ISH All-time Top 25 Forwards Project #19: Dolph Schayes vs Dennis Rodman.

[Kblaze8855]

Dolph Schayes

http://www.jewishsports.net/BioImages/bookA_Page_035_Image_0001.jpg

12 time all star
12 times all NBA(6 first 6 second)
1955 NBA champion
Career 19/12/3 player with single season peaks of 25 points, 16 rebounds, and 4 assists.
Led the NBA in rebounds per game in 1951
Led NBA in free throws twice
Second in MVP voting in 1958

*ill add a new what they were saying later...about to be late for work*


Dennis Rodman

http://img.printstown.com/sportingnews/1992_03_16_DENNIS_RODMAN_LARGE.JPG

5 time NBA champion
2 time NBA all star
2 time defensive player of the year
2 time all nba team(3rd)
8 time all defense. 7 first team
Led NBA in field goal percentage in 1989
Led the NBA in rebounds 7 seasons in a row and was second the season before he started that run
Elected to NBA hall of fame in 2011
Holds NBA finals record for offensive rebounds


What they were saying:

In this case...more a poll. In the 1990 GM survey:


Who is the best perimeter defender?

Joe Dumars (Detroit), 5 votes

Dennis Rodman (Detroit), 5 votes

Michael Jordan (Chicago), 3 votes

Michael Cooper (Lakers), 4 votes


Who is the best interior defender?

Akeem Olajuwon (Houston), 11 votes

Dennis Rodman (Detroit), 3 votes

Why it matters?

Rodman was voted the best perimeter defender(in a tie) over Jordan and the second best interior defender over guys like Eaton. He was quick enough able to stay in front of anyone and at other times guard centers. This is from 1996....


When it comes to [Alonzo] Mourning and O'Neal, Rodman shut down both centers during the Bulls' recent postseason run.

In a story on Oneal and Zo looking for big checks and Rodman looking for one too after Howard got 100 million.

Rodman has held Jordan in check and Shaq too at different points of his career.

Oh and he averaged over 21 rebounds a game for a two month period while doing it. And he had 34 rebounds....and 18 were on offense. That is...something. he was actually player of the month at one point in there too(in 1992).

[Kblaze8855]

And for anyone annoyed to see Dennis this high let me offer two explanations....

1. Basketball is alot more than scoring and he was an elite player in several elements of the game aside from it.

2. This is where he was voted in the lists I counted

19
16
19
25
19
17
19
16
12
18
24
17
17
25
21
20
20
16
19

More than that but thats just the few I glanced at for this.

ISH voted him up where he is. Ask them why if you have a problem with it.

[Carbine]

Comparing both players to their respective eras, I find it hard to imagine Dolph not winning this one.

[Kblaze8855]

Well yes. Dolph is closer to an elite player in the 50s than Rodman in the 90s. But id take Rodman. And that isnt an era thing. Id take Rodman over some players of a similar level now(not quite MVPs who led very good teams and put up 20/10). For example.....id take Rodman over Jermain Oneal who was I think 3rd in MVP voting and led a 60 win team or two. There is nobody to lead a team to a ring lately id take Rodman over(unless we count the 04 Pistons) but im just not gonna compare dolph to a Tim Duncan, KG, Dirk, Wade, or Kobe anyway.

Point blank...id take Rodman over a lot of people who put up numbers he couldnt touch. And I think id rather have his career too. Just for me personally to play. 6 finals and 5 rings all of them as a very good player? So no Horry/Kerry shit(Horry on the Rockets was similar to Rodman on the Pistons though).

I think Rodman is the best player to point to when discussing how people just dont care about defense and rebounding. Clearly having been rated this high people respect him...but he was never as respected for his ability as id have liked.

He was one of the hardest working, most well rounded(he could do everything but shoot and handle the ball....a lot of people cant do anything but those), impactful players in the league for a long time. he was smart..would do ANYTHING to win.

I respect him mroe than 90% of the guys considered better than him. He had the heart of Larry Bird with opposing skills. But he was flat out among the best players ever to me. Not best defensive...best players.


And guys like him will never get the love I feel they should. Russell aside...guys like him dont get that respect. And even Bill was scoring quite a bit at times. Dennis was too off the bench for a minute there but...nobody remembers it. he put up 15/10 as a 7th man on the Pistons for a couple months he just stopped pushing himself to score.

[NugzHeat3]

My problem with Rodman has everything to do with non-basketball related issues.

The guy was effective under leaders like Jordan and Isiah and coaches like Daly and Jackson.

You put him anywhere else, he's a headcase and his impact is not there despite the numbers being there.

Bob Hill just could not keep him under control and he's a big reason for the Spurs' loss in the 1995 playoffs. The guy is out there with his shoes off, refusing to take part in huddles or TOs, solely looking to pad his rebounding numbers instead of rotating on his man (Horry) and it got so bad that he was benched/sidelined for a couple of games in the Spurs vs Lakers series.

You can see it in the results too. The Spurs made the WCSF, won 59 games after trading him for Will Perdue (no other roster changes) and their defense didn't take a hit take a hit either. Will Perdue wasn't doing anything here. Rodman just wasn't having a lot of impact on that team. He did make Robinson somewhat of a tougher player though. I'd point to the Lakers and Dallas years too at the end of his career but those are sort of irrelevant since he was in his late 30s.

In his Detroit and Chicago years, Rodman is does his role very well. He's a specialist but a damn good one. Locking down his man, crashing the glass, providing versatility ect.

He's an underrated offensive player too. Offensive rebounding, setting screens, interior passing are things he did at an elite level. He's effective without the ball.

[D.J.]

Rodman. We're talking the best perimeter defender in the league in his youth, arguably the GOT rebounder while containing top bigs, a game changer, a momentum changer, and brought in fans to watch him play. We're talking a guy that put up over 18 RPG twice in the NINETIES and led the league in rebounds every year from '92-'98, and as a 6'6" player capable of playing positions 3-5.



(Horry on the Rockets was similar to Rodman on the Pistons though).


:facepalm

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Last I saw in the last thread was you saying it was a tie, then someone else put Pierce... how did Schayes win?

Just read it, seems a little subjective how you choose whose votes count and whose don't... I've always thought those who took the time to read up on players like Schayes were more biased towards them because of the amount of "Who the f*ck is he" responses. I guess no one's really going to be totally unbiased anyway...

