intensity that would make KG look uninterested.

[dh144498]

Rodman was a Finals MVP candidate in 96 and should have won it rightfully so.

Horrible shooting series and he swooped up all the rebounds for Chicago.

this. 7 offensive boards and 8 defensive boards a game in the finals. :bowdown:

[Rake2204]

This is the problem right here. You dont see defense as having the same impact as offense. Why does scoring a basket on a defender hold more weight than a defender keeping a player from scoring 2 points? Ill never understand this logic. Especially when were referencing professional basketball players. All pro ball players can score. Theres shoukd be a premium on players that can have a direct effect on those players ability to score.


Rodman took over games. He did with his rebounding and his ability to defend the other teams best player.

I find it funny that you feel Rodman wasnt the type of player a team could lean on when needed. Because he did just that in 96 vs Seattle. The Bulls offense was stagnant. His rebounding gave the Bulls multiple opportunities to score. Or how bout when Shaq was abusing Longley during the ECF? Jackson turned to Rodman for help defending Shaq. Not Jordan or Pippen, but Rodman. The same applied for Mourning, Kemp, and Malone. He also took on the tough defensive assignments with Detroit. Be it Jordan, Magic, Worthy, Pippen, Bird etc. He took over and dominated games.I think defense can definitely affect games. If my words suggested otherwise, I apologize, for that was not my intent. As I said before, I have feelings about this scenario but they're not necessarily translated to the page well.

Rodman wasn't a rim protector making everyone think twice about entering the paint. As you said, his biggest asset was being able to create problems at times against a particular player. Yes, he helped well and he took charges, but an entire team wasn't particularly as afraid as Rodman's defensive abilities as they would be of, say, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell, or David Robinson. Even in his one-on-one matchups, he was not locking people down night in and night out the way an offensive-weighted star might be dropping 29 night in and night out.

Rodman would play tough defense, but it wouldn't always bring about incredible results. Perhaps this has to do with how the game of basketball, by nature, seems to slant in favor of the offense rather than defense. Scoring seems to be a matter of doing while defense sometimes feels like stemming the tide and holding something off.

I know I've said this a lot, but this discussion is going to be inherently tough because we all obviously have different definitions of a superstar. For me, at any level, if I had a teammate who was flaky, got kicked out on a regular basis, arrived late for practices, rebounded the hell out of the ball, worked very hard, was a great on-floor defender but wasn't particularly huge at blocking shots or thieving, and didn't really bring a lot to the table on offense, I think I'd have a really hard time stepping back and saying, "Yep, he's a superstar." I'd sing his praises, but that is not the making of a superstar to me.

Also, when I mentioned Rodman not being a "lean-on" guy, I didn't mean he couldn't do something to help a team win. The Pistons leaned on Corliss Williamson at times in 2002 (particularly in Game 5 of their first round series) but that didn't make him a superstar nor did it mean it's someone they could always rely upon. Your descriptions of Rodman having big moments as an offensive rebounder or defensive stopper sound like someone playing a great role, not a supertar leading and willing his troops to victory. Non-superstar players excelling in their roles in integral to a team's success. I personally do not believe the Heat would have won a championship last year had they not been able to lean upon Shane Battier for extended periods of time.

Further, the Pistons turned to Tayshaun Prince to clamp down Tracy McGrady and Kobe Bryant. Ben Wallace kept numerous possessions alive when no one could score. Richard Hamilton's ability to run off screens and knock down the midrange jumper better than most throughout history was something the Pistons were able to lean on when Chauncey wasn't hitting. Many players can play very key roles and be leaned upon in a given game or series, but that doesn't necessarily make them superstars of whom the team can always look to for guidance and leadership through one's play and consistent excellence.

[TheTenth]

I think defense can definitely affect games. If my words suggested otherwise, I apologize, for that was not my intent. As I said before, I have feelings about this scenario but they're not necessarily translated to the page well.

Rodman wasn't a rim protector making everyone think twice about entering the paint. As you said, his biggest asset was being able to create problems at times against a particular player. Yes, he helped well and he took charges, but an entire team wasn't particularly as afraid as Rodman's defensive abilities as they would be of, say, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell, or David Robinson. Even in his one-on-one matchups, he was not locking people down night in and night out the way an offensive-weighted star might be dropping 29 night in and night out.

Rodman would play tough defense, but it wouldn't always bring about incredible results. Perhaps this has to do with how the game of basketball, by nature, seems to slant in favor of the offense rather than defense. Scoring seems to be a matter of doing while defense sometimes feels like stemming the tide and holding something off.

I know I've said this a lot, but this discussion is going to be inherently tough because we all obviously have different definitions of a superstar. For me, at any level, if I had a teammate who was flaky, got kicked out on a regular basis, arrived late for practices, rebounded the hell out of the ball, worked very hard, was a great on-floor defender but wasn't particularly huge at blocking shots or thieving, and didn't really bring a lot to the table on offense, I think I'd have a really hard time stepping back and saying, "Yep, he's a superstar." I'd sing his praises, but that is not the making of a superstar to me.

Also, when I mentioned Rodman not being a "lean-on" guy, I didn't mean he couldn't do something to help a team win. The Pistons leaned on Corliss Williamson at times in 2002 (particularly in Game 5 of their first round series) but that didn't make him a superstar nor did it mean it's someone they could always rely upon. Your descriptions of Rodman having big moments as an offensive rebounder or defensive stopper sound like someone playing a great role, not a supertar leading and willing his troops to victory. Non-superstar players excelling in their roles in integral to a team's success. I personally do not believe the Heat would have won a championship last year had they not been able to lean upon Shane Battier for extended periods of time.

Further, the Pistons turned to Tayshaun Prince to clamp down Tracy McGrady and Kobe Bryant. Ben Wallace kept numerous possessions alive when no one could score. Richard Hamilton's ability to run off screens and knock down the midrange jumper better than most throughout history was something the Pistons were able to lean on when Chauncey wasn't hitting. Many players can play very key roles and be leaned upon in a given game or series, but that doesn't necessarily make them superstars of whom the team can always look to for guidance and leadership through one's play and consistent excellence.
Yeah people don't seem to realize that Rodman's defense was vastly overrated by his San Antonio years. Watching footage of any of the playoffs from his Spurs years you will see a man stat-padding for rebounds. It was incredible how he would miss open tips and layups just to get an extra board, rip rebounds out of teammates hands, and refuse to play tough defense anywhere outside of 3 second zone. People forget that Rodman's defense had a negative correlation with his rebounding; ie: more rebounds/worse defense.

His play in 1997 and 98 also leaved alot to be desired. It's kind of ironic to hear people talk about him as the best rebounder of all time yet he could only get 8 RPG in 1997 and 12 RPG in 1998 - that being his main job. Even his defense was relatively poor by then; PJ would place Longley on the main scoring big man for the 1st quarter or two because Dennis racked up fouls so easily.

^ That said he still was a tremendously great role player, controlled a large fanbase, and is definetly deserving of his HOF status. He is just so overrated by many people, IMHO.

