Derrick Rose "I am a Hall of Famer. Not in everyone's eyes but to the people I grew up with. I made it."

[dice]

Had Rose remained remotely healthy, or come back from injury resembling somewhat the player he was before injury, he’d of likely turned into a lock for the HOF.

But given he didn’t and doesn’t have an impressive non-NBA basketball résumé, he likely won’t make the HOF (he shouldn’t on his current résumé) barring him really shocking the basketball world and stringing together a few all star caliber seasons.

It’s possible voters play a “What if” game with him and vote him in on the concept of “he was the youngest MVP and had he not been injured he’d of been amazing...” but that really seems unlikely.

Bill Walton is somewhat of a similar narrative, but Walton had his days at UCLA... college champion, NBA champion, MVP, college player of the year, finals MVP, sixth man of the year, and NBA broadcasting on his resume before getting into the HOF...,

Right now, Rose is light on the accomplishments for the HOF

Rose has a very impressive non NBA resume. 2 state titles in HS, a ncaa final, and two gold medals in fiba world championships.

will voters credit him w/ the ncaa finals appearance given that it was taken away based on a variety of issues involving derrick?

most people have no idea about the HS career. doubt voters would even take that into consideration. he'd probably get a bit of a bump from being on those FIBA teams, though he performed poorly the first time and was pretty worthless the other time (post-injuries)

[andyhop]

The only argument in his favour is that all other MVP's are in, which given the low standards of the HoF may well be enough

[DuckIII]

The only argument in his favour is that all other MVP's are in, which given the low standards of the HoF may well be enough

This is really the only compelling argument in the whole thread (I think a couple others mentioned it as well) for Rose being inducted. It’s possible that being a MVP is all it ever took, but we didn’t know it because the other MVPs had full careers as well.

That would strike me as a bizarrely low absolute for induction, but I don’t really care. I’ve never been a HOF “purist” in any sport.

[dougthonus]

This is really the only compelling argument in the whole thread (I think a couple others mentioned it as well) for Rose being inducted. It’s possible that being a MVP is all it ever took, but we didn’t know it because the other MVPs had full careers as well.

That would strike me as a bizarrely low absolute for induction, but I don’t really care. I’ve never been a HOF “purist” in any sport.

Interestingly, I think the following statements are true:

1: If Derrick Rose had died instead of torn his ACL, he would be almost a 100% lock for the HOF.

2: If he had a career ending injury on the court, I'd give him at least a 50/50.

3: The fact that he had a career debilitating injury means he probably won't get in.

I'm not sure if anyone would disagree with the above, but assuming you'd agree, I think that's really strange the way we look at things. I'm not sure I'd even change any of the above, but it is certainly strange and not really a logical or balanced way of looking at it.

[League Circles]

Had Rose remained remotely healthy, or come back from injury resembling somewhat the player he was before injury, he’d of likely turned into a lock for the HOF.

But given he didn’t and doesn’t have an impressive non-NBA basketball résumé, he likely won’t make the HOF (he shouldn’t on his current résumé) barring him really shocking the basketball world and stringing together a few all star caliber seasons.

It’s possible voters play a “What if” game with him and vote him in on the concept of “he was the youngest MVP and had he not been injured he’d of been amazing...” but that really seems unlikely.

Bill Walton is somewhat of a similar narrative, but Walton had his days at UCLA... college champion, NBA champion, MVP, college player of the year, finals MVP, sixth man of the year, and NBA broadcasting on his resume before getting into the HOF...,

Right now, Rose is light on the accomplishments for the HOF

Rose has a very impressive non NBA resume. 2 state titles in HS, a ncaa final, and two gold medals in fiba world championships.

will voters credit him w/ the ncaa finals appearance given that it was taken away based on a variety of issues involving derrick?

most people have no idea about the HS career. doubt voters would even take that into consideration. he'd probably get a bit of a bump from being on those FIBA teams, though he performed poorly the first time and was pretty worthless the other time (post-injuries)

I think given that, long term, Rose will have been in a relatively short window of those who were required to play college sandwiched between two eras of players who weren't, despite not being prepared or probably interested in college, voters will, or at least should ignore the violations issues. He still did what he did on the court.

[League Circles]

Also, FWIW, I believe standards for the HOF should get tougher as we move forward in time. If they don't, we'll have hundreds and then thousands and it won't make sense. To me you should really be in the discussion for being the best player in the game at some point, or at least the highest impact one. Derrick was that for two seasons, though in fairness, in substantial part due to the specific skill set makeup of his team.

