Derrick Rose "I am a Hall of Famer. Not in everyone's eyes but to the people I grew up with. I made it."

[kulaz3000]

I think people are forgetting that people who make it into the basketball hall of fame, isn't there, only for the NBA career as a basketball player, but also other contributions to the game of basketball as a whole.

I personally don't think he will make it, but if he continues to remain on NBA teams and still able to contribute, and after the game, still be involved in the NBA in some sort of capactiy, perhaps as a coach, commentator, he could eventually get in at some point. Yes, I don't see him either being a coach, or a commentator but I didn't think Ryan freaking Hollins would be on TV talking basketball either, so you never know.

Him making an All-Star game somehow, could really help, but even then, I find it highly unlikely. Still, he doesn't need the hall of fame. He has had an amazing career with all things considered, that Hall of Fame and whether he makes it or not, shouldn't phase him at all.

[dougthonus]

Grant Hill was probably a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Chris Webber was never even a top 3 PF.

I don't know if I agree with either of those statements.

Hill had 5 ALL-NBA appearances but only one 1st team and four second teams. He was 3rd in MVP voting once, but his second highest finish was 8th. Hard to argue he was ever a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Maybe one year.

Webber had 5 ALL-NBA appearances as well, one 1st, 3 2nd, and 1 3rd. He was 4th in MVP voting once and 7th twice and, like Hill, received votes five times.

Off the cuff, sure seems like pretty similar resumes to me.

Don't forget Webber was the best player of a team competing for a title for five years or so and probably should have won a ring if not for a game officiated so poorly that it has spawned the NBA's biggest officiating conspiracy theory in history.

If you don't recall, here's an article about it:
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401

I'm not sure who you think 3 better PFs were than Webber. At the time, I think he, Dirk, and KG were all pretty similarly tiered depending on the season though I wouldn't put up a fight if you said both had better careers on the whole.

I have to assume Webber gets in eventually.

[dougthonus]

Bogans started because he was a better O/D balance than Brewer or Korver. Drastically better defender than Korver, and while not really a better offensive player than Brewer, had drastically better shooting range. Bogans was really the #2 SG cause Brewer still got more minutes.

Bogans is probably the most inappropriate scapegoat by Bulls fans in memory.

Bogans sucked, and it was annoying seeing him in the starting lineup. The Bulls really should have found a way to make it work better with Korver and completely misused him. Korver would have provided, by far, the most benefit with Rose, but they often had him as the primary option with Rose out which was just a disaster.

I do agree the hate on Bogans was way too much given that he never played important (or many) minutes. He was just a frustration point because there were clearly better options (like starting Korver and letting him space the floor for Rose).

[dougthonus]

Him making an All-Star game somehow, could really help, but even then, I find it highly unlikely. Still, he doesn't need the hall of fame. He has had an amazing career with all things considered, that Hall of Fame and whether he makes it or not, shouldn't phase him at all.

If Rose somehow an all-star games, I think he'd be in the HOF. Four time all-star and MVP would be enough especially with the redemption story and the return to great play.

[League Circles]

Grant Hill was probably a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Chris Webber was never even a top 3 PF.

I don't know if I agree with either of those statements.

Hill had 5 ALL-NBA appearances but only one 1st team and four second teams. He was 3rd in MVP voting once, but his second highest finish was 8th. Hard to argue he was ever a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Maybe one year.

Webber had 5 ALL-NBA appearances as well, one 1st, 3 2nd, and 1 3rd. He was 4th in MVP voting once and 7th twice and, like Hill, received votes five times.

Off the cuff, sure seems like pretty similar resumes to me.

Don't forget Webber was the best player of a team competing for a title for five years or so and probably should have won a ring if not for a game officiated so poorly that it has spawned the NBA's biggest officiating conspiracy theory in history.

If you don't recall, here's an article about it:
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401

I'm not sure who you think 3 better PFs were than Webber. At the time, I think he, Dirk, and KG were all pretty similarly tiered depending on the season though I wouldn't put up a fight if you said both had better careers on the whole.

I have to assume Webber gets in eventually.

I was remembering Hills best years a little differently than they actually were. He did have one legit MVP level year but I thought he had actually won it which he didn't. IIRC he was by far the best player on a good Detroit team, surrounded by utter crap. Long time ago though.

As for Webber, IMO Duncan and KG were always clearly better, and IMO Dirk was mostly better. Then other guys would give Webber a run for his money IMO, most specifically Jermaine O'Neal, but also Karl Malone (who was very high level for basically the first half of Webber's career), Ben Wallace and a couple others were arguably on Webber's level.

