OT-Hall of Fame probability

Ji · Post #1 » by Ji » Fri May 23, 2008 1:51 am

Has anyone seen this list based on a certain forumla

As of last season, the formula said Gilbert Arenas would have a 60% chance of making the hall of fame..Im sure its gone down dramatically after this past season. Anyway...i thought this was interesting

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html

Ji · Post #2 » by Ji » Fri May 23, 2008 1:53 am

btw...no way Grant Hill should make the hall of fame

Ji · Post #3 » by Ji » Fri May 23, 2008 1:57 am

I thought Sam Cassell may be a borderline HOF . I cant believe he has only made 57 million dollars in his career. He has never made more than 6.8 million in any season. What a bargain. Gilbert has already made about as much as Cassell

What about Billups? Does he get any HOF love?

Cramer · Post #4 » by **Cramer** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:49 am

You think Cassell is a borderline Hall of Fame?

And we have a snow storm coming in next week, right?

Isn't this another of the fire-EJ guys?

Two words fellas. Credibility issues.

lupin · Post #5 » by **lupin** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:15 pm

the BASKETBALL HoF also counts college play etc. it is not just the NBA HoF. maybe they should have one, but that's another argument.

Grant Hill might get a look-in because of his Duke years.

keynote · Post #6 » by **keynote** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:31 pm

lupin wrote:the BASKETBALL HoF also counts college play etc. it is not just the NBA HoF. maybe they should have one, but that's another argument.

Grant Hill might get a look-in because of his Duke years.

Are there players in the HOF who made it in almost purely on the strength of their collegiate career? I mean, Laettner was arguably one of the top 3 or 4 college players ever, in terms of accolades, championships, performance, etc. I don't see him getting into the hall any time soon.

lupin · Post #7 » by **lupin** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:39 pm

there are plenty of women in there. some furriners too.

wigglestrue · Post #8 » by **wigglestrue** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:42 pm

lupin wrote:the BASKETBALL HoF also counts college play etc. it is not just the NBA HoF. maybe they should have one, but that's another argument.

Grant Hill might get a look-in because of his Duke years.

A phenomenal college career can enhance a HOF candidacy based on a really good NBA career, like for Maravich and Walton. Otherwise, no. Grant Hill would have had to have been one of the 4-5 best college players ever for his college career to boost his NBA career. He wasn't.

lupin · Post #9 » by **lupin** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:52 pm

he did go to the all-star game 6 times. i'm not really trying to make a complete case for him, btw. just pointing out that it isn't an NBA HoF.

wigglestrue · Post #10 » by **wigglestrue** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:11 pm

lupin wrote:he did go to the all-star game 6 times. i'm not really trying to make a complete case for him, btw. just pointing out that it isn't an NBA HoF.

If a player has played in the NBA, then he's judged almost entirely on his NBA career, with rare exceptions like Petrovic. It's only a non-NBA HOF for non-NBA players.

Post #11 » by **penbeast0** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:36 pm

Also the Basketball-Reference formula is based on past entry to the HOF, but each year the roster of potential candidates gets just a little more crowded (more teams plus all the guys who were close before are still out there pulling support) and it gets harder and harder to get it. I don't think the formula takes that into account.

80sballboy · Post #12 » by **80sballboy** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:28 am

Grant Hill is going to the Hall of Fame. It's the Basketball Hall of Fame and if Bill Walton can get in for his college and pro career (though he does have rings), Hill should get in. The Basketball Hall of Fame is the biggest joke in all of sports. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Why include college? There's a College Basketball Hall of Fame now.

80sballboy · Post #13 » by **80sballboy** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:31 am

Also think Gus Johnson should be in. No, not the announcer. Though I never saw him play live, I was there when they retired his jersey (sad night because he died not too long afterwards). Everybody who I've talked to who saw him play in Baltimore, said he was ahead of his time as a power forward and was one of the first if not the first to tear down the rim. He had incredible strength, but his knees didn't hold up.

wigglestrue · Post #14 » by **wigglestrue** » Tue May 27, 2008 2:28 pm

80sballboy wrote:Grant Hill is going to the Hall of Fame. It's the Basketball Hall of Fame and if Bill Walton can get in for his college and pro career (though he does have rings), Hill should get in. The Basketball Hall of Fame is the biggest joke in all of sports. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Why include college? There's a College Basketball Hall of Fame now.