[D.J.]

You put him anywhere else, he's a headcase and his impact is not there despite the numbers being there.


The impact was there. He took a huge load off Robinson's shoulders. Their failures in the '94 and '95 postseasons had to do with Robinson completely folding. In '94 against Utah, Robinson had games of 12/9 on 2/14 shooting and 16/11 on 8/21 shooting. Those were also back-to-back games BTW. In '95, he had games scoring 22, 21, 20, and 19. He shot 7/15, 5/17, 6/16, and 6/17 in those games respectively. Rodman averaged 16 RPG against Utah in '94(11, 17, and 20 and that order) and against Houston in '95, grabbed 12+ rebounds in all but one game and averaged 15 RPG for the series. Robinson was the problem in the playoffs, not Rodman.



Bob Hill just could not keep him under control and he's a big reason for the Spurs' loss in the 1995 playoffs. The guy is out there with his shoes off, refusing to take part in huddles or TOs, solely looking to pad his rebounding numbers instead of rotating on his man (Horry) and it got so bad that he was benched/sidelined for a couple of games in the Spurs vs Lakers series.


And that was a huge part as to why Hill was fired a little over a year later. Hill was god awful at motivating his players and getting the best out of them. The blame for the Spurs underachieving(outside of Hill) was Robinson playing piss poor against Utah and getting his ass pounded by Olajuwon.



You can see it in the results too. The Spurs made the WCSF, won 59 games after trading him for Will Perdue (no other roster changes) and their defense didn't take a hit take a hit either. Will Perdue wasn't doing anything here. Rodman just wasn't having a lot of impact on that team. He did make Robinson somewhat of a tougher player though. I'd point to the Lakers and Dallas years too at the end of his career but those are sort of irrelevant since he was in his late 30s.


The 4 years before Rodman arrived, the Spurs won 49, 47, 55, and 56 games. After going 49-33 in '93, they went 55-27 in Rodman's first season and 62-20 in his second season in San Antonio. They were certainly a good team prior to Rodman joining, but they did not get worse with him there. And because they had a good system, they won without him too.

[Droid101]

Dennis Rodman is the best rebounder in the history of the league by far.

Dennis Rodman has proven to impact any team he's on in a positive way. Teams play much better when he's on the floor than when he's not.

Five championships and many, many times being on the team with the best overall or nearly the best overall record in the league.



Rodman’s Win % Differential

As I’ve discussed previously, a player’s differential statistics are simply the difference in their team’s performance in the games they played versus the games they missed. One very important differential stat we might be interested in is winning percentage.

To look at Rodman’s numbers in this area, I used exactly the same process that I described in Part 2(b) (http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1143) to look at his other differentials. However, for comparison purposes, I’ve greatly expanded the pool of players by dropping the qualifying minutes requirement from 3000 to 1000. This grows the pool from 164 players to 470.

Why expand? Honestly, because Rodman’s extreme win % differential allows it. I think the more stringent filters produce a list that is more reliable from top to bottom—but in this case, I am mostly interested in (literally) the top. There are some players on the list with barely 1/3 of a season’s worth of qualifying playing time to back up their numbers—which should produce extreme volatility—yet still no one is able to overtake Rodman.
Here is Rodman’s raw win differential, along with those of a number of select players (including a few whose styles are often compared to Rodman’s, some Hall of Famers, some future first-ballot Hall of Fame selections, and Rodman’s 2011 Hall of Fame co-finalists Chris Mullin and Maurice Cheeks):

http://skepticalsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/image11.png

Amazingly, this number may not even reflect Rodman’s true impact, because he generally played for extremely good teams, where it is not only harder to contribute, but where a given impact will have less of an effect on win percentage (for example, if your team normally wins 90% of its games, it is clearly impossible to have a win% differential above 10%). To account for this, I’ve also created “adjusted” win% differentials, which attempt to normalize a player’s percentage increase/decrease to what it would be on a .500 team.

Quite frankly, Dennis Rodman was better at rebounding than any other player was better than other players at any other stat (roundabout... but true if you think about it).

He was a winner, plain and simple.

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

[Droid101]

I'd point to the Lakers and Dallas years too at the end of his career but those are sort of irrelevant since he was in his late 30s.

Please, point to the Lakers, you only help his case, as he still had an insane rebound rate and had the Lakers on the same pace of wins as the Spurs at the start of the season until he was cut for NO GOOD REASON.

[quote]And indeed, Rodman

[NugzHeat3]

The impact was there. He took a huge load off Robinson's shoulders. Their failures in the '94 and '95 postseasons had to do with Robinson completely folding. In '94 against Utah, Robinson had games of 12/9 on 2/14 shooting and 16/11 on 8/21 shooting. Those were also back-to-back games BTW. In '95, he had games scoring 22, 21, 20, and 19. He shot 7/15, 5/17, 6/16, and 6/17 in those games respectively. Rodman averaged 16 RPG against Utah in '94(11, 17, and 20 and that order) and against Houston in '95, grabbed 12+ rebounds in all but one game and averaged 15 RPG for the series. Robinson was the problem in the playoffs, not Rodman.





And that was a huge part as to why Hill was fired a little over a year later. Hill was god awful at motivating his players and getting the best out of them. The blame for the Spurs underachieving(outside of Hill) was Robinson playing piss poor against Utah and getting his ass pounded by Olajuwon.





The 4 years before Rodman arrived, the Spurs won 49, 47, 55, and 56 games. After going 49-33 in '93, they went 55-27 in Rodman's first season and 62-20 in his second season in San Antonio. They were certainly a good team prior to Rodman joining, but they did not get worse with him there. And because they had a good system, they won without him too.
I disagree.

Rodman's antics killed the Spurs' chemistry and even the players (Sean Elliott, Doc Rivers) called him out for it. Rodman was being a distraction, you can blame Bob Hill and I'd agree because he was a bit of a joke as a coach but as a player, Rodman deserves just as much flack. His antics were inexcusable.

I'm not necessarily concerned with the stats here.

Also, to be clear, I'm not excusing Robinson who folded under pressure and got dominated by Hakeem. He deserves flack for that and he deserves flack for being shut down by Malone/Spence in 1994 as well. But despite Hakeem going off, they could have won the series if Rodman rotated on Horry and played in the flow of the game according the game plan. Game 4 of that series was a 103-81 blowout for San Antonio playing @ Houston and after the game, the entire Rockets team said Rodman killed us and he was the biggest reason San Antonio won the game.


