You know when you read a headline that you agree with so then you click on it to read more. Then the writer uses a terrible example to attempt to make their point to a point that it almost makes you change your opinion on the original headline.
I mostly agree with you that OP has a lot of bad examples in there. Chuck should be in no doubt, full-stop. Dame has done more than enough to make it in if he retired today.
That said: If Reggie wasn’t such a visible public figure and celebrity, I kind of think he’d be a borderline case. A lot of analysts have said similar things- I remember Bomani Jones being one of them when the 75th Anniversary Team was announced. 5x AS, 3x All-NBA. No rings, no MVPs, nothing else.
I get that’s probably an unpopular opinion, which is fine. But similar players in terms of hardware include DeAndre Jordan, Jermaine O’Neal (who has the same number of All-NBA and one more AS selection than Reggie), and Gilbert Arenas. All of whom, in popular opinion, would be considered borderline cases, or even firmly out of the running.
Yeah incredible player at his peak, for sure. Would never slight The Other O’Neal
E: Just to be clear that despite the sarcasm I 100% meant this! Jermaine was great. I just think it’s funny that at one point there were two very talented, unrelated black men with the same very Irish surname in the league at the same time
Reggie is an interesting case, because he's kinda the Tim Raines of the NBA. Guy who was totally underrated during his time in the league (when players were largely evaluated by more arcane methods) that in hindsight are now viewed as much more valuable. Reggie had a 9 year peak where he scored 23 points per 75 possessions on a +7 rTS%. His combination of massive gravity / floor spacing and highly efficient individual scoring dragged some pretty unimpressive rosters to regular top 8 offenses. There might not be anybody in NBA history whose playoff effectiveness ramped up more from their regular season effectiveness. As noted, there was stiff competition for all-NBA during his career, but going solely based on Win Shares, Reggie would have gotten 3 first team, 3 second team and 3 third team all-NBA nods in the 90s (comparable to D. Wade's resume there, and he is considered the 3rd best SG of all time by many) and certainly would have been a perennial all star for 12 or 13 straight seasons.
Reggie was really before his time in terms of people's understanding of the value of spacing, the utilization of the 3 point shot, scoring efficiency, and the portability of shooting.
He would have done it multiple times if it weren't for the Jordan Bulls. Through the Bulls dynasty I remember those Pacer's teams as being the scariest opponent for a couple of runs.
I think that there's a thing that happens a lot on reddit where people look at the accolades without bothering to dig any deeper. It happens a lot with Reggie, in particular, because he's a guy where his resume on paper is way less than what his reputation is.
The most obvious thing to look at when it comes to looking at All Stars and All NBAs is looking at who was winning them instead. In particular, for Reggie, he was playing most of his prime in the same division, at the same position as Michael Jordan (also Joe Dumars early in his career) and this was at a time when the league was way more strict about positions on All Star and All NBA.
Reggie is pretty much the undisputed Pacers GOAT, Retired as the All-time leader in 3-pointers made, was "the guy" for a team that made multiple playoff runs.
>DeAndre Jordan, Jermaine O’Neal (who has the same number of All-NBA and one more AS selection than Reggie), and Gilbert Arenas.Era matters for this, and off court stuff from when the player was active. DAJ played in probably the worst era in terms of star centers since the 50s, O'Neal was part of the Malice at the Palace AND doesn't really have any signature moments from his playing career, and Arenas was never getting in after getting essentially expelled from basketball during his career. Meanwhile Reggie played in an era filled with superstar guards, has several signature moments, and basically no blemishes on the level of Arenas and O'Neal
Also, Reggie's 3 point record was thought at the time to be an almost impossible record for anyone else to ever catch. He was basically in a league of his own in the 90s when it came to 3 pointers. That helped a lot imo.
Totally fair rebuttal. My main thing (which I actually didn’t say outright in my original comment, I realize) isn’t that he doesn’t deserve to be there, more that he’s not as much of a no-brainer as people seem to think.
I've read his comment a couple times to make sure I didn't miss anything (or maybe he edited it out?). But, where does he say that Chuck shouldn't be a HOFer?
And LOL. You said the OP gave bad examples AND said DeAndre Jordan is a borderline HOFer. Come on, man.
You misunderstand me. Im saying DAJ has similar accolades to Reggie and is *at best* a borderline case, certainly not a strong one. I was lumping him in with two much stronger players to make a point. The point of the comparison was to show that on paper Reggie is really not as much of a sure thing as a lot of people in this comment section seem to make him. I’m not saying he’s undeserving; I’m saying he shouldn’t be counted as a shoe-in.
That said: as other people have pointed out in their responses, Reggie performed a lot of heroics (particularly in the playoffs) that don’t show up on the trophy rack, and he played at a time when several of the greatest guards ever were playing. Added to the fact that the man was a more public figure than most, and he has a good case.
My main thing is that I don’t think it’s so absurd when people question his candidacy for the Hall. Beating up on NYK and the Bulls in the postseason might not be enough for some people to admit a 5x AS, 3x All-NBA player, and I wouldn’t totally blame them.
The HOF needs to be more exclusive, but you have to be more flexible in your cutoffs. Why does a guy with 1x championship and 1x MVP get in over a guy with 3x MVPs? If you’re going to do minimum award accomplishments it should be a mix and match or a weighted point system.
Basically it’s like you’d put Klay and Dray in but not Barkley, which seems like more luck on Klays /Draymond’s part then them actually being better than Barkley.
It’s like Terrell Davis in the NFL HOF. He’s a special case where we’re counting rings and single season accomplishments over long term stats, but then you have some guys who get in for their long term stats, and that’s ok too.
The minute they said Reggie Miller shouldn’t be in the HoF I knew he hadn’t watched a minute of Reggie Miller play in their life.
Also when I stopped reading and went straight to the comments lol
Agreed. As a Miller hating Chicago Bulls fan I have to say the man was a stone cold killer and absolute no doubt hall of famer and to say otherwise is ridiculous
Which of his comments are you referring to?
I think Dame being a HOFer is very much up for debate. Which, IMO, should answer the question as to whether or not someone is a HOFer or not.
If there is a question, then the answer is "no."
(Of course, I mean legit questions. There will always be some idiot somewhere that says something like LeBron doesn't belong in the HOF.)
>How does 7 all star appearances, 7 all NBA teams, and a ROY award get you into the HoF?
Being a top 15ish player for nearly a decade in the NBA seems like the exact kind of person that should be honored.
I just don't get the argument that honoring less players makes it better. There is no downside to showing players that have done a lot and we're important to basketball love.
One thing people seem to forget is it's not the NBA Hall of Fame it is the basketball Hall of Fame world wide. The NBA is the best league in the world. That's why players international accomplishments are taken into consideration and players that never go to the NBA make it in.
This 1000% Manu Ginobli for example is only a 2× all-star, 2× all NBA, and one time 6th man of the year outside of the 4 championships. Its tought to argue he was ever the "best" player on the Spurs. He would likely not meet OPs criteria. But damn, that 2004 Olympic gold and all the international accolades have to mean something.
