2nd tier stars HOF chance?

[Hornet Mania]

The HoF is a popularity contest, not a science, just like all other NBA honors. I'd put the tiers like this, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone deserving missed out and someone with a more recognizable name but worse resume got in:

Should be In:
-Ben Wallace
-Vince Carter
-Chris Webber

Have a solid case but not definite:
-Chauncey Billups
-Shawn Marion
-Antawn Jamison (longevity, plus career stats mostly)

Borderline case, but probably not deserving:
-Tyson Chandler
-Amare Stoudamire

No, thanks:
-Deron Williams
-Joe Johnson
-AK47
-Gilbert Arenas

Jamison is going to be an interesting case. Practically no one with his career point/rebound totals missed out on the Hall of Fame, yet he definitely is not a top-tier star either. I don't think he was necessarily a better player than Joe Johnson, for example, but he definitely did it for longer and was far more accomplished for a legendary college basketball program. I think in the end he makes it, but it may take awhile. Probably will end up being something like "well, everyone with X pts and X rebounds is in except Jamison so obviously he is underrated" second-guessing in a decade or two pushing him over the top.

[nate33]

I don't really want to live in a world where Antawn Jamison is in the HOF. At no point in his career was he a top 25 player. He put up a lot of points on not-awful efficiency, that's about it.

[Doctor MJ]

Chandler also has a USA gold medal as well

No one will ever take USA gold medals seriously in context like this, but the fact that he was considered a valuable member of that team might have some slight resonance if the rest of his candidacy really gets him in the ballpark.

I'll reiterate:

Before '10-11, it wasn't even clear cut that Chandler wasn't a bust.

So really, in terms of historically noteworthy stuff, we're only talking about Chandler's 5th season of it right now, and it's not like at any time in those 5 seasons he was seen as a superstar. People are going to need more than that.

But as I said, it's possible they'll get it. Dallas currently has a superior SRS to the year they won the title, and Chandler left & comeback in that time - during which he helped make New York ever so briefly a basketball city.

If, somehow, the Mavs won the title again this year with Chandler being seen as important as anyone other than Nowitzki, that may well make him Hall of Fame bound.

That's not how it works.

He has less than zero chance. This is a complete realgm fantasy. Deke's not in. Ben won't get in unless Deke does. Jack Sikma is not in. Bill Laimbeer is not in. Sean Kemp won't make it. Sheed won't make it. A lot of really good players much more decorated than Tyson Chandler will not make it. I've always liked Chandler, but he's nothing historically. Just a pretty good center in a bad center era.

Um, Dikembe Mutombo will be eligible for the 1st time in 2015 and most I've seen see him as a likely 1st ballot inductee. So there's that to start.

Now, Mutombo getting in won't make Chandler get in, but I doubt you can find a test case that similar to what I'm describing for Chandler, so you definitively saying "that's not how it works" is something without much basis. And the reason I can speak pretty confidently about that lack of test case, is based on how weird it would be if the events I describe actually come true. Remember I didn't say that with another ring Chandler gets in, I said that if he wins another ring AND a narrative gets cemented with him as the guy who transforms teams, he may get in.

One more item on that note:

I don't believe there's ever been a 2-title core that hasn't had at least 2 Hall of Famers associated principally with that core. As with the MVP, no one should take that as a hard & fast rule, but there's obviously a reason why it keeps happening. Fundamentally, the Hall of Fame is about historical noteworthiness, and the history of every seasons ends up talking about the champions which tends to leave space for at least 2 players to get some paragraphs written about them.

In the case of Dallas here, had they won back-to-back titles in a similar fashion, and then Chandler tailed off, I don't think he gets in despite him being the #2 piece on that roster - it would have been the exception to the rule. If Dallas were to win their 2nd title now though with Chandler as the most valuable piece other than Nowitzki, then the story of their 2nd ring probably begins with people talking about Chandler leaving for New York and coming back, having helped the Knicks become a strong team along the way, to become once again "the perfect teammate for Dirk Nowitzki".

[Doctor MJ]

AK won Euroscar in 2012, the best European basketball player IN THE WORLD. This award includes players who played in the NBA, like Dirk, Manu, Parker, ect. He was a 2 time Euroleague MVP, were both 2012 and 2007 "meh" in the NBA in your eyes?

AK47 also led a team to a bronze medal in 2012, perhaps not as impressive as what Manu did, but given AK47's supporting cast, I have it up high on my personal list.