The Spurs were at their best, which meant Dennis Rodman was on his best behavior. Leading an all-out rebounding assault, Rodman finished with 12 points and 19 rebounds, including 12 offensive rebounds. San Antonio annihilated the Rockets on the backboards, outrebounding them, 64-39. At times, it looked as if the Spurs were playing volleyball and the Rockets were watching. Rodman had little to say after the game, but his performance spoke loudly.

"Rodman killed us," said Kenny Smith, Houston's point guard.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/29/sports/1995-nba-playoffs-the-spurs-get-even-by-routing-rockets.html?src=pm
^In this game, Horry shot 2 for 9 so you can assume Rodman was playing good defense as well.

The chemistry and the environment is something Rodman doesn't quite enhance unless in the right situation.

Even in his last year in Detroit, he was beefing with the Ron Rothstein and the Pistons were content with trading him away. Rodman and Ron weren't on the same page. Rodman was showing up late for practice, thought Daly bailed on him when he bolted to Jersey and seemed like he wanted out.

They fired Ron and hired Chaney at the end of the season and look what Chaney says here.

"I hope to sit down and talk with Dennis soon," Chaney said. "Dennis put up the numbers last year but we can't have the disruptions.

^May 5, 1993.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LVZPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UgMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6135,1112324&dq=dennis+rodman+problem&hl=en

[NugzHeat3]

Please, point to the Lakers, you only help his case, as he still had an insane rebound rate and had the Lakers on the same pace of wins as the Spurs at the start of the season until he was cut for NO GOOD REASON.


http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397
:oldlol:

Nobody would cut him for no good reason. You can give me his rebound rate though.

The guy was a massive distraction and only few could keep him under control or put up with his problems.

[D.J.]

Rodman's antics killed the Spurs' chemistry and even the players (Sean Elliott, Doc Rivers) called him out for it. Rodman was being a distraction, you can blame Bob Hill and I'd agree because he was a bit of a joke as a coach but as a player, Rodman deserves just as much flack. His antics were inexcusable.


He always was a drama queen, but he won you games. He couldn't have hurt team chemistry that much if they won 55 and 62 games in his only seasons there. Players blamed Rodman simply because he was the easiest guy to blame. No one wanted to blame the league MVP that stunk up the joint. In terms of blame, it's 1)Robinson, 2)Hill, 3)Rodman.



I'm not necessarily concerned with the stats here.

Also, to be clear, I'm not excusing Robinson who folded under pressure and got dominated by Hakeem. He deserves flack for that and he deserves flack for being shut down by Malone/Spence in 1994 as well. But despite Hakeem going off, they could have won the series if Rodman rotated on Horry and played in the flow of the game according the game plan. Game 4 of that series was a 103-81 blowout for San Antonio playing @ Houston and after the game, the entire Rockets team said Rodman killed us and he was the biggest reason San Antonio won the game.


You should be concerned with the stats. The alpha dog and league MVP was god awful in those two playoffs. Rodman not rotating on Horry are individual plays. Robinson had complete games where he just stunk it up and those games were also consecutive at times. And even if he bounced back, he didn't bounce back as much as he should have. Blame goes to multiple people. Basketball is a team sport. But Rodman is not more at fault than Robinson was.



The chemistry and the environment is something Rodman doesn't quite enhance unless in the right situation.


It seemed fine during the regular season. He had no problem helping the Spurs to an average of 58.5 wins in 2 seasons.



Even in his last year in Detroit, he was beefing with the Ron Rothstein and the Pistons were content with trading him away. Rodman and Ron weren't on the same page. Rodman was showing up late for practice, thought Daly bailed on him when he bolted to Jersey and seemed like he wanted out.


That Pistons team was on the downfall and everyone knew it. That 1993-94 season, Laimbeer and Isiah both played their final seasons. Laimbeer missed all but 11 games and Isiah missed 24 himself.

[HylianNightmare]

i would take Rodman on my team every day of the week, guy had his offcourt "issues" but on the court you could count on him to give you his all and play some great D and get you every damn rebound possible

[Kblaze8855]

I didnt mean horry was similar to 90s pistons rodman but similar role in the 80s on the teams when they were winning. 3rd or 4th best player. 5th to some. Said it because i said his rings were not of a horry variety and didnt feel like reading that horry on the rockets did quite a bit.

[rodman91]

http://radiotimeline.com/wndr1955-Syracuse_Nationals.jpg

vs

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1007/most.hated.teams.all.time/images/1988-89-pistons(2).jpg

:oldlol:

[FF1]

Dolph Schayes

Because I can't justify voting for rodman since he was never even the best player on his team (usually not even the 2nd best).

[Droid101]

Dolph Schayes

Because I can't justify voting for rodman since he was never even the best player on his team (usually not even the 2nd best).
If he contributed more to wins, then he was technically the reason the team won.

And Rodman did that better than anyone not named Jordan, Bird, or Magic did.

Rodman just won. Period.

[quote]
Let

[Gotterdammerung]

I'd have to go with Dolph Schayes over Rodman because u could build around him. Rodman, u needed a very strong stable organization in order to let him focus on rebounding. A cerebral specialist and likely the X-factor that turns talented teams into championship teams.

But he wasn't the complete player Schayes was.
More later.

[NugzHeat3]

He always was a drama queen, but he won you games. He couldn't have hurt team chemistry that much if they won 55 and 62 games in his only seasons there. Players blamed Rodman simply because he was the easiest guy to blame. No one wanted to blame the league MVP that stunk up the joint. In terms of blame, it's 1)Robinson, 2)Hill, 3)Rodman.





You should be concerned with the stats. The alpha dog and league MVP was god awful in those two playoffs. Rodman not rotating on Horry are individual plays. Robinson had complete games where he just stunk it up and those games were also consecutive at times. And even if he bounced back, he didn't bounce back as much as he should have. Blame goes to multiple people. Basketball is a team sport. But Rodman is not more at fault than Robinson was.





It seemed fine during the regular season. He had no problem helping the Spurs to an average of 58.5 wins in 2 seasons.





That Pistons team was on the downfall and everyone knew it. That 1993-94 season, Laimbeer and Isiah both played their final seasons. Laimbeer missed all but 11 games and Isiah missed 24 himself.
OK so tell me this. You are obviously not concerned with his antics and what it does for team chemistry.

