ESPN's Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs. - Page 6

Ungoliant · #51 06-08-2007, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the 3 point line was moved in for the 72 win Bulls team

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it was moved in for their opponents also, so what's your point? They didn't win 72 because of a closer 3-point line.

[ QUOTE ]
Those teams definitely have an * by them, because the rules changes made it easier for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this even mean? Are you saying the rules were rigged in the Bulls' favor? They played under the same rules as everyone else in their era and they dominated. If you're handing out *s because of minor rules changes, you'd have to * just about every team in NBA history.

DrewDevil · #52 06-08-2007, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Crazy freakish stat: Rodman averaged 15 boards per game playing 33 mpg. Rodman would also make Kareem cry, guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also was a complete offensive liability. I don't think playing 4-on-5 against the 84 Lakers or the 86 Celtics would be a good idea, even if Jordan is worth 1.5 players on offense.

DrewDevil · #53 06-08-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and Kevin McHale would destroy anyone in the low post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even Dennis Rodman?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so. McHale had the greatest moves of any post player I've ever seen and he's the greatest second banana ever. I think he could have been a 28 ppg scorer on a team without Bird.

Also, Rodman was an excellent post defender but he would give up, what, 4 inches to McHale, not including McHale's freakishly long arms?

kidcolin · #54 06-08-2007, 03:24 PM

Except he dominated the offensive glass like few others have. Yes, having 5 guys who can all score the ball is nice, but having a guy like Rodman is pretty frickin' sweet. Especially when you already got a guy named Jordan, and your team generally runs a 3 man offensive set.

tolbiny · #55 06-08-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He also was a complete offensive liability

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. His first 6 years in the league he averaged ~13 pts (iirc) per 40 mins. Det didn't have the scores that SA and Chi had. When he went to teams that didn't need him to score much he improved his rebounding. The Worm didn't become an offensive liability because he was unable to play offense, he became that way because it was better for his team if he just focused on D and boards.

blindside · #56 06-08-2007, 04:05 PM

it was always high comedy when the ball would eventually swing to rodman deep in one of the corners behind the 3pt line and all the defenders would part like the red sea encouraging him to shoot and he'd stare at the basket for a second or two and said 'ah f' it..'... and he'd make it and laugh his way back on to defense...

in other words, whatever rodman gave on offense was gravy...

DrewDevil · #57 06-08-2007, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He also was a complete offensive liability

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. His first 6 years in the league he averaged ~13 pts (iirc) per 40 mins. Det didn't have the scores that SA and Chi had. When he went to teams that didn't need him to score much he improved his rebounding. The Worm didn't become an offensive liability because he was unable to play offense, he became that way because it was better for his team if he just focused on D and boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is PP40min a baseline stat? He averaged double figures just once in his career.

Eyeballing his stats, it looks like he averaged about 8 ppg with Detroit and 5 ppg with Chicago. He was absolutely an offensive zero with Chicago from 96-98.

Rodman's career stats:

YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
86-87 DET 77 01 15.0 .545 .000 .587 2.10 2.20 4.30 .7 .49 .62 1.21 2.20 6.5
87-88 DET 82 32 26.2 .561 .294 .535 3.90 4.80 8.70 1.3 .91 .55 1.90 3.30 11.6
88-89 DET 82 08 26.9 .595 .231 .626 4.00 5.40 9.40 1.2 .67 .93 1.54 3.60 9.0
89-90 DET 82 43 29.0 .581 .111 .654 4.10 5.60 9.70 .9 .63 .73 1.10 3.40 8.8
90-91 DET 82 77 33.5 .493 .200 .631 4.40 8.10 12.50 1.0 .79 .67 1.15 3.40 8.2
91-92 DET 82 80 40.3 .539 .317 .600 6.40 12.30 18.70 2.3 .83 .85 1.71 3.00 9.8
92-93 DET 62 55 38.9 .427 .205 .534 5.90 12.30 18.30 1.6 .77 .73 1.66 3.20 7.5
93-94 SAS 79 51 37.8 .534 .208 .520 5.70 11.60 17.30 2.3 .66 .41 1.75 2.90 4.7
94-95 SAS 49 26 32.0 .571 .000 .676 5.60 11.20 16.80 2.0 .63 .47 2.00 3.20 7.1
95-96 CHI 64 57 32.6 .480 .111 .528 5.60 9.30 14.90 2.5 .56 .42 2.16 3.10 5.5
96-97 CHI 55 54 35.4 .448 .263 .568 5.80 10.20 16.10 3.1 .58 .35 2.02 3.10 5.7
97-98 CHI 80 66 35.7 .431 .174 .550 5.30 9.80 15.00 2.9 .59 .23 1.84 3.00 4.7
98-99 LAL 23 11 28.6 .348 .000 .436 2.70 8.50 11.20 1.3 .43 .52 1.35 3.10 2.1
99-00 DAL 12 12 32.4 .387 .000 .714 4.00 10.30 14.30 1.2 .17 .08 1.58 3.40 2.8
Career 911 573 31.7 .521 .231 .584 4.80 8.40 13.10 1.8 .67 .58 1.63 3.10 7.3
Playoff 169 89 28.3 .490 .149 .540 3.70 6.20 9.90 1.2 .63 .57 1.53 3.70 6.4
All-Star 2 0 18.0 .364 .000 .000 5.00 3.50 8.50 .5 .50 .50 2.00 1.00 4.0

Kneel B4 Zod · #58 06-08-2007, 04:22 PM

did Rodman ever match up with Hakeem? I think that's a decent proxy for how he would do vs McHale.

kidcolin · #59 06-08-2007, 04:30 PM

Drew's right, he was an offensive liability in that defenses could cheat off him and things like that. No question there. But again, he averaged nearly 6 offensive rebounds per game with the Bulls. That's sick. That's 6 extra possessions. Even when you account for points he got on put backs, I'd estimate his offensive boards were worth another 3 or 4 points on top of his 5 ppg.

Rodman also ran the point and averaged a triple double in my Live '95 game. The man's a beast.

DrewDevil · #60 06-08-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
did Rodman ever match up with Hakeem? I think that's a decent proxy for how he would do vs McHale.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys know Rodman was just 6'8", right?

He never guarded Hakeem because Hakeem was a center and he would have destroyed Rodman in the post.

I mean, I know Rodman was a good defender, but come on, this is getting silly.