[Goldrush25]

A superstar is a superstar because of their on-court achievements. Rodman was masterful at what he was asked to do but no, he wasn't some transcendent player. His value was that he did the dirty work that no one else wanted to do. He was amazing at rebounding and very good at defense. That's pretty much it.

He was more famous because of his antics and who he dated.

[I<3NBA]

so who is Indiana's MVP? PG or Hibbert?

[Poetry]

rip rebounds out of teammates hands

The Worm loves rebounds like a fat kid loves cake.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/978/729/347157_display_image.jpg

[97 bulls]

I think defense can definitely affect games. If my words suggested otherwise, I apologize, for that was not my intent. As I said before, I have feelings about this scenario but they're not necessarily translated to the page well.
It seems as if you dont see man defense as holding the same weight as scoring. That is where we disagree.


Rodman wasn't a rim protector making everyone think twice about entering the paint. As you said, his biggest asset was being able to create problems at times against a particular player. Yes, he helped well and he took charges, but an entire team wasn't particularly as afraid as Rodman's defensive abilities as they would be of, say, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell, or David Robinson. Even in his one-on-one matchups, he was not locking people down night in and night out the way an offensive-weighted star might be dropping 29 night in and night out.
Youre holding Rodman to a standard none of the other players you listed had to meet. Being capable if drawing charges has just as much effect as blocking a shot, perhaps more because its an automatic TO, and it nails the offensive player with a foul. And trust that when players like Rodman are on the court, youre gonna be looking for him just as you woukd a shot blocker.

Rodman would play tough defense, but it wouldn't always bring about incredible results.
How can you say this when every team hes joined has drastically imoroved their win totals vs when hes not there?


Perhaps this has to do with how the game of basketball, by nature, seems to slant in favor of the offense rather than defense. Scoring seems to be a matter of doing while defense sometimes feels like stemming the tide and holding something off.
How does it not bring about the same impact? I just dont get this mentality.


I know I've said this a lot, but this discussion is going to be inherently tough because we all obviously have different definitions of a superstar. For me, at any level, if I had a teammate who was flaky, got kicked out on a regular basis, arrived late for practices, rebounded the hell out of the ball, worked very hard, was a great on-floor defender but wasn't particularly huge at blocking shots or thieving, and didn't really bring a lot to the table on offense, I think I'd have a really hard time stepping back and saying, "Yep, he's a superstar." I'd sing his praises, but that is not the making of a superstar to me.
So was Charles Barkley a superstar?


Also, when I mentioned Rodman not being a "lean-on" guy, I didn't mean he couldn't do something to help a team win. The Pistons leaned on Corliss Williamson at times in 2002 (particularly in Game 5 of their first round series) but that didn't make him a superstar nor did it mean it's someone they could always rely upon. Your descriptions of Rodman having big moments as an offensive rebounder or defensive stopper sound like someone playing a great role, not a supertar leading and willing his troops to victory. Non-superstar players excelling in their roles in integral to a team's success. I personally do not believe the Heat would have won a championship last year had they not been able to lean upon Shane Battier for extended periods of time.

Further, the Pistons turned to Tayshaun Prince to clamp down Tracy McGrady and Kobe Bryant. Ben Wallace kept numerous possessions alive when no one could score. Richard Hamilton's ability to run off screens and knock down the midrange jumper better than most throughout history was something the Pistons were able to lean on when Chauncey wasn't hitting. Many players can play very key roles and be leaned upon in a given game or series, but that doesn't necessarily make them superstars of whom the team can always look to for guidance and leadership through one's play and consistent excellence.
But the players you mentioned didnt do it at a historic level. Rodmans stats rival Bill Russells. Sure he didnt block shots but Russell didnt draw charges and wasnt the man defender or as versitle as Rodman was defensively.


I think this has evolved from whether or Rodman was a superstar to how much impact did he have on the court. It really seems as if you only see scorers as having a major imoact while defenders have minimal. I couldn't agree more.

And again in the case you missed it, is Charles Barkley a superstar?

[97 bulls]

Yeah people don't seem to realize that Rodman's defense was vastly overrated by his San Antonio years. Watching footage of any of the playoffs from his Spurs years you will see a man stat-padding for rebounds. It was incredible how he would miss open tips and layups just to get an extra board, rip rebounds out of teammates hands, and refuse to play tough defense anywhere outside of 3 second zone. People forget that Rodman's defense had a negative correlation with his rebounding; ie: more rebounds/worse defense.

His play in 1997 and 98 also leaved alot to be desired. It's kind of ironic to hear people talk about him as the best rebounder of all time yet he could only get 8 RPG in 1997 and 12 RPG in 1998 - that being his main job. Even his defense was relatively poor by then; PJ would place Longley on the main scoring big man for the 1st quarter or two because Dennis racked up fouls so easily.

^ That said he still was a tremendously great role player, controlled a large fanbase, and is definetly deserving of his HOF status. He is just so overrated by many people, IMHO.
This post is so full of fail its laughable. First you claim Rodman disregarded defense for rebounds then penalize him for the minimal rebounds games he had when he WAS DEFENDING MALONE. And yes Longley did initially draw the big assignments but Jackson routinely put Rodman on players when Longley wasnt getting it done.

[Goldrush25]

I think this has evolved from whether or Rodman was a superstar to how much impact did he have on the court. It really seems as if you only see scorers as having a major imoact while defenders have minimal. I couldn't agree more.

And again in the case you missed it, is Charles Barkley a superstar?

Of course great defenders have impact. But I think we define superstar as someone you build your team around. IMO, scoring isn't the only thing that matters, but it is the minimum prerequisite to be a superstar. We all know Dennis Rodman wasn't that.

In other words, there is no way to be a superstar if you can't score. But that doesn't mean that scoring is the only thing you have to do to be a superstar.

If I had to pick one player, give me the scorer and perhaps we can make him into a viable defender. But the great defender is always limited to just that.

[TheTenth]

This post is so full of fail its laughable. First you claim Rodman disregarded defense for rebounds then penalize him for the minimal rebounds games he had when he WAS DEFENDING MALONE. And yes Longley did initially draw the big assignments but Jackson routinely put Rodman on players when Longley wasnt getting it done.
You say it's laughable but you didn't refute any of it. He also had minimal rebounding games throughout the ENTIRE 1997 playoffs. Malone wasn't playing PF for every team the Bulls faced that year right? Was Malone on the 1996 Miami Heat? I can pull up many articles talking about how Rodman stat padded including the two coaches who brought him titles (PJ and Daly,) but I'm sure you know more.:oldlol:

Oh and to think that Rodman was the defensive player Russell was is more LOLs.

[Rake2204]

Yeah people don't seem to realize that Rodman's defense was vastly overrated by his San Antonio years. Watching footage of any of the playoffs from his Spurs years you will see a man stat-padding for rebounds. It was incredible how he would miss open tips and layups just to get an extra board, rip rebounds out of teammates hands, and refuse to play tough defense anywhere outside of 3 second zone. People forget that Rodman's defense had a negative correlation with his rebounding; ie: more rebounds/worse defense.