I'll put it this way: When a guy bounces back & forth between the NBA and another league, and the result is him going from non-all-star to MVP to non-all-star, why would that player deserve more credit than actual NBA all-stars? I understand the historic importance of European basketball, but now that we're in an era where the best guys come over here, you have to question why it's seen as anything other than minor league basketball.

Personally I still think that if a player gets honors over there before coming to the NBA and excelling here, that's a nice little feather in his cap. However once he's in the NBA, he basically IS what the NBA shows him to be, and his ability to dominate somewhere else just tells us how weak that other place is. I'm being a little harsh with my words here given that I know there are stylistic differences to consider, but those differences are not the most important factor in why Kirilenko looks so much better in Europe than the NBA, the big difference is the talent gap caused by the NBA being vastly more well financed than any other league.

Let's also not pretend that those who vote for the best European player in the world would LOVE to be able to praise a guy actually playing in Europe, that '11-12 was a lockout year in the NBA, and that it's not like AK won the award by performing on a level anyone thought was superior to what Dirk Nowitzki - a true world superstar - did the previous year.

As far as the Bronze Medal, that would be a lot more meaningful if Russia had truly separated themselves from the pack. For example, what Spain did in 2004 was impressive despite the lack of a medal - they showed to anyone who was watching that this was truly a team well ahead of everyone other than a motivated US team (yes, better than the very fortunate Argentina). That Russian team didn't dominate any team that was remotely serious - they just squeaked by. Squeaking by is enough to be proud about, but a lucky Bronze medal is not historically noteworthy.

Now I'll reiterate: I like AK. Always have. I think most have always underrated him, and had he stayed healthy in his younger days, I think he may well deserve Hall status. But there's really nothing about him that needs to be told to future generations outside of Russia in terms of what he actually accomplished.

[HeartBreakKid]

But when Ak-47 came to America he did dominate, he was a star both in America and outside America, it's not like he was just a can crusher.

There's nothing minor about being a Euro league MVP if we're talking international play, that's pretty much the highest honor outside of getting gold medals, which unless you're Manu, you won't be able to do unless you're on stacked USA (for the most part).

I think AK-47 has enough to make the HOF. Also, Eastern Europe is a very important market in basketball, I am pretty sure he is well known through out that region, that is fairly impactful.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Jamison has no more chance than Chandler really. Its not even worth talking about. Journeyman who weren't even that respected in their own day do NOT make it. A 2x All Star. No All NBA teams. Bounced from team to team. Rarely won. Its not even a close call really.

Joe Johnson shouldn't make it, but people will at least construct arguments for him. 7x All Star. Made a 3rd Team All NBA. Was the face of the franchise for a good Hawks team. Its not enough, but people will try to draw lines comparing him to Mitch Richmond etc. Jamison doesn't have a model to follow. Neither does Chandler. Those kinds of guys are just us making things up to entertain ourselves.

[Doctor MJ]

But when Ak-47 came to America he did dominate, he was a star both in America and outside America, it's not like he was just a can crusher.

There's nothing minor about being a Euro league MVP if we're talking international play, that's pretty much the highest honor outside of getting gold medals, which unless you're Manu, you won't be able to do unless you're on stacked USA (for the most part).

I think AK-47 has enough to make the HOF. Also, Eastern Europe is a very important market in basketball, I am pretty sure he is well known through out that region, that is fairly impactful.

Kirilenko being an NBA all-star once in 2004 does not mean we should treat something he did in 2012 as connected to that. We know what he was in 2004, and we know what he was years after that. They were vastly different things.

If you personally want to argue that in 2012 was all-star worthy, that's cool, but there's no reason to connect them as being in some way equal given that we saw Kirilenko immediately before 2012 in the NBA and immediately after in the NBA, and he looked nothing like the quality player he was in 2004.

Re: "if we're talking international play". My point really is that people need to stop treating that like it matters. The world of basketball is unified now. Either you prove yourself in the NBA, or you're nothing. The Olympics matter up to a point because truly competing against quality USA teams is an accomplishment, but defeating any middle of the pack nation is not worth mentioning in the context of Hall of Fame players.

Mind you, this is just my opinion, and who knows, maybe voters see it totally differently than me, but by what basis are they saying European ball matters? It was historically relevant in earlier eras because it was a parallel universe of basketball. As such, while we could assume it was far worse than the NBA, the very best player of an era in Europe deserved to be included simply because it was a story to be told. But the story of the very best players from Europe now is told in the US.

I'll put it another way: I just mentioned that the best player of an era in Europe deserved to make it in the Hall. The question naturally arises: If I'm a Euro-hater, how many do y'all think should be admitted?