But it's hard to parse out who you call a C vs a PF and what years. During Webber's true prime, gun to my head, I'd take Duncan, KG, Dirk and O'Neal all over him. All but Dirk were much, much better at half the game (defense), and IMO Dirk was a little better overall. I think Webber gets overrated for yes being the best player on a very good team, but it was a PERFECTLY fitting starting 5, one of the best fitting and talented ever really.

Oh, and I know this is harder to back up statistocally, but I promise it's not for shock value - I actually think Rasheed Wallace was probably Webber's equal or better during those years. Again, better defense (at that time) has a lot to do wih my ranking. Wallace was, IIRC, the best player on some really good portland teams too. I always thought he was underrated. I won't go so far as to say Boozer and Elton Brand werw on Webber's level, but I'd say he was closer to them than he was to Duncan and KG.

[dice]

Bogans started because he was a better O/D balance than Brewer or Korver. Drastically better defender than Korver, and while not really a better offensive player than Brewer, had drastically better shooting range. Bogans was really the #2 SG cause Brewer still got more minutes.

Bogans is probably the most inappropriate scapegoat by Bulls fans in memory.

bogans's D was highly overrated. and korver's actually became respectable under thibs. i never got the sense that bogans got scapegoated on a personal level. he was never a whipping boy or anything. he was just a perceived symbol of GM incompetence, which was itself unfair given that bogans starting was mostly due to thibs. pax went after joe johnson and didn't get him, went hard after reddick and had the offer matched, then got brewer and korver on very reasonable deals, either of whom could reasonably have started at SG

[dice]

Grant Hill was probably a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Chris Webber was never even a top 3 PF.

I don't know if I agree with either of those statements.

Hill had 5 ALL-NBA appearances but only one 1st team and four second teams. He was 3rd in MVP voting once, but his second highest finish was 8th. Hard to argue he was ever a top 3ish player in the world for a few years. Maybe one year.

Webber had 5 ALL-NBA appearances as well, one 1st, 3 2nd, and 1 3rd. He was 4th in MVP voting once and 7th twice and, like Hill, received votes five times.

Off the cuff, sure seems like pretty similar resumes to me.

Don't forget Webber was the best player of a team competing for a title for five years or so and probably should have won a ring if not for a game officiated so poorly that it has spawned the NBA's biggest officiating conspiracy theory in history.

If you don't recall, here's an article about it:
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401

I'm not sure who you think 3 better PFs were than Webber. At the time, I think he, Dirk, and KG were all pretty similarly tiered depending on the season though I wouldn't put up a fight if you said both had better careers on the whole.

I have to assume Webber gets in eventually.

I was remembering Hills best years a little differently than they actually were. He did have one legit MVP level year but I thought he had actually won it which he didn't. IIRC he was by far the best player on a good Detroit team, surrounded by utter crap. Long time ago though.

As for Webber, IMO Duncan and KG were always clearly better, and IMO Dirk was mostly better. Then other guys would give Webber a run for his money IMO, most specifically Jermaine O'Neal, but also Karl Malone (who was very high level for basically the first half of Webber's career), Ben Wallace and a couple others were arguably on Webber's level.

But it's hard to parse out who you call a C vs a PF and what years. During Webber's true prime, gun to my head, I'd take Duncan, KG, Dirk and O'Neal all over him. All but Dirk were much, much better at half the game (defense), and IMO Dirk was a little better overall. I think Webber gets overrated for yes being the best player on a very good team, but it was a PERFECTLY fitting starting 5, one of the best fitting and talented ever really.

Oh, and I know this is harder to back up statistocally, but I promise it's not for shock value - I actually think Rasheed Wallace was probably Webber's equal or better during those years. Again, better defense (at that time) has a lot to do wih my ranking. Wallace was, IIRC, the best player on some really good portland teams too. I always thought he was underrated. I won't go so far as to say Boozer and Elton Brand werw on Webber's level, but I'd say he was closer to them than he was to Duncan and KG.

yeah, this notion that webber was a top shelf PF is a little off. i frankly think he had a disappointing pro career. excellent all-around player, but by age 29 (the year after his kings team was supposedly robbed) he was a liability as a scorer. also injury plagued. despite playing 2 years more in college and suffering awful injuries, grant hill actually ended up playing a lot more nba games than webber!