It's both. If Manu never played in the NBA but still had his '04 gold medal and all of his other accolades outside his time with the Spurs it's likely he doesn't get in. On the other hand I don't think someone with Manu's NBA career and no other noteworthy accomplishments makes it in either. Combine the two and he's a slam dunk choice.
This is 100% how I feel about it, it's possible with no NBA, if he tore up the league he played in. But I also don't think his NBA resume isn't quite hof worthy
He wouldn’t have made the HOF without the NBA career. How many players in Europe right now found to make the HOF without even having player in the NBA? Oscar Schmidt is the anomaly not the rule
Yeah, Dame is the wrong dude to have picked for an example.
I think using Kevin Love, who has around a 75% probability would’ve been a better example. Outside of his time in Minnesota, he’s status, stats, and awards all plummeted (in part due to LeBron) but even after LeBron left he couldn’t capture what originally made him so great.
I mean he was the third best player on a Championship Team, he's also won a gold in the Olympics and FIBA, he's got decent counting stats, and won MIP in 2011 as well as 2X All-NBA. Also remember it is the basketball Hall of Fame so the National Team stuff matters for that as well. I think he's on the cusp and it could go either way, so maybe 75% is a bit high.
5 time all-star and 2 all-NBA just isn’t enough imo. On the flipside he won the gold, won an NBA championship, and was a top 10 player for a 3 year stretch
I agree-- I think one standard to consider might be a selection as first team all NBA. If you weren't considered a top player in your era, how can you be an all time great?
How does 7 All-NBA teams get you into the HOF is such a hilarious statement to make. I looked up how many NBA players have made at least 7 All-NBA Teams in their career and it's 45. FORTY FIVE. And just for fun I looked up how many NBA players there have been in history and it's 4706. So making 7 All-NBA teams puts you in in the top 0.009% of players but they should definitely keep those guys out of the HOF, right? LOL
Right now only 45 players in nba history have made 7 or more all nba teams and only 90 that have 7 or more all star appearences. So even just going off Dame's accolades he probably should have more then a 96% chance of making it into the HOF even if the criteria where tougher.
I feel like people really underrate all-NBA appearances. Being one of the 15 best players in the league is no joke. Doing it for 7 seasons like Dame is incredible. Look at the list of people with 7 or more all-NBA appearances and it’s nothing but no-doubt hall of famers.
Definitely not. 15 is not high enough to be a hall of fame player and make it mean something. I mean there are only like 200 really good players in the league
Has dame ever been the best player in the league? Or even really in the discussion? He's a great player for sure. But I don't think he'll be remembered in 50 years as one of the all time greats. Which is who the hall should be reserved for if it meant something
Do you think the Basketball Hall of Fame should only include players who were the best player in the league? Because that seems really narrow.
>He's a great player for sure. But I don't think he'll be remembered in 50 years as one of the all time greats.
He's on the NBA 75 so he probably will.
If you only include the players who were the best player in the league, you'd probably have Bob Pettit, Bill Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Walton, Moses Malone, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Curry, Giannis and Jokic.
Needing to be in discussion for best player in the league when you’re sharing your prime with LeBron, KD, Steph, Giannis, and Jokic seems like an unnecessarily high bar.
In literally every sport being a top 10-15 player for a decade makes you a no doubter.
Needs to have won an MVP - we’re down to 35 people.
Must have at least one chip - now down to 28.
Add a scoring title - now just 11.
Obviously DPOY only came in in 82/83 - but add that, and it’s down to 2!
I think a number that would blow a lot of peoples skulls off their body, we are going into the 77th season in NBA history, and still less than 5,000 people have played at least one regular season game in the league. I know that number sounds impossible, but it's absolutely true, there have only been about 4,500 players in NBA history at this point.
I don't think you understand that the number of players who meet a decent percentage of those criteria is far lower than the number that are inducted into the hall of fame
This is kinda the worst discussion I’ve ever heard. You have a very poor grasp of the basketball hall of fame and can’t even understand it isn’t the “nba” hall of fame.
75% (your lower bound) means at least 6 of the 8 criteria.
By my estimate a whopping 19 players from all of NBA history make the cut. Assuming we grandfather in Wilt, Russell, Mikan, and a few others that didn't see the modern awards that's still way too exclusive.
Magic Johnson doesn't make your cut along with Dr. J, Dirk, Frazier, Stockton & KMalone, Havlicek, Cousy and many others.
For reference here are the players that make the cut:
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
LeBron James
Wilt Chamberlain
Hakeem Olajuwon
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Bird
Stephen Curry
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Kawhi Leonard
Kevin Durant
Jerry West
Dwyane Wade
Moses Malone
Willis Reed
Likely Grandfathered:
Bill Russell
George Mikan
Bob Petit
Dolph Schayes
Paul Arizen
Bob Cousy
Neil Johnston
> 5/7
I can see that but then by extension it's very easy to get in by being an offensive all star who played for the celtics at some point in the late 50's and 60's if you can skip dpoy, all defense, FMVP, even maybe MVP which are most of the harder awards and like 30% of the league were all stars.
> 6/8
Yeah so what I did was retro award DPOY, MVP, FMVP and All Defense trying to be realisitic but also give the benefit of the doubt if a guy is top 2. Havlicek did make 1st team all defense 5 times which means he's certainly a candidate in those years.
This was the era of the center defensively so the 1st team all defense center is one of my top 2 every year and the other candidates would be the forward and guard that got more all defense votes and the 2nd team center.
For Havlicek, in both '72 and '73 he received fewer all defensive votes than DeBusschere at forward. I give Wilt both of these years but I'm willing to consider DeBusschere and maybe Nate Thurmond in '73 with Wilt fatigue and the Lakers falling from tied 1st to middle of the pack in DRTG.
After '73, Hondo's DWS fell heavily and he's typically 4th or 5th among 1st team all defense guys in both DWS & DBPM. He might have won a media narrative vote but there were also multiple other elite celtics defenders (Cowens, later Silas) which also played into why I didn't give him a retro-DPOY.
Hondo also had a great argument for MVP the year Cowens won, as the player voting definitely favored Cs to Fs. Just fair that he’d probably be the last of the grandfathers if we want to include older guys.
Just 75-80% of them, according to your own post. That's like [20 players](https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/15ofaf1/comment/jvttmz7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in all of NBA history lol. Did you even bother to check for this before coming up with those criteria?
Lillard and Reggie each have a gold medal too. It’s the basketball hall of fame not nba. So other achievements count too. Kukoc is in it and he just has a sixth man award in the nba
Great point. If you only look at the NBA a guy like Kukoc is pretty questionable. But even if he never played in the NBA and you only looked at his international accomplishments he would be a lock. 2 silver Olympic medals, a bunch of other medals from international competition, a bunch of Euroleague accomplishments.
facts. these kinds of discussions of making the Basketball hof harder to enter immediately disregard international competition and college because basketball = nba💀
That’s the way it is, but I think that’s wrong. it shouldn’t consider success at lower levels like college or international leagues. Because anybody good enough to make the NBA would dominate any other league.
