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

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.