also, grant hill won 2 championships in a great 4 year college career, including 1 over webber's fab five and another over an undefeated and celebrated UNLV squad. hill's nba prime might have been similarly somewhat overrated, though. like webber, excellent all-around, but never much of a shooter

interesting comparison (per 36):

pippen bulls: 18/7/5/2s/1b 54%ts, 2.7 obpm, 2.6 dbpm
hill pistons: 20/7/6/1.5s/1b 54%ts, 3.0 obpm, 2.1 dbpm

[League Circles]

Bogans started because he was a better O/D balance than Brewer or Korver. Drastically better defender than Korver, and while not really a better offensive player than Brewer, had drastically better shooting range. Bogans was really the #2 SG cause Brewer still got more minutes.

Bogans is probably the most inappropriate scapegoat by Bulls fans in memory.

bogans's D was highly overrated. and korver's actually became respectable under thibs. i never got the sense that bogans got scapegoated on a personal level. he was never a whipping boy or anything. he was just a perceived symbol of GM incompetence, which was itself unfair given that bogans starting was mostly due to thibs. pax went after joe johnson and didn't get him, went hard after reddick and had the offer matched, then got brewer and korver on very reasonable deals, either of whom could reasonably have started at SG

So do you disagree that Bogans was a far better defender than Korver? Bogans wasn't as good as Brewer on D, but he was a hell of a lot closer to him, and very much competent, than he was to the incompetent Korver.

When I say scapegoated, I mean people use him to point to some terrible mistake, always talking about him as "the starter", in a very misleading way, implying he was positioned as one of the 5 most played Bulls, whrnin reality, he was 9th on the team in MPG, and 4th out of the 4 wings, all of whom played healthy all year. When his role is put in that proper context, he was a perfectly acceptable and competent role player playing under 18 mpg.

[dice]

Bogans started because he was a better O/D balance than Brewer or Korver. Drastically better defender than Korver, and while not really a better offensive player than Brewer, had drastically better shooting range. Bogans was really the #2 SG cause Brewer still got more minutes.

Bogans is probably the most inappropriate scapegoat by Bulls fans in memory.

bogans's D was highly overrated. and korver's actually became respectable under thibs. i never got the sense that bogans got scapegoated on a personal level. he was never a whipping boy or anything. he was just a perceived symbol of GM incompetence, which was itself unfair given that bogans starting was mostly due to thibs. pax went after joe johnson and didn't get him, went hard after reddick and had the offer matched, then got brewer and korver on very reasonable deals, either of whom could reasonably have started at SG

So do you disagree that Bogans was a far better defender than Korver? Bogans wasn't as good as Brewer on D, but he was a hell of a lot closer to him, and very much competent, than he was to the incompetent Korver.

bogans was merely an above average defender. i think people, particularly the media, pretended that he was better than he was because it was otherwise hard to explain why he was starting for the best team in the league. i don't ever recall thinking "boy, bogans is really playing some D tonight!" i don't think the defensive gap was big enough to justify keeping korver out of the starting lineup, though that bench would've REALLY been scoring deprived had korver been starting

When I say scapegoated, I mean people use him to point to some terrible mistake, always talking about him as "the starter", in a very misleading way, implying he was positioned as one of the 5 most played Bulls, whrnin reality, he was 9th on the team in MPG, and 4th out of the 4 wings, all of whom played healthy all year. When his role is put in that proper context, he was a perfectly acceptable and competent role player playing under 18 mpg.

agreed. bogans starting and playing limited minutes was hardly a major issue. boozer's disappointing play, on the other hand...

it's interesting that all of the major PFs available in free agency that year had their careers fall apart (at different rates and for different reasons) - boozer, amare, david lee, bosh

[TheGOATRises007]

Boozer's play was hugely detrimental that playoffs.

More-so than Bogans starting at SG.

Swap Boozer and Bosh, and I think we'd take out the Heat.

[dice]

Boozer's play was hugely detrimental that playoffs.

More-so than Bogans starting at SG.

Swap Boozer and Bosh, and I think we'd take out the Heat.

no doubt about that. bosh demolished him

[dice]

Watch on YouTube

[jc23]

Boozer's play was hugely detrimental that playoffs.

More-so than Bogans starting at SG.

Swap Boozer and Bosh, and I think we'd take out the Heat.

yep
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e15b0c45-95f7-4648-833c-8d65a4c65f6a

[dougthonus]

As for Webber, IMO Duncan and KG were always clearly better, and IMO Dirk was mostly better. Then other guys would give Webber a run for his money IMO, most specifically Jermaine O'Neal, but also Karl Malone (who was very high level for basically the first half of Webber's career), Ben Wallace and a couple others were arguably on Webber's level.