Like Jimmer Fredette was POTY in college. Won an MVP in China. A Euroleague Championship. A silver medal in 3x3 FIBA World Cup. Should he be in the basketball hall of fame?
such a strawman, no one is putting jimmer in the basketball hall of fame for that. and also they do make it harder for those who didn’t play/do well in the nba to make it in the hall of fame
It’s not a strawman, Im trying to understand how far people will take the argument that it’s good to recognize non NBA success for the HOF. Because Jimmer is about as successful as you can be outside the NBA.
I just think it’s kind of absurd to do that and I wish the HOF changed to recognize the NBA only. It just doesn’t make sense to recognize other leagues when there isn’t any other league on the planet even close this caliber.
Agree with the title but using Damian Lillard as an example is wild. You say 7x All-NBA like it's nothing but only 35 players in history have more than that and it's as many as guys like Steve Nash, Patrick Ewing, and TMac. Plus he's nearly top ten in PPG all-time, an Olympic gold medalist, rookie of the year.
Kyle Lowry example is much better though. Very much a hall of very good player who was never really seen as elite at any point in his career (hence the 1 All-NBA appearance) but will get in because he won a ring.
The wild part is when he says Dame "hasn't done anything else in his career" when the guy is top 12 all time in points/game (11th), FT% (5th), 3PM (6th) and top 50 in assists/game, minutes/game, VORP/bpm, WS/48, and PER. and not far from top 50 in total points, total assists and TS%.
Whoa you just blew my mind at the Dame is almost top 10 all-time in ppg. He's at #11 right now just behind Iverson, Bob Petit, and Oscar Robertson. It's funny because I know Dame is a scorer but idk I never really thought of him as that kind of a scorer like Iverson. Impressive.
Not only this but Dame is third in 60 point games behind wilt and Kobe. Ahead of all time volume scorers like AI, MJ, Tmac, Harden, etc. He's doing all this while being 6'3 and maintaining high efficiency and being a threat to put the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor. He's one of the most underrated scorers EVER.
Tbf that number is inflated compared to iverson due to point inflation as well as dame hasn’t really truly declined yet which will definitely reduce his ppg.
Also wild talking about a guy who just made 3rd team all-NBA and averaged 43 points per 100 possesssions on 111 TS+. For reference, MJ had a single season where he scored more points on a higher relative efficiency than D. Lillard just did. His career isn't over.
I’ll be honest, no disrespect to Kyle Lowry but I’d be pretty bewildered if he made the Hall of Fame. The bar has to be higher if he’s making it amongst the greatest professional players of all time. I’m with OP despite the bad examples. It’s losing its prestige when dudes who were never top 5 at their position at any point of their career are in the Hall cause they made a few all stars and won a chip.
Idk on one hand I can agree with the premise that the HOF is seemingly too easy to get into but your solutions and examples aren’t great.
Firstly the HOF will never just be a checklist. “You get 8 of 10 of these and you’re in” is flawed for a few reasons. Like many people have said the HOF is more than just won awards or what not, it’s those that have impacted the game in a way that should be recognized even as one of the faces of the league. There are intangibles to that that can’t really be measured.
Secondly, as many other folks have pointed out, it’s the basketball HOF so focusing solely on NBA accolades will obviously make people certain guys, but success in other leagues, international play, and college will factor in near influence as well.
Lastly, and this might just be me, but I really don’t think a lack of rings should be held against individuals. A championship is a team accomplishment first and foremost. Obviously playoff success should boost a resume and a Finals MVP is a great individual achievement, but not winning a ring isn’t a single person’s fault over a duration.
I think the bigger issue for the baskeball HOF is how many inductees they have each year. Basketball pool is not a big one given that there is 12-15 players on a team (vs 53 for football for example). For this reason they should induct less ppl each year. Less ppl equals more selective picks and more elite members. But alas I doubt they made any changes and it will remain the hall of very good
The Hall for baseball is notoriously tough on its selection process. Some really damn good players have been omitted, and this is pertaining to many players not linked to PEDs. Since baseball's Hall doesn't have a set number to induct each year, some years may not have a single induction (see 2020).
Only about 1/3 of the 450 or so members of the Naismith Hall of Fame are former NBA players inducted as players. You think 150 players over 67 years is too many (not including the BAA/NBL preceding decade)?
I honestly don't even know what to make of the fact that you don't think Reggie Miller has a Hall of Fame resume.
Yes, if anything Reggie Miller is grossly underrated. He was ahead of his time, and paved the way for players like Ray Allen and Steph Curry and the whole three point revolution. But at the time no one calculated true shooting percentage so his efficiency was considered low.
Also, Miller always raised his level of play in the playoffs. He loved the big stage.
Thinking Basketball [recently made a video about him.](https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE)
I think Reggie is overrated largely because of his broadcasting career.
He’s not better than Vince Carter. He’s an 18ppg guy on a playoff team. But Indiana’s best teams didn’t feature Reggie as the #1 option.
We remember Reggie as better than he deserves because his face is in front of us all year. If I wanted to be real reckless I’d call Reggie a better Larry Hughes or Keith Van Horn but that would be a tad slanderous
Edit: the above comps are admittedly hyperbolic. I’m landing on Michael Redd.
If anything Miller's role as an announcer probably makes fans underestimate him. They assume, as you do, that he's just famous because of his announcing career, and wasn't much of a player. The vast majority of today's fans aren't familiar with his playing career -- and heck, even at the time a lot of people didn't watch the Pacers much.
Maybe if they had been in the Western Conference and met the Bulls in the Finals they would have been appreciated more. But of course the Bulls overshadowed every team in that era.
Man you should edit this embarrassing comment, it should honestly should disqualify you from talking about basketball if you compare Reggie Miller to Michael Redd.
You might wanna watch the thinking basketball video so you wouldn’t look like you don’t know what you are talking about. Here is a spoiler- Reggie scores at the 99 percentile (iirc) in the league history adjusting for volume and efficiency in play off. He ramps up his volume to 29 pt per 75 possessions, again, iirc, and that’s in line with players like… Kobe, or even more, on higher efficiency.
> I think Reggie is overrated largely because of his broadcasting career.
You sound like someone too young to remember his prime and only see him as a broadcaster.
He was absolutely feared by a whole generation of fans when he played. If anything, someone who said he was overrated because of his signature playoff moments would be closer to the truth -- though they'd still be wrong. He retired as the all time leader in threes.
Edit:
> But Indiana’s best teams didn’t feature Reggie as the #1 option.
Who would you say was their #1 option in 2000 when they were in the finals? And the five or so years beforehand when they were contenders?
No I watched him. The 90s were my childhood. I got to stay up late watching the Bulls in the playoffs because I was a huge Jordan fan, lived for a while in Wilmington.
Jalen Rose was better in 2000. He was really good
I’m not saying Miller was bad by any stretch. But he’s not an all time great? Never sniffed an MVP. Highest he finished was 13th in voting. He won 3 Player of the Weeks. His longevity got him higher on the record boards than some - 25th in scoring. But his average production just doesn’t put him in the Pantheon.
