RealGM

I say put him in, even if he himself disagrees

I'd say if KC Jones is in, then he should be as well, at least as an historical significant role player. Though Jones doesn't seem like a too high standard

As the league has progressed and added more teams, the standards have gotten a lot tougher since they were nominating the likes of KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn. Think of it this way, would you rather start your team with Andre Iguodala or the likes of Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, or Chauncey Billup, from the team that beat Shaq and Kobe or even Shawn Kemp or sometimes 6th man, Detlef Schrempf, who adds international credentials as well.

penbeast0 wrote:As the league has progressed and added more teams, the standards have gotten a lot tougher since they were nominating the likes of KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn. Think of it this way, would you rather start your team with Andre Iguodala or the likes of Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, or Chauncey Billup, from the team that beat Shaq and Kobe or even Shawn Kemp or sometimes 6th man, Detlef Schrempf, who adds international credentials as well.

If the hall is all about being a memorial of basketball history, doesn't it make sense though to induct a backbone and an integral part of a dynasty that changed the nature of the game?

durantbird wrote:If the hall is all about being a memorial of basketball history, doesn't it make sense though to induct a backbone and an integral part of a dynasty that changed the nature of the game?

It does, and Curry, Draymond, and probably even Klay will get inducted. But to repeat my question, how many of the Piston trio would you induct Iggy ahead of? They are also a part of basketball history and far more core to their team's identity and success than Iguolada was to the Warriors.

There are plenty of players better or comparable to Iguodala that aren't a part of HoF, so the answer is no.

If he gets selected, this is due to undeserved FMVP and being a 6th man of historical dynasty, that's it.

But guys like Larry Nance would thrive as 4th-5th best players on such talented teams as well, so it's not too convincing argument in my eyes. I mean, imagine prime Nance alongside Steph considering how impactful Kevon Looney of all people was from time to time in the playoffs.

The Master wrote:There are plenty of players better or comparable to Iguodala that aren't a part of HoF, so the answer is no.

If he gets selected, this is due to undeserved FMVP and being a 6th man of historical dynasty, that's it.

But guys like Larry Nance would thrive as 4th-5th best players on such talented teams as well, so it's not too convincing argument in my eyes. I mean, imagine prime Nance alongside Steph considering how impactful Kevon Looney of all people was from time to time in the playoffs.

Larry Nance might be “better” in a vacuum (not too sure and I like Nance), but I’m sure those Warriors teams would rather have Andre Iguodala as an all-time great wing defender than whatever Larry Nance would provide them. On that note, the best thing that Andre Iguodala did was better than the best thing that Larry Nance did, especially in the team context, and especially for a team like the Warriors..

homecourtloss wrote:Larry Nance might be “better” in a vacuum (not too sure and I like Nance), but I’m sure those Warriors teams would rather have Andre Iguodala as an all-time great wing defender than whatever Larry Nance would provide them. On that note, the best thing that Andre Iguodala did was better than the best thing that Larry Nance did, especially in the team context, and especially for a team like the Warriors..

My post was more about 'put guys like Larry Nance on Warriors-level team talent wise' than a specific comparison Iguodala vs Nance on this Warriors team (even though I still believe Nance would be more impactful, we're talking about very efficient 18-9-3-2 two-way player for a decade feasting on Curry's gravity, but it's irrelevant).

The point is being a 4th/5th best player on a dynasty isn't 'historically' impressive, it's just much more memorable and 'circumstantial'. Horace Grant was like 3rd-best player on a dynasty with better stats than Iguodala. Not saying he was much better player per se, but it wasn't enough to make it.

I'm surprised 6 people said yes.

Why would getting the worst FMVP in history make him a Hall of Famer? That's basically his only claim. Outside of that, being the 5th best player on the most stacked team of all time doesn't really cut it for me.

The Master wrote:There are plenty of players better or comparable to Iguodala that aren't a part of HoF, so the answer is no.

Could you give me some examples?

Basketball Reference has his HoF probability at 12.7%, and even though it's a flawed metric it seems about right in this case.

70sFan wrote:

The Master wrote:There are plenty of players better or comparable to Iguodala that aren't a part of HoF, so the answer is no.

Could you give me some examples?

As I said above, Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace, and Ben Wallace from the Pistons team that beat the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, just for a start.

Vince Carter, Shawn Kemp, Buck Williams, Gus Williams, Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, Marques Johnson, Mark Aquirre, Walter Davis, Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion, Penny Hardaway . . . just a few names from Not in Hall of Fame article.

https://www.notinhalloffame.com/basketball/

If you want a true peer, Robert Horry isn't in the HOF either.

Is the Hall of Fame about capturing the history of the sport? Or is it just an indication of having reached a certain level of sustained excellence?

McBubbles wrote:I'm surprised 6 people said yes.

Why would getting the worst FMVP in history make him a Hall of Famer? That's basically his only claim. Outside of that, being the 5th best player on the most stacked team of all time doesn't really cut it for me.

Even if you think (insert name here) was the worst president of all time - he was still president right?

parsnips33 wrote:Is the Hall of Fame about capturing the history of the sport? Or is it just an indication of having reached a certain level of sustained excellence?

Which do you claim is Iggy's case against the likes of Billups, Rasheed Wallace, or Ben Wallace? (Even ignoring the rest of the claimants)

In the past I was saying "Yes", but frankly I think him making a point to say he's not a HOFer may end up tipping the scales away from that.

In a nutshell, Iggy is the type of guy who used to eventually get in on dynasties - type of player that wouldn't get in if he weren't at the right place at the right time, but historically significant to basketball storytelling.

As the years have gone on discussion surrounding the HOF has become less about who should be included in the story of basketball and more about about who was the most talented as a basketball star, and that makes someone like Iggy a tweener. Him boldly going in the other direction will make it awkward for those looking champion him.

Even though i'm in favor of the bball HOF's inclusion vs other sports HOFs (baseball having an eligibility cutoff is flat out absurd), I wouldn’t vote him in. I'll also fully admit to being bitter about him winning finals MVP over curry, which perpetuated a totally inaccurate narrative about curry's legacy until he finally won FMVP in 2022. i'll give him credit for eventually saying he didn't deserve it, though.

penbeast0 wrote:

parsnips33 wrote:Is the Hall of Fame about capturing the history of the sport? Or is it just an indication of having reached a certain level of sustained excellence?

Which do you claim is Iggy's case against the likes of Billups, Rasheed Wallace, or Ben Wallace? (Even ignoring the rest of the claimants)

I think the Warriors being a bona fide dynasty in a way that 2000s Pistons weren't necessarily (and Iggy's central role in that dynasty) makes it easier to make a "history of the sport" argument for him than for any of those 3

parsnips33 wrote:

McBubbles wrote:I'm surprised 6 people said yes.

Why would getting the worst FMVP in history make him a Hall of Famer? That's basically his only claim. Outside of that, being the 5th best player on the most stacked team of all time doesn't really cut it for me.

Even if you think (insert name here) was the worst president of all time - he was still president right?

Meh. The worst president of all time was still the worst, most influential human being on the planet for 4-8 years of all time. Regardless of their competence they're still extremely important.

Going back to basketbol, the worst MVP of all time is still the "worst" top 5ish player for a single given year, of all time. There is a bare minimum standard that they still meet which makes them a significant player. DRose and AI were still very good.

The worst FMVP of all time however is just the worst dude that participated in a single playoff series. Nothing noteworthy at all, not really a baseline of excellence to give any credit to.