[dougthonus]

Also, FWIW, I believe standards for the HOF should get tougher as we move forward in time. If they don't, we'll have hundreds and then thousands and it won't make sense. To me you should really be in the discussion for being the best player in the game at some point, or at least the highest impact one. Derrick was that for two seasons, though in fairness, in substantial part due to the specific skill set makeup of his team.

I disagree. Each fan base should get their guys memorialized. What reason is there that we should honor the 60s by having anyone with a pulse in the HoF. Like KC Jones and his career 10 PER is in because he was on a stacked Celtics team that won a bunch of titles when there were like 8 teams in the league.

I think the same level of excellence relative to your era should be applied. If it's the top 10% in the 60s, it should be the top 10% in the 2020s. Every fan should get to remember the players from their era fairly similarly. It shouldn't be the top 5 guys from the 2020s because we already inducted anyone with a pulse from the 60s just to jam guys in there.

Personally, I would be in favor of hard coding requirements similar to the Rose rule for salary maximums.

5 all-NBA (any level) or 1 MVP or 5 1st team all-defense or 1 finals MVP etc, etc, you are in. It probably wouldn't be as fun, but we aren't having any fun with people getting in now anyway as I never see any basketball debates over who is HoF worthy like you do with baseball.

Of course it depends what your purpose is. Are you structuring this for how the HoF is physically for when guests come or virtually when we just talk about who is HoF worthy.

[StunnerKO]

That lockout season messed up Rose and Howard when it came to durability . Too many games close together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dice]

That lockout season messed up Rose and Howard when it came to durability . Too many games close together

it didn't mess up the other players of the era?

if there was an underlying injury issue related to the lockout season i'm guessing that a study would have been done on it

82 games in 5.5 months year prior to lockout
66 games in 4 months in lockout season

15 games per month vs 16.5 per month over shorter period of time. not drastically different

i would guess that if there was any health issue related to scheduling it was that the regular season started only 17 days after the new CBA was signed

[dice]

Also, FWIW, I believe standards for the HOF should get tougher as we move forward in time. If they don't, we'll have hundreds and then thousands and it won't make sense. To me you should really be in the discussion for being the best player in the game at some point, or at least the highest impact one. Derrick was that for two seasons, though in fairness, in substantial part due to the specific skill set makeup of his team.

I disagree. Each fan base should get their guys memorialized. What reason is there that we should honor the 60s by having anyone with a pulse in the HoF. Like KC Jones and his career 10 PER is in because he was on a stacked Celtics team that won a bunch of titles when there were like 8 teams in the league.

I think the same level of excellence relative to your era should be applied. If it's the top 10% in the 60s, it should be the top 10% in the 2020s. Every fan should get to remember the players from their era fairly similarly. It shouldn't be the top 5 guys from the 2020s because we already inducted anyone with a pulse from the 60s just to jam guys in there.

Personally, I would be in favor of hard coding requirements similar to the Rose rule for salary maximums.

5 all-NBA (any level) or 1 MVP or 5 1st team all-defense or 1 finals MVP etc, etc, you are in. It probably wouldn't be as fun, but we aren't having any fun with people getting in now anyway as I never see any basketball debates over who is HoF worthy like you do with baseball.

Of course it depends what your purpose is. Are you structuring this for how the HoF is physically for when guests come or virtually when we just talk about who is HoF worthy.

if five 1st team defensive honors is one of your criterion, k.c. jones probably would have gotten in based on that. he also started on an olympic gold medal winning team and rode russell's coattails to 2 ncaa titles along w/ 8 nba titles

[dougthonus]

if five 1st team defensive honors is one of your criterion, k.c. jones probably would have gotten in based on that

Only had 3 seasons in top 5 for defensive win shares. The award didn't exist back then.

Personally, I think you would need to pad out awards differently for when there were 8 teams in the league and a total of ~100 players in the NBA instead of closer to ~500. Especially in that era where a lot of capable people would have gone on to do something else because there wasn't that much money in it.

You can only compare guys against their era, but I have minimal respect for the talent level of the league prior to the 80s as compared to later.