His play in 1997 and 98 also leaved alot to be desired. It's kind of ironic to hear people talk about him as the best rebounder of all time yet he could only get 8 RPG in 1997 and 12 RPG in 1998 - that being his main job. Even his defense was relatively poor by then; PJ would place Longley on the main scoring big man for the 1st quarter or two because Dennis racked up fouls so easily.

^ That said he still was a tremendously great role player, controlled a large fanbase, and is definetly deserving of his HOF status. He is just so overrated by many people, IMHO.I tend to have a little more of a positive outlook on Rodman's rebounding. I don't recall seeing really obvious cases of him ripping the ball out of a teammate's hands. Either way, in truth, if I had to pick between a player assuming his teammate has it or a player fighting for the ball until it's physically and certainly cleared, I'd take the latter.

I also do not believe he missed open layups just to get his own rebound. I mean, I do remember him missing a ton of random bunnies but those most often felt they were a result of his one track mind. Rebounding came first, then everything else. He'd often flick bunnies back up at the rim as if he was just trying to get a shot on goal. I don't think it was intentional, there just wasn't a lot of focus and concentration on that front.

That said, I do think it's worth addressing Rodman's rebounding philosophy. He had an incredible knack for the ball, great will, and tremendous athleticism, but I do believe his spiked rebound numbers often were a result of blocking out other aspects of the game in favor of focusing primarily on rebounding. And that's okay. As has been mentioned, there's a fair amount of player throughout history who've done that on the scoring front. At times though, I do think Rodman's focus was potentially at the detriment of other portions of the game.

Perhaps it's a moot point though. We'd likely all love to have at least one player devote himself to the glass like Rodman did (instead of always looking for the rock). Maybe I'm just trying to say his inflated rebounding numbers weren't necessarily just about someone who had this incredible gift. I think part of it had to do with the fact he was someone who went out of his way to make that his primary goal. I think many players would see a spike to their boards total if they also made it their goal. But again, to counter myself, I guess that's the point. Other players can go that route (Reggie Evans) but most (perhaps unwisely) choose not to.

[TheTenth]

I tend to have a little more of a positive outlook on Rodman's rebounding. I don't recall seeing really obvious cases of him ripping the ball out of a teammate's hands. Either way, in truth, if I had to pick between a player assuming his teammate has it or a player fighting for the ball until it's physically and certainly cleared, I'd take the latter.

I also do not believe he missed open layups just to get his own rebound. I mean, I do remember him missing a ton of random bunnies but those most often felt they were a result of his one track mind. Rebounding came first, then everything else. He'd often flick bunnies back up at the rim as if he was just trying to get a shot on goal. I don't think it was intentional, there just wasn't a lot of focus and concentration on that front.

That said, I do think it's worth addressing Rodman's rebounding philosophy. He had an incredible knack for the ball, great will, and tremendous athleticism, but I do believe his spiked rebound numbers often were a result of blocking out other aspects of the game in favor of focusing primarily on rebounding. And that's okay. As has been mentioned, there's a fair amount of player throughout history who've done that on the scoring front. At times though, I do think Rodman's focus was potentially at the detriment of other portions of the game.

Perhaps it's a moot point though. We'd likely all love to have at least one player devote himself to the glass like Rodman did (instead of always looking for the rock). Maybe I'm just trying to say his inflated rebounding numbers weren't necessarily just about someone who had this incredible gift. I think part of it had to do with the fact he was someone who went out of his way to make that his primary goal. I think many players would see a spike to their boards total if they also made it their goal. But again, to counter myself, I guess that's the point. Other players can go that route (Reggie Evans) but most (perhaps unwisely) choose not to.
Of course it's hyperbole to think that Rodman got every rebound from stat padding and it's obviously not true to say he wasn't a top 5 rebounder of all time, it's just crazy to think he got such high rebounding rates (in the Regular Season mostly) from just his weird rebounding ability. What makes it bad to me though is how it cost his team games (like in the 1995 WCF.)

“I let Dennis Rodman get his rebounds and get out of his way . . . allow him to pad his rebound stats,” Pippen said. “I think, as a basketball team, we just have to get more hungry. Dennis is going to get his rebounds. I just have to be more aggressive and get mine as well. We need to go out to win and not go out for the stats.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-13/sports/9612130108_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-dennis-rodman

“Dennis is going to get that basketball at the cost of pulling it away from his teammate sometimes” – Phil Jackson

“It’s a passion for him, but sometimes a distraction,” Jackson says. “It borders on an obsession that can create an obstruction to a team. We always have to temper him as still being a part of the offense, even though you’re still doing your job–which is going to get rebounds. There are times when I’ve seen Dennis step from one side of the basket where his man is because the shot is there and he can get the high-percentage rebound. But the ball bounces right to his man for a layup. His instinct is to go to the high-percentage side to get that rebound.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-02-29/sports/9602290143_1_bulls-coach-phil-jackson-dennis-rodman-grab

“I mean, there are times when we’re fighting against him to get rebounds. Sometimes we’ll lose it out of bounds because we’re fighting him.” – Michael Jordan

From “In the Year of the Bull” by Rick Telander p212

"He won't join in on team defense, won't rotate, because he is going to the boards"
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_aZhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UI4DAAAAIBAJ&dq=rodman%20rotate%20spurs%20defense&pg=6550%2C6191428

Chuck Daly: "He's selfish about rebounding. He'll cheat a little bit on his positioning in defense to get rebounds."
http://books.google.com/books?id=QnAG5M8lpm4C&pg=PT357&dq=rodman+rebound+defense+help&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yBAoUePUA-iiiQKP3YEY&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm sure I could find more...

[1987_Lakers]

^^:applause:

[Rake2204]

I think this has evolved from whether or Rodman was a superstar to how much impact did he have on the court. It really seems as if you only see scorers as having a major imoact while defenders have minimal. I couldn't agree more.

And again in the case you missed it, is Charles Barkley a superstar?Yeah, I think players can have impacts on the court without being superstars, so I can see where that could be confusing. There's no doubt he had a significant impact, but so do a lot of players, and I'm not sure I'd call them all superstars.

Maybe Goldrush is right, perhaps my vision of an NBA superstar most often does include a player who can score the ball. I think this is just going to end up being a strange and endless debate since our own definitions of superstar are so arbitrary. If we went by the dictionary definition, I think Rodman would make the cut, but so would a ton of other players we probably wouldn't agree fit the mold (the common definition more or less reserves the title for a famous person who's popular).

Either way, in basketball, I view superstars as the head honchos of teams who are one step above regular great players. And maybe I struggle to envision Rodman as a superstar because he was never someone for whom a team could be built around. That doesn't mean he didn't have an impact. That just means a GM probably would never say, "Okay, first let's sign Dennis Rodman to the biggest contract possible so he can be our #1 guy, then we'll just let all the other pieces fall into place." Whereas, on the other hand, if we were to replace Rodman's name with that of a Charles Barkley, I think it could work. I view superstars as top dogs, and I never felt Rodman was a top dog.