#1 - Bill Walton, when healthy, was one of the 10 or so best players in NBA history. #2 - Bill Walton, despite his bad luck, won a league MVP (league MVPs = Hall of Fame, without exception), a 6th Man Award (which he truly earned, leading the league in defensive rating that year), and two championships (on two of the best championship teams ever). #3 - Bill Walton is one of a handful of legitimate candidates for greatest college player ever. #5 - His college career only enhanced his HOF candidacy. #6 - Grant Hill is none of the above, and has about zero chance of getting in the HOF. #7 - There is plenty of rhyme and reason to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the only inductees as players who weren't chosen based almost entirely on their NBA careers are a smattering of women, pre-globalization foreigners, and pre-NBA pioneers.

keynote · Post #15 » by **keynote** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:03 pm

You're right that Walton is on the short list for having had the best collegiate hoops career ever. I'd add Alcindor, Laettner, and Pistol, but I'm sure I'm leaving worthy candidates off the list. Obviously, the composition of this list is heavily influenced by other players who decided to leave school early after brief periods of dominance (Earvin, Shaq, etc).

But whereas Walton, Alcindor, and Pistol had enough pro cred to get them into the HOF, I think we'd all agree that Laettner doesn't have a shot. Now, if a Christina Laettner had put up similar numbers, hit similar big shots, and had lead a team to four consecutive Final Four appearances and two championships on the women's side, she'd be a shoo in. And, I'd submit that if Coach K had enjoyed no other success at Duke beyond the Laettner years, that he'd still have a strong chance to make the HOF as a coach.

Obviously, as someone stated earlier in the thread, the preeminence of the NBA reduces the importance of collegiate accomplishments for players (but not for coaches). The WNBA is a young league; it's not clear whether the WNBA will have a similar impact on reducing the importance of collegiate accomplishments for female candidates for the Hall. Will Holdsclaw, for example, not get into the HOF because of her disappointing pro career?

wigglestrue · Post #16 » by **wigglestrue** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:21 pm

keynote wrote:Now, if a Christina Laettner had put up similar numbers, hit similar big shots, and had lead a team to four consecutive Final Four appearances and two championships on the women's side, she'd be a shoo in. And, I'd submit that if Coach K had enjoyed no other success at Duke beyond the Laettner years, that he'd still have a strong chance to make the HOF as a coach.

Right, because that playing career (including the Olympic gold) would have represented the absolute pinnacle for a female player, whereas a male player still would have had another 10-15 years of pro ball ahead of him, where he'd be expected to excel if he wanted to be considered for the HOF. As far as coaching, a college player's career is four years max so nobody not even the GOAT can be a HOFer based on a college playing career alone, whereas a college coach's career can last for decades. You obviously get it yourself, keynote, I'm just trying to spell it out for those who don't.

Obviously, as someone stated earlier in the thread, the preeminence of the NBA reduces the importance of collegiate accomplishments for players (but not for coaches). The WNBA is a young league; it's not clear whether the WNBA will have a similar impact on reducing the importance of collegiate accomplishments for female candidates for the Hall. Will Holdsclaw, for example, not get into the HOF because of her disappointing pro career?

Good question. I would imagine so? Based on what's going to happen to the post-globalization foreigners in the NBA whose foreign and Olympic careers would have earned them recognition 20 years ago but who today are going to need to have as great an NBA career as anyone else. It's like, college and international play was once upon a time good enough for the HOF in the absence of a better alternative for women and foreigners, but now it's all about the pros.

80sballboy · Post #17 » by **80sballboy** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:28 pm

1 - Bill Walton, when healthy, was one of the 10 or so best players in NBA history. #2 - Bill Walton, despite his bad luck, won a league MVP (league MVPs = Hall of Fame, without exception), a 6th Man Award (which he truly earned, leading the league in defensive rating that year), and two championships (on two of the best championship teams ever). #3 - Bill Walton is one of a handful of legitimate candidates for greatest college player ever. #5 - His college career only enhanced his HOF candidacy. #6 - Grant Hill is none of the above, and has about zero chance of getting in the HOF. #7 - There is plenty of rhyme and reason to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the only inductees as players who weren't chosen based almost entirely on their NBA careers are a smattering of women, pre-globalization foreigners, and pre-NBA pioneers.

Ask almost any expert out there about the Basketball Hall of Fame and they'll concur-it's a joke. as compared with the other three major sports. I love the game. I've been to Springfield twice (before and after the renovation) and it still pales in comparison with Cooperstown, which actually has more meaning. I don't care what Bill Walton did in short period of time. Nobody is denying what a great COLLEGE player he was. As a pro, Walton played in 468 games in 10 years. In three of his four years in Portland, he put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers but still only averaged about 50 games a year. He ended up averaging just 13.3ppg though he did average 10.5 rebounds and 2.2 blocks. That's a great role player, not Hall of Fame worthy numbers. Why should college be included?