If Rodman was so valuable and so impactful during his time with SA, why did the Spurs win 59 games after trading him for Will Perdue?

He was traded for a scrub which begs the question why he was traded for a scrub.

Same with Detroit. Those guys weren't concerned with his numbers, more with his attitude. Their GM even said he wasn't concerned with getting equal value in return for him. If a team wants to get rid of him so badly, it is not a good sign and an indication something is wrong.

[Kblaze8855]

That isnt really fair. The spurs won 50 or more for much of the 90s. Why wouldnt they do so after rodman? Drob was an mvp level player. But the pistons spurs and bulls all won the most games in their history to that point with him.

And the pistons went from average to 20 wins when he left and they still had isiah and dumars. Isiah missed time but they went to straight doormat mode. They were 14 and 44 with isiah. Laimbeer was done but he was an 8 and 5 player by the previous seasonn anyway.

Rodman was a difference maker. I have no doubt.

[D.J.]

OK so tell me this. You are obviously not concerned with his antics and what it does for team chemistry.

If Rodman was so valuable and so impactful during his time with SA, why did the Spurs win 59 games after trading him for Will Perdue?


And you conveniently ignore that they were winning for several seasons before he arrived. Two seasons before he arrived, the Spurs won 49 and 47 games. Hovering right around the 50 win mark. They won 55 and 62 games when he was there. They won 59 games after he left because Elliott upped his production to 20/5. Del Negro upped his production, and Avery Johnson was pushing a double-double. The system remained the same. A couple of guys had career years. They overachieved and it showed when Utah beat them for the 2nd time in 3 years and both times being upsets. Once again, Robinson showing he was the reason for the postseason failures, not Rodman. Robinson having games of 11, 11, 24, and 17 points against Utah and recording only 2 double-doubles.



He was traded for a scrub which begs the question why he was traded for a scrub.


If they didn't get career years from Johnson and Elliott, they're not winning anything remotely close to 60 games. They overachieved and it showed in the playoffs.



Same with Detroit. Those guys weren't concerned with his numbers, more with his attitude. Their GM even said he wasn't concerned with getting equal value in return for him. If a team wants to get rid of him so badly, it is not a good sign and an indication something is wrong.


How are you going to get equal value for a guy averaging 18 RPG? They were re-building. Isiah and Laimbeer were playing their final games and they drafted Allan Houston and Grant Hill in back-to-back years. They weren't concerned with equal value. They were re-building.

[HYJ]

DOLPH SCHAYES

As much as i like the worm but we are comparing a Player who can be a centerpiece of a team and a guy who can be a defensive specialist but you cannot make him a centerpiece.

(But rodman is still the GOAT rebounder in my books).

[RobertdeMeijer]

Dennis Rodman

Everybody has to read http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397 kk? (that means all the related posts, too)


The next time somebody writes a fifty page essay on how good Dolph Schayes was, let me know please.
In the meantime, I'll just wonder how a player who's signature move was a two-handed shot could play with an arm broken.

[LJJ]

Dennis Rodman

Everybody has to read http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397 kk? (that means all the related posts, too)


The next time somebody writes a fifty page essay on how good Dolph Schayes was, let me know please.
In the meantime, I'll just wonder how a player who's signature move was a two-handed shot could play with an arm broken.

Schayes led a team to a championship (in dominating fashion you could add), an achievement completely out of the realm of possibility for Rodman.

Schayes was recognized as a top 10 player in the NBA for 12 seasons. Versus Rodman's 0 seasons.




We can all agree Rodman is a cool guy and possibly the greatest rebounder and one of the greatest defenders ever, but let's look at this rationally.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure you could say Dolph led in dominating fashion. Not relative to other its said of at least. And some believe the Pistons threw the series by the way....

But thats a whole other...thing.

[Droid101]

Schayes led a team to a championship (in dominating fashion you could add), an achievement completely out of the realm of possibility for Rodman.

Schayes was recognized as a top 10 player in the NBA for 12 seasons. Versus Rodman's 0 seasons.




We can all agree Rodman is a cool guy and possibly the greatest rebounder and one of the greatest defenders ever, but let's look at this rationally.
Yes, let's look at it rationally.

If we do an all-time draft, you pick Rodman FIRST. Yes, even over Jordan.

[quote]This is probably easiest to illustrate in the NFL, where positions and responsibilities are extremely rigid. An example I used in response to the commenter is that an NFL kicker who could get you 2 extra wins per season could be incredibly valuable. These two extra wins obviously have visible value: By definition, this is a player for whom we would expect to observe a 2 game per season win differential. But there

[Droid101]

[LJJ]

Yes, let's look at it rationally.

If we do an all-time draft, you pick Rodman FIRST. Yes, even over Jordan.


And, to bring it back to basketball


http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397

Read this site, NOW.

I've read that a couple of months ago and it's an interesting take sure, but it doesn't warrant close to the stock you are putting into it right now. Rodman is not capable of being a franchise player on a contender, and was never really close to that level either.

He was a very amazing and unusual type of role player and that is were a lot of the statistical discrepancy comes from. I haven't seen more than a few glimpses of Schayes, but it's clear that he was a lot more than that.

[Droid101]

I've read that a couple of months ago and it's an interesting take sure, but it doesn't warrant close to the stock you are putting into it right now. Rodman is not capable of being a franchise player on a contender, and was never really close to that level either.

He was a very amazing and unusual type of role player and that is were a lot of the statistical discrepancy comes from. I haven't seen more than a few glimpses of Schayes, but it's clear that he was a lot more than that.
More than what? Able to be plugged into any team and make them better? 17-23% better (which is better than anyone not named Jordan, Bird, or Magic), no matter what the circumstances?

Rodman can do that.

[LJJ]

More than what? Able to be plugged into any team and make them better? 17-23% better (which is better than anyone not named Jordan, Bird, or Magic), no matter what the circumstances?

Rodman can do that.

Maybe if you add him to already great teams. But you can't replace finals MVP type players with Rodman and have that team still win the championship. A lot of those teams wouldn't survive the first round in the playoffs. A lot of them wouldn't even make the playoffs probably.

Maybe the lesser finals MVPs such as Parker and Worthy, and that is incredibly questionable.

[Droid101]

Maybe if you add him to already great teams.
Based on what proof?