In the interest of full disclosure, I actually modeled my game after Dennis Rodman in high school, except I liked scoring a little more. My team was actually a little like the '92 Pistons. I was the leading scorer, I focused on taking charges, rebounding, and annoying, and there were a number of games I'm betting we wouldn't have won had I not played, but I was just one of three all-star level players on my team. I had a big impact and I put up numbers, but I'm not sure I ever would have been a guy someone would have wanted to start a team with. I filled in the blanks more than I ran a team and led them to victory, which is closer to what my two teammates did. I viewed them as superstar guys, and myself as a pretty darn good player at what I was supposed to be doing. That's essentially how I see Rodman. Perhaps a star at his best, forever providing an big impact, but not a #1 superstar.


Of course it's hyperbole to think that Rodman got every rebound from stat padding and it's obviously not true to say he wasn't a top 5 rebounder of all time, it's just crazy to think he got such high rebounding rates (in the Regular Season mostly) from just his weird rebounding ability. What makes it bad to me though is how it cost his team games (like in the 1995 WCF.)

“I let Dennis Rodman get his rebounds and get out of his way . . . allow him to pad his rebound stats,” Pippen said. “I think, as a basketball team, we just have to get more hungry. Dennis is going to get his rebounds. I just have to be more aggressive and get mine as well. We need to go out to win and not go out for the stats.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-13/sports/9612130108_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-dennis-rodman

“Dennis is going to get that basketball at the cost of pulling it away from his teammate sometimes” – Phil Jackson

“It’s a passion for him, but sometimes a distraction,” Jackson says. “It borders on an obsession that can create an obstruction to a team. We always have to temper him as still being a part of the offense, even though you’re still doing your job–which is going to get rebounds. There are times when I’ve seen Dennis step from one side of the basket where his man is because the shot is there and he can get the high-percentage rebound. But the ball bounces right to his man for a layup. His instinct is to go to the high-percentage side to get that rebound.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-02-29/sports/9602290143_1_bulls-coach-phil-jackson-dennis-rodman-grab

“I mean, there are times when we’re fighting against him to get rebounds. Sometimes we’ll lose it out of bounds because we’re fighting him.” – Michael Jordan

From “In the Year of the Bull” by Rick Telander p212

"He won't join in on team defense, won't rotate, because he is going to the boards"
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_aZhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UI4DAAAAIBAJ&dq=rodman%20rotate%20spurs%20defense&pg=6550%2C6191428

Chuck Daly: "He's selfish about rebounding. He'll cheat a little bit on his positioning in defense to get rebounds."
http://books.google.com/books?id=QnAG5M8lpm4C&pg=PT357&dq=rodman+rebound+defense+help&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yBAoUePUA-iiiQKP3YEY&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm sure I could find more...Good stuff. Have you read "The Year of the Bull"? Worthwhile?

[TheTenth]

Yeah, I think players can have impacts on the court without being superstars, so I can see where that could be confusing. There's no doubt he had a significant impact, but so do a lot of players, and I'm not sure I'd call them all superstars.

Maybe Goldrush is right, perhaps my vision of an NBA superstar most often does include a player who can score the ball. I think this is just going to end up being a strange and endless debate since our own definitions of superstar are so arbitrary. If we went by the dictionary definition, I think Rodman would make the cut, but so would a ton of other players we probably wouldn't agree fit the mold (the common definition more or less reserves the title for a famous person who's popular).

Either way, in basketball, I view superstars as the head honchos of teams who are one step above regular great players. And maybe I struggle to envision Rodman as a superstar because he was never someone for whom a team could be built around. That doesn't mean he didn't have an impact. That just means a GM probably would never say, "Okay, first let's sign Dennis Rodman to the biggest contract possible so he can be our #1 guy, then we'll just let all the other pieces fall into place." Whereas, on the other hand, if we were to replace Rodman's name with that of a Charles Barkley, I think it could work. I view superstars as top dogs, and I never felt Rodman was a top dog.

In the interest of full disclosure, I actually modeled my game after Dennis Rodman in high school, except I liked scoring a little more. My team was actually a little like the '92 Pistons. I was the leading scorer, I focused on taking charges, rebounding, and annoying, and there were a number of games I'm betting we wouldn't have won had I not played, but I was just one of three all-star level players on my team. I had a big impact and I put up numbers, but I'm not sure I ever would have been a guy someone would have wanted to start a team with. I filled in the blanks more than I ran a team and led them to victory, which is closer to what my two teammates did. I viewed them as superstar guys, and myself as a pretty darn good player at what I was supposed to be doing. That's essentially how I see Rodman. Perhaps a star at his best, forever providing an big impact, but not a #1 superstar.

You summed up what I feel about Rodman very well.


Good stuff. Have you read "The Year of the Bull"? Worthwhile?
Worthwhile? Yes, I find almost all of the basketball books I've read (except for Simmon's) to be worthwhile, even KC Jones' autobiography. It's filled with many "behind the scenes" information similiar to Sam Smith's "The Jordan Rules" but shifts most of the critical gossip away from Jordan and towards Rodman.

[97 bulls]

[QUOTE=TheTenth]Of course it's hyperbole to think that Rodman got every rebound from stat padding and it's obviously not true to say he wasn't a top 5 rebounder of all time, it's just crazy to think he got such high rebounding rates (in the Regular Season mostly) from just his weird rebounding ability. What makes it bad to me though is how it cost his team games (like in the 1995 WCF.)

[Rake2204]

Worthwhile? Yes, I find almost all of the basketball books I've read (except for Simmon's) to be worthwhile, even KC Jones' autobiography. It's filled with many "behind the scenes" information similiar to Sam Smith's "The Jordan Rules" but shifts most of the critical gossip away from Jordan and towards Rodman.Nice. I actually just got around to reading The Jordan Rules a few months ago after having it chill on my shelf for 10 years so maybe I'll try to take down another one while I'm on a Bulls kick.

[SourPatchKids]

Yes, please recommend me more basketball books. I have tons of free time in the next 12 days.

[TheTenth]

Yes, please recommend me more basketball books. I have tons of free time in the next 12 days.
Not sure if that question is for me or just my ego :oldlol: .
If you are asking me, what time frame are you interested in?

[JMT]

Yes, please recommend me more basketball books. I have tons of free time in the next 12 days.


Best book ever written about basketball...the real world of basketball... is FOUL: The Connie Hawkins Story by David Wolf

Hope you take the time to read it.

[TheTenth]

Lol im sure you can too. Nice finds. However, I see no difference in what Rodman is being accused of as opposed to Jordan or Kobe taking too many or ill-advised shots or Barkkeys work ethic, etc. Moses Malone padded his stats, too. Magic was a terrible defender, he routinely half assed it one the defensive side if the ball. And he would turn down an easy bucket for a more difficult assists.

