RealGM

Mattd97 wrote:when looking at their actual achievements its hilarious that more of them think VC makes it than tmac

This and it's not even close.

TMac

7× NBA All-Star (2001–2007)
NBA Most Improved Player (2001)
2× NBA scoring champion (2003–2004)
2× All-NBA First Team (2002–2003)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2001, 2004, 2007)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2005, 2008)
USA Today High School Player of the Year (1997)

VC
NBA Rookie of the Year (1999)
8× NBA All-Star (2000–2007)
All-NBA Second Team (2001)
All-NBA Third Team (2000)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1999)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (2000)
Consensus NCAA All-American Second Team (1998)

carlosey wrote:Carter was the face of basketball for a good while there and no doubt helped the game grow. He is in.

AI was one of the best performers out there despite his personal problems.

Grant Hill was one of the greatest college ballers of all time.

Tmac and Sheed have no business being in this list.

I'm pretty sure McGrady lead the NBA in all-star voting on more than one occasion

Let's not turn this into a popularity contest

Ranked based on what I think are their chances of getting in.

Iverson:100%, going in no question.

Vince: 80%, arguably the most popular player in the league for a couple of years. Best dunker ever. Scoring #s justify him going in. Could have easily led the league in scoring if he was more selfish.

Hill: 60%, one of the league's best all around players pre injury. Almost a better scoring version of Pippen although not as strong defensively. But that pre-injury period was all of 6 years. Personally I say no.

T-Mac: 40%, was arguably the BEST guard in the league for two years (yep even rivaled Kobe). Just a fantastic player for 40 minutes that is. Legendary fading down the stretch, lack of playoff success, and a career cut short by injuries (effectively done before age 30) means no HOF.

Sheed: 30%. When it boils down, he wasn't as good as people think. Poor rebounding numbers (6.7 career) and his FG% (.467 career) is frankly weak for a PF/C. None of his other stats jump out at you either. Was a warrior but only won one title in his career.

McGrady had the highest peak of the lot and that's no easy task. I think he will make it although the complete lack of playoffs success could hurt him a little.

lobosloboslobos wrote:

Mattd97 wrote:when looking at their actual achievements its hilarious that more of them think VC makes it than tmac

This and it's not even close.

TMac

7× NBA All-Star (2001–2007)
NBA Most Improved Player (2001)
2× NBA scoring champion (2003–2004)
2× All-NBA First Team (2002–2003)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2001, 2004, 2007)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2005, 2008)
USA Today High School Player of the Year (1997)

VC
NBA Rookie of the Year (1999)
8× NBA All-Star (2000–2007)
All-NBA Second Team (2001)
All-NBA Third Team (2000)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1999)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (2000)
Consensus NCAA All-American Second Team (1998)

They don't go solely by that.

VC had a gold medal, 2x final four, 20 000 points, and imo his biggest contribution, his impact he did to dunking. Yes, dunking is just two points and just another part of the game, but you can't deny Vince took it to another level. Yao Ming is gonna get in on cultural impact alone. I don't think VC makes it first ballot, but he'll get in. He has a chance to end with 23000 points, 5000 rebounds, 4000 assists.

All are prime examples of wasted talent, either because of injuries, poor attitude or both.

I think Iverson probably deserves to get in, but I'm really iffy about Carter and McGrady, considering someone like Mitch Richmond who hasn't made it. Neither of those guys accomplished more than him.

I like Grant Hill, but in terms of what he brought to the game, no. He doesn't deserve to be in it if we're considering all-time greats, not just good guys.

UN-Owen wrote:

carlosey wrote:Carter was the face of basketball for a good while there and no doubt helped the game grow. He is in.

AI was one of the best performers out there despite his personal problems.

Grant Hill was one of the greatest college ballers of all time.

Tmac and Sheed have no business being in this list.

I'm pretty sure McGrady lead the NBA in all-star voting on more than one occasion

Let's not turn this into a popularity contest

Sorry but Tmac was not what vince was for the game of basketball no matter how you put it. NBA fan balloting isnt considered for the basketball hall of fame.

All of them yes.

VC took our sorry a**franchise to basically one shot away from the ECF, and carried a bunch of scrubs. He should get in the HOF just because of that. And lol at Mitch Richmond, please he had no ever lasting impact like VC had(dunking, clutch shots, crazy shots, controversies ect). Plus Mitch only won a title being a 12th man on the Lakers.

VC, AI(most likely), and T-mac will get in. Grant Hill will too because of his college resume. I want 'Sheed to get in, but he comes up short.

Vinsane15 wrote:VC took our sorry a**franchise to basically one shot away from the ECF, and carried a bunch of scrubs. He should get in the HOF just because of that. And lol at Mitch Richmond, please he had no ever lasting impact like VC had(dunking, clutch shots, crazy shots, controversies ect). Plus Mitch only won a title being a 12th man on the Lakers.

VC, AI(most likely), and T-mac will get in. Grant Hill will too because of his college resume. I want 'Sheed to get in, but he comes up short.

So you're saying if Mitch Richmond won a few dunk contests you would consider him the equal of Carter? Yeah, and I LOL at the idea that bringing a team to the conference semis as a way of touting a player's playoffs success.