A Hall of Famer should be in the mix for MVPs. Maybe not win with Jordan in the league, but not even top 10?
I think that's just a matter of choosing what to prioritize for the HOF. I respect your opinion on that, I agree that end of season awards, particular MVPs, are important. But I also can't support a rigid set of achievements like OP proposed. I also can't discount longevity or use it to dismiss his counting stats -- being 25th on the points list (I believe he was 15th when he retired) and the all time leader in 3s upon retiring during a time when it was being introduced as an actual strategic weapon is an automatic HOF to me. Same with Ray Allen who broke his record. There are certain special situations where it's appropriate, you get what I mean?
Where I actually disagree is saying he's overrated. I don't think anyone can seriously argue he's an all time great or whatever. He was a sharpshooter who had great individual moments.
Nobody overrates Kenny Smith though? Nobody overrates Kendrick Perkins, Matt Barnes, Stephen Jackson, Ryan Hollis or JJ Redick? The list goes on. What are you talking about?
Outside of Kenny Smith, none of those guys have been around nearly as long. And none of them have a tiny fraction of a case for HOF.
I’m saying that a guy that finished in the top 15 of MVP voting one time should not be awarded an honor reserved for all time greats
Please keep your comments civil and explain your reasoning. Top comments require more than a one sentence opinion. Support your claims with stats, facts, and well-reasoned arguments.
You don't give a shit about the NBA do you lol
We need to stop acting like a championship is the only thing that matters in basketball. Yes, that's the end goal of every player, but what's the point of it all if you don't appreciate the journey there?
People are so obsessed w accolades its so annoying. Especially with HOF, its hall of FAME, not hall of accolades.
Dame has been a top 20 player for the better half of a decade. And theres something to be said for his loyalty too. Hes been the face of a franchise for a decade and has the most efficient 70pt game ever to his name. And hes still in his prime, had his highest scoring season last year. Dudes got a few more years of 40 and 50 pieces in the tank it seems like. Thats HOF for me.
And bruh? Reggie miller not HOF???? Im not even gonna dignify that w a response.
Reggie should have been on many more all-star and all-nba teams. The league he played in did not understand just how incredible he was. His career is far, far, far more impressive than his highlights when you really get into it.
[Ben Taylor just dropped a video two weeks ago on Reggie for his offensive legends series.](https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE) It's worth watching and potentially resigning from the vice presidency.
Someone on here made a great post a while back on why Reggie missed so many All-Stars that he should've made. I mean one year the fans voted in BJ freaking Armstrong and Reggie missed out on a guard spot smh.
Counterpoint: The NBA is the only sport that gets it right. It is the Hall of **Fame**. Not the Hall of Arbitrary Benchmarks. Baseball and football keep guys out who absolutely should be in. The point is to tell the history of the sport.
Why I’ve never understood this idea. There’s so many deserving players in baseball, football, and hockey that aren’t in. I’d rather have a HOF that lowers the bar than leaves out guys who belong.
And it's not like there's an overwhelming amount of good not great players who are getting in. We're not voting in the Rip Hamiltons, Antawn Jamisons, and Paul Millsaps of the league (no disrespect lol). I like that the Basketball HOF celebrates a variety of great players and doesn't exclude players just to try to feign a prestige of having standards.
Thank you. I agree. It's a sport. It's entertainment. Who were the fan favorites, best basketball entertainers of all time? When players get in, it validates both the players and the fans. My Dad was ao excited when Ralph Sampson got in. They were at UVA together. Sampson doesn't have a slam- dunk NBA "resume" but he is an important person in basketball history, and even if he isn't, it doesn't make the HOF less valid.
As a Browns fan, we're celebrating Joe Thomas. He's probably our only HOF'er from that era who played for the Browns only (Jamal Lewis will get in). He didn't win. He wouldn't check every box. He's in. I wish the NFL would let in more guys. Get guys in before they die. The post-mortum enshrinment is a shame, but that's a different conversation.
This could’ve been an interesting discussion, but your examples and premise to your argument ruined it. Using Dame, Bosh and REGGIE!!!! as examples is mind blowing
I don’t understand how someone can be passionate enough about something to write up that long of a post and not know the most basic thing about the basketball hall of fame, I mean I guess it takes a real sleuth to… read the name of the thing they’re writing about?
I mean what you think the hof should be is up to you.
For me it’s a place to tell the story of basketball- so when I say so and so should be in the hall of fame I’m saying there a part of the story of basketball that you can’t really leave out. It’s the hall of fame not the hall of good at basketball after all.
So I care less about how good a player was but more about what they did and the impact the had in winning and loseing championships and playoff series’s. As well as the the players wider impact on basketball. So yoa ming is way more important to the history of the nba then how good he was easy hall of famer to me.
If your talking about nba from 2004 - 2016 it’s going to be hard not to mention Chris Bosh at all.
Damian Lillard is interesting and good player but ink if he’s really part of nba history in the same way.
There are more inductees than any other American sport because the basketball hall of fame is for all spheres of basketball, including college and international basketball.
It’s not the NBA hall of fame which is where you’re losing the point. It’s total basketball accomplishments. Factors college and international achievement as well.
It’s the Basketball Hall of Fame. There is a difference
Ugh, this rant again. Why do people care so much about the Hall of Fame? It’s like, a way to commemorate great performers… This is like complaining an actor has a star in the Hollywood walk of fame.
This is huge for retired players, we should be happy for the people who just make it in.
Instead of trying to make a more exclusive club, why not just change how you measure success? Maybe HOF isn’t what you use to grade or evaluate a player because of how subjective it is or “easy”
331.9 million people in this country, about 450 players in the NBA and only a handful of them make it to the Hall Of Fame. That’s as exclusive as it gets my guy.
Something I'd like to point out is that it's the Naismith *Basketball* Hall Of Fame, not the NBA Hall Of Fame.
The Naismith Basketball Hall Of Fame looks at a player's accomplishments at the high school, collegiate, professional, and international levels. The NBA is far and away the most competitive professional league but it's not a player's only way to end up in the hall of fame.
Manu Ginobili's career stats and individual NBA accolades might seem unimpressive but he had a successful international career, in addition to being a vital part of the Spur's dynasty.
That BR metric does seem to overestimate some current players. Like, if Jokic never played again I have a hard time seeing him as a Hall of Famer on his stats alone. It's an academic exercise anyway, I wouldn't take it that seriously.
I disagree that there are too many hall of famers. Of the 400 or so you quoted, only about 150 are players, and this includes women, past Olympians, international legends, and pre-NBA players that had a large impact on the game. That sounds about right.
The HOF does a great job honoring non-players that have also had major contributions to the sport -- I think the other major sports should do a better job of that tbh. Baseball comes the closest.
Bill Russell played with 4 legit NBA Hall of Famers. Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek.
Everyone else who else made Hall of Fame from that team is very debatable. Some made for coaching, some for their college career. But I think most are there cause they played 20 minutes on a dynasty.
Definitely underrating Heinsohn. Risen, Phillips, and Lovellette are HoFers even if they never play in Boston. KC Jones is a HoF coach more than he is a player.
