PDA

View Full Version : Fixing the Hall of Fame: Whos out and whos the bench mark?



Chronz
03-21-2012, 03:04 AM
As the title suggests, there is something wrong with the HOF. Several things actually, the lack of a clear cut bar/criteria is one thing but how they value every level of competition equally is the biggest crime of all. The solution for this would seem obvious, NCAA accomplishments should have their own Hall, as should FIBA accomplishments. Coaches already have their own.


This thread was inspired by the Tmac thread and since a few people decided it would be unheard of given his track record I decided to find a comparable example already in the Hall.

Take a look at the HOF list, organized by Minutes Played: http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/hof.html#hof::4

Im sure you can find plenty but one name sticks out like a sore thumb IMO.

Pete Maravich : Im assuming his collegiate career does the bulk of the carrying in this bid because nothing in his NBA resume (individually and team wise) can compare with Tmac. And its not like the guy was bursting with intangibles either, Pistol was actually seen as something of a cancer in his day. He was inefficient and turnover prone, and lame defensively, he never got past round 1 as the man, made fewer post season trips and never played as well Mac overall. There is no case for Pistol over Tmac in any logical list. HOF should represent that.






Agree or disagree?

If you disagree explain why so I may enlighten you.

If you agree then which notable players would you eliminate and who on that list would you make the benchmark for a HOF career?

pd7631
03-21-2012, 03:43 AM
Michael Jordan is the benchmark for a HOF career. As far as kicking people out, I'm not even gonna pretend to know who some of those guys on the list are, so it would be unfair for me to say who is, and isn't deserving.

kArSoN RyDaH
03-21-2012, 04:18 AM
NCAA accomplishments should not merit anything in the HOF. THe same way a great college football player won't be inducted into the HOF for football.


I think they should accumulate a certain number of minutes for starters.


After that it gets tricky... lol

fadahway
03-21-2012, 04:55 AM
Dont even know the half of the list, but I Would say this though Tmac is ŕ hof:clap:

I like this thread very intresting. Im now curious who the first afro-american hof was:confused:

jp611
03-21-2012, 07:25 AM
NCAA accomplishments should not merit anything in the HOF. THe same way a great college football player won't be inducted into the HOF for football.


I think they should accumulate a certain number of minutes for starters.


After that it gets tricky... lol

It's the basketball hall of fame, not the NBA hall of fame, yes college should matter

Greet
03-21-2012, 08:21 AM
Vince Carter's career should be the bar thats set.

KnicksorBust
03-21-2012, 10:30 AM
This thread is all over the place. First you tell us NCAA and FIBA should have their own Hall of Fames. Then you want us to decide if Maravich is more worthy than T-Mac. Are we allowed to factor in his collegiate career or are we in the fantasy world where this is an NBA HoF? Then you completely change the discussion and ask us to pick which Hall of Famers are undeserving. Then you want us to set a benchmark for the HoF.

First of all, that depends if the benchmark would still include college and international play. Is this strictly an NBA HOF now?

JPS
03-21-2012, 10:34 AM
Do you count the ABA or should Dr J/ Iceman etc... be out.

Hellcrooner
03-21-2012, 11:14 AM
hey chronz, pau, ming and manu are in, posibly parker too, deal with it :p

btw there Is a FIba hall of fame.

but the Naismith one is about BASKETBALL and it includes all basketball, coaches, conribturos, and different leagues, including WOMEn.
do women need their own hall too?
dont be shortsighted.

Chronz
03-21-2012, 01:09 PM
Michael Jordan is the benchmark for a HOF career. As far as kicking people out, I'm not even gonna pretend to know who some of those guys on the list are, so it would be unfair for me to say who is, and isn't deserving.

Umm if MJ was the benchmark the HOF would have 2 or 3 players.



The solution for this would seem obvious, NCAA accomplishments should have their own Hall
You are very wise

madvillian9
03-21-2012, 01:16 PM
Come up with a strict NBA only hall where the criteria is pretty steep. Start with PSD's top 50 players.

Chronz
03-21-2012, 01:18 PM
This thread is all over the place. First you tell us NCAA and FIBA should have their own Hall of Fames. Then you want us to decide if Maravich is more worthy than T-Mac. Are we allowed to factor in his collegiate career or are we in the fantasy world where this is an NBA HoF? Then you completely change the discussion and ask us to pick which Hall of Famers are undeserving. Then you want us to set a benchmark for the HoF.