But it's hard to parse out who you call a C vs a PF and what years. During Webber's true prime, gun to my head, I'd take Duncan, KG, Dirk and O'Neal all over him. All but Dirk were much, much better at half the game (defense), and IMO Dirk was a little better overall. I think Webber gets overrated for yes being the best player on a very good team, but it was a PERFECTLY fitting starting 5, one of the best fitting and talented ever really.

Oh, and I know this is harder to back up statistocally, but I promise it's not for shock value - I actually think Rasheed Wallace was probably Webber's equal or better during those years. Again, better defense (at that time) has a lot to do wih my ranking. Wallace was, IIRC, the best player on some really good portland teams too. I always thought he was underrated. I won't go so far as to say Boozer and Elton Brand werw on Webber's level, but I'd say he was closer to them than he was to Duncan and KG.

I think you're just drastically underrating Webber. As I said, best player on a team that was cheated out of a title. Thinking back on it that was a hell of a great era for PFs.

I wouldn't argue with Duncan, KG, or Dirk if you count Duncan as a PF and not a C though those are 3 top 20 players of all time. Jermaine O'Neal is laughable as a comparison to Webber IMO. No where remotely as versatile offensively or as skilled. If Wallace could have ever consistently not been a nut job then I think he could have been in the conversation, but he was inconsistent in every way you could think of relative to the elite players of his era.

Not that Webber is a super hero, but he was a great player, a guy you would say is top 10 for about half a decade or more.

[League Circles]

As for Webber, IMO Duncan and KG were always clearly better, and IMO Dirk was mostly better. Then other guys would give Webber a run for his money IMO, most specifically Jermaine O'Neal, but also Karl Malone (who was very high level for basically the first half of Webber's career), Ben Wallace and a couple others were arguably on Webber's level.

But it's hard to parse out who you call a C vs a PF and what years. During Webber's true prime, gun to my head, I'd take Duncan, KG, Dirk and O'Neal all over him. All but Dirk were much, much better at half the game (defense), and IMO Dirk was a little better overall. I think Webber gets overrated for yes being the best player on a very good team, but it was a PERFECTLY fitting starting 5, one of the best fitting and talented ever really.

Oh, and I know this is harder to back up statistocally, but I promise it's not for shock value - I actually think Rasheed Wallace was probably Webber's equal or better during those years. Again, better defense (at that time) has a lot to do wih my ranking. Wallace was, IIRC, the best player on some really good portland teams too. I always thought he was underrated. I won't go so far as to say Boozer and Elton Brand werw on Webber's level, but I'd say he was closer to them than he was to Duncan and KG.

I think you're just drastically underrating Webber. As I said, best player on a team that was cheated out of a title. Thinking back on it that was a hell of a great era for PFs.

I wouldn't argue with Duncan, KG, or Dirk if you count Duncan as a PF and not a C though those are 3 top 20 players of all time. Jermaine O'Neal is laughable as a comparison to Webber IMO. No where remotely as versatile offensively or as skilled. If Wallace could have ever consistently not been a nut job then I think he could have been in the conversation, but he was inconsistent in every way you could think of relative to the elite players of his era.

Not that Webber is a super hero, but he was a great player, a guy you would say is top 10 for about half a decade or more.

Chauncey Billups was the best player on a team that actually won a title, and he may not have ever been a top 3 PG either.

I really think I you're underrating O'Neal. He was the best player on a 61 win team and arguably the best big man defender in the game. A really underrated player because he came into the league at 17 years old and took years to develop and needed to get out of the log jam in Portland.

I'm pretty sure I'd never have called Webber a top 10 player, and FWIW, I felt this way in real time. As you indicate though, it was a simply phenomenal era for PFs. For a guy like Elton Brand to be something like the 8th best at the position or whatever speaks volumes.

To help you wrap your head around what may on the surface seem a ridiculous argument I'm making, I tend to value defense and ability (as opposed to production) far more than most fans who lean more heavily on offense and productivity. I also value team success heavily, and both O'Neal and Wallace stack up very well (IIRC) to Webber in their careers despite the easier to remember "robbing" of a title for Webber, as I think that had a ton to do with two other things I heavily value for the Kings - chemistry and continuity.

But yeah, at the end of the day my original claim was really about Duncan, KG and Dirk.