Now remember: In Kirilenko's era, Nowitzki, Gasol, Ginobili and Parker exist and have vastly more accomplished careers. What would be the basis then for saying Kirilenko should get in based on him being the distant 5th best Euro? (btw, I know Ginobili isn't from Europe, but that's where he made his name so there's no point in putting him in a different section.)

I really think that people advocating for Kirilenko are stuck in a mode of simply giving foreigners bumps for any kind thing they do outside the NBA, and I just don't think that makes sense. If this were baseball and a player left the MLB as a non-all-star, went to Japan and won the MVP, and then came back to the MLB and again failed to be an all-star, no one would give a damn about him. What's the basis for treating basketball differently?

[thizznation]

Billups has F MVP don't see how doesn't get in

I rather doubt a Finals MVP has ever gotten anybody into the HOF. Its the fact Finals MVPs are normally won by no brainer HOFs. Jordan, or Magic or Duncan or whomever.

Final MVP is a hugely prestigious award, one large reason is the bolded text in your quote.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Billups has F MVP don't see how doesn't get in

I rather doubt a Finals MVP has ever gotten anybody into the HOF. Its the fact Finals MVPs are normally won by no brainer HOFs. Jordan, or Magic or Duncan or whomever.

Final MVP is a hugely prestigious award, one large reason is the bolded text in your quote.

Its a complete nothing award. Means nothing. Is barely recorded anywhere. Its just assumed. You don't win it vs. the league. You don't even really win it against another team. You win it against your own teammates. 12 guys. Big whoop. Finals MVP is virtually the same thing as saying "Won the Finals".

[Doctor MJ]

I rather doubt a Finals MVP has ever gotten anybody into the HOF. Its the fact Finals MVPs are normally won by no brainer HOFs. Jordan, or Magic or Duncan or whomever.

Final MVP is a hugely prestigious award, one large reason is the bolded text in your quote.

Its a complete nothing award. Means nothing. Is barely recorded anywhere. Its just assumed. You don't win it vs. the league. You don't even really win it against another team. You win it against your own teammates. 12 guys. Big whoop. Finals MVP is virtually the same thing as saying "Won the Finals".

Right, I don't know if thizz is trying to be cute here, but obviously the fact that someone gives Michael Jordan an award doesn't mean that the award itself has prestige tied to Jordan.

When Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP, everyone knew that didn't make him a Hall of Famer. I'd like to think we're at least that wise today.

[thizznation]

Final MVP is a hugely prestigious award, one large reason is the bolded text in your quote.

Its a complete nothing award. Means nothing. Is barely recorded anywhere. Its just assumed. You don't win it vs. the league. You don't even really win it against another team. You win it against your own teammates. 12 guys. Big whoop. Finals MVP is virtually the same thing as saying "Won the Finals".

Right, I don't know if thizz is trying to be cute here, but obviously the fact that someone gives Michael Jordan an award doesn't mean that the award itself has prestige tied to Jordan.

When Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP, everyone knew that didn't make him a Hall of Famer. I'd like to think we're at least that wise today.

You guys are kinda misconstruing my words. I personally think Final MVP is almost as = to an MVP. I don't think I'm the only one here. It seems like a general consensus is that playoff play (especially final play) is valued HUGELY. A player who sucks it up in the playoff/finals while owning in the regular season is likey to get his entire season just flat out disregarded here. So yeah given the context, FMVP is an absolute insane award, you dominated and lead your team on the highest stage.


So yeah I wasn't trolling and saying if Jordan and Magic win FMVP and Cedric Maxwell wins it that he all of a sudden gets rocketed to Jordan's and Magic's greatness. That is absurd. I was saying that FMVP is a very impactful reward for someone's career, and the fact that if you look up most of the winners of the FMVP are HoF, that just gives you an idea about how great of an accomplishment it is.



And Winsome saying that FMVP means nothing? So performing the best in the Finals as your team wins means nothing? SMH I think you have fallen victim to hyperbole here.


If you win FMVP it means you won it all and you were the leading reason why your team won it all. Honestly the more I think and talk about it I think that FMVP is the most important reward.

[Doctor MJ]

You guys are kinda misconstruing my words. I personally think Final MVP is almost as = to an MVP. I don't think I'm the only one here. It seems like a general consensus is that playoff play (especially final play) is valued HUGELY. A player who sucks it up in the playoff/finals while owning in the regular season is likey to get his entire season just flat out disregarded here. So yeah given the context, FMVP is an absolute insane award, you dominated and lead your team on the highest stage.