First of all, that depends if the benchmark would still include college and international play. Is this strictly an NBA HOF now?

Well is there something more impressive about dominating other kids and when you enter the league of men turning out not as good as people imagined?
No matter the criteria, no logical list should have Pistol ahead of Tmac. Isnt it more important to know Tmac did better against grown men than knowing Pistol could whip it out against the nations youth.

Even just focusing on their early development, Tmac was such a phenom, playing defense the way he did and putting up the kind of #'s he did as a teen against men is just as impressive as balling up other children IMO. But even if you disagree, surely you have to agree that its more important to a players legacy to end up the better pro.

Think of a benchmark for the NBA only.

Chronz
03-21-2012, 01:19 PM
hey chronz, pau, ming and manu are in, posibly parker too, deal with it :p

btw there Is a FIba hall of fame.

but the Naismith one is about BASKETBALL and it includes all basketball, coaches, conribturos, and different leagues, including WOMEn.
do women need their own hall too?
dont be shortsighted.

Its idiotic to treat all levels of basketball equally, and of course women should have their own.

Hellcrooner
03-21-2012, 01:21 PM
Come up with a strict NBA only hall where the criteria is pretty steep. Start with PSD's top 50 players.

the list were MANY Hall of Famers from the 50s and 60s got disregarded?
No thanks.

BASKETBALL Hall is fine as is.

Maybe stern woudl want to create an NBA only hof.

Ther is a Fiba Hall of fame in fact, and go figure some nba players are includid in it without ever playing euroleague, because of their efforts in Olympics and world cups ( you can be sure every member of dream team and redeem team will be inducted).

Even if you created an Nba only hall of fame some euros/internationals would "leak in" tough, i mean Pau and Manu have done more than ENOUGH in nba too .

Hellcrooner
03-21-2012, 01:24 PM
Its idiotic to treat all levels of basketball equally, and of course women should have their own.

So, would you say Arvydas Sabonis pissing on David Robinson in the 1988 Olympics is not a good measure for Greatness?

Chronz
03-21-2012, 01:26 PM
the list were MANY Hall of Famers from the 50s and 60s got disregarded?
No thanks.

BASKETBALL Hall is fine as is.

Maybe stern woudl want to create an NBA only hof.

Ther is a Fiba Hall of fame in fact, and go figure some nba players are includid in it without ever playing euroleague, because of their efforts in Olympics and world cups ( you can be sure every member of dream team and redeem team will be inducted).

Even if you created an Nba only hall of fame some euros/internationals would "leak in" tough, i mean Pau and Manu have done more than ENOUGH in nba too .
Your letting your European bias get in the way. Manu and Pau have nothing to do with correcting the HOF, I personally wouldnt mind seeing them in an NBA HOF. This is about creating a logical HOF, one where each level of competition has its own bracket. And of course you would have to get rid of early 50's players, thats where the biggest jokes are located. Some of the worst HOFers come from that era.

Hellcrooner
03-21-2012, 01:29 PM
Your letting your European bias get in the way. Manu and Pau have nothing to do with correcting the HOF, I personally wouldnt mind seeing them in an NBA HOF. This is about creating a logical HOF, one where each level of competition has its own bracket. And of course you would have to get rid of early 50's players, thats where the biggest jokes are located. Some of the worst HOFers come from that era.

You do understand that the level of the rest of the world has risen up dont you?

In the late 80s the championship Celtics defeated Euroleague champions REal madrid by 40 points.

Last eyar the nba champions lakers LOST agaisnt euroleague champions barcelona.

Euroleague is now in a medium scale between Nba and Ncaa, so i would not argue being a highly succesfull player there as dominating" inferior" competition.

IN fact if everything goes well, basketball should in some years, maybe 20 or 25 be like soccer a sport with SO MANY rate A players that they cant be included in just one league but in several leagues around the world.

So, the hall being BASKETBALL in general is fitting.

As for the women, they are a differnet sex, dominating other women is the same than for men dominating other men.

Raph12
03-21-2012, 01:34 PM
I think the HOF, like all accolades/awards, should be formula-reliant...

Chronz
03-21-2012, 01:35 PM
You do understand that the level of the rest of the world has risen up dont you?
Thats why the HOF should reflect that.