[dice]

if five 1st team defensive honors is one of your criterion, k.c. jones probably would have gotten in based on that

Only had 3 seasons in top 5 for defensive win shares. The award didn't exist back then.

how many of those players were point guards? anyway, win shares is a very faulty stat. particularly w/ respect to defense. i'm just going on his reputation, which is what all-defensive honors are typically based on. just ask kobe bryant

he was starting PG for the best team solely because of his defense. those teams were entirely predicated on defense. their offense was TERRIBLE

ironically, the only year they had an above average offense was the only year they didn't win the title during that 11 year stretch

Personally, I think you would need to pad out awards differently for when there were 8 teams in the league and a total of ~100 players in the NBA instead of closer to ~500. Especially in that era where a lot of capable people would have gone on to do something else because there wasn't that much money in it.

You can only compare guys against their era, but I have minimal respect for the talent level of the league prior to the 80s as compared to later.

i agree. i find it obnoxious that bill russell gets so much credit for being the greatest winner in the history of the sport when he was basically playing in a rec league compared to the modern era. there was at most a couple of teams for the celtics to contend with each season. one of those was usually the lakers. and the celtics had their number

the value of a ring should be seen as roughly proportional to the number of teams in the league

[dougthonus]

how many of those players were point guards? anyway, win shares is a very faulty stat. particularly w/ respect to defense. i'm just going on his reputation, which is what all-defensive honors are typically based on. just ask kobe bryant

he was starting PG for the best team solely because of his defense. those teams were entirely predicated on defense. their offense was TERRIBLE

ironically, the only year they had an above average offense was the only year they didn't win the title during that 11 year stretch

No idea how to judge his defense. I didn't watch him play (obviously) and am not familiar with his reputation at the time, but based how things typically go, I suspect it was augmented by the success of the team and that his impact was probably a lot less if he played elsewhere, but it is only a suspicion.

i agree. i find it obnoxious that bill russell gets so much credit for being the greatest winner in the history of the sport when he was basically playing in a rec league compared to the modern era. there was at most a couple of teams for the celtics to contend with each season. one of those was usually the lakers. and the celtics had their number

the value of a ring should be seen as roughly proportional to the number of teams in the league

It is definitely harder to win with more teams and diluted talent, a salary cap, and free agency.

It's really impressive when you look back at the Jordan era how well they did to get six titles when you think Shaq/Kobe could only get 3, LeBron, Wade, Bosh could only get 2, Steph, Durant, Klay, Draymond could only get 3 (obviously 1 without KD).

[sco]

IMO guys who don't have 5 elite seasons on their resume shouldn't be in.

[transplant]

The Basketball HOF is kinda weird cause NBA credentials are not required. Given this, I can’t get too excited one way or the other. If Rose gets in, I’m fine with it. If not, I’m fine with that too.

Sorry for the wildly hot take.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[weneeda2guard]

Couple of other interesting points from his book

He apparently made a recruiting video to lebron and wade to join chicago. Then a story comes out that rose is not for recruiting and rose was wondering why the bulls didnt shoot that rumor down.

Rose also says the last year of the bulls was a disaster. Says jimmy was dressing with the coaches and not the team and butler and noah used to argue a lot.

[RastaBull]

I'm not doing watching D Rose. And he's not done playing. Will anything he does here on out have any impact on his HOF chances, very very likely it won't.

But he's got 3-5 years left imo. And I think I still see a lot of heart and commitment in him (things many of us doubted at times because of what we could see or couldn't see from the outside). All that is to say, if he is on a team of real winners, I think he still rises towards the top of a championship squad as real important piece.

I'm interested to see what his season stat line will bee with Det. That's a team that really should be 7/8 seed. I want to believe that if they sneak up higher in East that D Rose will be a major reason why (obviously it is all about Blake there)

Sent from my STV100-2 using RealGM mobile app

[RedBulls23]

The only argument in his favour is that all other MVP's are in, which given the low standards of the HoF may well be enough

This is really the only compelling argument in the whole thread (I think a couple others mentioned it as well) for Rose being inducted. It’s possible that being a MVP is all it ever took, but we didn’t know it because the other MVPs had full careers as well.

That would strike me as a bizarrely low absolute for induction, but I don’t really care. I’ve never been a HOF “purist” in any sport.

I do think the likeability of a guy can factor for those that are borderline. Probably make the easier for guys to vote for him.

[Benedict Miller]

Now I see guys taking a full year off after torn ACLs. Fans killed Rose after he decided not to play.

[DuckIII]

Now I see guys taking a full year off after torn ACLs. Fans killed Rose after he decided not to play.

Not this again. The notion that Rose set some new standard for ACL recoveries is completely false. To this day no one did what he did.