[ATRAIN53]

Watch on YouTube

thanks, I can hear it in his own words.

No way he's in the HOF and the Bulls are never retiring his jersey.
It was a fun couple of years, but it ended badly and he was medically cleared to play in that playoff series.

I would not climb in a fox hole with Rose in a war.

This guy I would....

[Dieselbound&Down]

and yet you refuted not a single one of my reasons why iggy has been the better player (i shouldn't have said "significantly")

kobe was on a whole lot of all defensive teams too. iggy has been a SIGNIFICANTLY better defender than kobe

this is at age 35 (!):

Watch on YouTube

and, of course, there's his D on lebron in the finals. not too many guys who have been able to slow down that guy (jimmy, iggy...). deng couldn't

You offered subjective opinions. I offered actual accomplishments on why guys get into the hall of fame.

actual accomplishments based on subjective opinions of media members ...which are obviously impacted by things like...how good a guy's team is (iggy's were mediocre in philly)...and whether a guy is a starter (iggy sacrificed that for the team initially). dennis johnson barely got into the hall of fame despite those media accolades. rodman got in a lot faster despite only being a 2 time all-star

and the argument was not about who WILL get into the HOF. it was about who SHOULD. which is more subjective. strictly by the numbers iggy is very unlikely to get in

if you want to ACTUALLY be objective, look at the stats. and iggy wins on that count. more efficient scorer, better a:to ratio, better rebounder. most importantly, his teams' performance has tended to go way up when he is on the floor

iggy wins the eye test as well (subjective)

Iggy and DJ have a lot of similarities in being really good players, diverse skill sets, but not elite at anything but defense and second fiddle when they went to good team. They were both leaders, too, on championship squads. Stat wise, neither should probably make it to the HOF. But I'm perfectly fine if either/both are put in.

I agree with RedBulls on DJ being better. He won a title with Seattle. Put up some pretty good scoring seasons while providing top defense. When he got to the Celtics, he was clearly a respected leader that did all the things a title team needs make them great. Like Iggy with GSW.

It is somewhat luck that DJ got to do it with 2 different teams. But he did, he was recognized for a decade straight as being at least a fringe AS and top defender in the league while just winning games. I would say he had the better career and lean to him being the better player. He just got it earlier on, what it meant and took to be a winner.

[dougthonus]

Chauncey Billups was the best player on a team that actually won a title, and he may not have ever been a top 3 PG either.

Billups was also arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on his team. He wasn't the clear beset guy on his team and wasn't an alpha player.

I really think I you're underrating O'Neal. He was the best player on a 61 win team and arguably the best big man defender in the game. A really underrated player because he came into the league at 17 years old and took years to develop and needed to get out of the log jam in Portland.

O'Neal's best was far below Webber's IMO and his good years were also fewer.

I'm pretty sure I'd never have called Webber a top 10 player, and FWIW, I felt this way in real time. As you indicate though, it was a simply phenomenal era for PFs. For a guy like Elton Brand to be something like the 8th best at the position or whatever speaks volumes.

Given that he was top 10 in MVP voting for five different seasons and made five all-NBA teams, it would seem your opinion is very different from the majority.

But yeah, at the end of the day my original claim was really about Duncan, KG and Dirk.

Yeah, I agree those guys all had better careers.

[jacoby1us]

Ton of Negatrons on this board, it is actually pretty sad indeed. Name me a player that have more of an impact wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey after the MJ/Scottie era?

Derrick Rose has impacted the game not only nationally but globally. Due to his unprecedented play as a Rookie, the NBA had to implement a rule named after him when it comes to extending Rookie contracts for max salary. Youngest MVP, multiple All-Star appearances, he literally brought our team out of the Baby Bulls era by himself after the failed Twin Tower experiments with Chandler/Curry, the Jason Williams injury, failed Tyrus Thomas draft. He deserves a chance to get HOF and his jersey retired with the Bulls.

We may NEVER know the full extent of what happened between Rose and the Bulls IRT him returning to the court, all I can do is speak from personal experience and note that mental strength is just as important as physical. If you are not mentally prepared your physical will ultimately not be ready.

[bledredwine]

Even if it was just for a couple of years, he was unbelievable.
It's not every day that you get to see a little guy dominate like that... on both ends of the court, by the way.

Given his rookie numbers, rookie playoff record, skills challenge win, MVP, maintaining relevancy after all he's been through, and putting the Bulls on the map for the first time in a while, I'd say that he's earned his spot.