A healthy Grant Hill averaged 21 points, 8 boards and 7 assists per game while getting to the line 8 times a games

T-Mac's teams always choked come playoff time. VC is one of the better playoff preformers in NBA history despite not winning a title and missing the shot in Philly. Can't say the same for TMac.

Like him or not, VC's a definite HOF'er.

sanity wrote:

Vinsane15 wrote:VC took our sorry a**franchise to basically one shot away from the ECF, and carried a bunch of scrubs. He should get in the HOF just because of that. And lol at Mitch Richmond, please he had no ever lasting impact like VC had(dunking, clutch shots, crazy shots, controversies ect). Plus Mitch only won a title being a 12th man on the Lakers.

VC, AI(most likely), and T-mac will get in. Grant Hill will too because of his college resume. I want 'Sheed to get in, but he comes up short.

So you're saying if Mitch Richmond won a few dunk contests you would consider him the equal of Carter? Yeah, and I LOL at the idea that bringing a team to the conference semis as a way of touting a player's playoffs success.

The knock against Richmond is probably the lack of team success. The Kings made the playoffs only once in his 8 seasons there. Averaging 22 ppg on poor teams is not much of an accomplishment.

sanity wrote:

Vinsane15 wrote:VC took our sorry a**franchise to basically one shot away from the ECF, and carried a bunch of scrubs. He should get in the HOF just because of that. And lol at Mitch Richmond, please he had no ever lasting impact like VC had(dunking, clutch shots, crazy shots, controversies ect). Plus Mitch only won a title being a 12th man on the Lakers.

VC, AI(most likely), and T-mac will get in. Grant Hill will too because of his college resume. I want 'Sheed to get in, but he comes up short.

So you're saying if Mitch Richmond won a few dunk contests you would consider him the equal of Carter? Yeah, and I LOL at the idea that bringing a team to the conference semis as a way of touting a player's playoffs success.

Did I say that? I didn't even mention the dunk contest =/ . I also mentioned other reasons why VC had such an impact. Please tell me about Mitch and his ability to lead the Sac Kings to the lottery. Mitch will be rememberd for being traded for C-Webb, and igniting the Kings franchise to contenders.

Dunks did have an impact, everyone says VC is the best dunker. He is the best ever at something related to the game of basketball, thats something. I know VC didnt become MVP, and was robbed of all NBA from 05-07 with the Nets, but he deserves to be in.

A.I for sure and Vince is a toss up. Vince was a good player, not HOF caliber but hes easily one of the best dunkers in history . Being a good dunker is not enough to get a person into the HOF but Vince's in game dunks were revolutionary and that made him a great entertainer and easily the most exciting player of this era (post 2000). If he goes in, that should be the reason why. He was great for the NBA. If he doesnt, its because as a player he was good but never Great.

and Sheed? Wtf? LOL

lol Carter gets 3 Yes's but Grant Hill gets 4?? There goes all the credibility of this article, specifically Adande and Nowell

Conclusively to add to my last post, I would put V.C in the HOF because he definetly left a positive mark on the NBA. Whether a real fan or fairweather fan, I doubt anyone who watched Vince play in his prime would forget him, he was way too exciting of a player.

This potential Team Canada super team thats coming up the pipe line with Wiggins,
Kapongo, Thompson, Nicholson, Jospeh etc most of these guys if not all of them say Vince Carter
was the main reason they got into basketball and became Raptor fans.

We've seen Spain become a world power and fall in love with the game because of the Dream Team
playing in the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona it would be unprecedented to see a country become
a super power mostly on the influence of one player.

Thats what I think separates VC from a Mitch Richmond, T-Mac and a Chris Mullin (who's already in)...
I also think Iversons impact on the game culturally is a big x-factor for him. You could even argue
T-Macs huge impact on the Chinese market in his favor hell he might be even bigger then Yao lol

Homer Jay wrote:

sanity wrote:

Vinsane15 wrote:VC took our sorry a**franchise to basically one shot away from the ECF, and carried a bunch of scrubs. He should get in the HOF just because of that. And lol at Mitch Richmond, please he had no ever lasting impact like VC had(dunking, clutch shots, crazy shots, controversies ect). Plus Mitch only won a title being a 12th man on the Lakers.

VC, AI(most likely), and T-mac will get in. Grant Hill will too because of his college resume. I want 'Sheed to get in, but he comes up short.

So you're saying if Mitch Richmond won a few dunk contests you would consider him the equal of Carter? Yeah, and I LOL at the idea that bringing a team to the conference semis as a way of touting a player's playoffs success.

The knock against Richmond is probably the lack of team success. The Kings made the playoffs only once in his 8 seasons there. Averaging 22 ppg on poor teams is not much of an accomplishment.

I've never understood the argument that a lack of team success should affect how we should judge the talent/career of an individual player

21 PPG on .455% shooting is higher Kobe's (.454%) and Ray Allen's (.453%) career average

He also shot .388% from 3 and .85% from the line


The lack of surrounding talent means defenses would have focused almost exclusively on Richmond which makes his moderate efficiency all the more impressive


Iverson's career FG% is .425%