Who Should be in the HOF?

[bdm860]

I think he was such a distraction on and off the court that it's a legit reason to keep him out.

Rodman was definitely a colorful character, but did his antics negatively affect the teams he was on?  He won five championships, and I wouldn't say that any of the teams he was on underachieved. 

I don't think he stopped championship-calibur teams from winning but his on-court antics did serve as an unnecessary distraction for his team and the game in general. 

I think his oncourt antics actually helped his teams.  Of course you have instances like kicking a camera man that obviously didn't help anyone, but part of the genius of Rodman was how he could get under opponents skin.  How many times did players take swings at him or shove him?  His oncourt antics led to guys like Karl Malone, Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O'Neal, etc. getting technicals and ejected.  If the Bulls are playing the Jazz and Rodman and Malone get tangled up and get double techincals or both get ejected or something like that, who suffers more, the Bulls or the Jazz?  That right there is the genius of Dennis Rodman.

[xmuscularghandix]

Rodman isn't in the Hall of Fame because of his off the court antics. No other reason.

100% agree

[Finkelskyhook]

Rodman isn't in the Hall of Fame because of his off the court antics. No other reason.

100% agree

Rodman is a champion.  His off-court antics were weird but harmless.  He focused on the court. That's what the hall should be for.  Champions.  Using that criteria and being consistent, a flopping jerk but multiple champion like Derek Fisher should probably join him...Along with Robert Horry.  Guys like the above don't get there by riding other player's coat tails.  They come through when needed in their roles.

[Roy H.]

Rodman isn't in the Hall of Fame because of his off the court antics. No other reason.

100% agree

Rodman is a champion.  His off-court antics were weird but harmless.  He focused on the court. That's what the hall should be for.  Champions.  Using that criteria and being consistent, a flopping jerk but multiple champion like Derek Fisher should probably join him...Along with Robert Horry.  Guys like the above don't get there by riding other player's coat tails.  They come through when needed in their roles.

What about guys like Barkley, Malone, Stockton, etc.?

Does a guy like Payton -- who road coattails to finally win a title -- get inducted, even though he was never really a key piece on a championship squad?

[nickagneta]

I don't get the " the Hall is for Champions" argument. The Hall is for people who through tremendous accomplishments forwarded the game of basketball. Awesome individual play and great team play of players should be a prerequisite.

Derek Fisher might have been a great team player but he was never an awesome individual player. Neither was Robert Horry. Or AC Green. Or Danny Ainge. They are not Hall worthy as players.

[RebusRankin]

Rodman was a dominant rebounder and defender, not sexy but still Hall Worthy. Its very true that scorers get more notice and are more easily recognized.

[GreenFaith1819]

I just looked over Artis Gilmore's career stats and Bio on NBA.com Historical Player Search. The man should definitely get some consideration for the Hall.

In today's Media-Driven sports market, I can understand why Artis wouldn't be considered - he was rather low-key and didn't draw attention to himself during his career.

Check out his stats - over 17 pts and 10+ boards a game.

Made the All-Star game 6 times. In his Bio, it made mention that he played Kareem tougher than anyone in the league in the early 80's.

He managed to take San Antonio far in the playoffs, but lost to LA in the WCF two yrs in a row from what the Bio says.

I even remember him visiting one of the ships that were in my Naval Strike Group a few years ago.

Just my opinion - but he deserves some recognition for the Hall. If anything, I'd place him among Barkley, Patrick, Stockton, Malone, etc, as players who were dominant, but unfortunately never won a title.

The stats do indeed speak for themselves.

[Moranis]

Dennis Rodman is the greatest rebounder in NBA history.  He is also top five all time as a defender.  There is no reason in the world he shouldn't be in the HOF.

[Roy H.]

I just looked over Artis Gilmore's career stats and Bio on NBA.com Historical Player Search. The man should definitely get some consideration for the Hall. . . .

Just my opinion - but he deserves some recognition for the Hall. If anything, I'd place him among Barkley, Patrick, Stockton, Malone, etc, as players who were dominant, but unfortunately never won a title.

The stats do indeed speak for themselves.

