Ben Wallace - HOF?

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



What the heck kind of response is that? I asked you if you'd put Ben in over players you considered better than him. Obviously I know you're not going to put him in over Shaq, the question is whether it'd be something you'd even consider.

I'm just going to assume your answer is 'Yes' unless you say otherwise because I don't know what dilemma there would possibly be if your answer was 'No'. For the record, I don't think 'Yes' is a crazy response, I'm not convinced that it is the right one, but I can understand arguments for it. Specifically: If you see the Hall as a place to demonstrate the best of the various aspects of the game, as opposed to a place to honor the very best players of all time, it'd just be a given you'd want great specialists over good all around guys sometimes.

Well, like I said, it would depend on the year, it would depend on who else is eligible at the time he's going in.

Or did you mean outside of the context of voting?

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well, like I said, it would depend on the year, it would depend on who else is eligible at the time he's going in.

Or did you mean outside of the context of voting?

I'm talking about voting for the Hall.

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm talking about voting for the Hall.

OK, so I mean, who would you put him up against? There are guys I would vote in ahead of him, sure, any number of them but like I said, it all depends on who's on the ballot.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



OK, so I mean, who would you put him up against? There are guys I would vote in ahead of him, sure, any number of them but like I said, it all depends on who's on the ballot.

I'm talkin hypotheticals man. I don't understand why this is hard to understand. You clearly have thought a lot about who should and shouldn't get in the Hall, which means you have to have a fundamental basis for who should get in. Either the basis is "if X is better than Y, then X should get in before Y", or its something else. What is your basis for determining who should get in the Hall?

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm talkin hypotheticals man. I don't understand why this is hard to understand. You clearly have thought a lot about who should and shouldn't get in the Hall, which means you have to have a fundamental basis for who should get in. Either the basis is "if X is better than Y, then X should get in before Y", or its something else. What is your basis for determining who should get in the Hall?

It really depends, though; I might vote for Wallace in one year and not another because I might look at one guy and go "Yeah, he'll get in on his own next year anyway" or something like that.

I look at Wallace and I see a player who has an achievement matched by only one other player in the NBA; I see a guy who was a historically dominant defender and a great rebounder. I would vote Dennis Rodman into the Hall of Fame and I feel that Wallace simulates a lot of what Rodman did, only as a help defender rather than a man defender and not quite as effective on the glass but healthier in general and also part of a title team (though of course Rodman was a part of 5).

I think Wallace's accomplishments speak for themselves, regardless of how you think all-around awards value defense... which I disagree with anyway.

I determine who I think should get into the Hall on the basis of a variety of things... individual achievements, role in team success, how good he was at his best traits relative to his peers, etc.