Is there a place in the Hall for this man?

Buck was a horse, Rodman was a jackass.

 

I can understand this argument. Not so much the "Miller is first ballot" one.

I'm a big Rodman guy, but I realize that some of my support relies on advanced statistics. Namely, Rodman rebounded almost a quarter of ALL shots put up:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_pct_career.html

Russell and Chamberlain aren't in the list because of a lack of reliable data, I believe. Rodman is two full percentage points over the next highest guy, and beyond the rebounds, he was also really valuable on the defensive end. Could you build a team around him? Probably not, and he probably did stat pad like a mofo and let the rest of his game rot to rebound. It doesn't change the fact that it was an incredibly value skill for his teams. (Dean Oliver makes a much better argument than I for this in "Basketball on Paper" I believe.)

In the HoF thread, someone compared him to Ben Wallace. While Rodman wasn't a gifted offensive player or anything, he shot about 50 points better for his career, and about 15 percent better at the line. Wallace's peak was also smaller, basically six years in Detroit, vs. seven to 10 good years for Rodman, depending on how you sliced it. (I will say though, the comparison is closer than I thought it would be when it was first suggested - Wallace put up some impressive rate stats for steals and blocks too.)

 

How did Miller change the game?

 

fixed