So yeah I wasn't trolling and saying if Jordan and Magic win FMVP and Cedric Maxwell wins it that he all of a sudden gets rocketed to Jordan's and Magic's greatness. That is absurd. I was saying that FMVP is a very impactful reward for someone's career, and the fact that if you look up most of the winners of the FMVP are HoF, that just gives you an idea about how great of an accomplishment it is.



And Winsome saying that FMVP means nothing? So performing the best in the Finals as your team wins means nothing? SMH I think you have fallen victim to hyperbole here.


If you win FMVP it means you won it all and you were the leading reason why your team won it all. Honestly the more I think and talk about it I think that FMVP is the most important reward.

Glad you clarified.

I think the truth about Finals MVP is that if you already established as a superstar, it's often more important than the MVP.

But this is a thread about 2nd tier guys. For every single one of these guys, an MVP would have been more meaningful than a Finals MVP, because the former would have established them as a player on another level.

Again this is not to say people won't bring up Billups Finals MVP when discussing his candidacy, but to emphasize the problems with people bringing it up as too big of a deal. Fundamentally: Billups Finals MVP did not come from him playing his best ball. It was a blowout of a series in which the award could have easily ended up going to any of several guys. Billups did not separate himself from, say, Richard Hamilton until subsequent years.

[HeartBreakKid]

FMVP isn't the equivilant to being MVP of the playoffs, it just means you were the best player in the finals series.

Naturally, the reason why many FMVP players are HOFers, is because the winning team is going to likely have a superstar - and more times than not a superstar will be the best player in the series.

The FMVP is nowhere near the power and prestige of an MVP on average. The same goes true for every team sport.

[Warspite]

AK won Euroscar in 2012, the best European basketball player IN THE WORLD. This award includes players who played in the NBA, like Dirk, Manu, Parker, ect. He was a 2 time Euroleague MVP, were both 2012 and 2007 "meh" in the NBA in your eyes?

AK47 also led a team to a bronze medal in 2012, perhaps not as impressive as what Manu did, but given AK47's supporting cast, I have it up high on my personal list.

I'll put it this way: When a guy bounces back & forth between the NBA and another league, and the result is him going from non-all-star to MVP to non-all-star, why would that player deserve more credit than actual NBA all-stars? I understand the historic importance of European basketball, but now that we're in an era where the best guys come over here, you have to question why it's seen as anything other than minor league basketball.

Personally I still think that if a player gets honors over there before coming to the NBA and excelling here, that's a nice little feather in his cap. However once he's in the NBA, he basically IS what the NBA shows him to be, and his ability to dominate somewhere else just tells us how weak that other place is. I'm being a little harsh with my words here given that I know there are stylistic differences to consider, but those differences are not the most important factor in why Kirilenko looks so much better in Europe than the NBA, the big difference is the talent gap caused by the NBA being vastly more well financed than any other league.

Let's also not pretend that those who vote for the best European player in the world would LOVE to be able to praise a guy actually playing in Europe, that '11-12 was a lockout year in the NBA, and that it's not like AK won the award by performing on a level anyone thought was superior to what Dirk Nowitzki - a true world superstar - did the previous year.

As far as the Bronze Medal, that would be a lot more meaningful if Russia had truly separated themselves from the pack. For example, what Spain did in 2004 was impressive despite the lack of a medal - they showed to anyone who was watching that this was truly a team well ahead of everyone other than a motivated US team (yes, better than the very fortunate Argentina). That Russian team didn't dominate any team that was remotely serious - they just squeaked by. Squeaking by is enough to be proud about, but a lucky Bronze medal is not historically noteworthy.

Now I'll reiterate: I like AK. Always have. I think most have always underrated him, and had he stayed healthy in his younger days, I think he may well deserve Hall status. But there's really nothing about him that needs to be told to future generations outside of Russia in terms of what he actually accomplished.

What your saying is true but that is not how the International voters think. Olympics>NBA=Euro>NCAA=highschool=Under21. They think of Euro league vs NBA as similar to ACC vs SEC, Big10, Big12

[Winsome Gerbil]

Its not hyperbole. FMVP = nothing. Means nothing. 90% of the time it means you were the star player on the team that won the Finals. Its a formality. The other 10% of the time it means you had the series of your life, but really aren't that good, and everybody knows it. You'll get your summer Realgm bump where everyone runs around mindlessly calling you a Top 10 guy, then fall back to normal earth.

