One of the weakest Hall of Fame classes ever

[RakimAbdulJabar]

It's not as big of a travesty as Sharunas Marciulionis being in the HOF over teammate Tim Hardaway. At least Vlade Divac was a good player. Marciulionis was one step above garbage in the NBA.

Sarunas was not "one step above garbage", he was a decent player that wasn't the same after injuring his knee

[000078ude54]

What does this mean? Divac was selected by the International committee, not the North American committee. Besides "international stuff", what in the world is the International Screening Committee supposed to consider for their selections? This is like saying that the Women's Screening Committee should not consider "stuff they did in Women's leagues" or the North American Screening Committee should not consider that "NBA stuff". I'm not sure you are familiar with how the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (remember there is no such thing as an NBA Hall of Fame) selection process works; refer to post #53 if you need a refresher.

I know who "selected" him. He still doesn't belong in the Naismith.

The HOF needs to tighten things up. Can't have Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Russell, etc and then add players like Divac. If a player produces 12 points and 8 rebounds per game average in the NBA - which let's be honest is the gold standard league for defining greatness - and can still get in the HOF based on shlepping up and down the court in some inferior league overseas, then the HOF doesn't mean ****. This is what countless fans have been saying the last 10-15 years of these crap inductees getting in.

So if you "know" that the International committee selected him, and that Divac is widely recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, international player, why wouldn't the greatest player within the purview of his committee belong in the Hall? Wouldn't you expect that each committee select the greatest players? If the greatest players don't belong in the Hall, who does?

That's the problem and point of this thread. Multiple committees means inconsistent standards of what constitutes "greatness." The implication of the HOF is that the players contained therein are of a certain level of talent and accomplishment. At least that's what everyone except the current HOF committees thinks.

I happen to be of the ilk who thinks a player winning a "championship" in a garbage league overseas or being a "name" overseas isn't quite HOF material.

[monopoman]

Ben Wallace should've been here.

Bill Laimbeer as well. This omission is low-key one of the biggest scandals in NBA history imo.

The fact that Vlade's in the HOF and Laimbeer and Big Ben are not is a damn travesty.

NBA has a hatred for Detroit Pistons. They beat Mike, they beat Shaq with Kobe. It's like they cost NBA more money probably the most underrated NBA franchise ever. 3 championships yet they are being treated like they nobodies.

It doesn't help when they haven't been out of the first round of the playoffs since 2007-2008 and they have only made the playoffs 3 times since then. **** they haven't won a single playoff game since 2007-2008, pretty easy to disregard a team when they barely make the playoffs and when they do they can't even muster a win.

They were great for a period of time though I agree.

[Samurai]

I know who "selected" him. He still doesn't belong in the Naismith.

The HOF needs to tighten things up. Can't have Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Russell, etc and then add players like Divac. If a player produces 12 points and 8 rebounds per game average in the NBA - which let's be honest is the gold standard league for defining greatness - and can still get in the HOF based on shlepping up and down the court in some inferior league overseas, then the HOF doesn't mean ****. This is what countless fans have been saying the last 10-15 years of these crap inductees getting in.

So if you "know" that the International committee selected him, and that Divac is widely recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, international player, why wouldn't the greatest player within the purview of his committee belong in the Hall? Wouldn't you expect that each committee select the greatest players? If the greatest players don't belong in the Hall, who does?

That's the problem and point of this thread. Multiple committees means inconsistent standards of what constitutes "greatness." The implication of the HOF is that the players contained therein are of a certain level of talent and accomplishment. At least that's what everyone except the current HOF committees thinks.

I happen to be of the ilk who thinks a player winning a "championship" in a garbage league overseas or being a "name" overseas isn't quite HOF material.

If you really believe that, then you don't understand the Naismith Hall of Fame. It sounds like you are wanting a NBA Hall of Fame, which does not even exist. The international committee looks at the best international players and how well they performed internationally. The women's committee is looking at the best female players, none of whom ever even played in the NBA. If you want an NBA Hall of Fame which doesn't give a dime about what a player did in college, in the WNBA or overseas, then go ahead and start one. That is not how the current Naismith Hall of Fame is constructed.

[NPZ]

Ben Wallace should've been here.

Bill Laimbeer as well. This omission is low-key one of the biggest scandals in NBA history imo.

The fact that Vlade's in the HOF and Laimbeer and Big Ben are not is a damn travesty.

