According to its own website, the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's mission is to "honor and celebrate basketball's greatest moments and people". Although that statement could be shred to pieces by any 12 year-old smartass ( how exactly do they plan on enshrining Tony Delk's inexplicable 53-point outburst back in 2001, along with the facial expressions by Jason Williams resulting from said outburst?), I won't dwell on whether it is gramatically correct or not. What I will dwell on, however, is one simple fact: that mission statement is a boldfaced lie.
For any basketball fan, this is the equivalent of Dubya announcing Irak was loaded with WMD's. It is sad enough that many members of the basketball media put the HOF in a pedestal, but it is even sadder that this corrupt institution is shoved down our throats by the NBA and, in recent times, even the Euroleague. This is a flawed institution, with a voting process shadier than the Florida elections circa 2000. A quick glance at the requirements for one to be enshrined under the "contributor" category should eliminate any hope of the Naismith Memorial ever becoming a politics-free institution. I quote textually:
What constitutes a "significant contribution" shall be determined by the BHOF, its Screening Committee(s) or Honors Committee(s).
I understand that it is impossible to create an actually objective list of requirements to fit such a broad spectrum of definitions as those brought along by the word "contributor", but the quote above is too damn ambiguous. What we as fans do by celebrating the choices the Hall makes under these criteria is allowing the voters to turn the requirements into "What constitutes a significant contribution shall be determined by whoever has the biggest influence in our buddy system network".
Now, I could very well spend a lot of time just pointing out flaws in the Hall of Fame's system, but I think I can make myself more useful the basketball community making the case for people who have shaped the game of basketball from the hardwood, players whose "significant contributions" should not be ignored. For this list, I have chosen players based on their on-court exploits, and absolutely nothing more. I will update this list regularly, and the more snubs take place, the more I'll write.
The HOF is supposed to celebrate what these people did for basketball, so whatever these players did within their private lives should be a non-factor, unless we are talking about a convicted murderer or a criminal of that magnitude. Without further ado, here is a list of players who, were the HOF deserving of the pedestal it rests on, would have never been snubbed.
Dennis Rodman
Take a look at the picture above this entry. I would not want this man to date my sister. I would not trust this man to be on correct behavior for more than 10 seconds. I would not let this man within 100 yards of a single drop of alcohol. I certainly would never go to him for lifestyle or fashion advice. If I needed somebody to play relentless, in-your-shorts defense, rebound as if his life depended on it, provide an enforcer's presence on a finesse team and run through a brick wall to win a basketball game , Dennis F***ing Rodman (middle name courtesy of Shaquille O'Neal) would get an offer from me faster than AI can go baseline to baseline. Simply put, this man is the single best rebounder the NBA has seen in its modern era.
I know many voters would rather amputate their own hands with a toothpick than allow Dennis Rodman to be enshrined in the HOF for the same reasons that have made him a B-List Celebrity after retiring. The tattoos, the cross-dressing, the earrings the size of an adult Chihuahua, the wild hairstyles, the "you have to be kidding me" relationships, the drunken running of the bulls and the still-vivid image of him kicking a photographer, during a game no less, are what hold many self-righteous committee members back from giving this man their vote.
However, what the voters are forgetting about when they choose to look only at the ugly image of Rodman's public behavior is that there are much prettier images to see: there's Rodman, in those god-awful short shorts, tipping and jumping his way to 11 offensive rebounds against Shawn Kemp in Game 2 of the '96 Finals, only to do it again in the deciding Game 6. There's Rodman, at the age of 39, battling his way through non-calls and the bullseye on his back to grab 16 rebounds before being ejected for sitting on the court (I kid you not). There's Rodman, still skinny and mostly tattoo-free, averaging 18-plus rebounds per game. There's Rodman, no longer as skinny and now very much tattooed, allowing David Robinson to concentrate on putting together his defining offensive season. And finally, there's Rodman winning five rings.
There is a lot of talk about Robert Horry making the Hall for his playoff heroics and his seven rings. If The Worm isn't in, I cannot see how Big Shot Bob could even be in the conversation. Rodman won five NBA titles, being absolutely decisive in the last two by getting into Karl Malone's head. If I were awarded a place in the Hall's committee, I would not look at Dennis Rodman off the court. I would look past his appearance and his pedestrian 7 ppg career average. I would look past the suspensions, the taunting, the countless technicals and ensuing jersey-throwing. I would look past the wedding dress, and I would look past the wrestling matches. There is only one picture I would look at: 16.2 rpg from 1990 to 1998, at 6'6''. 34 rebounds in one game, matched up with Dale Davis. Air-tight defense against anyone from Magic Johnson to Karl Malone to Michael Jordan. 5 rings.
If you looked past all the crap, Dennis Rodman's career really makes a beatiful picture.
Disclaimer: I am fully aware that The Worm hasn't been oficially retired for 5 years. However, if anyone is willing to bet that he'll make the Hall, I'll be glad to take the wager.
No comments:
Post a Comment