In the late 80s the championship Celtics defeated Euroleague champions REal madrid by 40 points.

Last eyar the nba champions lakers LOST agaisnt euroleague champions barcelona.

Euroleague is now in a medium scale between Nba and Ncaa, so i would not argue being a highly succesfull player there as dominating" inferior" competition.

But you just admitted it was inferior to the NBA. Medium scale dominance should not be valued equally with NBA competition. NCAA is worse if thats all your trying to say.


IN fact if everything goes well, basketball should in some years, maybe 20 or 25 be like soccer a sport with SO MANY rate A players that they cant be included in just one league but in several leagues around the world.

So, the hall being BASKETBALL in general is fitting.

LMFAO, no its not. Your saying its fitting based on a hypothetical scenario which may or may not happen in the future, thats not very smart. When FIBA competition becomes as great as you want then maybe the day will come when the FIBA HOF becomes as prestigious as what should be an NBA HOF. Sadly that day is not today and we dont have a true HOF for NBA players.


As for the women, they are a differnet sex, dominating other women is the same than for men dominating other men.

Thats why they should be separate, they dont go up against the same competition they go up against inferior competition. And in the Womens HOF they should separate NCAA/Collegiate/FIBA as well

Hellcrooner
03-21-2012, 01:45 PM
Thats why the HOF should reflect that.


But you just admitted it was inferior to the NBA. Medium scale dominance should not be valued equally with NBA competition. NCAA is worse if thats all your trying to say.


LMFAO, no its not. Your saying its fitting based on a hypothetical scenario which may or may not happen in the future, thats not very smart. When FIBA competition becomes as great as you want then maybe the day will come when the FIBA HOF becomes as prestigious as what should be an NBA HOF. Sadly that day is not today and we dont have a true HOF for NBA players.


Thats why they should be separate, they dont go up against the same competition they go up against inferior competition. And in the Womens HOF they should separate NCAA/Collegiate/FIBA as well


12 to 4 is the same than 8 to 2 and that 4 to 1

they dont have tin, brass, aluminum medal for the women in the olympics.
they battle their own kind and get gold, silver bronze because in relation they are beting the SAME competition than men are, each in their sexual dimorfed scale.

KnicksorBust
03-21-2012, 04:40 PM
I think the HOF, like all accolades/awards, should be formula-reliant...

I don't know how on earth you can come up with a formula when there are so many variables. :laugh:

It seems almost childish to post it but the best I could think of is a points system where if you get to an arbitrary number like 23 (I find this # appropriate). You are a Hall of Famer. Then different credentials would be worth certain numbers of points.

Finals MVP = 5
Ring as the sidekick = 3
Ring as role player = 1
All-NBA 1st Team = 5
All-NBA 2nd Team = 3
All-NBA 3rd Team = 1
All-Star Team = 1
Lead the League in Category "X" = 2 points
etc. etc.

69centers
03-21-2012, 06:36 PM
Maravich deserves to be in, whether you consider his collegiate career or not. This is a prime example where the statisticians of PSD should take a step back once in a while, and judge people on more than just stats sometimes. There wasn't a better ball handler in NBA history than Pete, and that doesn't show up on a stat line.



Pete Maravich : Im assuming his collegiate career does the bulk of the carrying in this bid because nothing in his NBA resume (individually and team wise) can compare with Tmac.

Oh, really?

Pistol Pete maintained a 24.2 career PPG average in the NBA, and only ever made a 3 point shot in his final season. Maravich averaged 31.1 PPG one year, and McGrady's best season where he averaged 32PPG, he hit 173 3-pointers. Knock them down to 2 points and he averages 29.7 as his best season average, still behind Pete.

Maravich 2 time All-NBA 1st team in 10 seasons
McGrady 2 time All-NBA 1st team in 15 seasons

Maravich 24.2 PPG career average in 10 seasons with only 1 with the 3 point line
McGrady 19.8 PPG career average in 15 seasons, all with the 3 point line

Maravich three 2,000 point seasons out of 10, and both coming in years with no 3 pointers
McGrady three 2,000 point seasons out of 15, all with the 3 point line

pd7631
03-21-2012, 07:03 PM
Umm if MJ was the benchmark the HOF would have 2 or 3 players.



You are very wise

Depends on your interpretation of the term "benchmark"...



bench·mark   [bench-mahrk]
noun
1.
a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar things must be measured or judged
^^
this is why I said MJ

BULLSFAN0810
03-21-2012, 07:09 PM
Today is not a great day so excuse my decor.....