Based on his acctual career, every single team he was on won between 17% and 23% more games with him on the floor, than when he was off it.

[LJJ]

Based on what proof?

Based on his acctual career, every single team he was on won between 17% and 23% more games with him on the floor, than when he was off it.

You can't extrapolate those kind of statistics though.

Do you actually believe the 03 Spurs still win the title if you replace Duncan with prime Rodman? Since you say he improves his teams winning more than Duncan. Because you are seriously delusional if you think that.

[Droid101]

You can't extrapolate those kind of statistics though.

Do you actually believe the 03 Spurs still win the title if you replace Duncan with prime Rodman? Since you say he improves his teams winning more than Duncan. Because you are seriously delusional if you think that.
I didn't say that. Go back five posts and re-read.

If Duncan and Rodman are on the same team, it would be better to replace Duncan with the next best Scoring/Defending/Team Player PF/C than it would to replace Rodman with the next best Rebounder/Defender SF/PF.

[LJJ]

I didn't say that. Go back five posts and re-read.

If Duncan and Rodman are on the same team, it would be better to replace Duncan with the next best Scoring/Defending/Team Player PF/C than it would to replace Rodman with the next best Rebounder/Defender SF/PF.

Not really.

The answer to both "the next best Scoring/Defending/Team Player PF/C" and "the next best Rebounder/Defender SF/PF" questions in 2003 is Kevin Garnett. I would rather have Duncan and Garnett than Rodman and Garnett.

Of course you would.


What you mean is that Rodman is a better role player than Schayes is a star player. Sure. I'll give you that. Relative to their role Rodman is better. An all time ranking is not based on that though. It's based on overall quality. Not relative to role on the team.

Sure Rodman is a better 3rd guy than Schayes is a 1st. But Shayes is a better 1st guy than Rodman is a 1st and that is what matters in an all time best player ranking.

[Droid101]

Not really.

The answer to both "the next best Scoring/Defending/Team Player PF/C" and "the next best Rebounder/Defender SF/PF" questions in 2003 is Kevin Garnett. I would rather have Duncan and Garnett than Rodman and Garnett.

Of course you would.


What you mean is that Rodman is a better role player than Schayes is a star player. Sure. I'll give you that. Relative to their role Rodman is better. An all time ranking is not based on that though. It's based on overall quality.
Rodman and Duncan or Rodman and Garnett would be a better team than Garnett and Duncan. You can take that to the bank.

[LJJ]

Rodman and Duncan or Rodman and Garnett would be a better team than Garnett and Duncan. You can take that to the bank.

:roll:

That is crazy talk sorry. Duncan + Garnett is the perfect duo.

[L.Kizzle]

Hmm. Thank goodness Schayes beat Pierce.

[Kblaze8855]

If im reading that right....Rodman beng the best 3 by more than MJ is the best 1 means...you take him as your third best player before Jordan as your best?

Problem is...if Rodman is your third best player you have 3 hall of famers. MJ can be your best with a d league team behind him.

So thats....barely even worth considering.

And that is taking what I saw to be the most reasonable thing possible. At a glance its much worse than im assuming its underlying message is.

[Droid101]

Here are the facts. If you want to construct the perfect NBA team, you have to include Dennis Rodman, because he is by far the best at one aspect of the game (rebounding, offensive and defensive). By far. Meaning, that nobody is as good at their thing, as he was at rebounding (the closest would be John Stockton at getting assists, I think).

So, start with him, and then build around him.

Magic, Jordan, Shaq, any generic SF, and Rodman. Game over.

No team needs five scorers on the floor. Rodman makes every team better.

Anyway, as stated, I don't see anyone writing 50 page essays on why Dolph Schayes is the best player ever. If you actually read this, there is really no contest here.

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

[Kblaze8855]

I watched Rodmans whole career. I dont need a no doubt absurd article trying to convince me of something that isnt true due to numbers no doubt impressive but not totally because of him. Im not gonna pretend that hes been on an untalented team...ever...and act like the rate he wins is because of him. I like Dennis. A lot. I have a lot of respect for his approach. But he isnt anything close to the best player ever or the most impactful regardless of any numbers that might say otherwise.

[NugzHeat3]

That isnt really fair. The spurs won 50 or more for much of the 90s. Why wouldnt they do so after rodman? Drob was an mvp level player. But the pistons spurs and bulls all won the most games in their history to that point with him.

And the pistons went from average to 20 wins when he left and they still had isiah and dumars. Isiah missed time but they went to straight doormat mode. They were 14 and 44 with isiah. Laimbeer was done but he was an 8 and 5 player by the previous seasonn anyway.

Rodman was a difference maker. I have no doubt.
Good point regarding the Pistons. I see that in their record in the games he played and missed.

1992-93 season.
36-26 with Rodman and just 4-16 w/o.

But like I said, the distractions are still there because those 18 games he missed are because of suspensions since his mind just isn't in the right direction or better put, the same page with the coach's. The organization wouldn't call him out otherwise.

Now, I realize he was still a distraction in his days with Chicago with incidents like headbutting the official, kicking the cameraman ect but Phil and them were able to put up with it and knew how to keep him focused and motivated.

Same thing with San Antonio in the 1995 playoffs. They wouldn't just give him away like that.

[Kblaze8855]

I often find talk of distractions in sports odd. How mentally weak are nba players if Rodman saying something odd in an interview or having emotional issues while performing as well as he could every single night(who ever questioned his will to win when on the floor?)....keeps them from playing well. Or...what? Working out well? Watching film? what does a distraction actually do?

Is there anything in the results of his teams that suggests he made teams worse than they should be? The Pistons won 2 rings with him and were better than they should have been after that and totally fell off without him. The spurs won more than they ever had with him. They were on a 67 win pace in the games he played in 95.

Ive heard it said he Phil would send him out to party just to get his head straight. Send him to vegas for the hell of it. he comes back and gets 25 rebounds(10 on offense), shuts down a star, and hands out 4-5 assists and flat out brings it.

I dont see how he is a distraction. he shouldnt be. To grown men? He makes Michael Jordan less focused on winning? Or Isiah and dumars?

Perhaps he could shake up Drob but really...I think we need another word.

Rodman was always great on the floor. His antics might get him suspended or something but that doesnt mean hes a distraction does it? Maybe it just means hes crazy. But I dont think there is any evidence he made any team worse than it should have been.