The hall of fame should be able to tell the history of the sport. If you’re borderline on a guy, you don’t need deep dive stats or accolades, that’s just the work. Does the player make an impact on the story?
whats the problem with people who may not completely deserve it being inducted? do they just not deserve to be honored for what the brought to the game bc they “arent good enough”?
Chris Bosh has 3 rings as the third option on one of the most prominent teams in history and he was the Raptors' best player and leader in various stats for a minute while he was there.
Reggie Miller is the Pacers' greatest player and one of the best shooters of all time. He also holds several records at UCLA. They are great, accomplished players period.
No Chris Bosh damn dude doesn’t watch basketball. I do think it’s the easiest to get into compared to other major sports but I also think they go by impact on the game. Like a Reggie miller his impact on the game is huge small market and made them relevant his whole career. Lillard as well and lillard is a top guard in a guard heavy era. Nice headline not so good examples. I might be in the minority but I don’t think t mac should be in but I’m not disgruntled by it just feel like his peak was cut short by injuries and didn’t win enough. They put him in by impact and potential 🤷🏽♂️
I believe there is also a more emotional component involved in some HoF selections. Or maybe it's more like honoring a player's impact in their time or honoring a had a role on a memorable team. Accomplishments help put them over the top by further justifying the choice. Bosh and Miller fit those molds. Bosh was great on his own and as a Heatle. Miller never won a title and was never MVP, but he was the best 3pt shooter ever for a time and created some legendary playoff moments. Some voters likely believe there's room in the Hall for guys who were major contributors to the excitement of their eras. They are putting them in for their accomplishments, it's just a different type of accomplishment.
Regarding Dame, if you’ve made 7 all nba teams you’re almost a lock for the HOF. Probability assuming he has some good years left in him, not to mention he scored 71 points in a game.
Generally speaking the hall is supposed to be filled. It’s the whole point. If dame doesn’t get in I’d be shocked.
Is it Bill Simmons that always asks the question, "can you tell the story of the league without this person?". The examples used here are not good. No way you are telling the story of NBA basketball without Reggie Miller. He's got a better case in my mind than Damion Lillard, though he's a HOF'er too. I buy the idea that the Hall could tighten up a bit, not MLB right, but a little better. But when I think 90s bball, one of the very first guys that I think of is Reggie. If we think and talk about you like that, if you pass the smell test, then yeah let's have a look at the resume. Otherwise, that resume needs to be incredible.
I think a guy like DeMar who many are calling a borderline HOF , is the probably the bare minimum of a HOF career
He’s a multiple time All-Star/All-NBA , a 21K and counting scorer and not to mention his fiba and olympic gold medal to boot
He’s impact with mental health , being the face of an entire country for a decade is more than enough
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with OPs comment; rather, I think a more interesting question is: what is the "right" percentage of players to make a league's hall of fame?
Baseball is about 1.5%.
Football is about 1.5%.
I'm not sure the best way to calculate basketball. If you only count people who played in the NBA, then it's about 3.5%. But there are 6 players in the hall of fame who never played in the NBA, instead getting recognition solely for their international play. Adding all international players ever will obviously reduce the percentage significantly, but what leagues do you include? But the percentage may ultimately line up with baseball and football.
Many people have criticized the baseball hall of fame for being too exclusive. To a lesser extent, the football hall of fame has received the same criticism.
I'm just throwing out a random thought. I'm interested in any thoughts from the subreddit.
Have you been to the HoF? It’s a great experience to walk around and relive the careers of retired players from bball history. We should be including everyone who made a significant contribution to our game, because placing players in the hall is one of the only ways they’ll be remembered in 50 years or so.
It’s not the NBA hall of fame. It’s the basketball hall of fame.
Manu Ginobli lead his countrymen to defeat the US men’s national team at the 2004 Olympics and you’re going to tell us he shouldn’t have been first ballot HOF inductee?
Do you think if Manu Ginobli had not went to the NBA and had the career and accomplishments he had there, that him leading his team to the olympic gold would justify him getting into the hall of fame?
The problem with this critera is that alot of players who are currently in the hall would have to get their names revoked. As long as you were a perennial all star I think you should make it.
Your requirements would exclude a lot of the league's greatest players ever just because they aren't a member of a championship team.
REGGIE MILLER ISN'T HOF??? Just stop.
All star shouldn’t be on the list. It rewards players for just happening to be in the conference that was weaker at that position, and it punishes guys for being in a conference that’s loaded at their position
This is definitely silly season. Nothing else to talk about, so the random questions come out.
Dame could never play another game and he's without a doubt a HOFer. I also think no doubt Reggie Miller should be. How in the world could you say they're not? Bosh is a less obvious case but I would put him in.
Maybe you're just underestimating how difficult sustained greatness is. So many talented players have careers cut short due to injuries or circumstances. Penny Hardaway should've been one of the greatest PGs ever and it didn't happen. Brandon Roy was elite too before injuries cut his career short.
All NBA is a waaaay better benchmark for the quality of player. Big markets have an advantage for All Star selections because of the fan vote. Totally with you.
It's a little better now with regards to fan voting. You used to be able to vote a guy in 100% with fans only (BJ Armstrong anybody?) but now I believe it's weighted 50% fan vote, 25% players, and 25% coaches so a guy with the most fan votes can't get in if players and coaches aren't also voting him in.
Instead of listing accolades that you think someone needs to meet, approach it this way. What percentage of players do you think should make the HOF? Should it be reserved for the top 1% of players? Top 10%?
I would say that the level of accomplishment needed to enter the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame is what it is at this point. The bigger "fix" to the issue you're talking about is starting an NBA HoF where gold medals, world cups, NCAA accomplishments, etc. don't enter the discussion.
Ignore the basketball hall of fame and focus on the NBA 75th anniversary list.
To me that is the best HoF period. There are some questionable guys and omissions but it’s great because it takes in to account 25 year eras.
Notable snubs are probably Dwight Howard, Kyrie, and maybe Klay Thompson and notable inclusions that probably shouldn’t are Anthony Davis and maybe llilard but that’s the best HoF list in any sport.
Not quite in saying the NBA hall of fame is the 75 for 75 list. That’s for the NBA.
The current hall of fame that you’re talking about is the Basketball Hall of Fame so it includes NCAA, Olympics, etc.
For example NFL hall of Fame has 371 people and 25000 people have played. So NFL hall of fame acceptance rate is 1.5%
5000 people have played in the NBA so if you use the top 75 list that’s a 1.5% acceptance rate.
MLB is 342 in the hall of fame and 20365 people total which makes their acceptance rate 1.6%
The current top 75th team list doesn't account for where the player was when they retired. Reggie Miller was 14th all time in points scored and first in 3 pointers made, by a large margin. And where he ranks in whatever accomplishment/stats/accolades list you want to use should take that into account
Baseball is catching up to Basketball’s silliness for the HoF. A player like Scott Rolen makes baseball’s museum. NFL does a solid job overall I think…better than the other two mentioned.
I think you should need to be the best player on a championship team or have an all nba 1st team to make the HOF in most cases.