As far as 97, Rodman only played 28 min, and he drew assignments against players that were content at taking jumpers. Webber, Laetner, Malone. The one time where he did play against players that banged in Pj Brown and Mourning, he got 19, 10, 9 (blowout), 11, and 13 rebounds. And mind you this is in a series with very low FGAs.
Thanks.
You are right in that many superstars aren't getting degraded in the same way Rodman is here, and as I tried to state before, those quotes weren't supposed to ruin the notion of Rodman's incredible rebounding, just used to try and bring some of it into perspective.

The thing is that while Magic may have routinely half assed on the other side of the court (although if half assing gets you the one of the best SPG seasons he was getting in the early 80s, you aren't really losing much) he made up for it with complete domination of the offensive side of the court, all while playing for large portions of the game. Rodman could choose domination between defense and rebounding (with exceptions with his 96 and 89 playoff runs where he did both well) but almost never both at the level people seem to expect he did. That said Magic, Charles, etc. are highly underrated defenders in the fact that they may not be MJ's, Pippens, or Rodman's at defense but they were above average while Rodman was significantly below average as an offensive player.

Rodman could be a number 1 player on a below average team, and is more a superstar than many of the players these lower echelon teams market, but I guess my definition of superstar is much stricter. Rodman was one of the best at filling a certain, integral role that needs filling, but many players won't because they A) Aren't skilled or athletic enough or B) Use their skills for the more important parts of the game like scoring and facilitating the offense because it is the path of least resistance to making money/receiving accolades/increasing star power, etc. Rodman's uniqueness gave him value - Rodman was the best at a small market game which consisted of only a few players like Horace Grant, Kevin Willis, and Rodman himself, while Magic was competing for the more prestigious/harder to duplicate role in which he was competing with the best of the game like Jordan, Bird, Nique, and so on. If rebounding specialists were the most prestigious role, Rodman would most likely not be the star that he was as his competition for his role along with the focus of other teams being against his favor. Rodman had a rare case of extreme athletic talent but little skill in the finer points of the game which made him a commodity so valuable yet such a risk. But as it goes in the stock market, higher risk = higher reward.

My diction, along with sentence/paragraph structure was horrible in my response, but I hope the message came through.

[fpliii]

Best book ever written about basketball...the real world of basketball... is FOUL: The Connie Hawkins Story by David Wolf

Hope you take the time to read it.

:applause:

[97 bulls]

Thanks.
You are right in that many superstars aren't getting degraded in the same way Rodman is here, and as I tried to state before, those quotes weren't supposed to ruin the notion of Rodman's incredible rebounding, just used to try and bring some of it into perspective.

The thing is that while Magic may have routinely half assed on the other side of the court (although if half assing gets you the one of the best SPG seasons he was getting in the early 80s, you aren't really losing much) he made up for it with complete domination of the offensive side of the court, all while playing for large portions of the game. Rodman could choose domination between defense and rebounding (with exceptions with his 96 and 89 playoff runs where he did both well) but almost never both at the level people seem to expect he did. That said Magic, Charles, etc. are highly underrated defenders in the fact that they may not be MJ's, Pippens, or Rodman's at defense but they were above average while Rodman was significantly below average as an offensive player.

Rodman could be a number 1 player on a below average team, and is more a superstar than many of the players these lower echelon teams market, but I guess my definition of superstar is much stricter. Rodman was one of the best at filling a certain, integral role that needs filling, but many players won't because they A) Aren't skilled or athletic enough or B) Use their skills for the more important parts of the game like scoring and facilitating the offense because it is the path of least resistance to making money/receiving accolades/increasing star power, etc. Rodman's uniqueness gave him value - Rodman was the best at a small market game which consisted of only a few players like Horace Grant, Kevin Willis, and Rodman himself, while Magic was competing for the more prestigious/harder to duplicate role in which he was competing with the best of the game like Jordan, Bird, Nique, and so on. If rebounding specialists were the most prestigious role, Rodman would most likely not be the star that he was as his competition for his role along with the focus of other teams being against his favor. Rodman had a rare case of extreme athletic talent but little skill in the finer points of the game which made him a commodity so valuable yet such a risk. But as it goes in the stock market, higher risk = higher reward.

My diction, along with sentence/paragraph structure was horrible in my response, but I hope the message came through.
If the question is.....is Dennis Rodman a superstar as far as talent on the level of Jordan or Magic or Wilt then off course no. But was he the face of the league and media darling? Absolutely. He was a major attraction.

As far as his talent? I feel you guys are still minimizing Rodmans contributions to a team. like for instance the way the term "role player" is used. Truth be told theyre all "role players". Some have the role to score, others rebound/dirty work, defense, shoot etc. The fact is a team isnt winning without those key elements.

Its even funnier that you bring up Barkley as a superstar. He was a malcontent, had a terrible work ethic, was arrested, hes been called a cancer, hell hes even wore a dress, and by his own admission was a terrible defender. He said something to the effect as long as Larry Bird was in the league, there will always be a worse defender than him. Why does he get a pass? Hes basically Rodman but he scored at a high level while Rodman played defense.

[cos88]

Rodman was a Finals MVP candidate in 96 and should have won it rightfully so.

Horrible shooting series and he swooped up all the rebounds for Chicago.


you are and embarasing phagot. worst poster on this forum :facepalm you should be banned for being that stupid.

[1987_Lakers]

Its even funnier that you bring up Barkley as a superstar. He was a malcontent, had a terrible work ethic, was arrested, hes been called a cancer, hell hes even wore a dress, and by his own admission was a terrible defender. He said something to the effect as long as Larry Bird was in the league, there will always be a worse defender than him. Why does he get a pass? Hes basically Rodman but he scored at a high level while Rodman played defense.

Barkley was an MVP, led his team to the Finals, 11x All-NBA Team selection, 11x All-Star.

You really think he's basically at Rodman's level?:oldlol:

Rodman never even cracked an All-NBA 2nd Team.

[97 bulls]

Barkley was an MVP, led his team to the Finals, 11x All-NBA Team selection, 11x All-Star.

You really think he's basically at Rodman's level?:oldlol:

Rodman never even cracked an All-NBA 2nd Team.
Rodman had 5 titles, 7 straight rebounding titles, 2 dpoys, and multiple all nba defense honors.

Again why is one vilified and the other vindicated?

[1987_Lakers]

Rodman had 5 titles, 7 straight rebounding titles, 2 dpoys, and multiple all nba defense honors.

Again why is one vilified and the other vindicated?

Michael Cooper has mulitple all nba defensive honors, 1 DPOY, and has 5 titles, I guess he's on Barkley's level too.:oldlol:

Sorry, Barkley's individual accolades are more impressive. Barkley finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 8 times, the highest Rodman ever finished is top 10. That alone should tell you who the better player was.

Are you seriously gonna sit here and say Rodman was on Barkley's level as a player? Embarrassing.