Nobody knows or cares if Duncan won Finals MVP in whatever years he won titles. Its irrelevant. His greatness is completely established by far more meaningful achievements without FMVPs even being on the radar. If Avery Johnson won Finals MVP back in '99, that too wouldn't matter a hill of beans. He'd still just be Avery Johnson. But he would have played a great series.

If I asked right now, top of your head, who won Finals MVP in 1983, you might come back and say "Moses" (which is likely right). If I told you nope, it was Andrew Toney, you wouldn't for an instant go oh, well gee, I guess Moses wasn't that great. Or go gee, that Andrew Toney, how come he's not talked about more for the HOF? There are at LEAST 50 players as year talented enough to win FMVP, but only a handful of them are ever in that position.

[thizznation]

Its not hyperbole. FMVP = nothing. The other 10% of the time it means you had the series of your life, but really aren't that good, and everybody knows it. .

Dude, if you have the "series of your life" in the **** NBA finals and your team wins, you are gonna call that accomplishment nothing?

[Doctor MJ]

What your saying is true but that is not how the International voters think. Olympics>NBA=Euro>NCAA=highschool=Under21. They think of Euro league vs NBA as similar to ACC vs SEC, Big10, Big12

No they don't. Quick, how many guys in the past decade made into the Hall based primarily off of their time as a player in Europe?

Just 2: Sabonis and Marciulionis. Both guys who played before it became the norm for top Euros to come to the NBA as soon as possible.

I'll note there were 2 other non-NBA guys admitted in that time:

Schmidt and Pereira, also guys from earlier eras. Both also of course were from Brazil, whose star in the last Olympics was Leandro "the NBA backup" Barbosa.

So the numbers for non-NBA guys were always way lower than NBA guys, and it was always based on a statement essentially of "this is a parallel basketball universe, and these are the poster boys of that universe".

Andrei Kirilenko and Leandro Barbosa aren't the poster boys of anything, and nor are they true spearheads of cultural significance the way Yao Ming is. They've played the bulk of their career in the NBA, and haven't produced a career anywhere near what would normally be needed to make the Hall. If they get in then, it's going to be based on voters not thinking objectively about what those players actually meant to history, but rather based on just assigning a huge bonus for being foreign. I don't think that will happen, and I certainly hope it won't.

One other item: Part of the reason why people might feel like non-NBA players exert a bigger influence on the HOF than they do, is that the HOF is big on rewarding coaches outside the NBA. I think the reason is clear: It's entirely plausible for a foreign coach, or say a women's basketball coach, to be every bit as important and worthy as an NBA coach because they are just working with different material. Telling the story of basketball requires telling all of these stories. When you get to the actual players though, there is clearly a reluctance to treat inferior players as if that weakness doesn't matter, and so even in earlier eras, American players dominated. Now that all leagues are essentially merged into an NBA feeder system, that reluctance is going to become an absolute wall.

For a player of the current age to get in the Hall based on non-NBA play it would require something very strange to happen. He'd probably have to refused to come to the NBA, dominate his league forever, and lead his nation in the Olympics to Silver medals repeatedly. The guy who could have done that past decade was Pau Gasol, but of course he came to the NBA to make vastly more money - as will be the opportunity of everyone in the same boat going forward.

[RSCD3_]

Is it a certainty Pau will get in?

[Doctor MJ]

Is it a certainty Pau will get in?

Put it this way:

He was the #2 on a team that won 2 titles and got to the finals a 3rd time. There's never been a core that did that without 2 guys getting in the Hall.
The run began WITH the trade that brought him to the team.
He was an all-star before he came to the team.
He's now been an all-star after moving on to another as his signature team now sucks without him.

To me he's a lock even if he's from Reno. But he's not. He's THE foreign Olympic player of the previous decade, is the face of the #1 foreign team of his era, and has a case for topping any Americans due to their spotty participation.

Mortal lock.

[ThaRegul8r]

Its not hyperbole. FMVP = nothing. The other 10% of the time it means you had the series of your life, but really aren't that good, and everybody knows it. .

Dude, if you have the "series of your life" in the **** NBA finals and your team wins, you are gonna call that accomplishment nothing?

Having the "series of your life" in the NBA Finals in a winning effort for your team exists independently of any award to begin with. An award shouldn't even be necessary in order to evaluate how a player played, as players were performing at a level that helped their teams win NBA championships before any award for it existed.

As I said during the Top 100 project, the performance is what matters. Awards are irrelevant. I've seen them too often become a shortcut for thinking, as some people are often more concerned with accolades than how a player played. How a player plays stands on its own whether anyone recognizes it with an award or not.