Why should I go Google articles by god knows who when the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History" list
selected by a blue-ribbon panel of media, former players and coaches, current and former general managers and team executives left Rodman off of it?
I think these sources are the most qualified to make the decision.
But, thanks for at least joining the discussion instead of trying to derail it.
But that book wasn't 'The only 50 people who can be called legends'
And I bought that book the day it came out. There was much discussion around two people who were left off many felt should have been in there. They were Dominique Wilkins and Dennis Rodman.
Wilkins was actually the bigger mistake in omission I thought...
Rodman was an interesting discussion point with that book because though he is left off the top 50, he is featured prominently in multiple parts of the book, in at least one case in a very large double page spread.
Other books were released around the same time coming up with alternate lists and pointing out where they felt mistakes were made in the top 50. Rodman and Wilkins often featured prominently there.
But whether or not those two should have been in there, it goes back to the fact that the book never made any claim that the 50 mentioned were the only ones that could be considered legends.
If that were the case, does it mean at least two of those top 50 are now not NBA legends?
Because that book was printed before Bryant and James who would be obvious inclusions (amongst a few others such as Duncan), erasing at least two current place holders ....and yes, making it even harder for Rodman to get a spot.
So I don't see how that book is a better determinant than say, record number of rebounding titles, back to back defensive player of the year, and number of titles ?
And as I said, not the voice of the people but its very common to see Dennis Rodman referred to as 'NBA Legend...'
(face smacking emoticon for Dennis ...not for you... 
