So does Ray Allen make HOF?

John Murdoch · Post #1 » by **John Murdoch** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:40 pm

Just curious what realgm thinks. Usually rule of thumb is if you even have to question it than they don't belong in the HOF. He's in the same boat as guys like CWebb for me where you say hmmm

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEHOtmrfRh8[/youtube]

Hallstar · Post #2 » by **Hallstar** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:41 pm

Post #3 » by **bondom34** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:42 pm

I never thought it was a question, yes.

Wolfy1983 · Post #4 » by **Wolfy1983** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:48 pm

Thread of the month!

83SixersRocked · Post #5 » by **83SixersRocked** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:53 pm

Absolutely

Post #6 » by **Sixerscan** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:55 pm

Of course he will. Reggie was first ballot.

raptor jesus · Post #7 » by **raptor jesus** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:58 pm

Yes. Easily.

mischievous · Post #8 » by **mischievous** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:58 pm

That ship sailed in 2008 i'd say.

Post #9 » by **Sixerscan** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:59 pm

He's made 10 all star teams. Everyone that has made more than 8 has made it (besides guys like Kobe, Shaq, AI etc that aren't eligible yet of course)

daschysta · Post #10 » by **daschysta** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:23 pm

Easily and on the 1st Ballot.

Post #11 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:26 pm

John Murdoch wrote:Just curious what realgm thinks. Usually rule of thumb is if you even have to question it than they don't belong in the HOF. He's in the same boat as guys like CWebb for me where you say hmmm

Mortal lock. Much stronger candidate that Webber.

Ray Allen:

1. Is an all-time great shooter.
2. Is an all-timer great off-ball player.
3. Was capable of being a B-list alpha.
4. Was amazing at being useful on contenders.
5. Was relevant for a very long time.

Webber by contrast is basically only even in the discussion because of a few years in Sacramento where the team became very good for reasons that went well beyond Webber. He was a B-list alpha like Allen except he was quite problematic in any other role, wasn't relevant for that long, and has no historical noteworthy skills.

Not saying Webber won't get it, he may well, but Allen is a much stronger candidate imho.

Blame Rasho · Post #12 » by **Blame Rasho** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:44 pm

Calvin Murphy is in the HOF... let that sink in...

Goodfellaz · Post #13 » by **Goodfellaz** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:56 pm

of course allen gets in...come on now.

ThunderDan9 · Post #14 » by **ThunderDan9** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:03 pm

The standards of the HOF are so low... of course, a 10-time All-Star will get in.

Post #15 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:02 am

Absolutely. I would bet my left nut on it (maybe the right, too).

John Murdoch · Post #16 » by **John Murdoch** » Tue Dec 1, 2015 1:00 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
John Murdoch wrote:Just curious what realgm thinks. Usually rule of thumb is if you even have to question it than they don't belong in the HOF. He's in the same boat as guys like CWebb for me where you say hmmm

Mortal lock. Much stronger candidate that Webber.

Ray Allen:

1. Is an all-time great shooter.
2. Is an all-timer great off-ball player.
3. Was capable of being a B-list alpha.
4. Was amazing at being useful on contenders.
5. Was relevant for a very long time.

Webber by contrast is basically only even in the discussion because of a few years in Sacramento where the team became very good for reasons that went well beyond Webber. He was a B-list alpha like Allen except he was quite problematic in any other role, wasn't relevant for that long, and has no historical noteworthy skills.

Not saying Webber won't get it, he may well, but Allen is a much stronger candidate imho.

What seperates him from a guy like Rip Hamilton ? Im not sold

SlobbaN · Post #17 » by **SlobbaN** » Tue Dec 1, 2015 1:03 pm

ThunderDan9 wrote:The standards of the HOF are so low... of course, a 10-time All-Star will get in.

Post #18 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Dec 1, 2015 3:10 pm

John Murdoch wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
John Murdoch wrote:Just curious what realgm thinks. Usually rule of thumb is if you even have to question it than they don't belong in the HOF. He's in the same boat as guys like CWebb for me where you say hmmm

Mortal lock. Much stronger candidate that Webber.

Ray Allen:

1. Is an all-time great shooter.
2. Is an all-timer great off-ball player.
3. Was capable of being a B-list alpha.
4. Was amazing at being useful on contenders.
5. Was relevant for a very long time.

Webber by contrast is basically only even in the discussion because of a few years in Sacramento where the team became very good for reasons that went well beyond Webber. He was a B-list alpha like Allen except he was quite problematic in any other role, wasn't relevant for that long, and has no historical noteworthy skills.

Not saying Webber won't get it, he may well, but Allen is a much stronger candidate imho.

What seperates him from a guy like Rip Hamilton ? Im not sold

Put it this way: If Allen shot 2's instead of 3's off-ball and his prime was only relevant because he played on an amazing defensive team where he didn't help the defense, he wouldn't deserve anything close to HOF consideration. And that's all Hamilton was.

Evidence in data?
Allen's career TS% was 58.0%. Hamilton's was 52.5. That's the difference between "good" and "weak" right there. Add in that Allen did it for considerably longer, did so scoring at higher volume at peak, and also played on-ball capably. Allen also has the edge in all the regression data I've seen.

So yeah, it's reasonable for you to watch the two guys play and see similarities because for both their signature role was as an off-ball shooter who ran around a lot, they really didn't put up numbers that were very similar at all.

Post #19 » by **tsherkin** » Tue Dec 1, 2015 4:29 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
John Murdoch wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Mortal lock. Much stronger candidate that Webber.

Ray Allen:

1. Is an all-time great shooter.
2. Is an all-timer great off-ball player.
3. Was capable of being a B-list alpha.
4. Was amazing at being useful on contenders.
5. Was relevant for a very long time.

Webber by contrast is basically only even in the discussion because of a few years in Sacramento where the team became very good for reasons that went well beyond Webber. He was a B-list alpha like Allen except he was quite problematic in any other role, wasn't relevant for that long, and has no historical noteworthy skills.

Not saying Webber won't get it, he may well, but Allen is a much stronger candidate imho.

What seperates him from a guy like Rip Hamilton ? Im not sold

Put it this way: If Allen shot 2's instead of 3's off-ball and his prime was only relevant because he played on an amazing defensive team where he didn't help the defense, he wouldn't deserve anything close to HOF consideration. And that's all Hamilton was.

Evidence in data?
Allen's career TS% was 58.0%. Hamilton's was 52.5. That's the difference between "good" and "weak" right there. Add in that Allen did it for considerably longer, did so scoring at higher volume at peak, and also played on-ball capably. Allen also has the edge in all the regression data I've seen.

So yeah, it's reasonable for you to watch the two guys play and see similarities because for both their signature role was as an off-ball shooter who ran around a lot, they really didn't put up numbers that were very similar at all.

It helps to point out that peak Rip looks a lot like fourth-year Ray playing alongside Alien and Bigg Dog.

Post #20 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Dec 1, 2015 4:42 pm

I'd say he's a lock anyway, but even more so with Richmond getting in recently.