Should the NBA hall of fame become more exclusive?

[KrAzY3]

As a black man….I say kick him out. Jackie Robinson was actually really really good at baseball. Get Cooper up out of here.

I would want people to be judged on their ability. Jackie Robinson's career was shortened due to things well beyond his control, but the guy got MVP votes 8 of his 11 seasons. He's in the HOF with that career regardless of his race. I think it's problematic to include people for things other than their accomplishments though, and ultimately I'd argue it hurts minorities in the long run. It isn't like the NBA Hall of Fame lacks black representation, include the best, the most deserving and the rest sorts itself out. That was the issue with the color barrier, it kept some of the best out. The idea that some deserving player probably isn't in the HOF because someone got included for dubious reasons does bother me.

Having said all that, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with removing people currently in the Hall. I'd just hope to see more of a focus on what happened on the court and less focus on what happened off the court moving forward.

being one of the first black players is a huge on court accomplishment. comparing jackie robinson is a little clunky.

Was it? He was drafted out of college, a second round pick and he played fairly well given the circumstances but much closer to the level of a second round pick than a Hall of Fame player. One could argue that circumstance more than anything put him in that position, he never at any point was a truly hall of fame worthy player.

Having said that, what he played through was an accomplishment. I'm not disputing that. But anything that is basically a first person to do something criteria is an issue to me because the Hall of Fame in theory is for career accomplishments or should be at least. Besides once you reach a certain point, giving an induction or award to the first black person to do practically anything, it becomes kind of patronizing. Black people don't need us to give them awards for doing basic things they could have and should have been allowed to do all along.

[CM17]

"the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame is an independent organization dedicated to promoting, preserving and celebrating the game of basketball at every level – men and women, amateur and professional players, coaches and contributors, both domestically and internationally"

https://www.hoophall.com/about/

[Lalouie]

the more open and lax, the more controversy

too many "if him, then why not him"

[OdomFan]

There is no NBA Hall of Fame. It's the Basketball Hall of Fame which counts Olympics and other things too. That's how it should and always will be.

[Johnny Tomala]

There is no such thing as NBA Hall of Fame.

[hugepatsfan]

I used to think it should be more exclusive but then I realized what a hater you have to be to not want people recognized. Who cares if a “role player” is in the hall of fame. All leagues should let more players in. Sports is entertainment, it’s not that serious.

[Duffman100]

Definitely should be more exclusive. I’d even advocate for it to be a level of exclusivity that would exclude my favourite player (Lowry).

[Homer38]

And what is for you some of the best players who are at HOF right now don't deserve to be there?

[gavran]

Penny Hardaway.

[Warriorfan]

Multiple College player of the year and/or. Multiple MVP candidate.

Landmark player that tells the story of basketball like 1st Euro. 1st Asian etc. Ed O Bannon for example.

[PlatinumState]

My standard would be that a player has to have won at least one championship
I know its harsh, but then it would truly be an exclusive institution and not just "The hall of very good".
Yes I know, Barkley, Ewng, Stockton, Malone, Iverson, Nash, McGrady wouldnt be in it then

[cupcakesnake]

It's something people love to complain about so why take that away from us? Or do we want to just switch to complaining about snubs. That's fun to complain about too.

I don't see what benefit there is to making it more exclusive. Less players get in and we get to feel more precious about the list? I already don't trust the decision makers so why would I trust them making harsher cuts? That top 75 list was awful, for example. Until we have basketball PHD historian experts making these kinds of decisions, I'm not into it. I don't actually know who makes the Naismith Hall of Fame cuts though. I'm primarily an NBA fan but I follow some Euroleague, the international summer competitions, WNBA etc. I like seeing important/famous basketball players get to give a speech and get celebrated. I loved complaining about Ben Wallace not getting in, but I loved it more when he finally got it.

[Castle Black]

It’s definitely been watered down in recent years. Easily the most inclusive/easiest Hall of Fame to get into of any of the four major American sports. I think it does a disservice to the actual greats of the game that belong there. But whatever. Is what it is.