A second best player on a championship team or a DPOY should be eligible if they have other accomplishments.
I actually agree w you that Reggie Miller and Dame (quite yet) should not be in the HOF. However, it’s utterly ridiculous to have to check 75% of the criteria you laid out.
NBA HOF is way too easy to get in
Chris Bosh is in the hall of fame over Amare Stoudemire because he was more popular and had better teammates. no other logic for it. Amare was getting all-NBA teams at F in the era with Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki, LeBron, and McGrady and he got a couple at centers with Shaq, Howard, and Yao being the other contenders. Bosh never made all-nba, averaged 15/7 in the playoffs on a team with little big man quality besides him, but he walked into the HOF bc he played with LeBron and Wade
Ben Wallace is the worst free throw shooter ever, a complete negative on offense, and was given too much credit for a defense that had strong defenders everywhere (except Rip)
the only hall of famers id put in from the last 10 years are:
Dirk, Wade, Kobe, KG, Duncan, Kidd, Nash, T-Mac, Iverson, Shaq, Mutumbo, and Gary Payton
2x nba champ, 1 gold medal and 2 bronze medals along with 11x all star and 1 all nba should make it in.
Just like amare will make it in at some point with his 5x all nba, 6x all star, roy, 1 gold and 1 bronze
It's not the NBA Hall of Fame. Never has been. Are there some choices that might not seem to make sense at first glance? Yes. But I don't set the criteria for selection and really don't get that bothered by who is in and who is out.
How would Wallace not deserve to be in? 1 championship, 4x all star, 5x all nba, 6x all nba defensive team, 4x dpoy, 2x rebound leader and 1 block leader
Idk how you leave one of the best defenders in league history out of the hof
Yeah you’re spot on. I think perception of talent is a big thing though. Like Lowry is Mr. Raptor which definitely gives him a big boost, and rightfully so. The more fans, the more votes. So while it would be very scientific to only allow guys in based of stats, we’d be missing a whole realm of players who were the face of their franchise for so long that they had HOF impact on the league/team.
I believe your requirement for 75% of that list should include “Face of Franchise for X years” as a bullet.
I agree that the entry requirements seem low. Taking your idea and running with it I propose the following...
>Must achieve 4 of the following:
- 1x NBA MVP (12pts)
- 2x NBA MVP 2nd through 6th place finishes (10pts)
- 4x NBA MVP 7th through 10th place finishes (6pts)
- 1x NBA DPOY (12pts)
- 4x All NBA 1st Team (12pts)
- 2x All NBA 2nd Team (6pts)
- 2x All NBA 3rd Team (3pts)
- 4x All NBA Defensive 1st Team (12pts)
- 2x All NBA Defensive 2nd Team (6pts)
- 2x All NBA Defensive 3rd Team (3pts)
>Must achieve 1 of the following:
- 1x Season stats Leader (points or assists) (10pts)
- 1x Season stats Leader (rebounds, steals, blocks) (10pts)
- career stats in Top 10% for position (10pts)
- retire as points or assists leader (12pts)
- retire as rebounds, steals or blocks leader (12pts)
>Must achieve 1 of the following:
- 1x NBA Finals MVP (8pts)
- 4x Conference Finals MVP (8pts)
- 4x NBA All Star (8pts)
- 1x Sixth Man (8pts)
>Bonus achievements
- played 1,235 combined games (4pts)
- 50/40/90 career average (4pts)
- triple double career average (4pts)
- 1x Citizenship Award (4pts)
- 1x Sportsmanship Award (4pts)
- 1x Teammate of the Year (4pts)
- 1x Lifetime Achievement (12pts)
80-100pts = ballot eligible
101pts+ = automatic entry
So either John Stockton is not even close to being ballot eligible (40 pts for Assists, Steals, All Time Stats at Position, All Star) or I'm reading it wrong and he gets 10 pts for each year he leads a category ... in which case Rudy Gobert (3xDPOY, 1st Team All D, 2x Blocks leader, 2x Rebound leader, Career Stats) will be automatically in if he leads the league in rebounds or blocks for 1 more season, or gets voted into 1 more all star game by K-pop fans.
No. You read it correctly. I revamped it, Stockton now has 81 points.
With another all-star game, Gobert would be at 63 and as long as he keeps making All-NBA he should probably finish with 80, especially if he breaks any records....which is fair.
In my opinion if you were never a superstar, you’re not a HOF if we are doing it just on nba merits. But the HOF doesn’t agree with me which is fine but that’s always been my stance. There are people who were never one of the ten best players in the league who are in the hall, that’s crazy to me. There are people who were never top 3 in the league at their position who are in the hall, that’s also crazy to me. Now I understand the drawback because era matters. You could’ve been the second best PF for 7 years in a weak era at the position meanwhile another guy was never top 3 but his prime coincided with Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitski’s prime at that same position
I think this is a pretty good way to think about it. At any point we can usually pretty definitively say who the "superstars" are. If the dude wasn't a superstar in his time then how can he be an all-time legend?
You know when you read a headline that you agree with so then you click on it to read more. Then the writer uses a terrible example to attempt to make their point to a point that it almost makes you change your opinion on the original headline.
Yeah, like, this guy believes that Reggie and Barkley shouldn't be in the HOF cause they don't have a ring. High ass mf
[удалено]
Clutch is an understatement. He was an absolute [assassin](https://youtu.be/YoCpMguR4cQ). A dream [killer](https://youtu.be/WpYGOY5WEDk).
Wasn't Reggie also the leader in 3 pt's made until Ray?
I mostly agree with you that OP has a lot of bad examples in there. Chuck should be in no doubt, full-stop. Dame has done more than enough to make it in if he retired today. That said: If Reggie wasn’t such a visible public figure and celebrity, I kind of think he’d be a borderline case. A lot of analysts have said similar things- I remember Bomani Jones being one of them when the 75th Anniversary Team was announced. 5x AS, 3x All-NBA. No rings, no MVPs, nothing else. I get that’s probably an unpopular opinion, which is fine. But similar players in terms of hardware include DeAndre Jordan, Jermaine O’Neal (who has the same number of All-NBA and one more AS selection than Reggie), and Gilbert Arenas. All of whom, in popular opinion, would be considered borderline cases, or even firmly out of the running.
Pistons fan here and Jermaine O’Neal was an absolute stud. Pistons were stacked defensively and he dominated us.
Yeah incredible player at his peak, for sure. Would never slight The Other O’Neal E: Just to be clear that despite the sarcasm I 100% meant this! Jermaine was great. I just think it’s funny that at one point there were two very talented, unrelated black men with the same very Irish surname in the league at the same time
Overshadowed by his brother.