The HOF is for memorable players who left an impact on the game....thats the criteria.....its not about rings bc NOT ALL GREAT PLAYERS WIN A DAMN RING!

Grant Hill :YES
TMAC:YES
VC:YES

They SHOULD make the HOF they all impacted the game...the issue is are they 1st ballot or 2nd ballot?...

NBAfan4life
03-21-2012, 08:38 PM
hey chronz, pau, ming and manu are in, posibly parker too, deal with it :p

btw there Is a FIba hall of fame.

but the Naismith one is about BASKETBALL and it includes all basketball, coaches, conribturos, and different leagues, including WOMEn.
do women need their own hall too?
dont be shortsighted.

Parker should be a lock as long as he stays healthy a couple more seasons.

barreleffact
03-21-2012, 09:11 PM
Your obsession with Tmac is pretty pathetic. Think of it like the Army. During times of war the Army lets anyone in and advance. Afterwards, the leaders realized they ****ed up, so they tighten the requirements. The old farts are still allowed to stay until they retire though and everyone else is screwed because 1 year ago, you would have met the promotion requirements but now they don't. Tough titties. Tmac should in no way make the HoF. If he does, oh well. IDC honestly, but IMO he has no right to it. Others that made it in the past were inducted in a time where less people were on the list. After all the decades that have passed since, there are more great players to compare. Then again, it seems everyone gets in now. They should redo the system and just say eff Tmac and start it from there the correct way.

beliges
03-22-2012, 01:05 AM
The problem I think is that it is relatively easy to make the Basketball HOF as compared to the other major North American sports. The NBA should have its own HOF as oppposed to consolidating it with "Basketball" as a whole.

Raph12
03-22-2012, 01:32 AM
I don't know how on earth you can come up with a formula when there are so many variables. :laugh:

It seems almost childish to post it but the best I could think of is a points system where if you get to an arbitrary number like 23 (I find this # appropriate). You are a Hall of Famer. Then different credentials would be worth certain numbers of points.

Finals MVP = 5
Ring as the sidekick = 3
Ring as role player = 1
All-NBA 1st Team = 5
All-NBA 2nd Team = 3
All-NBA 3rd Team = 1
All-Star Team = 1
Lead the League in Category "X" = 2 points
etc. etc.

It's much better than the subjective voting that they currently use.

Vincent33
03-22-2012, 01:54 AM
Its all in the name of the HoFs.

The basketball hall of fame is the 'Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame'. No where in there does it state 'Pro' ,'College', just Basketball. By this, Maravich absolutely deserves to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame, mainly for his amazing collegiate career. One of the best offensive players ever.

For football, the HoF in Canton is the 'Pro Football Hall of Fame'. Kind of narrows down the candidates. No exceptional college players, just the pros.

C_Mund
03-22-2012, 02:19 AM
Your letting your European bias get in the way. Manu and Pau have nothing to do with correcting the HOF, I personally wouldnt mind seeing them in an NBA HOF. This is about creating a logical HOF, one where each level of competition has its own bracket. And of course you would have to get rid of early 50's players, thats where the biggest jokes are located. Some of the worst HOFers come from that era.

There has to be something said for historical relevance ALONG with talent, don't you think? I've never been to the HOF so I'm not sure exactly how it's laid out, but to discredit pioneers of the game would be a huge disservice to basketball as a whole. It's a global game played at many levels with people contributing in different ways. Broadcasters, Coaches, Scouts, Writers, Executives, that dude who invented the shot clock.... it's about education of the history of the game.

NYKalltheway
03-22-2012, 10:44 AM
The HOF is for memorable players who left an impact on the game....thats the criteria.....its not about rings bc NOT ALL GREAT PLAYERS WIN A DAMN RING!


basically this. Rings have nothing to do with the quality of the player being better than the quality of a player without a ring. ffs everyone considers Lebron the best player in the league and we have this sort of arguments :facepalm:

Chronz
03-22-2012, 03:42 PM
Depends on your interpretation of the term "benchmark"...



^^
this is why I said MJ
Thats why I said there would only be 2-3 players if MJ was the benchmark. Only a few players can even begin to compare with MJ's overall resume.




