Knick_Killer31

aaaaa-thank you

__________________
BBF Sim-League Indiana Pacers GM

Knick_Killer31

Guess what who cares about a 6th man's opinion.

__________________
BBF Sim-League Indiana Pacers GM

HeartofBosh

Is this the shooting hall of fame? Cause if it ain't, why would Reggie get invited? He couldn't create off the bounce, he didn't like defending, he didn't rebound, he wasn't a great passer. If you want to include one-dimensional players in the hallowed halls of the best players, then you don't appreciate the game for what it is. It requires more skills than just stroking it.

__________________
To listen to the internet's best basketball podcast go to The Basketball Jones or subscribe via iTunes

Mike Goodman

Reggie's the greatest one-dimensional player ever. If Dennis Rodman pulled his team thru many rounds of playoffs by rebounding, or if Mark Eaton had won dozens of playoff games just by blocking shots, I'd say they deserve the HOF. They didn't, and they don't.

And while it doesn't show up in the boxscore, the Pacers got better looks from other players, both inside and outside, thanks to the constant threat that Reggie posed. He made safe passes and had a very low TO rate. He did this for 18 years.

Minstrel

Rodman wasn't one-dimensional, though. On top of being one of the greatest rebounders ever, he was also one of the greatest defenders ever. He was even a good passer for his position. Really, the only dimension he didn't have was scoring. Which is important, but hardly makes him one-dimensional.

And Miller didn't "pull his team through many rounds of the playoffs." He was an important part of balanced, talented teams that won quite a few playoff rounds. By that token, Rodman was the same--an important part of balanced, talented teams that won quite a few playoff rounds. Except Rodman wasn't one-dimensional.

__________________
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Every fire needs a little bit of help
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Mike Goodman

Rodman fills the stat sheet in just one category, rebounding. Sure, his D was sometimes great. By his Bulls' time, it was largely hype. Rodman was always a threat to implode and take his team out of the playoffs, exactly the opposite of Reggie.

I can't imagine any playoff series the Pacers could conceivably have won without Reggie. I can't think of many series Rodman's teams won that they couldn't have won without him. On the other hand, his chronic underachievment helped lose a number of series in which they were favored.
In '92 the Pistons were bumped by the Knicks in the 1st round; in '94 his Spurs were upset by the Jazz, in '95 by Houston. Each time, Rodman failed to deliver his usual output for the playoffs. Reggie always overachieved in postseasons.

Non-boxscore contributions -- like Rodman's D (his steals and blocks are never impressive) -- can be attributed to Reggie, as well. A number of his teammates never duplicated their effectiveness elsewhere. Mark Jackson, notably, but also Jalen, Travis, Dale. Perkins, Byron Scott, and Mullin were useful in Indy after they were considered expendable elsewhere. All they had to do was get open, and Reggie got them open.
Reggie had to guard some pretty good shooters: Jordan, Iverson, etc. This often cut into his output on offense, but he was always ready to shoot.

Minstrel

His Bulls tenure was three years of his career. For the vast majority of his career, he was considered one of the best defenders in the game and he's viewed as one of the best defenders in history.

Calling it "non-boxscore" contribution implies that it's an intangible, like leadership or heart. It's nothing like that; defense is a tangible, in that it can clearly be observed. It just can't be precisely quantified. But we know that it's an enormous part of the game, nearly half of it. Scoring, rebounding, passing and defense are the general facets of the game, and Rodman had three of them. Miller had one.

Sure, but that's pure speculation and opinion. Many people feel that the Bulls couldn't have won without their second three titles without Rodman because they were too deficient in rebounding without him, something that was made abundantly clear the year before. With the Pistons, it's utter speculation as to whether they'd have won without Rodman's key defense (far better than in Chicago) and rebounding (lesser than his Chicago days).

Actually, it was the other way around. The Pacers ran their offense to get Reggie open. He was great at moving without the ball, admittedly, and the Pacers used multiple screens and cuts to spring Miller open for catch-and-shoots. Miller was not a guy who could draw defenses and then create for other people.

__________________
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Every fire needs a little bit of help
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Mike Goodman

Minstrel, I'm sure we see the game just about the same way, and yet we're both inclined to debate differences in perception. So Rodman is a passer, while Reggie is not? Reggie had about 8 years with better assists than Rodman's best year. Dennis had as many that were below Reggie's worst. Reggie never had a year with remotely as many turnovers as assists, while Rodman did this more often than not.

Rodman was versatile enough that, while still a great rebounding machine, he was done as a useful player by age 36. Reggie was still winning playoff games and a key member of good teams thru age 39.

'Pure speculation and opinion' sent many playoff opponents home for the season, shaking their heads over why they couldn't stop Reggie. In the one postseason he missed, 1996, the Pacers were upset by Atlanta.

And Reggie 'created for' teammates by drawing defenders far from the basket, creating switches on the perimeter, etc. As long as they had a ball-distributor or two, a 2nd and 3rd shooter would get good looks. That's why Reg didn't take a lot of shots -- until he had to.

Minstrel

We're comparing a guard to a power forward here. Miller was not considered much of a passer for his position. Rodman was considered a good passer for his position; he was always a very good outlet passer after rebounds and he had to be a good passer to fit into Jackson's triangle offense, where any player could end up with the ball and need to make the pass to the rotating player.

Many playoff opponents came away shaking their heads about how they couldn't keep Rodman off the boards, when their gameplan was designed to explicitly do so. The trap here is that a game-winning shot is a more obvious contribution to winning than stealing one possession after another throughout the game with impressive rebounds.

All scorers have this effect. Miller was poorer at it than most because he wasn't really able to handle the ball, draw defenders and then distribute the ball to open players.

__________________
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Every fire needs a little bit of help
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

kflo

teams always had to follow reggie running constantly around the court. he absolutely created opportunities for teammates by the attention he demanded. he also got the line an awful lot for a guy who couldn't handle the ball or create. and his teams were always very efficient offensively. he was a "special" offensive player. he had a tremendous positive impact.

Minstrel