[97 bulls]

Michael Cooper has mulitple all nba defensive honors, 1 DPOY, and has 5 titles, I guess he's on Barkley's level too.:oldlol:

Sorry, Barkley's individual accolades are more impressive. Barkley finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 8 times, the highest Rodman ever finished is top 10. That alone should tell you who the better player was.

Are you seriously gonna sit here and say Rodman was on Barkley's level as a player? Embarrassing.
How many times did Cooper lead the league in anything much less seven straight? Rodman dominated two of thd most important facets of basketball.

[1987_Lakers]

How many times did Cooper lead the league in anything much less seven straight? Rodman dominated two of thd most important facets of basketball.

Is that why he was traded to Chicago for Will Perdue?:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Is that why he was traded to Chicago for Will Perdue?:oldlol:
Typical 22 year old.

[1987_Lakers]

Typical 22 year old.

Typical f.aggot.

[Living Being]

I remember Rodman having white hair on NBA Live 95 on the Spurs (#10). That made him a superstar to me. I'll never forget those days.

[Rake2204]

I remember Rodman having white hair on NBA Live 95 on the Spurs (#10). That made him a superstar to me. I'll never forget those days.Good times. For me it was yellow hair on NBA Showdown '94. That was the big feature, along with Chris Mullen's buzz cut. They also had signature dunks, which strangely took about 13 years to re-emerge in the simulation video game world.

[Goldrush25]

If the question is.....is Dennis Rodman a superstar as far as talent on the level of Jordan or Magic or Wilt then off course no. But was he the face of the league and media darling? Absolutely. He was a major attraction.

As far as his talent? I feel you guys are still minimizing Rodmans contributions to a team. like for instance the way the term "role player" is used. Truth be told theyre all "role players". Some have the role to score, others rebound/dirty work, defense, shoot etc. The fact is a team isnt winning without those key elements.

Its even funnier that you bring up Barkley as a superstar. He was a malcontent, had a terrible work ethic, was arrested, hes been called a cancer, hell hes even wore a dress, and by his own admission was a terrible defender. He said something to the effect as long as Larry Bird was in the league, there will always be a worse defender than him. Why does he get a pass? Hes basically Rodman but he scored at a high level while Rodman played defense.

I would've never called Rodman the face of the league at any time. MJ sufficiently carried that mantle all by himself. Rodman was along for the ride.

Now if he were playing today? He would definitely be marketed more like a star, but that's just because no one star dominates the spotlight like MJ did back then.

[TheTenth]

If the question is.....is Dennis Rodman a superstar as far as talent on the level of Jordan or Magic or Wilt then off course no. But was he the face of the league and media darling? Absolutely. He was a major attraction.

As far as his talent? I feel you guys are still minimizing Rodmans contributions to a team. like for instance the way the term "role player" is used. Truth be told theyre all "role players". Some have the role to score, others rebound/dirty work, defense, shoot etc. The fact is a team isnt winning without those key elements.

Its even funnier that you bring up Barkley as a superstar. He was a malcontent, had a terrible work ethic, was arrested, hes been called a cancer, hell hes even wore a dress, and by his own admission was a terrible defender. He said something to the effect as long as Larry Bird was in the league, there will always be a worse defender than him. Why does he get a pass? Hes basically Rodman but he scored at a high level while Rodman played defense.
He was basically Rodman but could actually carry teams in a highly competitive role. No matter what he says he was actually an average defender at worst, and while he couldn't rebound as well as Rodman (incidentally enough Barkley shut down Rodman in their H2H matchups) he could score much, much better, was much more efficient, a better passer, all receiving much more attention from the defense. Calling him Rodman + scoring is an absolute travesty to Barkley.

I also agree with you on the point that everyone is a role player. One role is high level scorer on maximized efficiency who can fill in other roles as needed by the team or a high caliber defender who can change the whole offensive schemes of an opponent and can also fill other roles as needed by the team. This is my definition of a superstar. Dennis does not fit this definition.


I will agree with you on the point that if media attention = superstar, then Dennis certainly is a superstar. I've been trying to argue based on basketball skills however. I wouldn't call Rodman the face of the league unless it's like that guy in Harry Potter who had two faces, with Voldemort's face being hidden by the towel. Which brings up the question, does Dennis Rodman = Voldemort?

[97 bulls]

I would've never called Rodman the face of the league at any time. MJ sufficiently carried that mantle all by himself. Rodman was along for the ride.

Now if he were playing today? He would definitely be marketed more like a star, but that's just because no one star dominates the spotlight like MJ did back then.
He was the face of the league in that he was a household name and recognizable. And I agree hed be regarded much higher if he played today. The type of player he is much more respected now.

[97 bulls]

He was basically Rodman but could actually carry teams in a highly competitive role. No matter what he says he was actually an average defender at worst, and while he couldn't rebound as well as Rodman (incidentally enough Barkley shut down Rodman in their H2H matchups) he could score much, much better, was much more efficient, a better passer, all receiving much more attention from the defense. Calling him Rodman + scoring is an absolute travesty to Barkley.

I also agree with you on the point that everyone is a role player. One role is high level scorer on maximized efficiency who can fill in other roles as needed by the team or a high caliber defender who can change the whole offensive schemes of an opponent and can also fill other roles as needed by the team. This is my definition of a superstar. Dennis does not fit this definition.


I will agree with you on the point that if media attention = superstar, then Dennis certainly is a superstar. I've been trying to argue based on basketball skills however. I wouldn't call Rodman the face of the league unless it's like that guy in Harry Potter who had two faces, with Voldemort's face being hidden by the towel. Which brings up the question, does Dennis Rodman = Voldemort?
He didnt or couldn't carry teams offensively, but he did carry teams. I mean in 96, George Karl said he won two games for the Bulls. And he wasnt bad in the others.

I dont see how you can totally lean on those quotes about Rodman, but then dismiss a quote from the player himself. Barkley was a terrible man defender. He admitted such. If by average defender you mean he didnt play matador type defense then we have no argument. But thats no different then me saying Rodman was a solid scorer because he can make all his wide open layups and dunks.

Either way, my main reason for bringing Barkley into this is because some of you penalize Rodman for being a cancer and not being a scorer. Barkley was just as much a cancer, had a terrible work ethic and was a self admitted 2nd worse defender in the league. Just admit youre partial to offense over defense

[TheTenth]

He didnt or couldn't carry teams offensively, but he did carry teams. I mean in 96, George Karl said he won two games for the Bulls. And he wasnt bad in the others.

I dont see how you can totally lean on those quotes about Rodman, but then dismiss a quote from the player himself. Barkley was a terrible man defender. He admitted such. If by average defender you mean he didnt play matador type defense then we have no argument. But thats no different then me saying Rodman was a solid scorer because he can make all his wide open layups and dunks.

Either way, my main reason for bringing Barkley into this is because some of you penalize Rodman for being a cancer and not being a scorer. Barkley was just as much a cancer, had a terrible work ethic and was a self admitted 2nd worse defender in the league. Just admit youre partial to offense over defense
I'm not diminishing Rodman for being a cancer... I was just stating why his rebounding stats are hyper inflated. I've stated this already.