Maravich deserves to be in, whether you consider his collegiate career or not. This is a prime example where the statisticians of PSD should take a step back once in a while, and judge people on more than just stats sometimes. There wasn't a better ball handler in NBA history than Pete, and that doesn't show up on a stat line.
This is a prime example of illusion of validity. You and I have very different ways to assess ball handling.

And the point I was making wasnt about whether he was worthy or not, the point was that if hes worthy, then we have one of our benchmarks and a guy someone like Tmac destroys in any objective comparison.

TBH Without his collegiate career, which shouldnt be as relevant as what you do in the pros, I dont know if he makes it, but I do know if hes in, LOTS of players should be in.


Oh, really?

Pistol Pete maintained a 24.2 career PPG average in the NBA, and only ever made a 3 point shot in his final season. Maravich averaged 31.1 PPG one year, and McGrady's best season where he averaged 32PPG, he hit 173 3-pointers. Knock them down to 2 points and he averages 29.7 as his best season average, still behind Pete.

I know what the per game stats look like, Pistol was the dual cancer of being both an inefficient scorer and an inefficient passer, a very hard feat to achieve, Pistol is lucky they didnt track turnovers until his final season or his already pitiful (By Tmacs standards) #'s would look even more embarrassing. There is something to be said for his shooting ability, he tried to master the lowest % shot in basketball without the existence of an added point, if he came by a few years later he may have had a slightly different career but as it stands its a symbol of his basketball IQ. Jerry West could have extended his range, but there was no 3pt shot so why do it? He tailored his game to excel at winning, not showboating the way Pistol did. You can play alot of what if games with Pistol, even moreso than most players because he was so ahead of his time, it still doesnt change the fact that he was a sloppy defender with a penchant for risky passes who couldnt lead his teams remotely as impressively as Tmac.




Maravich 2 time All-NBA 1st team in 10 seasons
McGrady 2 time All-NBA 1st team in 15 seasons

LOL beating out the likes of Phil and Randy Smith isnt comparable to beating out guys like KG, Iverson, Kidd. He did make it ahead of Gervin the first year of the merger, but Gervin put up better #s on a better team. Both statistically and subjectively their 1st Team Seasons dont compare.


Maravich 24.2 PPG career average in 10 seasons with only 1 with the 3 point line
McGrady 19.8 PPG career average in 15 seasons, all with the 3 point line

Maravich three 2,000 point seasons out of 10, and both coming in years with no 3 pointers
McGrady three 2,000 point seasons out of 15, all with the 3 point line
LOL even when you account for league averages of the time, Tmac is STILL far more productive. Its not even close no matter how many archaic statistics you throw out in true amateur fashion.

Look guy, if your going to come in with this is why stat people should take a step back (particularly when no stats were mentioned) then your going to have to defend your stance with much more than outdated metrics, stick with subjective arguments here because the use of those statistics not only makes you look like a hypocrite but an uneducated one with no handle on statistical evaluations.

Sadly you cant make a subjective argument for Pistol, teams he led lost even more frequently than Tmac. Less post season trips, less accolades, lesser statistics = no argument. Its why I made it.

Chronz
03-22-2012, 03:45 PM
Your obsession with Tmac is pretty pathetic. Think of it like the Army. During times of war the Army lets anyone in and advance. Afterwards, the leaders realized they ****ed up, so they tighten the requirements. The old farts are still allowed to stay until they retire though and everyone else is screwed because 1 year ago, you would have met the promotion requirements but now they don't. Tough titties. Tmac should in no way make the HoF. If he does, oh well. IDC honestly, but IMO he has no right to it. Others that made it in the past were inducted in a time where less people were on the list. After all the decades that have passed since, there are more great players to compare. Then again, it seems everyone gets in now. They should redo the system and just say eff Tmac and start it from there the correct way.

It degrades the integrity of the list when you have so many injustices and inconsistencies. If you can make a HOF where a career like Tmacs is the cut off then you would have to take out alot of HOFers. Which would be fine by me, it would truly be an exclusive club then.

pd7631
03-22-2012, 03:48 PM
Thats why I said there would only be 2-3 players if MJ was the benchmark. Only a few players can even begin to compare with MJ's overall resume.

Well you asked who is the benchmark for a HOF career, is MJ not the epitome of a hall of famer?