So what is his distraction doing exactly?

You could say teams got rid of him so it must have been doing something but...I just dont see it in the results. Behind the scenes shit perhaps. But his performance must have overcome it.

[RobertdeMeijer]

For what it's worth: even my Dutch sister knows who Dennis Rodman is.

He was never larger than the NBA, but is up there with Magic, Shaq and Erving as players who are interesting enough to can talk about during Thanksgiving.

[Lebron23]

Dolph Schayes was the better individual player. He averaged 19/13 through his NBA Career.

[NugzHeat3]

I often find talk of distractions in sports odd. How mentally weak are nba players if Rodman saying something odd in an interview or having emotional issues while performing as well as he could every single night(who ever questioned his will to win when on the floor?)....keeps them from playing well. Or...what? Working out well? Watching film? what does a distraction actually do?

Is there anything in the results of his teams that suggests he made teams worse than they should be? The Pistons won 2 rings with him and were better than they should have been after that and totally fell off without him. The spurs won more than they ever had with him. They were on a 67 win pace in the games he played in 95.

Ive heard it said he Phil would send him out to party just to get his head straight. Send him to vegas for the hell of it. he comes back and gets 25 rebounds(10 on offense), shuts down a star, and hands out 4-5 assists and flat out brings it.

I dont see how he is a distraction. he shouldnt be. To grown men? He makes Michael Jordan less focused on winning? Or Isiah and dumars?

Perhaps he could shake up Drob but really...I think we need another word.

Rodman was always great on the floor. His antics might get him suspended or something but that doesnt mean hes a distraction does it? Maybe it just means hes crazy. But I dont think there is any evidence he made any team worse than it should have been.

So what is his distraction doing exactly?

You could say teams got rid of him so it must have been doing something but...I just dont see it in the results. Behind the scenes shit perhaps. But his performance must have overcome it.
I see your point and I realize I'm probably overstating it.

I guess the only time you can see it in the results is his two years with SA. 1 game suspension in the playoffs for swinging at Karl (though I'm not aware of the circumstances of the situation) in 1994 and the whole fiasco in 1995.

1995 is the only glaring one and you can question his will to win in that situation. Refusing to take part in TOs or huddles, unwillingess to guard the perimeter and chase boards and being ended up benched for a playoff game (they lost that one on a Van Exel buzzerbeater). FWIW, he never liked Robinson either and viewed him as a soft individual. I'm sure that contributed to some of it.

[Fatal9]

I guess the only time you can see it in the results is his two years with SA. 1 game suspension in the playoffs for swinging at Karl (though I'm not aware of the circumstances of the situation) in 1994
Spurs had a really frustrating game 2, they had a stretch where they went 0/25 in that game. By the fourth quarter Rodman was just seeking to commit dirty fouls and try to injure Malone or Stockton. He swung at Karl, then a minute later kneed Stockton in the thigh (on purpose) and couple of others fouls iirc...he should have been taken out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9-KAo_G2zM

And then there's the whole thing with him promising NBC that he'd hit a three pointer for them lol...


I don't know who to vote for in this one so I'm gonna stay out. Rodman can't be a franchise guy but he can elevate good teams to great ones (which is much harder than people seem to believe). You can really see his impact on his teams when he missed games...in '95 Spurs were 40-9 in games he played, Pistons were 36-26 in games he played and 4-16 without him (ended up missing playoffs as a result), in '99 Lakers were on pace for best record in the league with him and were a .500 team without him. Single handedly makes sure you're a good rebounding team (crucial if you want to win in the playoffs), gets you tons of extra possession on bad shooting nights, plays great defense (over his career he pretty much defended everyone from PG-C...also respect for being probably the best defender I've seen on both Bird and Magic), gets your crowd into the game (may not seem important but I've seen this turn momentum too many times)...but Schayes carried a franchise which you can't expect out of Rodman while I think Rodman is probably better at elevating teams that are already good to a championship level so I don't know...

also just a point on his man defense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27dEU3LVGBw

obviously other factors are involved (Pistons being a good defensive team is going to hold most guys below their averages regardless) but you gotta believe lot of that has to do with him. he not only played great D on you, he frustrated you, was physical, got in your head, rarely gave up anything easy without fouling the shyt out of you...type of guy I would absolutely hate to play against.

[PTB Fan]

Dennis Rodman. In terms of being the elite player in their own respective era, Dolph was more elite. However, the Worm was much better. His ability to rebound was second to none, was arguably the top defender ever, was a really great in his role and was the top one dimensional player of all time.

He made more impact than Schayes.

[L.Kizzle]

Dennis Rodman. In terms of being the elite player in their own respective era, Dolph was more elite. However, the Worm was much better. His ability to rebound was second to none, was arguably the top defender ever, was a really great in his role and was the top one dimensional player of all time.

He made more impact than Schayes.
He did ...

[Kblaze8855]

I think...rodman actually won....

[Gotterdammerung]

Rodman: 14 years, 10 quality, 2 All-Stars. Top 15 in '92 & '95.

Rodman is one of the 3 greatest rebounders of all time, and grabbed more of his team's boards than anyone else ever. He was at his best from '87 to '91 where he was the most devastating defender and rebounder in the league. He was also effective from '96 to '98 as Karl Malone's foil and the secret reason those Bulls are among the greatest of GOAT ever.

He is 7th on my all time GOAT power forwards list.

But Dolph Schayes was the better player and had a better career (15 years, 11 quality, 12 All-Stars, MVP runner up in '58, top 5 for 6 years, and top 10 for 6 other years) Not only did he lead the league in rebound once, he also was an effective scorer.

[D.J.]

Rodman should have won Finals MVP in '96. Even George Karl was saying he deserved it more than Jordan.

[skepticalsports]

Dennis Rodman

Everybody has to read http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397 kk? (that means all the related posts, too)


The next time somebody writes a fifty page essay on how good Dolph Schayes was, let me know please.
In the meantime, I'll just wonder how a player who's signature move was a two-handed shot could play with an arm broken.

It's more like 150 pages, but who's counting.

[skepticalsports]

Dolph Schayes

Because I can't justify voting for rodman since he was never even the best player on his team (usually not even the 2nd best).

Begging the question, aren't you?

[skepticalsports]

If im reading that right....Rodman beng the best 3 by more than MJ is the best 1 means...you take him as your third best player before Jordan as your best?

