The recent annoucement of Dennis Rodman as a finalist for the Basketball Hall of Fame has been the topic o f much debate lately. Certainly there is no doubting that Rodman, a forward for the NBA's Detroit Pistons, Chicago Bulls, and San Antonio Spurs, was a great defender--he lead the league in rebounds for multiple season--and important role player for championship teams with both the Pistons and Bulls. Is that enough for him to make it into the Hall? Or should Rodman, like those who entered the hall before him, be held to a higher standard? At the end of the day, it could be argued, Rodman was nothing more than a one dimensional player who does not deserve hall consideration.
It is true that Dennis Rodman was one of the greatest role players in the NBA, but to say that alone makes him worthy of being inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame would be somewhat premature. After all, players such as Larry Nance and John 'Hot Rod' Williams were pivotal role players for the Cleveland Cavaliers, yet neither one of them is in the Hall of Fame. Same can be said for Dennis Johnson, point guard for the Boston Celtics and winner of three NBA championships. In the opinion of many the Hall of Fame is reserved for players who transcended the game, that were superstars. And while Dennis Rodman was great on the defensive end of the court, he was almost nonexistent on the offensive end. So, to say that he indeed transcended the game would be a bit of a stretch--he was really only a factor on one end of the court,
There is another argument that says Rodman should be in the Hall because he was a pivotal cog in at least five NBA championships. If winning championships were the ticket to getting into the hall, then there are a lot of players left out. Danny Ainge has one multiple championship with the Boston Celtics, yet he is not in the Hall. Same goes for Sam Cassell, who, as a point guard for Houston, won back to back NBA championships. These are both players who played an instrumental part on their respective championship teams, but are not good enough to be considered hall of fame worthy. Why should it be any different for Rodman?
Finally, there is the argument Rodman deserves to be in the Hall because he led the league in rebounds for so many seasons. Again, that is swell and all, but isn't the purpose of the Hall of Fame to honor those individuals who excelled on both ends of the floor? Maybe not, but that is what the Hall should be about.
When the dust finally settles, this argument will more than likely be moot, because Rodman will be selected to the Hall. However, in the interest of maintaining the at least a shred of integrity in Springfield, Massachusetts, the selection committee should seriously considering not casting a vote for him.
It is true that Dennis Rodman was one of the greatest role players in the NBA, but to say that alone makes him worthy of being inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame would be somewhat premature. After all, players such as Larry Nance and John 'Hot Rod' Williams were pivotal role players for the Cleveland Cavaliers, yet neither one of them is in the Hall of Fame. Same can be said for Dennis Johnson, point guard for the Boston Celtics and winner of three NBA championships. In the opinion of many the Hall of Fame is reserved for players who transcended the game, that were superstars. And while Dennis Rodman was great on the defensive end of the court, he was almost nonexistent on the offensive end. So, to say that he indeed transcended the game would be a bit of a stretch--he was really only a factor on one end of the court,
There is another argument that says Rodman should be in the Hall because he was a pivotal cog in at least five NBA championships. If winning championships were the ticket to getting into the hall, then there are a lot of players left out. Danny Ainge has one multiple championship with the Boston Celtics, yet he is not in the Hall. Same goes for Sam Cassell, who, as a point guard for Houston, won back to back NBA championships. These are both players who played an instrumental part on their respective championship teams, but are not good enough to be considered hall of fame worthy. Why should it be any different for Rodman?
Finally, there is the argument Rodman deserves to be in the Hall because he led the league in rebounds for so many seasons. Again, that is swell and all, but isn't the purpose of the Hall of Fame to honor those individuals who excelled on both ends of the floor? Maybe not, but that is what the Hall should be about.
When the dust finally settles, this argument will more than likely be moot, because Rodman will be selected to the Hall. However, in the interest of maintaining the at least a shred of integrity in Springfield, Massachusetts, the selection committee should seriously considering not casting a vote for him.
No comments:
Post a Comment