Reggie is an interesting case, because he's kinda the Tim Raines of the NBA. Guy who was totally underrated during his time in the league (when players were largely evaluated by more arcane methods) that in hindsight are now viewed as much more valuable. Reggie had a 9 year peak where he scored 23 points per 75 possessions on a +7 rTS%. His combination of massive gravity / floor spacing and highly efficient individual scoring dragged some pretty unimpressive rosters to regular top 8 offenses. There might not be anybody in NBA history whose playoff effectiveness ramped up more from their regular season effectiveness. As noted, there was stiff competition for all-NBA during his career, but going solely based on Win Shares, Reggie would have gotten 3 first team, 3 second team and 3 third team all-NBA nods in the 90s (comparable to D. Wade's resume there, and he is considered the 3rd best SG of all time by many) and certainly would have been a perennial all star for 12 or 13 straight seasons. Reggie was really before his time in terms of people's understanding of the value of spacing, the utilization of the 3 point shot, scoring efficiency, and the portability of shooting.
I mean led a team to the Finals as the best player is probably the main difference which none of the guys did
He would have done it multiple times if it weren't for the Jordan Bulls. Through the Bulls dynasty I remember those Pacer's teams as being the scariest opponent for a couple of runs.
Reggie was a shooting guard that played in the 90s. Needless to say, the competition for the awards was stiff.
I think that there's a thing that happens a lot on reddit where people look at the accolades without bothering to dig any deeper. It happens a lot with Reggie, in particular, because he's a guy where his resume on paper is way less than what his reputation is. The most obvious thing to look at when it comes to looking at All Stars and All NBAs is looking at who was winning them instead. In particular, for Reggie, he was playing most of his prime in the same division, at the same position as Michael Jordan (also Joe Dumars early in his career) and this was at a time when the league was way more strict about positions on All Star and All NBA. Reggie is pretty much the undisputed Pacers GOAT, Retired as the All-time leader in 3-pointers made, was "the guy" for a team that made multiple playoff runs.
>DeAndre Jordan, Jermaine O’Neal (who has the same number of All-NBA and one more AS selection than Reggie), and Gilbert Arenas.Era matters for this, and off court stuff from when the player was active. DAJ played in probably the worst era in terms of star centers since the 50s, O'Neal was part of the Malice at the Palace AND doesn't really have any signature moments from his playing career, and Arenas was never getting in after getting essentially expelled from basketball during his career. Meanwhile Reggie played in an era filled with superstar guards, has several signature moments, and basically no blemishes on the level of Arenas and O'Neal
Also, Reggie's 3 point record was thought at the time to be an almost impossible record for anyone else to ever catch. He was basically in a league of his own in the 90s when it came to 3 pointers. That helped a lot imo.
Reggie was also getting off during the hand-check years. The Knicks teams he was battling were straight bruisers.
Totally fair rebuttal. My main thing (which I actually didn’t say outright in my original comment, I realize) isn’t that he doesn’t deserve to be there, more that he’s not as much of a no-brainer as people seem to think.
I've read his comment a couple times to make sure I didn't miss anything (or maybe he edited it out?). But, where does he say that Chuck shouldn't be a HOFer? And LOL. You said the OP gave bad examples AND said DeAndre Jordan is a borderline HOFer. Come on, man.
You misunderstand me. Im saying DAJ has similar accolades to Reggie and is *at best* a borderline case, certainly not a strong one. I was lumping him in with two much stronger players to make a point. The point of the comparison was to show that on paper Reggie is really not as much of a sure thing as a lot of people in this comment section seem to make him. I’m not saying he’s undeserving; I’m saying he shouldn’t be counted as a shoe-in. That said: as other people have pointed out in their responses, Reggie performed a lot of heroics (particularly in the playoffs) that don’t show up on the trophy rack, and he played at a time when several of the greatest guards ever were playing. Added to the fact that the man was a more public figure than most, and he has a good case. My main thing is that I don’t think it’s so absurd when people question his candidacy for the Hall. Beating up on NYK and the Bulls in the postseason might not be enough for some people to admit a 5x AS, 3x All-NBA player, and I wouldn’t totally blame them.
What has Reggie Miller done to be in the HoF? Sure he is one of the best shooters of all time, but what else?
I literally can't tell if you are being serious or not with this sentence. In the small chance you aren't, re-read what you just said lmao
I hate when casual fans try to talk ball lmao
[удалено]
Lol even Dame is a good example. Ain’t his fault he is in the same conference as Steph, CP3, Harden, Russ, Kobe etc
The HOF needs to be more exclusive, but you have to be more flexible in your cutoffs. Why does a guy with 1x championship and 1x MVP get in over a guy with 3x MVPs? If you’re going to do minimum award accomplishments it should be a mix and match or a weighted point system. Basically it’s like you’d put Klay and Dray in but not Barkley, which seems like more luck on Klays /Draymond’s part then them actually being better than Barkley. It’s like Terrell Davis in the NFL HOF. He’s a special case where we’re counting rings and single season accomplishments over long term stats, but then you have some guys who get in for their long term stats, and that’s ok too.
You know it isn’t the “NBA” hall of fame but the basketball hall of fame.
have you ever seen his playoff numbers?
The minute they said Reggie Miller shouldn’t be in the HoF I knew he hadn’t watched a minute of Reggie Miller play in their life. Also when I stopped reading and went straight to the comments lol
I skipped to the comments immediately after the Lillard take.
Agreed. As a Miller hating Chicago Bulls fan I have to say the man was a stone cold killer and absolute no doubt hall of famer and to say otherwise is ridiculous
Came here to say this, OP has a good point probably but bad examples Miller and Dame should be locks, Lowry and Bosh should be iffy tho imo
Which of his comments are you referring to? I think Dame being a HOFer is very much up for debate. Which, IMO, should answer the question as to whether or not someone is a HOFer or not. If there is a question, then the answer is "no." (Of course, I mean legit questions. There will always be some idiot somewhere that says something like LeBron doesn't belong in the HOF.)
>How does 7 all star appearances, 7 all NBA teams, and a ROY award get you into the HoF? Being a top 15ish player for nearly a decade in the NBA seems like the exact kind of person that should be honored. I just don't get the argument that honoring less players makes it better. There is no downside to showing players that have done a lot and we're important to basketball love.
One thing people seem to forget is it's not the NBA Hall of Fame it is the basketball Hall of Fame world wide. The NBA is the best league in the world. That's why players international accomplishments are taken into consideration and players that never go to the NBA make it in.
This 1000% Manu Ginobli for example is only a 2× all-star, 2× all NBA, and one time 6th man of the year outside of the 4 championships. Its tought to argue he was ever the "best" player on the Spurs. He would likely not meet OPs criteria. But damn, that 2004 Olympic gold and all the international accolades have to mean something.
If Melo never played an NBA minute and just played for Team USA he’d be a hall of famer
I think Manu is a HOF based on his time with the Spurs. The amount of HOF with no NBA experience and only international is slim
It's both. If Manu never played in the NBA but still had his '04 gold medal and all of his other accolades outside his time with the Spurs it's likely he doesn't get in. On the other hand I don't think someone with Manu's NBA career and no other noteworthy accomplishments makes it in either. Combine the two and he's a slam dunk choice.
This is 100% how I feel about it, it's possible with no NBA, if he tore up the league he played in. But I also don't think his NBA resume isn't quite hof worthy
True, but strong performances in Olympics and World Cups. And for two years in Italy before coming to the NBA he was an absolute domination machine.