And my criteria values offense and defense just the same. Did you read it?

The difference between Charles Barkley's average defense and Rodman's scoring is that Rodman was far below league average in scoring while also being relatively inefficient, at least for his paltry shot attempts.

Also I don't think Rodman carried any teams for anything other than maybe a 2 game stretch at best - something that "stars" like Toni Kukoc or Robert Horry could do. Well if the criteria for carrying teams is so watered down to include Rodman's performance in the 96 finals as carrying. Rodman was definetly the deciding X-factor that carried the Bulls over the edge in those games but it wasn't as if he was as replaceable as Jordan or even close to carrying the team. The Sonics defense focused totally on Jordan, who already had the DPOY guarding him the last 3 and a half games while Rodman had Shawn Kemp and mediocre Frank Brickowski guarding him.

[97 bulls]

I'm not diminishing Rodman for being a cancer... I was just stating why his rebounding stats are hyper inflated. I've stated this already.

And my criteria values offense and defense just the same. Did you read it?

The difference between Charles Barkley's average defense and Rodman's scoring is that Rodman was far below league average in scoring while also being relatively inefficient, at least for his paltry shot attempts.

Also I don't think Rodman carried any teams for anything other than maybe a 2 game stretch at best - something that "stars" like Toni Kukoc or Robert Horry could do. Well if the criteria for carrying teams is so watered down to include Rodman's performance in the 96 finals as carrying. Rodman was definetly the deciding X-factor that carried the Bulls over the edge in those games but it wasn't as if he was as replaceable as Jordan or even close to carrying the team. The Sonics defense focused totally on Jordan, who already had the DPOY guarding him the last 3 and a half games while Rodman had Shawn Kemp and mediocre Frank Brickowski guarding him.
How is Rodmans performance watered down? Its the NBA finals vs a 64 win team and hes playing arguably the best Power Forward at the time. He made history twice by having two games where he pulled down 11 offensive rebounds. As I stated earlier, he was the best player on the 92 Piston team that won almost 50 games.

I also dont see how Rodman was an inefficient scorer. He led the league in FG % one year and routinely shot in the mid 50s. His FG% was low in with Chicago, but I feel that had more to do with his penchant for taking ill advised jumpers.

During that series vs Seattle, he made them pay for doubling off him and not boxing out. I dont see a need to argue this when Karl stated he felt Rodman was the Bulls MVP. I also dont see a need to argue about Barkleys efforts on defense or lack there of when he admitted he was terrible. You cant pick and choose which quotes you want to use simply because they fall in line with yourd belief and then dismiss the ones that dont.

[GoSpursGo1984]

How is Rodmans performance watered down? Its the NBA finals vs a 64 win team and hes playing arguably the best Power Forward at the time. He made history twice by having two games where he pulled down 11 offensive rebounds. As I stated earlier, he was the best player on the 92 Piston team that won almost 50 games.

I also dont see how Rodman was an inefficient scorer. He led the league in FG % one year and routinely shot in the mid 50s. His FG% was low in with Chicago, but I feel that had more to do with his penchant for taking ill advised jumpers.

During that series vs Seattle, he made them pay for doubling off him and not boxing out. I dont see a need to argue this when Karl stated he felt Rodman was the Bulls MVP. I also dont see a need to argue about Barkleys efforts on defense or lack there of when he admitted he was terrible. You cant pick and choose which quotes you want to use simply because they fall in line with yourd belief and then dismiss the ones that dont.


He led the league in Fg% because he barley shot the ball he averaged 9ppg that year. Just because you shoot high FG% does not mean he was a good scorer.

[gengiskhan]

The worm was a STAR!

An all-star!

a unique player like Oak Man!

a better version of Charles Oakley

a guy who can win championships & steal an FMVP or in right circumstances!

[Droid101]

I'm not diminishing Rodman for being a cancer... I was just stating why his rebounding stats are hyper inflated. I've stated this already.

And my criteria values offense and defense just the same. Did you read it?

The difference between Charles Barkley's average defense and Rodman's scoring is that Rodman was far below league average in scoring while also being relatively inefficient, at least for his paltry shot attempts.

Also I don't think Rodman carried any teams for anything other than maybe a 2 game stretch at best - something that "stars" like Toni Kukoc or Robert Horry could do. Well if the criteria for carrying teams is so watered down to include Rodman's performance in the 96 finals as carrying. Rodman was definetly the deciding X-factor that carried the Bulls over the edge in those games but it wasn't as if he was as replaceable as Jordan or even close to carrying the team. The Sonics defense focused totally on Jordan, who already had the DPOY guarding him the last 3 and a half games while Rodman had Shawn Kemp and mediocre Frank Brickowski guarding him.
...

You are a skeptic.

http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

Please read this. It's the best sports-related thing I've ever read, and everyone should read it.

Dennis Rodman is the best rebounder in the history of the league by far. Not even close.

[LosBulls]

[QUOTE]Series was tied at 2 and Hornets had a chance to win game 5 in Chicago. On the biggest possession of the game, Mugsy had the ball with the Hornets down 1. Jordan backed off of him and told him:

[LosBulls]

[QUOTE]Story #1

[97 bulls]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
I normally try to accept peoples word, but that Jordan/Bouges story never quit added up. I find it hard to believe Mugsy never had to endure jabs about his height. Especially in the NBA. Im sure Jordan callin him a bleeping midget wasnt the first time hes heard that

[TheTenth]

...

You are a skeptic.

http://skepticalsports.com/?p=112

Please read this. It's the best sports-related thing I've ever read, and everyone should read it.

Dennis Rodman is the best rebounder in the history of the league by far. Not even close.
Already read it, Dennis Rodman is the best regular season rebounder in the league, but is not the best playoff rebounder in terms of TRB%. Morrison fails to take into account team rebounds into 1960s rebounding numbers, deflating Wilt's and Russell's TRB% and adjusted RPG.

You should be more skeptical, even for skeptical articles.

[TheTenth]

How is Rodmans performance watered down? Its the NBA finals vs a 64 win team and hes playing arguably the best Power Forward at the time. He made history twice by having two games where he pulled down 11 offensive rebounds. As I stated earlier, he was the best player on the 92 Piston team that won almost 50 games.

I also dont see how Rodman was an inefficient scorer. He led the league in FG % one year and routinely shot in the mid 50s. His FG% was low in with Chicago, but I feel that had more to do with his penchant for taking ill advised jumpers.

During that series vs Seattle, he made them pay for doubling off him and not boxing out. I dont see a need to argue this when Karl stated he felt Rodman was the Bulls MVP. I also dont see a need to argue about Barkleys efforts on defense or lack there of when he admitted he was terrible. You cant pick and choose which quotes you want to use simply because they fall in line with yourd belief and then dismiss the ones that dont.
It seems our argument has become circular but I think the point of the matter is that we each have different criteria for a star player. My criteria leaves out Rodman while yours doesn't. Isn't it basically that simple? You've helped me tinker with my criteria though, and I thank you.