They have a rule against inducing Sleestaks. Laimbeer was a Sleestak and always will be. Evil hissing reptilian cave creature.

[000078ude54]

So if you "know" that the International committee selected him, and that Divac is widely recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, international player, why wouldn't the greatest player within the purview of his committee belong in the Hall? Wouldn't you expect that each committee select the greatest players? If the greatest players don't belong in the Hall, who does?

That's the problem and point of this thread. Multiple committees means inconsistent standards of what constitutes "greatness." The implication of the HOF is that the players contained therein are of a certain level of talent and accomplishment. At least that's what everyone except the current HOF committees thinks.

I happen to be of the ilk who thinks a player winning a "championship" in a garbage league overseas or being a "name" overseas isn't quite HOF material.

If you really believe that, then you don't understand the Naismith Hall of Fame. It sounds like you are wanting a NBA Hall of Fame, which does not even exist. The international committee looks at the best international players and how well they performed internationally. The women's committee is looking at the best female players, none of whom ever even played in the NBA. If you want an NBA Hall of Fame which doesn't give a dime about what a player did in college, in the WNBA or overseas, then go ahead and start one. That is not how the current Naismith Hall of Fame is constructed.

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

[Optms]

Did Ben Wallace do something to piss off the league or something? There has to be an explanation.

[Hroz]

Seriously what did Rudy Tomjanovich do that he keeps being left out.

It's crazy

[dhsilv2]

That's the problem and point of this thread. Multiple committees means inconsistent standards of what constitutes "greatness." The implication of the HOF is that the players contained therein are of a certain level of talent and accomplishment. At least that's what everyone except the current HOF committees thinks.

I happen to be of the ilk who thinks a player winning a "championship" in a garbage league overseas or being a "name" overseas isn't quite HOF material.

If you really believe that, then you don't understand the Naismith Hall of Fame. It sounds like you are wanting a NBA Hall of Fame, which does not even exist. The international committee looks at the best international players and how well they performed internationally. The women's committee is looking at the best female players, none of whom ever even played in the NBA. If you want an NBA Hall of Fame which doesn't give a dime about what a player did in college, in the WNBA or overseas, then go ahead and start one. That is not how the current Naismith Hall of Fame is constructed.

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

Vlade is one of the 125 best players in NBA history. He also played an instrumental role in growing the popularity of the game. Believe it or not most people think impact on the game is as important as play.

[dhsilv2]

Did Ben Wallace do something to piss off the league or something? There has to be an explanation.

The hall generally takes their time with non mega stars. Ben will be in, they're just making him wait like most guys who aren't in that superstar category.

[Samurai]

That's the problem and point of this thread. Multiple committees means inconsistent standards of what constitutes "greatness." The implication of the HOF is that the players contained therein are of a certain level of talent and accomplishment. At least that's what everyone except the current HOF committees thinks.

I happen to be of the ilk who thinks a player winning a "championship" in a garbage league overseas or being a "name" overseas isn't quite HOF material.

If you really believe that, then you don't understand the Naismith Hall of Fame. It sounds like you are wanting a NBA Hall of Fame, which does not even exist. The international committee looks at the best international players and how well they performed internationally. The women's committee is looking at the best female players, none of whom ever even played in the NBA. If you want an NBA Hall of Fame which doesn't give a dime about what a player did in college, in the WNBA or overseas, then go ahead and start one. That is not how the current Naismith Hall of Fame is constructed.

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

I agree with this bolded statement. What you just cannot seem to understand is that the Women's committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" even though they never played a minute in the NBA. The International committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" among international players, irrespective of how they did in the NBA. If Divac is widely considered an "all-time great" in international play - not for his NBA play - then his selection would be consistent with your colloquial understanding of a Hall of Fame. If you believe Divac was not an all-time great in international play - again, not his NBA play since that is NOT what the International committee is looking at - then he would be a poor selection. Given that numerous basketball people have acknowledged him as one of the greatest international players ever, that would be more an indication of the former and not the latter.

This thread is about whether this is one of the weakest classes ever. I've already posted my opinion on that earlier in this thread. But if we can acknowledge that the International and Women's Committees have a different focus than the North American Committee, which even you seem to acknowledge even if you don't like it, then for those looking at NBA performance only this really should be about the selections of the North American Committee. Divac does not fall into that discussion since he was not selected by the North American Screening Committee.