Problem is...if Rodman is your third best player you have 3 hall of famers. MJ can be your best with a d league team behind him.

So thats....barely even worth considering.

And that is taking what I saw to be the most reasonable thing possible. At a glance its much worse than im assuming its underlying message is.

"3rd best" is a term of art. Think of it like "3rd most expansive role." It's almost mathematically certain the Rodman wasn't *actually* the third best player on any of his teams, probably even on the Bulls: If any of those teams had two players who actually contributed more to winning than him, they would hardly ever lose a game.


Here's where he ranks relative to all players since 1986 as far as tangible contribution to winning (http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1220):

http://skepticalsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/image5_thumb_thumb.png

But the "duper" in Rodman's super-duper value (http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1397) comes from the fact that Rodman could get you super-star value from a role-player position.


Someone posted this earlier, but in case you missed it, here's how his contribution to winning stacks up relative to the expansiveness of his role:

http://skepticalsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/image_thumb19_thumb.png

I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating: Saying that Rodman's greatness should be diminished because he didn't score enough points is like saying Lawrence Taylor's greatness should be diminished because he didn't throw enough touchdowns.

[skepticalsports]

Dolph Schayes was the better individual player. He averaged 19/13 through his NBA Career.

One or more of these sentences may be true, but they bear absolutely no meaningful relationship to each other.

[97 bulls]

Maybe if you add him to already great teams. But you can't replace finals MVP type players with Rodman and have that team still win the championship. A lot of those teams wouldn't survive the first round in the playoffs. A lot of them wouldn't even make the playoffs probably.

Maybe the lesser finals MVPs such as Parker and Worthy, and that is incredibly questionable.
I sincerely feel rodman should've won the finals mvp in 96. Even george karl said he won two of the bulls 4 wins by himself. Rodmans impact was evident. Id even feel rodman was the best player on the 90 pistons. He didn't start the whole year but by year end, he was the pistons best defender and rebounder.

[97 bulls]

I often find talk of distractions in sports odd. How mentally weak are nba players if Rodman saying something odd in an interview or having emotional issues while performing as well as he could every single night(who ever questioned his will to win when on the floor?)....keeps them from playing well. Or...what? Working out well? Watching film? what does a distraction actually do?

Is there anything in the results of his teams that suggests he made teams worse than they should be? The Pistons won 2 rings with him and were better than they should have been after that and totally fell off without him. The spurs won more than they ever had with him. They were on a 67 win pace in the games he played in 95.

Ive heard it said he Phil would send him out to party just to get his head straight. Send him to vegas for the hell of it. he comes back and gets 25 rebounds(10 on offense), shuts down a star, and hands out 4-5 assists and flat out brings it.

I dont see how he is a distraction. he shouldnt be. To grown men? He makes Michael Jordan less focused on winning? Or Isiah and dumars?

Perhaps he could shake up Drob but really...I think we need another word.

Rodman was always great on the floor. His antics might get him suspended or something but that doesnt mean hes a distraction does it? Maybe it just means hes crazy. But I dont think there is any evidence he made any team worse than it should have been.

So what is his distraction doing exactly?

You could say teams got rid of him so it must have been doing something but...I just dont see it in the results. Behind the scenes shit perhaps. But his performance must have overcome it.
He wasn't a distraction. He was a scapegoat. A lot of heads were called for when the spurs got drubbed by their cross-town rivals the rockets. Rodman played greeat that series. It was robinson that got totally outplayed by olajuwan. Both on offense and defense.

And they didn't like rodman making it known that the spurs werent interested in winning. And he called out robinson who was the spurs savior.

And as far as impact goes, didn't the spurs start out a few games under 500 before rodmans return. Then they finished with 60 wins?

[skepticalsports]

And as far as impact goes, didn't the spurs start out a few games under 500 before rodmans return. Then they finished with 60 wins?

They went 22-11 with him out of the lineup, and 40-9 with him in.

[97 bulls]

Oh and my vote goes to Dennis Rodman

[ThaRegul8r]

I sincerely feel rodman should've won the finals mvp in 96.

Others did as well. I watched the Finals as it happened, read the papers and magazines, and listened to every national and local sports radio show at the time. So when I see people dispute this, I know they didn't actually follow basketball as the series was taking place, but became aware of it after the fact.

[97 bulls]

They went 22-11 with him out of the lineup, and 40-9 with him in.
I was refering to 95, when they started the season 8-9.

[skepticalsports]

I was refering to 95, when they started the season 8-9.

Yes, me too.

[Hondo]

Trying to look at this objectively.......

The way to win basketball is to score more points than the other team. Instead of constructing a team to fit around Dennis by making up for his offensive ineptitude, how about making a team with players that are similar to him in each position?
PG: Nate McMillan
SG: Michael Cooper
SF: Bruce Bowen
PF: Dennis Rodman
CT: Ben Wallace

Could this team beat the 96 Bulls? Could they beat the 94 Rockets? How about the 86 Celtics?

If defense is so valuable, surely they can hold their opponents far below their averages, and score enough to win..... but that's not the way it works. This team would struggle to score 50 points, that's 10 points each. They could not hold any of the aforementioned teams to under 50 points.

Defense is important. The 3 teams I noted were all very good defensive teams. But they were equally good on offense, and the goal of basketball is to outscore your opponent. Having a team full of offense only players would hurt just as much, look at the Golden State Warriors......

A good team needs a solid mix, and almost every all-time great in the top 30 players of all-time has been a two way player or so exceptionally good on offense (Bird, Magic) that defensive ability didn't matter as much.

I take Dennis Rodman over Schayes if I know I'm going to get to combine him with Allen Iverson. This isn't the case though, I'm being asked to compare, who is the better player. It's Schayes. I don't need to know who is on my roster, Schayes will led a team to a winning record, probably regardless of surrounding talent. We can't say the same thing about Rodman.

My pick is Schayes
(but Rodman deserves the 96 finals MVP - Jordan was owned by Payton)

[97 bulls]

Trying to look at this objectively.......

The way to win basketball is to score more points than the other team. Instead of constructing a team to fit around Dennis by making up for his offensive ineptitude, how about making a team with players that are similar to him in each position?
PG: Nate McMillan
SG: Michael Cooper
SF: Bruce Bowen
PF: Dennis Rodman
CT: Ben Wallace

Could this team beat the 96 Bulls? Could they beat the 94 Rockets? How about the 86 Celtics?

