Rodman's decline?

The reason I wrote about Rodman's Bulls years is because those are the years most often cited when people are making the Rodman as Hall of Famer argument. You know, greatest rebounding forward of all time?

I believe he was a better player in Detroit than he was in Chicago. But nobody ever claims Rodman should be in the Hall of Fame because of his solid play with the Pistons. They claim he should go because of his outrageous rebounding (and defense) with the Bulls.

But now I'm being unfair because I wrote about his "decline" years? I don't know what to say to that.

The reason I wrote about Jayson Williams is that, by coincidence, for the three years Rodman was with the Bulls, Williams had three very good, early-Rodman-like years with the Nets. He was handy. I wanted to show that they were very similar players, and nobody ever talked up Jayson Williams as anything more than a solid journeyman. That's because he never focused solely on one aspect of the game to polish his stats.

He was also handy because even without sacrificing other parts of his game, he was almost as good as Rodman as an offensive rebounder, the all-important, victory-producing skill Rodman brought to the table. And it didn't produce many victories in New Jersey.

Also, this business of Rodman graciously stepping aside in the offense so Jordan and Pippen could have more chances to score, a strategically brilliant move done for the good of the team, is revisionist history. Do you want Jordan or Rodman taking the shot? Well, if Rodman has just grabbed a rebound and would have about a 95 percent chance of scoring on a put-back, I'll take that over Jordan shooting a jumper with two guys -- his and Rodman's -- draped all over him.

How many times a game did Rodman pass up easy put-backs? Three? Four? Two? I don't know, but he did it a lot. He was all about ego, and hardly at all about team. One of the ways in which Phil Jackson is a good coach is he found a way to channel that, which no other post-Detroit coach was able to do.

smileyy: Maybe its time to start publishing Buster's picks. (Or do you, and I'm an idiot and don't seem them?)

You're not an idiot. I don't publish them. I suppose I could. I'll think about it. I don't want to give the kid a big head.

crumley: In your blurb on the Packers/Eagles game do you mean to suggest the the Eagles defense is better than the Bears defense? Because the Bears crushed the Packers in their season opener, so the Packers have seen some good defense this year.

Yeah. No, I didn't mean to suggest that. Where it says "so far" it should (and will shortly) say "in that stretch." I was trying to talk there about the two games when he's played well.

tbrandel: Why not pick against the spread? As a recent (1 year) subscriber to Salon, I may have missed your explanation in some past column about why you just pick winners of games instead of picking against the spread.

Welcome. When I started picking games several years ago, I asked readers to help me decide whether to pick straight up or against the spread. They voted about 2-1 for straight up. I mean ratio. More than three people voted. I was happy about that, because I wanted to pick straight up.

What's the point of picking winners only?

I'm kind of at a loss here.

There doesn't seem to be much talent in picking the Colts to merely beat the J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets.

OK, fair enough. But whatever talent it takes, it's the same for all of us. The Panel o' Experts is a contest including various members of the national commentariat, plus a few other people, all of whom are picking winners straight up. The best anybody ever does is get about 70 percent of the games right. As a group I think we get about 65 percent right. So it's not as easy as you're making it sound. Yeah, Colts over Jets. Except the Jets-like team wins those games sometimes. And there are plenty of games where the pick isn't so obvious. The best NFL teams win 80 percent of the time or more. Picking games is more competitive, if you will, than that.

The question is whether they're going to beat them by enough.

That's only the question if you've bet on the game. Most people have not bet on the game, whatever game it is.

Steve: Baseball anyone?

I'm trying to stay awake right now watching the extremely mediocre Dodgers try to make the playoffs by beating the even more creaky Giants. Earlier I watched the seriously crappy Astros and Cardinals in their games. I mean, I am taking one for the team here.

Once the playoffs start, I'll be interested in these teams because a tournament is a tournament. But I can't get excited about which crappy teams make it. And as for the Twins and Tigers? Not to give away the ending, but those teams are already both in the playoffs.

The loss of September as an exciting baseball month, the death of pennant races, is one of the worst developments in sports in my lifetime, I think.

No Name: Why not offer some picks on the superior form of football: college?

Too many teams, too high a percentage of mismatches -- anyone picking college games ought to be able to get 80 percent right -- and in what way is it a superior form of football other than stadium atmosphere? It's the NFL Development League, and that's only at the top level.

Also, I have to draw the line someplace. If I paid serious attention to college football, this job would be seven days a week, instead of six and a half.