[cupcakesnake]

My standard would be that a player has to have won at least one championship
I know its harsh, but then it would truly be an exclusive institution and not just "The hall of very good".
Yes I know, Barkley, Ewng, Stockton, Malone, Iverson, Nash, McGrady wouldnt be in it then

Calling The Hall of Fame, "the hall of very good" is a strawman criticism. If it was named the Hall of Great, it would make sense to reduce it to "good" as a clever diss. But it's called the Hall of Fame. Fame does not reduce to good and good doesn't scale up to fame in a straight forward way.

If we're using the title to derive the definition, this is: a commemorative hall for famous basketball people. Not one for great or good ones.

Also: Barkley, Nash, Stockton, Malone, Ewing... those are consensus top 30 NBA players of all-time. Are you arguing to reduce the HoF to less than 30 guys? Or do you just want to swap out Nash for Horry (hip check him outta there, Bob!), Barkley for Bruce Bowen, Karl Malone for Andrew Wiggins, Ewing for Darko Milicic, Stockton for James Wiseman... and there you fixed your Hall of Great! Champions ONLY! No losers allowed!

[moderndarwin]

Yeah there should be a special class in the Hof of the legends. Agreed with it being 5% of the HoF.

[CobraCommander]

Coopers in the HoF because he was the first black player to be drafted not on his accomplishments or talent

He broke the color barrier and that’s why he got inducted

I’m all for making the Hall more exclusive but kicking people out is wild

As a black man….I say kick him out. Jackie Robinson was actually really really good at baseball. Get Cooper up out of here.

I read this on Juneteenth weekend and thought YIKES and………You have a point.

Cooper almost ruined it cause they were like “the brothers can’t ball” - which is the opposite of Jackie - Jackie almost ruined it cause they were like - “dude the league about to be ALL black”

[Masigond]

My standard would be that a player has to have won at least one championship
I know its harsh, but then it would truly be an exclusive institution and not just "The hall of very good".
Yes I know, Barkley, Ewng, Stockton, Malone, Iverson, Nash, McGrady wouldnt be in it then

You could be the best player in the history of the NBA and still never win a championship. The whole narrative that single players should be able to drag a team to a title by themselves is so wrong. Basketball is 5 vs. 5, and every team uses way more players than 5 in each single game. So there are a lot of factors that determine if a player is in the situation to win championships or not.

"Hall of the very good"? Simple logic if championships make the difference between "very good" and "HoF-worthy": You could be the second best player of all time, losing each year to the very best player of all time. Just bad luck to play in the same era like him. If that second best player of all time had been playing in any other era, he'd arguably had won championships (here thinking that single players can drag a team to a title...). The difference is not him as he was playing just the same. Is that fair?

I'd hate championships as a standard. It's team sports and a single player can only do a certain amount of things to make his team win. There has never been a player to win an important game (i.e.: playoffs) completely by himself.

[jefe]

No one is in the NBA hall of fame - it's about exclusive as it can get.

[OdomFan]

My standard would be that a player has to have won at least one championship
I know its harsh, but then it would truly be an exclusive institution and not just "The hall of very good".
Yes I know, Barkley, Ewng, Stockton, Malone, Iverson, Nash, McGrady wouldnt be in it then

Well by your Logic Ewing should get in for his contributions in leading Georgetown to an NCAA Championship before getting to the NBA. Plus he was a key part of the 1984 Summer Olympics and 1992 Dream teams. winning the Gold Medal. As was Stockton, Charles Barkley, and Karl Malone. All of which also came back to win a second medal with the 1996 squad.

So If that's not enough to get someone into the Basketball Hall of Fame then what else can? The fact that they all were major stars throughout their career is a solid enough argument as well. Winning NBA Championships is what they all wanted as much as anyone who actually won a ring, but it shouldn't disqualify them from the Hall of Fame.

Thankfully it doesn't.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

I'm still kinda pissed baseball didn't even consider John Olerud for it's HOF. God damn steriod era. #oldmanyellsatclouds #baseball