If defense is so valuable, surely they can hold their opponents far below their averages, and score enough to win..... but that's not the way it works. This team would struggle to score 50 points, that's 10 points each. They could not hold any of the aforementioned teams to under 50 points.

Defense is important. The 3 teams I noted were all very good defensive teams. But they were equally good on offense, and the goal of basketball is to outscore your opponent. Having a team full of offense only players would hurt just as much, look at the Golden State Warriors......

A good team needs a solid mix, and almost every all-time great in the top 30 players of all-time has been a two way player or so exceptionally good on offense (Bird, Magic) that defensive ability didn't matter as much.

I take Dennis Rodman over Schayes if I know I'm going to get to combine him with Allen Iverson. This isn't the case though, I'm being asked to compare, who is the better player. It's Schayes. I don't need to know who is on my roster, Schayes will led a team to a winning record, probably regardless of surrounding talent. We can't say the same thing about Rodman.

My pick is Schayes
(but Rodman deserves the 96 finals MVP - Jordan was owned by Payton)
I hate when people say "the goal of a sport is to outscore your opponant". That couldn't be further from the truth. The object is to win. And the way teams go about it is different. Some try to outscore, some try to hold their opponants to less points, some try to control the boards.

Now look at it from another perspective. There ar three major aspects of basketball, scoring, defeense and rebounding. Rodman is arguably the greatest out of 2 of the three major parts of basketball.

[ThaRegul8r]

I hate when people say "the goal of a sport is to outscore your opponant". That couldn't be further from the truth.

I always thought the point was to make sure that when the final buzzer sounds, your opponent has scored fewer points than you.

[97 bulls]

I always thought the point was to make sure that when the final buzzer sounds, your opponent has scored fewer points than you.
Yes but in the contextt he's using. I disagree. He's trying to say that and make it seems that scoring is more important than keeping your opposition from outscoring you. That philosophy has never won anything. Look no further than don nelson and mike dantoni. Two coaches that go by that same philosophy.

[Hondo]

Yes but in the contextt he's using. I disagree. He's trying to say that and make it seems that scoring is more important than keeping your opposition from outscoring you. That philosophy has never won anything. Look no further than don nelson and mike dantoni. Two coaches that go by that same philosophy.

I have worded my post wrong. The goal is to shooter a higher percent than your opponent and limiting second chance points.

Defense is a necessary component of basketball, but to say Dennis Rodman is more valuable than Dolph Schayes is ridiculous. I guess Horace Grant is, too? Because the Bulls were just fine with him as their PF. When Rodman left the Spurs, there was no drop-off in the level of play from that team. The following year they used Carl Herrera, Chuck Person, Will Perdue, JR Reid, Charles Smith, Brad Loahaus and Greg 'Cadillac' Anderson to replace the Worm. The team didn't suffer. In Rodman's first season with the Spurs, the were kicked out in the first round. In his second season, they made the WCF. The first year without him they made the 2nd round.

Color me unimpressed.

[97 bulls]

I have worded my post wrong. The goal is to shooter a higher percent than your opponent and limiting second chance points.

Defense is a necessary component of basketball, but to say Dennis Rodman is more valuable than Dolph Schayes is ridiculous. I guess Horace Grant is, too? Because the Bulls were just fine with him as their PF. When Rodman left the Spurs, there was no drop-off in the level of play from that team. The following year they used Carl Herrera, Chuck Person, Will Perdue, JR Reid, Charles Smith, Brad Loahaus and Greg 'Cadillac' Anderson to replace the Worm. The team didn't suffer. In Rodman's first season with the Spurs, the were kicked out in the first round. In his second season, they made the WCF. The first year without him they made the 2nd round.

Color me unimpressed.
As was stated earlier, the spurs team had improved as a whole. But id agree, the spurs were good regardless of rodman. But look at it this way, their win% with rodman was better than without rodman. And if you were to factor rodman with the spurs for a whole season, not 49 gamess, the spurs win about 67 games.

Same difference with the bulls. Sure ttthey won with grant. But were they as dominant? No. With grant, the bulls won 61, 67, and 57 games. With rodman, the bulls won 72, 69, and 62 games. Also factor that in 98, when they won 62, pippen was hurt for half the season and in 97, rodman missed half the season. The bulls would've easily won 70 games per year from 96-98 if they were relatively healthy. So rodman was a drastic upgrade over grant.

[NugzHeat3]

He wasn't a distraction. He was a scapegoat. A lot of heads were called for when the spurs got drubbed by their cross-town rivals the rockets. Rodman played greeat that series. It was robinson that got totally outplayed by olajuwan. Both on offense and defense.

And they didn't like rodman making it known that the spurs werent interested in winning. And he called out robinson who was the spurs savior.

And as far as impact goes, didn't the spurs start out a few games under 500 before rodmans return. Then they finished with 60 wins?
Rodman did not play great that series. That is proof positive you weren't watching. They also had a 14 game W streak without him that year.

[NugzHeat3]

Others did as well. I watched the Finals as it happened, read the papers and magazines, and listened to every national and local sports radio show at the time. So when I see people dispute this, I know they didn't actually follow basketball as the series was taking place, but became aware of it after the fact.
People thought Jordan deserved finals MVP as well. Phil Jackson said Jordan deserved the award.

Lets not act like Jordan got the award based on his reputation or anything. If that was the case, 5 of the 11 voters wouldn't have voted anybody else.

Rodman crashing the glass was huge especially in the couple of games that were close in the 4th because the Bulls, Jordan included weren't shooting that well. Though, its enhanced by the fact that Seattle was swarming on defense which naturally leaves guys out of position and Rodman benefitted from the fact. Nobody's play really stood out that series to say one has the clearcut best case for the award.

[Kblaze8855]

Rodman wins. next matchup is...pretty much the same thing. Last one of the non big names in sports left. After the next guy its pretty much mega stars the rest of the way.

[G-train]

Rodman wins.

WOW. :roll:

That's ISH.

[HylianNightmare]

where's the next thread at?

[ThaRegul8r]

People thought Jordan deserved finals MVP as well. Phil Jackson said Jordan deserved the award.

Lets not act like Jordan got the award based on his reputation or anything. If that was the case, 5 of the 11 voters wouldn't have voted anybody else.

I suppose it was inevitable that someone was going to get defensive. It's just surprising it took this long.