[76ersForLife]

No problem with Bobby Jones. He might be the best defender in NBA history.

Bobby Jones is only a borderline Hall of Famer to me before I figure in his minutes per game. My understanding is that he had a medical condition that was limiting his minutes per game. He only played 30 minutes per game 3 years. He never played 35 minutes per game.

I suppose he is better than Satch Sanders but Sanders was very good and Sanders had something like 9 rings. Also I thought the standards for getting into the Hall were increasing to the point were Bobby Jones doesn't qualify.

Bobby Jones was rediculously athletic for a 6' 9" white guy. I hope being white did not help Bobby Jones get in the Hall of fame. Bobby Jones reminded of Kirilenko. Kirilenko was even more athletic than Jones and had better court vision than Jones but Jones played smarter basketball and had a good mid range jump shot.

I prefer Draymond Green to Bobby Jones as a defender but Jones was taller and could jump higher.

I am OK with Jones being in the Hall of Fame but I think I would prefer that he not be in the Hall of fame.

Dont forget Jones was also very good in the ABA before the leagues merged. He was the consummate team player. Their games were nothing alike but best comparison is Ginobili. They didnt start but were both always in there at crunch time.

As a sidenote if Andrew Toney didnt get hurt that 76ers team would have had 5 Hall of Famers and 6 when they drafted Barkley the following season.

Moncrief was way overdue he was great.

[000078ude54]

If you really believe that, then you don't understand the Naismith Hall of Fame. It sounds like you are wanting a NBA Hall of Fame, which does not even exist. The international committee looks at the best international players and how well they performed internationally. The women's committee is looking at the best female players, none of whom ever even played in the NBA. If you want an NBA Hall of Fame which doesn't give a dime about what a player did in college, in the WNBA or overseas, then go ahead and start one. That is not how the current Naismith Hall of Fame is constructed.

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

I agree with this bolded statement. What you just cannot seem to understand is that the Women's committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" even though they never played a minute in the NBA. The International committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" among international players, irrespective of how they did in the NBA. If Divac is widely considered an "all-time great" in international play - not for his NBA play - then his selection would be consistent with your colloquial understanding of a Hall of Fame. If you believe Divac was not an all-time great in international play - again, not his NBA play since that is NOT what the International committee is looking at - then he would be a poor selection. Given that numerous basketball people have acknowledged him as one of the greatest international players ever, that would be more an indication of the former and not the latter.

This thread is about whether this is one of the weakest classes ever. I've already posted my opinion on that earlier in this thread. But if we can acknowledge that the International and Women's Committees have a different focus than the North American Committee, which even you seem to acknowledge even if you don't like it, then for those looking at NBA performance only this really should be about the selections of the North American Committee. Divac does not fall into that discussion since he was not selected by the North American Screening Committee.

Read the following sentence slowly so it'll soak in: I understand the HOF committee structure and their respective criteria, and I do not care.

Go back to OP's post. The topic is this year's inductees, regardless of who chose them. The problem that I and millions of fans worldwide have with this system is that there are players chosen for being exceptional performers (Jordan, Bird, Magic) and players chosen for simply being the most noteworthy turds in their respective foreign toilet (Divac).

If all of these players are going to be a part of one club (HOF), then there needs to be one committee with one gold set of standards by which to judge. Let me know and we can keep going over this.

[Samurai]

No problem with Bobby Jones. He might be the best defender in NBA history.

Bobby Jones is only a borderline Hall of Famer to me before I figure in his minutes per game. My understanding is that he had a medical condition that was limiting his minutes per game. He only played 30 minutes per game 3 years. He never played 35 minutes per game.

I suppose he is better than Satch Sanders but Sanders was very good and Sanders had something like 9 rings. Also I thought the standards for getting into the Hall were increasing to the point were Bobby Jones doesn't qualify.

Bobby Jones was rediculously athletic for a 6' 9" white guy. I hope being white did not help Bobby Jones get in the Hall of fame. Bobby Jones reminded of Kirilenko. Kirilenko was even more athletic than Jones and had better court vision than Jones but Jones played smarter basketball and had a good mid range jump shot.

I prefer Draymond Green to Bobby Jones as a defender but Jones was taller and could jump higher.

I am OK with Jones being in the Hall of Fame but I think I would prefer that he not be in the Hall of fame.

