RealGM

I think we all agree that the Hall of Fame is simply too lax in it's criteria as to who it lets in. Would you be in favor of just an NBA-specific hall of fame? If they did something like that, they could impose specific criteria, hard qualifications to get in. For instance, one qualification could be 'made at least one All-NBA FIRST team' According to https://www.landofbasketball.com/awards/all_nba_teams_player_1st.htm 117 players have made at least 1 first team, so these 117 players would be the pool from which you could select. Probably many of them would get in, but there are a few guys who obviously would not. So an all nba first team award doesn't automatically get you in but it does keep you from automatically being left out. I think a lot of guys who only have one should be very heavily scrutinized. How does this list look? Anyone who wouldn't quailfy who you think should?

This is the list off 117 players with the number of first team selections, FYI.

LeBron James 13
Kobe Bryant 11
Karl Malone 11
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 10
Tim Duncan 10
Bob Cousy 10
Jerry West 10
Michael Jordan 10
Bob Pettit 10
Elgin Baylor 10
Oscar Robertson 9
Larry Bird 9
Magic Johnson 9
Shaquille O'Neal 8
Wilt Chamberlain 7
Giannis Antetokounmpo 7
Dolph Schayes 6
Kevin Durant 6
Hakeem Olajuwon 6
James Harden 6
George Mikan 6
Charles Barkley 5
Julius Erving 5
George Gervin 5
Nikola Jokic 5
Dwight Howard 5
Rick Barry 5
Jason Kidd 5
Luka Doncic 5
John Havlicek 4
Dirk Nowitzki 4
Stephen Curry 4
Chris Paul 4
Moses Malone 4
Kevin Garnett 4
Bill Sharman 4
David Robinson 4
Walt Frazier 4
Bob Davies 4
Anthony Davis 4
Neil Johnston 4
Jayson Tatum 4
Max Zaslofsky 4
Bill Russell 3
Allen Iverson 3
Elvin Hayes 3
Kawhi Leonard 3
Steve Nash 3
Scottie Pippen 3
Tiny Archibald 3
Jerry Lucas 3
Isiah Thomas 3
Paul Arizin 3
Billy Cunningham 3
Joe Fulks 3
Ed Macauley 3
Paul Westphal 3
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander 3
John Stockton 2
Gary Payton 2
Russell Westbrook 2
Dwyane Wade 2
Tracy McGrady 2
Spencer Haywood 2
Pete Maravich 2
Jim Pollard 2
Bernard King 2
Dave Bing 2
Bob Feerick 2
Penny Hardaway 2
Alex Groza 2
David Thompson 2
Patrick Ewing 1
Damian Lillard 1
Dominique Wilkins 1
Joel Embiid 1
Grant Hill 1
Sidney Moncrief 1
Willis Reed 1
Amar'e Stoudemire 1
Tim Hardaway 1
Chris Webber 1
Clyde Drexler 1
Chris Mullin 1
Marques Johnson 1
Ralph Beard 1
Larry Foust 1
Harry Gallatin 1
Marc Gasol 1
Dennis Johnson 1
Bob McAdoo 1
George McGinnis 1
Bones McKinney 1
Stan Miasek 1
Donovan Mitchell 1
Alonzo Mourning 1
Gene Shue 1
Bill Walton 1
Gus Williams 1
George Yardley 1
Paul George 1
Mark Price 1
DeAndre Jordan 1
Devin Booker 1
Howie Dallmar 1
Gail Goodrich 1
Connie Hawkins 1
Kevin McHale 1
Earl Monroe 1
Joakim Noah 1
Truck Robinson 1
Derrick Rose 1
Ed Sadowski 1
Latrell Sprewell 1
Wes Unseld 1

Yes, I also wish they had higher standards for who they voted in. Compared to the NFL & MLB the Basketball HOF lets in by far the least deserving players.

Oh the MJ retirement year when Latrell Sprewell had his 1st team selection and before he choked his coach and had his family to feed.

So Tiny gets in because he played in the weak 70's but no Reggie Miller, Hal Greer, Melo (I'm good with that one), Butler, KJ, Blake, Ming, Deke, Gobert, Ben Wallace, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce, Billups, Cowens (who managed an MVP but not first team), Joe Dumars, Alex English, Sam Jones, Ray Allen, Vince Carter and many others.

Yeah I'm fine with an NBA hall but the first team all nba is massive bias to prior eras and leaves out top 10 type guys because of bs positional crap. So completely against that criteria.

I say we nominate Alex “the Beak” Groza to be in the nba hall of fame. Gambling is now endorsed by the NBA, so why not… lol.