Chronz
03-22-2012, 04:06 PM
There has to be something said for historical relevance ALONG with talent, don't you think? I've never been to the HOF so I'm not sure exactly how it's laid out, but to discredit pioneers of the game would be a huge disservice to basketball as a whole.
Historical relevance is a touchy subject, Id like to know how many players made by being historically relevant and why the criteria would vary so crazily. I mean what did the guy who invented the shot clock do after he died that suddenly made him worthy of admittance. He should have been worthy a long time ago, why do players from yesteryear have to wait decades before they finally hear their name called in. The whole election process is lazy and arbitrary. If your career stands up to those already in the list, you should make it. Period.

The way it is, its not enough to simply be a superior player, and its not like there are many more groundbreaking/historically significant ways to impress the old farts.


It's a global game played at many levels with people contributing in different ways. Broadcasters, Coaches, Scouts, Writers, Executives, that dude who invented the shot clock.... it's about education of the history of the game.
Im all for keeping the sentimental picks, Im more in favor of categorizing and classifying things like that. The HOF already does with Players and Coaches/other misc. contributors. I would like to take it a step further.

Prolly just a difference of opinion, I dont like my HOF educating me about stuff I dont agree with, I dont want it to tell me anything other than who the games best players were. Why do I need to see KC Jones in the HOF? What kind of story does that tell other than how easy it was to make the HOF back in the day. You just had to play alongside Bill Russell for several years.

Imagine a similar example playing out today, how many rings would Duncan need to win in order to make Bruce Bowen a HOF'er? Whats the modern equivalent of 8 championships? KC could make the HOF as a coach and I wouldnt complain, but as a player? His resume is built on winning, but his winning was a byproduct of being a bit player on a team that monopolized winning regardless of his presence. I understand he was a big time role player, but so was Robert Horry, D-Fish, Cooper. If these are the guys making the HOF then they should change the name, to Hall of guys who got to play with each other.

Chronz
03-22-2012, 04:11 PM
Well you asked who is the benchmark for a HOF career, is MJ not the epitome of a hall of famer?
Im an idiot, you may be right about the definitions bit. I have never used to word benchmark for the epitome of anything, it doesnt sound right to me but I guess I cant fault your wording.

To me if MJ epitomizes the HOF (which he does) that is precisely why he cant be the bench mark. The bench mark is the cutoff point, the standard bearer. A mark to reference and compare other potential HOF'ers to. Thats more of a mathematical definition I guess, but basically Im saying to choose someone way lower than MJ. The HOF would be incredibly short if MJ was the standard players had to top in order to make it.

Chronz
03-22-2012, 04:14 PM
Its all in the name of the HoFs.

The basketball hall of fame is the 'Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame'. No where in there does it state 'Pro' ,'College', just Basketball. By this, Maravich absolutely deserves to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame, mainly for his amazing collegiate career. One of the best offensive players ever.

For football, the HoF in Canton is the 'Pro Football Hall of Fame'. Kind of narrows down the candidates. No exceptional college players, just the pros.

So are you saying Pistol wouldnt make it to the HOF if it were based solely on his NBA career? Whats your stance on treating all levels of competition equally. Why is it more impressive to ball up other kids and ultimately struggle in the pros than be so gifted you can bypass College altogether and become a Phenom amongst men? It just makes no sense to me, we are rewarding the wrong things IMO, it should be based on basketball ability, not emotions.

pd7631
03-22-2012, 04:24 PM
Im an idiot, you may be right about the definitions bit. I have never used to word benchmark for the epitome of anything, it doesnt sound right to me but I guess I cant fault your wording.

To me if MJ epitomizes the HOF (which he does) that is precisely why he cant be the bench mark. The bench mark is the cutoff point, the standard bearer. A mark to reference and compare other potential HOF'ers to. Thats more of a mathematical definition I guess, but basically Im saying to choose someone way lower than MJ. The HOF would be incredibly short if MJ was the standard players had to top in order to make it.

There are several definitions of the word, I think it's just a matter of misinterpretation/miscommunication between the two of us. Either way, I get what you're saying, you get what I'm saying.

I think it's it tough to establish a clear cut standard in how to determine what makes a player a HOF'er. There are just so many factors outside of just the numbers a player was able to put up. I do think that there should be a "Pro Basketball HOF" though, but it seems like it would be tough to rearrange the entire HOF as it's presently constructed.

