Hall of Fame merits of Rodman, Jackson up for debate

Admit it. On sinister curiosity alone, there is an appeal to Dennis Rodman making the Hall of Fame. Just for his acceptance speech that may or may not be delivered with Rodman wearing clothes.

Not that officials from the NBA or the Hall itself are anxious to find out. That's the Rodman conflict, of course. It's a pull between the player who could turn a game without taking a shot vs. the, um, adventurous one. The personality that drove him to become a self-made success story -- did not play high school basketball, attended Southeastern Oklahoma State of the NAIA, No. 27 overall pick in 1986 and two-time Defensive Player of the Year -- is what also what hurts his image.

So it goes with potential enshrinement in Springfield, Mass. Rodman is a first-time nominee and will undoubtedly face a divided electorate, initially from the secret seven-member screening committee that will determine the finalists among North American candidates and then, if he makes it that far, the 24 likewise-unknown people that will have the ultimate say on induction. It's possible to make a strong case for inclusion or exclusion.

Same with Mark Jackson. The debate is entirely different for the former point guard, but very interesting nonetheless with a unique situation in what could become another close call when the first round of voting is held in late January or early February and the second, final balloting takes place in March.

Among NBA players up for the ultimate career recognition, there never has been a debate that compares to the controversial Rodman. And there never has been a case like Jackson and his contrasting resume.

In an informal survey of five veteran executives and coaches, none of whom is a part of the election for the class of 2010, three said they would vote in favor of Jackson, another moved into that category after being told he couldn't settle for "probably" and one said he would vote no. The Rodman straw poll was more split, with three voting no and two saying they would vote yes.

While hardly a scientific measure of what either will face in the balloting -- they'll require approval from at least five of seven judges in the screening committee and 18 of 24 to be enshrined -- it is a representative cross section of experienced NBA personnel from different generations and different parts of the country. Two are also former players. The considerations are undoubtedly similar to what the actual electorate will weigh later this season, heading toward the induction ceremonies next summer with first-ballot automatics Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen as headliners.

The case for Jackson: Third on the career assists list, and was second behind only John Stockton until Jason Kidd, a future inductee, took over No. 2 last week.

The case against Jackson: In 17 seasons with seven teams, not counting two stints with the hometown Knicks and Pacers, he was an All-Star once, averaged more than nine assists just twice and never made so much as third-team All-NBA. That counter to the massive career accomplishment suggests someone who had a long run with good numbers but was not one of the greats of his generation.

Summary: No. 3 in assists is No. 3 in assists and will be very difficult for voters to dismiss when considering a point guard who consistently helped his teams into the playoffs. Could a pitcher be third in wins or strikeouts and not make Cooperstown? Could a running back be third in rushing yards and not make Canton?

"I believe the number is so overwhelming" that Jackson deserves enshrinement, one of the executives in the informal poll said of Jackson's 10,334 assists.

"The numbers," said another, "if they don't mean anything, why do we keep them?"

The survey responder who voted no said Jackson had a successful career but that it takes a great career to make the Hall.

The case for Rodman: He had one stretch of leading the league in rebounding seven seasons in a row, a greater run than anyone in history, despite being 6-foot-7. The Worm twice won Defensive Player of the Year (voted by the media) and was first- or second-team All-Defense (voted by coaches) for eight consecutive seasons with the Pistons, Spurs and Bulls, before finishing his star-crossed 14-year career with the Lakers and Mavericks. He was an important part of five championship teams in Detroit and Chicago.

The case against Rodman: He was a little different. You may have heard. Beyond that, it would hard to put someone in the Hall who was such a non-factor on offense, though two of the voters noted K.C. Jones made Springfield with a similar drawback. A lot of teams thought Rodman sold out on defense late in his career by cheating off his man to continue to pile up big rebounding numbers, and voters in this survey noted he had to be surrounded by championship talent and wasn't good enough to move the needle on his own.

"He was more of a role player," one said. "A hell of a role player and probably one of the best rebounders ever, but never the best player on his team or the second-best player on his team. But there is a bias there. The guy was a [bleeping] idiot."

"He became an embarrassment to the league," another said.

But countered one the backers in the informal poll: "One of the five greatest rebounders in history. That outweighs any negative."

The debate is just beginning.

Scott Howard-Cooper has covered the NBA since 1988. You can e-mail him here.

The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA, its clubs or Turner Broadcasting.