I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

cupcakesnake wrote:I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

I mean assuming we're starting from the place that hall of fames matter (since they don't actually affect anything really), we would get a more deserving crop of guys where it feels like a big deal when someone makes it like the baseball hall of fame. It's always weird when someone has a fringe NBA case and people start saying things like "well he had a good college career". Like yeah, I would hope so if they are almost worthy of the hall of fame based on being a great NBA player. And if they didn't have a great college career then it's probably because they skipped college or went for 1 year, so we're just rewarding guys for not being good enough to go to the NBA so they stayed in college. And rewarding people for being less good kind of defeats the purpose of the HoF.

So that would be one thing it would help with.

I want to point out something that strikes me as odd,Christian Laettner is not in the HOF as an individual. He is one of the greatest college basketball players in my lifetime. Had a decent career in NBA and was a part of the dream team. I don’t get it.

Vince Carter not making a single All-NBA 1st reminds me just how stacked the early 00s was in wing play.

Yes an NBA Hall of Fame , NCAA Hall of Fame, a FIBA Hall of Fame then a Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, gives each league their own achievement but to be declared a "Basketball Hall of Famer" would be the real testament meaning they were a Career Great at multiple levels not just NBA, etc

Have you actually been to the basketball HOF in Springfield, OP? I have and it's pretty boring. I am not sure what making an NBA HOF is really going to do for the most part.

f4p wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

I mean assuming we're starting from the place that hall of fames matter (since they don't actually affect anything really), we would get a more deserving crop of guys where it feels like a big deal when someone makes it like the baseball hall of fame. It's always weird when someone has a fringe NBA case and people start saying things like "well he had a good college career". Like yeah, I would hope so if they are almost worthy of the hall of fame based on being a great NBA player. And if they didn't have a great college career then it's probably because they skipped college or went for 1 year, so we're just rewarding guys for not being good enough to go to the NBA so they stayed in college. And rewarding people for being less good kind of defeats the purpose of the HoF.

So that would be one thing it would help with.

I'm always curious how many people fans want in a hall of fame, or where people personally draw the line.
Every now and then there's a player that gets in that makes me ponder their candidacy, but that's pretty rare for me in the modern era. I can't speak to a lot of the Celtics and Knicks that got in from the 50s lol.

Chuck Everett wrote:Have you actually been to the basketball HOF in Springfield, OP? I have and it's pretty boring. I am not sure what making an NBA HOF is really going to do for the most part.

Used to live in Hartford. Went there many times. Never thought it boring.

ImmortalD24 wrote:Vince Carter not making a single All-NBA 1st reminds me just how stacked the early 00s was in wing play.

Forwards more than wings, but yes.

cupcakesnake wrote:

f4p wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

I mean assuming we're starting from the place that hall of fames matter (since they don't actually affect anything really), we would get a more deserving crop of guys where it feels like a big deal when someone makes it like the baseball hall of fame. It's always weird when someone has a fringe NBA case and people start saying things like "well he had a good college career". Like yeah, I would hope so if they are almost worthy of the hall of fame based on being a great NBA player. And if they didn't have a great college career then it's probably because they skipped college or went for 1 year, so we're just rewarding guys for not being good enough to go to the NBA so they stayed in college. And rewarding people for being less good kind of defeats the purpose of the HoF.

So that would be one thing it would help with.

I'm always curious how many people fans want in a hall of fame, or where people personally draw the line.
Every now and then there's a player that gets in that makes me ponder their candidacy, but that's pretty rare for me in the modern era. I can't speak to a lot of the Celtics and Knicks that got in from the 50s lol.

For players only (and NBA only), something like 1.49 players per NBA season would be appropriate in my opinion. Google says we're in the 78th NBA season, so that would put it at 116 players after this season.

There's never going to be a perfect solution, though. It will always be "too many" or "too few," or just "the wrong guys," no matter what the number is.

After a certain point on all-time lists, you can reasonably have huge divergences of opinion about rankings. (And, admittedly, that point occurs well before 116th!)

EDIT: I just noticed my 116 is so close to the OP's 117. Definitely not saying those should be the guys, though. Just an interesting coincidence.

dhsilv2 wrote:So Tiny gets in because he played in the weak 70's but no Reggie Miller, Hal Greer, Melo (I'm good with that one), Butler, KJ, Blake, Ming, Deke, Gobert, Ben Wallace, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce, Billups, Cowens (who managed an MVP but not first team), Joe Dumars, Alex English, Sam Jones, Ray Allen, Vince Carter and many others.

Yeah I'm fine with an NBA hall but the first team all nba is massive bias to prior eras and leaves out top 10 type guys because of bs positional crap. So completely against that criteria.