Dont forget Jones was also very good in the ABA before the leagues merged. He was the consummate team player. Their games were nothing alike but best comparison is Ginobili. They didnt start but were both always in there at crunch time.

As a sidenote if Andrew Toney didnt get hurt that 76ers team would have had 5 Hall of Famers and 6 when they drafted Barkley the following season.

Moncrief was way overdue he was great.

While I am not saying this should be a factor in voting, I am glad Jones got in because he played the game the right way. Despite his limited minutes due to asthma, epilepsy, and a chronic heart disorder, he always went full "pedal to the metal" whenever he was on the court. Always hustling and diving for loose balls. Deeply religious, things like smoking, drinking or cussing were out of the question for Jones. When someone suggested that he grab a player's jersey to keep them from cutting to the rim, he replied that "if I have to play defense by holding on, that's when I quit". Always raised his hand when whistled for a foul. And never yelled at a ref when they called a foul on him by mistake; he said that yelling wouldn't get the ref to change the call and it wouldn't make me any happier, so why yell? In an ABA game, the ref once called a foul on a teammate by mistake when Jones actually committed the foul. Naturally, Jones went up to the ref and said that he was the one who actually committed the foul. Knowing Jones' reputation for honesty, the ref changed the foul call to Jones....even though that was his 5th foul! His coach Larry Brown, said that "watching Bobby Jones on the basketball court was like watching an honest man in a liar's poker game." Former teammate Charles Barkley once said that if everyone was like Bobby Jones, the world wouldn't have any problems. His college coach, Dean Smith, put it best when he said that Bobby Jones "is a man at peace with himself".

But besides playing the game the right way, he was also a great player on both sides of the ball. Ten times a member of the All-Defensive First Team as well as one second team selection in his second to last season. He wasn't a gunner but when he did shoot, it usually went in, leading the league in eFG% 3 times. His career TS% is 61%, with 9 of his 12 seasons finishing in the top 20 in TS%. He also finished in the top 20 eight times in ORtg and nine times in DRtg.

Glad that he finally made it into the Hall; very well deserved. And good to know that nice guys don't always finish last!

[Samurai]

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

I agree with this bolded statement. What you just cannot seem to understand is that the Women's committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" even though they never played a minute in the NBA. The International committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" among international players, irrespective of how they did in the NBA. If Divac is widely considered an "all-time great" in international play - not for his NBA play - then his selection would be consistent with your colloquial understanding of a Hall of Fame. If you believe Divac was not an all-time great in international play - again, not his NBA play since that is NOT what the International committee is looking at - then he would be a poor selection. Given that numerous basketball people have acknowledged him as one of the greatest international players ever, that would be more an indication of the former and not the latter.

This thread is about whether this is one of the weakest classes ever. I've already posted my opinion on that earlier in this thread. But if we can acknowledge that the International and Women's Committees have a different focus than the North American Committee, which even you seem to acknowledge even if you don't like it, then for those looking at NBA performance only this really should be about the selections of the North American Committee. Divac does not fall into that discussion since he was not selected by the North American Screening Committee.

Read the following sentence slowly so it'll soak in: I understand the HOF committee structure and their respective criteria, and I do not care.

Go back to OP's post. The topic is this year's inductees, regardless of who chose them. The problem that I and millions of fans worldwide have with this system is that there are players chosen for being exceptional performers (Jordan, Bird, Magic) and players chosen for simply being the most noteworthy turds in their respective foreign toilet (Divac).

If all of these players are going to be a part of one club (HOF), then there needs to be one committee with one gold set of standards by which to judge. Let me know and we can keep going over this.

No need to continue this. No matter how slowly you read what I post, it is clear you do not understand. We can move on.

[Sactowndog]

whats the reason Chris Webber isnt in the HOF? his stats dwarf Vlade's

Almost identical VORP, Vlade has a better WS. Webber committed crimes in college...Vlade is an all time great international player. So your statement is both false and misleading.

Many Americans haven’t been out of their state much less their country. I know someone from Philly who asked people in Texas how many states in the Union and a large number got it wrong. To expect US posters to consider international careers might be a challenge.

[dhsilv2]

whats the reason Chris Webber isnt in the HOF? his stats dwarf Vlade's

Almost identical VORP, Vlade has a better WS. Webber committed crimes in college...Vlade is an all time great international player. So your statement is both false and misleading.