Hellcrooner
03-22-2012, 04:39 PM
Im an idiot, you may be right about the definitions bit. I have never used to word benchmark for the epitome of anything, it doesnt sound right to me but I guess I cant fault your wording.

To me if MJ epitomizes the HOF (which he does) that is precisely why he cant be the bench mark. The bench mark is the cutoff point, the standard bearer. A mark to reference and compare other potential HOF'ers to. Thats more of a mathematical definition I guess, but basically Im saying to choose someone way lower than MJ. The HOF would be incredibly short if MJ was the standard players had to top in order to make it.

Interesting question.

What do you think about Mugsy bogues and Hall of fame?

Because know waht, i think he deserves it.

I mean he was not only short for the game, he is SHORT FOR NORMAL LIFE and still he managed to play day in and day out against MUCH SUPERIOR PHISICALLY competitors.

No one as short ever did that before or has done that after.

That should be worht an induction Imo.

Chronz
03-22-2012, 04:50 PM
Interesting question.

What do you think about Mugsy bogues and Hall of fame?

Because know waht, i think he deserves it.

I mean he was not only short for the game, he is SHORT FOR NORMAL LIFE and still he managed to play day in and day out against MUCH SUPERIOR PHISICALLY competitors.

No one as short ever did that before or has done that after.

That should be worht an induction Imo.
Thats a good argument in the current HOF. Isnt he historically significant? Thats about as historical as we can get in the modern era and he came decades ago. The HOF as it is currently constructed, you could make a case for the midget though Spud might have a better case.

Thats not what I would want in a HOF tho

Rentzias
03-22-2012, 06:26 PM
Prolly just a difference of opinion, I dont like my HOF educating me about stuff I dont agree with, I dont want it to tell me anything other than who the games best players were. Why do I need to see KC Jones in the HOF? What kind of story does that tell other than how easy it was to make the HOF back in the day. You just had to play alongside Bill Russell for several years.
I don't think it's educating you about stuff you don't agree with. It's educating you about the state of the game, and like you said, you basically had to play on the dynasty Celtics to get in to the HoF in the early days. Now go back in time to the inaugural era of the HoF, and imagine people having this same conversation (I'm sure that wasn't the process). They had a smaller selection pool, and a different game. I don't like a moving target hall of fame where eras and their contributions are thrown out and disregarded because the game has taken a quantum leap in a different direction.

Re your question, do you have a statistical cut-off instead of a player cut-off?

Chronz
03-22-2012, 07:55 PM
I don't think it's educating you about stuff you don't agree with. It's educating you about the state of the game, and like you said, you basically had to play on the dynasty Celtics to get in to the HoF in the early days. Now go back in time to the inaugural era of the HoF, and imagine people having this same conversation (I'm sure that wasn't the process). They had a smaller selection pool, and a different game. I don't like a moving target hall of fame where eras and their contributions are thrown out and disregarded because the game has taken a quantum leap in a different direction.

I just want to put people on equal footing, if a certain level of play is worthy of a HOF birth in the 50's it should be worthy today.


Re your question, do you have a statistical cut-off instead of a player cut-off?
First time Ive ever thought about it. Im not trying to eliminate subjectivity tho

Rentzias
06-26-2012, 01:14 PM
Didn't wanna create a new thread, so I'll necro this one, but if you started an NBA Hall of Fame, along the same lines, what are the minimum requirements you would look at? Could you assign values for achievements, i.e. MVP is worth 5x All-Stars, and MVPs are automatic? And do you look at a minimum years played, or depending on position, a minimum statistic?

Chronz
06-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Didn't wanna create a new thread, so I'll necro this one, but if you started an NBA Hall of Fame, along the same lines, what are the minimum requirements you would look at? Could you assign values for achievements, i.e. MVP is worth 5x All-Stars, and MVPs are automatic? And do you look at a minimum years played, or depending on position, a minimum statistic?

BBR has a HOF probability model but its based on regression analysis. I would personally redo the whole HOF and make a new model.


Anyways heres theirs : http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html

JordansBulls
06-26-2012, 02:34 PM
NCAA shouldn't merit anything because it is not a professional league.

Rentzias
06-26-2012, 02:40 PM
BBR has a HOF probability model but its based on regression analysis. I would personally redo the whole HOF and make a new model.


Anyways heres theirs : http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html
Oh, derp. That thing's always in my face when I go there (That's what she said). I'll start from there, thanks.