kockblocker1 said:
I wasnt exactly clear with the point I was trying to make. What I meant to say was that to be a good basketball player you need to be a true basketball player. The type of player that does everthing (i.e. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Me, whatever). Rodman was actually a very good basketball player in college and his first year or two in the NBA. I believe he actually averaged something like mid20s PPG in college. Towards the end of his carrier he totally gave up on the rest of the game and focused on defense and rebounding. This actually made him better at those things because that was ALL he did. That was all the Bulls wanted and that is what they got. This however does not fit my description of a good basketball player. You wont ever hear me say he was not one of the best if not the best rebounder in the game. He was great at what he did; its just that there is more to basketball than rebounding and defense.
I actually think that in a way he may have been a great addition to the Heat lineup. They have enough scorers and passers. In my opinion they could use a specialist rebounder/defender/fouler. They, on the other hand, do not need an ego bigger than Shaq or the NBA itself on the squad. Rodman is way more trouble that he is worth. I subscribe to the theory that to win championships you need not only great players but also great team chemistry. There is no greater example of this than last years LA Lakers. I really dont want to see a remake of that situation with the Heat. Its not good for the organization and it tarnishes basketball as a whole.
|
You don't necessarily have to score to be a good basketball player, in my opinion. For example, Jason Kidd is not an extravagant scorer, but he's a hell of a basketball player. Same with John Stockton. Shaq is a great scorer, but he isn't the greatest all-around basketball player to ever play the game. Regardless, I consider him the
best basketball player in the league currently. Not the most dominant; the
best.
What do I base my opinion on? Well, in my opinion, if you can win the MVP in the NBA then you certainly are a good basketball player, regardless of whether you can do everything or not. Shaq will get his team wins. If you can do that, then you're a good basketball player, because in the end that's what it's really about. It's not whether or not your style is snazzy, what matters is if you can get the win. You could have the ugliest style, score 5 ppg, and still be a great basketball player and an invaluble asset to your team. That's my definition of a good basketball player. If your team is winning thanks to you, then you're a good basketball player.
When we think of the Detroit Pistons, we think of the whole team. There's not really one single superstar. But see what happens if you take Ben Wallace off of that team. I would be willing to bet all my money that the Pistons would not have won the championship. Wallace is invaluble to the Pistons, and most likely to any other team that could pick him up. This, in my definition, makes Ben Wallace a
great basketball player. Apply the same thing to Dennis Rodman. Would the Bulls have won their last 2 championships without Rodman? Most probably, but what about Detroit in '89 and '90? It's possible, but I doubt it. Back then, Rodman was a damn good basketball player, and he wasn't this arrogant son-of-a-bitch that he's become today. He
was a good basketball player.
Linear Mode