Grant Hill averaged 19ppg in 13 seasons. 5 assists per game and 5.4 rebounds. He also made seven All-Star games. Borderline Hall of Famer at best, but he also helped lead Duke to two NCAA titles and a Final in 1994. Before injuries hampered his career, he was also known as an outstanding man-to-man defender in college and the pro's.

Look, I hate the Celtics and Duke but I know how great Grant was in his prime and I know in the few years that Walton was reasonably healthy, he was one of the best big men in the game. Doesn't mean both belong in the Hall of Fame, which to me, should be the best NBA/PRO Basketball players in the world. Walton belongs in the College Basketball Hall of Fame. So does Laettner. If you want to include foreign players like Petrovic for his European days or Sabonis for his International play, fine. To include college is like the NFL giving credit to guys winning the Heisman if they had decent pro careers and inducting them.

wigglestrue · Post #18 » by **wigglestrue** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:28 pm

80sballboy wrote:Ask any expert out there and this Hall of Fame is a joke.

Name one.

as compared to the other three major sports. I love the game. I've been to Springfield twice (before and after the renovation) and it still pales in comparison with Cooperstown, which actually has more meaning. I don't care what Bill Walton did in short period of time. Nobody is denying what a great COLLEGE player he was. As a pro, Walton played in 468 games in 10 years. In three of his four years in Portland, he put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers but still only averaged about 50 games a year. He ended up averaging just 13.3ppg though he did average 10.5 rebounds and 2.2 blocks. That's a great role player, not Hall of Fame worthy numbers.

#1 - Regardless of the fact that his career averages include his hobbled years...13.3 points, 10.5 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.2 blocks, and 0.8 steals ARE Hall of Fame numbers.

#2 - You forgot how he won an MVP and led his team to a championship, winning the Finals MVP. He's one of the best defensive rebounders of all time. He's one of the best defensive centers of all time. He's one of the best passing big men of all time. He was Sixth Man of the Year on one of the 2 or 3 best teams in NBA history.

#3 - Due to his injuries however, his career totals suffered, and so his HOF-ness needed a boost, for sure. Hence...

Why should college be included?

Because he is on the SHORT, SHORT, SHORT list for the title of THE GREATEST COLLEGE PLAYER EVER. Christ. It's virtually a 3 or 4 way tie. Do you not understand the significance of that?

Grant Hill averaged 19ppg in 13 seasons. 5 assists per game and 5.4 rebounds. He also made seven All-Star games. Borderline Hall of Famer at best, but he also helped lead Duke to two NCAA titles and a Final in 1994. Before injuries hampered his career, he was also known as an outstanding man-to-man defender in college and the pro's.

"Helped lead"? That was Laettner's team. There've been a lot of really good college players, and Grant Hill was one of them. Neither his NBA career nor his college career are even close to Walton's in terms of impact. Not. Even. Close. Look, maybe Grant Hill has a halfway decent case to be considered for the HOF. He was an elite player for 4 or 5 years. He's not in Bill Walton's league, however.

Look, I hate the Celtics and Duke but I know how great Grant was in his prime and I know in the few years that Walton was reasonably healthy, he was one of the best men in the game. Doesn't mean both belong in the Hall of Fame, which to me, should be the best NBA/PRO Basketball players in the world. If you want to include foreign players like Petrovic for his European days or Sabonis for his International play, fine. To include college is like the NFL giving credit to guys winning the Heisman if they had decent pro careers and inducting them.

But dude, you realize that college is "included" to the extent you're implying VERY VERY RARELY, right? Like, NEVER? It's probably because you underestimate how awesome Bill Walton was that you're assuming his college career was just as important to his induction as his NBA career -- an NBA career which was magnitudes better than "decent". And even then, again: You're talking about maybe the single greatest college player of all time.

What would be the football equivalent? Earl Campbell, probably.

The Basketball HOF is NOT a joke.

Spence · Post #19 » by **Spence** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:39 pm

keynote wrote:Are there players in the HOF who made it in almost purely on the strength of their collegiate career?

Bill Walton had some great seasons in the NBA, but was probably too injured to merit the HoF based on his pro career, lustrous though it was at times. Walton's college career was off the charts. He'd belong in the HoF even if he never played a game in the NBA.

Post #20 » by **nate33** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:14 pm

Spence wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Bill Walton had some great seasons in the NBA, but was probably too injured to merit the HoF based on his pro career, lustrous though it was at times. Walton's college career was off the charts. He'd belong in the HoF even if he never played a game in the NBA.

/thread.