I wouldn't put him on the same level as Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, or Malone.  I don't think Gilmore was ever what I'd call dominant during his NBA days, but he was good.  ("Dominant" may apply to his ABA time, though).  What Gilmore was was a very good player, who is worthy of recognition.  He'd be one of the lesser players in the Hall, in my opinion, but certainly not the worst.

[Moranis]

I just looked over Artis Gilmore's career stats and Bio on NBA.com Historical Player Search. The man should definitely get some consideration for the Hall. . . .

Just my opinion - but he deserves some recognition for the Hall. If anything, I'd place him among Barkley, Patrick, Stockton, Malone, etc, as players who were dominant, but unfortunately never won a title.

The stats do indeed speak for themselves.

I wouldn't put him on the same level as Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, or Malone.  I don't think Gilmore was ever what I'd call dominant during his NBA days, but he was good.  ("Dominant" may apply to his ABA time, though).  What Gilmore was was a very good player, who is worthy of recognition.  He'd be one of the lesser players in the Hall, in my opinion, but certainly not the worst.

He only wouldn't be the worst (as far as guys being inducted for NBA careers) because of all the lesser players that made it in from the very early days of the NBA. 

[GreenFaith1819]

Just posted Gilmore's Bio and Career stats below. I meant to do it this morning, but was half-asleep and drained from schoolwork:

http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=artis_gilmore

Moranis and Roy H: You make good points. His truly dominant years were maybe just 2-3 years, and after that he put up really good stats, but they didn't really stand out.

And as for Rodman? I agree with those that say he should definitely be in the Hall, no question. He is still getting punished for his off-court antics back in the day.

My thing with Rodman is this: He isn't as "Out-there" anymore as he was. I guess it can be attributed to him maturing.

It's time to put Rodman in the Hall. His stats and Rings speak for themselves.

And - what about Tom Chambers? When we had a similar HOF discussion several months ago, I think the consensus was that Tom couldn't be considered because of lack of banners. Well, he did in fact get to the Finals - but lost. That man was rather talented for a Big, to say the least. See Tom's stats below, especially 88-90. The man seemed unstoppable those two yrs:

http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=tom_chambers

[GreenFaith1819]

Tom Chambers had some "Ups"....we all know about that dunk he had over Mark Jackson back in the day, but he destroyed big men, too. Robert Reid was a 6'9" SG that got in Tom's way on this play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAmjLaHf1h8

[Finkelskyhook]

I don't get the " the Hall is for Champions" argument. The Hall is for people who through tremendous accomplishments forwarded the game of basketball. Awesome individual play and great team play of players should be a prerequisite.

Derek Fisher might have been a great team player but he was never an awesome individual player. Neither was Robert Horry. Or AC Green. Or Danny Ainge. They are not Hall worthy as players.

I don't get the " the Hall is for Champions" argument. The Hall is for people who through tremendous accomplishments forwarded the game of basketball. Awesome individual play and great team play of players should be a prerequisite.

Derek Fisher might have been a great team player but he was never an awesome individual player. Neither was Robert Horry. Or AC Green. Or Danny Ainge. They are not Hall worthy as players.

Using that argument you'd put career one-trick pony losers with great stats like Iverson, Abdur-Rahim, Carter, and O'Grady in ahead of multiple championship role players?

[housecall]

Tom Chambers had some "Ups"....we all know about that dunk he had over Mark Jackson back in the day, but he destroyed big men, too. Robert Reid was a 6'9" SG that got in Tom's way on this play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAmjLaHf1h8

Tom Chambers definitely had game...he belongs in the HOF.As far as Glimore,i say no because the HOF is for players excelling at every level of basketball they've played.When Artis came to the NBA,he did not become a star player,was medicore at best.Some people would say Artis was a big disappointment when he came over to the NBA.tp

[housecall]

I feel Jack Sikma and Tom Chambers never got their proper respect by the NBA...for those who didn't witness them play or weren't old enough to understand the game as they might do now,those two players were probably as good as any players they played aganist.I say Sikma got overshadowed by Kareem's success in those days but he was the deadliest outside shooting big man in the NBA for a long period.He could play inside/out equally as good.Pau Gasol couldn't tie these guys sneakers if they were playing in the same playing era..(IMO)