That's good feedback. Though honestly, from your list, the only guys I look at and think they deserve to be in the Hall are Wallace, Butler and Cowens. That's crazy about Cowens winning an MVP and not getting first team though. I didn't know that. That one is easy enough to make a rule for, I almost did, but didn't think anyone would have won MVP and not a first team. I'd draw the line at Finals MVP though. That's not enough. Don't need to be putting in Chauncy and Andre Iguadalla and Jalen Brown, etc. (I mean, maybe Brown eventually, but not yet)

cupcakesnake wrote:I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

We get to feel good about our bias!

scrabbarista wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:

f4p wrote:
I mean assuming we're starting from the place that hall of fames matter (since they don't actually affect anything really), we would get a more deserving crop of guys where it feels like a big deal when someone makes it like the baseball hall of fame. It's always weird when someone has a fringe NBA case and people start saying things like "well he had a good college career". Like yeah, I would hope so if they are almost worthy of the hall of fame based on being a great NBA player. And if they didn't have a great college career then it's probably because they skipped college or went for 1 year, so we're just rewarding guys for not being good enough to go to the NBA so they stayed in college. And rewarding people for being less good kind of defeats the purpose of the HoF.

So that would be one thing it would help with.

I'm always curious how many people fans want in a hall of fame, or where people personally draw the line.
Every now and then there's a player that gets in that makes me ponder their candidacy, but that's pretty rare for me in the modern era. I can't speak to a lot of the Celtics and Knicks that got in from the 50s lol.

For players only (and NBA only), something like 1.49 players per NBA season would be appropriate in my opinion. Google says we're in the 78th NBA season, so that would put it at 116 players after this season.

There's never going to be a perfect solution, though. It will always be "too many" or "too few," or just "the wrong guys," no matter what the number is.

After a certain point on all-time lists, you can reasonably have huge divergences of opinion about rankings. (And, admittedly, that point occurs well before 116th!)

EDIT: I just noticed my 116 is so close to the OP's 117. Definitely not saying those should be the guys, though. Just an interesting coincidence.

Right, also, keep in mind that of those 78 seasons, only like 58 seasons are currently eligible for the Hall of Fame (roughly) due to still being in the league or not having been retired long enough. My list includes I think 16 active players.

f4p wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:I don't particularly feel a need for an NBA-specific hall of fame.

The hall of fame is a career achievement award, and a chance for us as fans to remember (or learn about) special basketball careers. They let in around 8 new people every year, so it's not like it's some ridiculous long list where I don't care.

What do we actually accomplish by making the HoF more strict or NBA-ccentric. What do we as fans get out of this?

I mean assuming we're starting from the place that hall of fames matter (since they don't actually affect anything really), we would get a more deserving crop of guys where it feels like a big deal when someone makes it like the baseball hall of fame. It's always weird when someone has a fringe NBA case and people start saying things like "well he had a good college career". Like yeah, I would hope so if they are almost worthy of the hall of fame based on being a great NBA player. And if they didn't have a great college career then it's probably because they skipped college or went for 1 year, so we're just rewarding guys for not being good enough to go to the NBA so they stayed in college. And rewarding people for being less good kind of defeats the purpose of the HoF.

So that would be one thing it would help with.

The thing is if we did this and then we doubled down. Most americans would consider the college basketball hall of fame as just as big if not bigger because at the end of the day...a lot more people seem to care about the NCAA. So I'm not sure you're really getting all that much here.

Effigy wrote:

scrabbarista wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:
I'm always curious how many people fans want in a hall of fame, or where people personally draw the line.
Every now and then there's a player that gets in that makes me ponder their candidacy, but that's pretty rare for me in the modern era. I can't speak to a lot of the Celtics and Knicks that got in from the 50s lol.

For players only (and NBA only), something like 1.49 players per NBA season would be appropriate in my opinion. Google says we're in the 78th NBA season, so that would put it at 116 players after this season.

There's never going to be a perfect solution, though. It will always be "too many" or "too few," or just "the wrong guys," no matter what the number is.

After a certain point on all-time lists, you can reasonably have huge divergences of opinion about rankings. (And, admittedly, that point occurs well before 116th!)

EDIT: I just noticed my 116 is so close to the OP's 117. Definitely not saying those should be the guys, though. Just an interesting coincidence.

Right, also, keep in mind that of those 78 seasons, only like 58 seasons are currently eligible for the Hall of Fame (roughly) due to still being in the league or not having been retired long enough. My list includes I think 16 active players.

Hey, if we're going to start a new HoF, just make active players eligible. Good point, though; if they weren't eligible, my current Hall would be well under 116 (under 100, I'm pretty certain). But my 1.49 number ultimately would still stand.