Many Americans haven’t been out of their state much less their country. I know someone from Philly who asked people in Texas how many states in the Union and a large number got it wrong. To expect US posters to consider international careers might be a challenge.

Well, in defense of people in Texas, you nearly have to fly to get out of that state in a reasonable amount of time! But yeah, there's no excuse in a world with the internet to be oblivious to international basketball if you're basketball fan.

[Sabas11]

Repeatedly attempting to lecture this thread about HOF dynamics, which in the context of this thread topic is a red herring anyway, is not going to set anyone straight.

Here's what you need to know: It's not a misunderstanding of the HOF selection process. It's vehement disagreement with and disapproval of that process, as evidenced by widespread incredulity every time **** players get in.

The colloquial understanding is that Hall of Fame = All-Time Greatness. And Vlade Divac is not an all-time great basketball player. It's a deeply flawed system that has rendered the HOF simply a "Former Players Club." If the HOF puts Boban Marjanovic in, the world won't magically accept him as a meaningful, great player.

I agree with this bolded statement. What you just cannot seem to understand is that the Women's committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" even though they never played a minute in the NBA. The International committee is charged with selecting "all-time greatness" among international players, irrespective of how they did in the NBA. If Divac is widely considered an "all-time great" in international play - not for his NBA play - then his selection would be consistent with your colloquial understanding of a Hall of Fame. If you believe Divac was not an all-time great in international play - again, not his NBA play since that is NOT what the International committee is looking at - then he would be a poor selection. Given that numerous basketball people have acknowledged him as one of the greatest international players ever, that would be more an indication of the former and not the latter.

This thread is about whether this is one of the weakest classes ever. I've already posted my opinion on that earlier in this thread. But if we can acknowledge that the International and Women's Committees have a different focus than the North American Committee, which even you seem to acknowledge even if you don't like it, then for those looking at NBA performance only this really should be about the selections of the North American Committee. Divac does not fall into that discussion since he was not selected by the North American Screening Committee.

Read the following sentence slowly so it'll soak in: I understand the HOF committee structure and their respective criteria, and I do not care.

Go back to OP's post. The topic is this year's inductees, regardless of who chose them. The problem that I and millions of fans worldwide have with this system is that there are players chosen for being exceptional performers (Jordan, Bird, Magic) and players chosen for simply being the most noteworthy turds in their respective foreign toilet (Divac).

If all of these players are going to be a part of one club (HOF), then there needs to be one committee with one gold set of standards by which to judge. Let me know and we can keep going over this.

That's a pretty funny statement considering literally half the players in the HOF are white Americans who would have no success were it not for brutal racism. You should know that, a good number of them are Celtics.

[paulpressey25]

Read all the comments. Think everyone gets it, that the basketball hall of fame is designed to highlight people who made an impact on the game, versus NBA on-court contributions.

Prompted me to look at the entire list of inductees by year:

https://www.nba.com/history/hall-of-fame-inductees

Just eyeballing it, feels like at least 50-60% aren't people who played in the NBA.

[Tiny ball]

Bill Laimbeer as well. This omission is low-key one of the biggest scandals in NBA history imo.

The fact that Vlade's in the HOF and Laimbeer and Big Ben are not is a damn travesty.

Understand that Vlade is there as an international player. They’ve been very consistent in putting players like Divac in the HoF because it’s not the NBA HOF, it’s the basketball HoF.

While he clearly had an underrated career, I’m not sure I’d put Laimbeer on the top 25 biggest omissions list. I can think of a lot of players I would put in ahead of him including Moncrief and Sikma from this years crop. And while I suspect that Wallace will eventually get in, I don’t ever expect Laimbeer to get in.

You make a fine point about international play, and I get it.

But Laimbeer is a cultural icon, one of the most iconic players in NBA history. He was the baddest of the Bad Boys, one of the greatest teams in NBA history. When I think of that team, the first image that comes to mind is Isiah Thomas with Bill Laimbeer staring at the camera. Arguably the first stretch 5 in NBA history, although I may be forgetting someone. A rebounding giant. 4 time All-Star. 2 time champion. His legacy far outweighs his individual accolades. It's a joke he's not in the Hall to me, and obviously the result of basketball politics.

I have no beef with Moncrief and Sikma getting in the Hall after all those years. But neither one of those guys left the mark that Laimbeer left on the league.

I never thought that Detroit team was all that.