Oh and I think Rodman's high FG% early on was likely due to his low volume of shot selection and his lack of desire for easy O-rebounds. His FG% dropped in Chicago likely because of age, stat padding, and the aforementioned ill advised jump shots, although I'd like to say that he wasn't shooting nearly as many 3's as he once was while he was in Chicago.

And I only pick and choose quotes when it is players talking about themselves. Should I beleive Wilt Chamberlain really slept with 20,000 women? Besides of which, the quotes were merely supplements for about 20 minutes of Bulls footage in which the stat-padding usually is obvious.

[TheTenth]

I normally try to accept peoples word, but that Jordan/Bouges story never quit added up. I find it hard to believe Mugsy never had to endure jabs about his height. Especially in the NBA. Im sure Jordan callin him a bleeping midget wasnt the first time hes heard that
Right, that story never really made much sense to me either.

[97 bulls]

It seems our argument has become circular but I think the point of the matter is that we each have different criteria for a star player. My criteria leaves out Rodman while yours doesn't. Isn't it basically that simple? You've helped me tinker with my criteria though, and I thank you.

Oh and I think Rodman's high FG% early on was likely due to his low volume of shot selection and his lack of desire for easy O-rebounds. His FG% dropped in Chicago likely because of age, stat padding, and the aforementioned ill advised jump shots, although I'd like to say that he wasn't shooting nearly as many 3's as he once was while he was in Chicago.

And I only pick and choose quotes when it is players talking about themselves. Should I beleive Wilt Chamberlain really slept with 20,000 women? Besides of which, the quotes were merely supplements for about 20 minutes of Bulls footage in which the stat-padding usually is obvious.
I must say you're an excellent debater Tenth. I feel this is one of the few times Ive discussed and had a difference in POV where it was civil and informative. And left me kinda stumped when you dropped all those quotes from reputable sources.

Basically I feel (mostly due to this discussion) that Rodman wasnt a "superstar" based solely on what he did on the court or talent, but was a superstar based on his ability to draw casual fans to the NBA due to bus antics and contributions on the court.

I look forward to another discussion.

[Mr Exlax]

Dude ****ed Madonna...'nuff said.

This. He's probably still a superstar lol.

[Euroleague]

No. He was not a superstar. He was the best offensive rebounder I ever saw though.

[Euroleague]

To be fair, everyone had a piece of Madonna. Even Scottie Pippen. Unfortunately MJ didn't because his pen1s was too small.



http://www.mixmakers.net/basketball/johnny-bach-spills-his-guts-on-the-90s-bulls/

Both Madonna and Pippen are ugly as hell.

[TheTenth]

I must say you're an excellent debater Tenth. I feel this is one of the few times Ive discussed and had a difference in POV where it was civil and informative. And left me kinda stumped when you dropped all those quotes from reputable sources.

Basically I feel (mostly due to this discussion) that Rodman wasnt a "superstar" based solely on what he did on the court or talent, but was a superstar based on his ability to draw casual fans to the NBA due to bus antics and contributions on the court.

I look forward to another discussion.
Thank you, the feelings are mutual then. You are also an excellent debater - which makes the debates fun/challenging and leads to a rethinking of opinions.

Hopefully I can stat pad my to more posts so that I can get pm's and what not. :oldlol:

[Lebron23]

He was an All Star. I was surprised that the fans and coaches didn't vote him in the all star game when he played for the Chicago Bulls.

[warriorfan]

Star yes, superstar no.

[Round Mound]

I don`t know if he was a superstar but definetly a star and all star level player. The most technical rebounder ever and one of the best defenders ever.

[3ball]

I don`t know if he was a superstar


Dennis Rodman was a superstar in 1990 and 1991 - that Rodman won back to-back DPOY and was a dynamic defender that guarded all positions.

But the 34-year old Rodman that played with the Bulls was not a superstar - maybe off the court....

But on the court, he was no longer the dynamic DPOY that guarded all positions, and it's impossible to be a "superstar" if you average 3 points and 8 rebounds on 37% for an entire playoffs as Rodman did in 1997.. He also averaged 3 PPG and 7 RPG in 1998 Finals... There's no way anyone can be considered a "superstar" with those numbers.. ever.
.

[Round Mound]

Dennis Rodman was a superstar in 1990 and 1991 - that Rodman won back to-back DPOY and was a dynamic defender that guarded all positions.

But the 34-year old Rodman that played with the Bulls was not a superstar - maybe off the court....

But on the court, he was no longer the dynamic DPOY that guarded all positions, and it's impossible to be a "superstar" if you average 3 points and 8 rebounds on 37% for an entire playoffs as Rodman did in 1997.. He also averaged 3 PPG and 7 RPG in 1998 Finals... There's no way anyone can be considered a "superstar" with those numbers.. ever.
.

He was an all star level player not a superstar.

[3ball]

He was an all star level player not a superstar


Rodman was an all-star 2 times in his 14 year career (1990, 1992).. By the time he became a Bull at 34 years old, his all-star days were long gone.

His two all-star seasons were around the same time he won back-to-back DPOY's as a SF (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374199).

1990 Rodman never averages 4 points and 8 rebounds on 37% shooting for an entire playoffs like 1997 Rodman did.
.

[ClipperRevival]

To me, he was the greatest rebounder ever and one of the best defenders ever due to his versatility. I'll take that guy on my team anyday. I could care less what label you give him. It's like asking if Draymond Green is a superstar. All I know is his value is immense in helping you win because he does so many things for you.

[jayfan]

You're stupid.

I'm done with this thread because we have too many kids in here who don't know how Rodman gained a ton of fame due to playing on the Bulls during Jordan's comeback.

His best years weren't with Chicago, they were with Detroit. Fame had nothing to do with it. Probably the GOAT rebounder and one of the GOAT defenders.



.

[bizil]

In my opinion, a superstar is a guy u can build a franchise around. It's a guy that can be the best player on a world title team. So in that sense NO Rodman wasn't a superstar. If Rodman was a consistent double double guy getting 15-18 points a night, he would have been a 8-10 time All Star. And regarded in the top 6-7 GOAT PF's. I just believe superstars have a great impact offensively or they are great two way players.

BUT he built a HOF resume due to his rebounding and defense. Rodman can make the case that he's the greatest rebounding and defensive forward ever. And when u throw five rings on top of that, he was easy HOF material. And off the court, Rodman was EASILY a superstar. Actually one of the most mainstream NBA stars of all time!

[Kobe_6/8]

He is around Detroit at least...people still talk about those Bad Boy Pistons and how tough they were.

He's in the HOF and most fans knew his name when he played, I consider him a superstar.

[Wiltside]

No, not a superstar. There are rarely more than 3-5 superstars in the league at once.

[poido123]

Superstar role-player.

[G0ATbe]

Absolutely. GOAT rebounder.

[dubeta]

Absolutely. GOAT rebounder.

who's better prime MJ or Kyrie Irving?