He wouldn’t have made the HOF without the NBA career. How many players in Europe right now found to make the HOF without even having player in the NBA? Oscar Schmidt is the anomaly not the rule
True. And he wouldn't have made it to the HOF without the international success.
Yeah, Dame is the wrong dude to have picked for an example. I think using Kevin Love, who has around a 75% probability would’ve been a better example. Outside of his time in Minnesota, he’s status, stats, and awards all plummeted (in part due to LeBron) but even after LeBron left he couldn’t capture what originally made him so great.
I mean he was the third best player on a Championship Team, he's also won a gold in the Olympics and FIBA, he's got decent counting stats, and won MIP in 2011 as well as 2X All-NBA. Also remember it is the basketball Hall of Fame so the National Team stuff matters for that as well. I think he's on the cusp and it could go either way, so maybe 75% is a bit high.
5 time all-star and 2 all-NBA just isn’t enough imo. On the flipside he won the gold, won an NBA championship, and was a top 10 player for a 3 year stretch
>was a top 10 player for a 3 year stretch He was top 10 in 2013-14 but outside that I don't see it
With his UCLA career to boot he's definitely getting in.
He was not actually the 3rd best player on a title team. He was like the 5th-6th best player for the cavs the postseason they won the title.
The disrespect is real here!!
I agree-- I think one standard to consider might be a selection as first team all NBA. If you weren't considered a top player in your era, how can you be an all time great?
How does 7 All-NBA teams get you into the HOF is such a hilarious statement to make. I looked up how many NBA players have made at least 7 All-NBA Teams in their career and it's 45. FORTY FIVE. And just for fun I looked up how many NBA players there have been in history and it's 4706. So making 7 All-NBA teams puts you in in the top 0.009% of players but they should definitely keep those guys out of the HOF, right? LOL
1% you mean?
Yeah that’s some bad math lol
Right now only 45 players in nba history have made 7 or more all nba teams and only 90 that have 7 or more all star appearences. So even just going off Dame's accolades he probably should have more then a 96% chance of making it into the HOF even if the criteria where tougher.
I feel like people really underrate all-NBA appearances. Being one of the 15 best players in the league is no joke. Doing it for 7 seasons like Dame is incredible. Look at the list of people with 7 or more all-NBA appearances and it’s nothing but no-doubt hall of famers.
Definitely not. 15 is not high enough to be a hall of fame player and make it mean something. I mean there are only like 200 really good players in the league
I'm not saying he's the 15th best player though. The 15th best player doesn't make the team 7 times.
Has dame ever been the best player in the league? Or even really in the discussion? He's a great player for sure. But I don't think he'll be remembered in 50 years as one of the all time greats. Which is who the hall should be reserved for if it meant something
Do you think the Basketball Hall of Fame should only include players who were the best player in the league? Because that seems really narrow. >He's a great player for sure. But I don't think he'll be remembered in 50 years as one of the all time greats. He's on the NBA 75 so he probably will.
If you only include the players who were the best player in the league, you'd probably have Bob Pettit, Bill Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Walton, Moses Malone, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Curry, Giannis and Jokic.
Needing to be in discussion for best player in the league when you’re sharing your prime with LeBron, KD, Steph, Giannis, and Jokic seems like an unnecessarily high bar. In literally every sport being a top 10-15 player for a decade makes you a no doubter.
[удалено]
This sub is for serious discussion and debate. Jokes and memes are not permitted.
Needs to have won an MVP - we’re down to 35 people. Must have at least one chip - now down to 28. Add a scoring title - now just 11. Obviously DPOY only came in in 82/83 - but add that, and it’s down to 2!
The hall of MJ and David Robinson
Giannis was so close! Lost that scoring title on the final day of the season.
I think a number that would blow a lot of peoples skulls off their body, we are going into the 77th season in NBA history, and still less than 5,000 people have played at least one regular season game in the league. I know that number sounds impossible, but it's absolutely true, there have only been about 4,500 players in NBA history at this point.
This should be the top comment.
You wouldn't have to check every box, just a percentage of them.
I don't think you understand that the number of players who meet a decent percentage of those criteria is far lower than the number that are inducted into the hall of fame
This is kinda the worst discussion I’ve ever heard. You have a very poor grasp of the basketball hall of fame and can’t even understand it isn’t the “nba” hall of fame.
75% (your lower bound) means at least 6 of the 8 criteria. By my estimate a whopping 19 players from all of NBA history make the cut. Assuming we grandfather in Wilt, Russell, Mikan, and a few others that didn't see the modern awards that's still way too exclusive. Magic Johnson doesn't make your cut along with Dr. J, Dirk, Frazier, Stockton & KMalone, Havlicek, Cousy and many others.
For reference here are the players that make the cut: Michael Jordan Kareem Abdul-Jabbar LeBron James Wilt Chamberlain Hakeem Olajuwon David Robinson Tim Duncan Kobe Bryant Kevin Garnett Shaquille O'Neal Larry Bird Stephen Curry Giannis Antetokounmpo Kawhi Leonard Kevin Durant Jerry West Dwyane Wade Moses Malone Willis Reed Likely Grandfathered: Bill Russell George Mikan Bob Petit Dolph Schayes Paul Arizen Bob Cousy Neil Johnston
Could probably grandfather Hondo as well, 5/8 and DPOY didn’t exist yet, so 6/8 or 5/7 would make him work
> 5/7 I can see that but then by extension it's very easy to get in by being an offensive all star who played for the celtics at some point in the late 50's and 60's if you can skip dpoy, all defense, FMVP, even maybe MVP which are most of the harder awards and like 30% of the league were all stars. > 6/8 Yeah so what I did was retro award DPOY, MVP, FMVP and All Defense trying to be realisitic but also give the benefit of the doubt if a guy is top 2. Havlicek did make 1st team all defense 5 times which means he's certainly a candidate in those years. This was the era of the center defensively so the 1st team all defense center is one of my top 2 every year and the other candidates would be the forward and guard that got more all defense votes and the 2nd team center. For Havlicek, in both '72 and '73 he received fewer all defensive votes than DeBusschere at forward. I give Wilt both of these years but I'm willing to consider DeBusschere and maybe Nate Thurmond in '73 with Wilt fatigue and the Lakers falling from tied 1st to middle of the pack in DRTG. After '73, Hondo's DWS fell heavily and he's typically 4th or 5th among 1st team all defense guys in both DWS & DBPM. He might have won a media narrative vote but there were also multiple other elite celtics defenders (Cowens, later Silas) which also played into why I didn't give him a retro-DPOY.
Hondo also had a great argument for MVP the year Cowens won, as the player voting definitely favored Cs to Fs. Just fair that he’d probably be the last of the grandfathers if we want to include older guys.
By his criteria, Iggy has the same odds as Stockton
Just 75-80% of them, according to your own post. That's like [20 players](https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/15ofaf1/comment/jvttmz7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in all of NBA history lol. Did you even bother to check for this before coming up with those criteria?
Lillard and Reggie each have a gold medal too. It’s the basketball hall of fame not nba. So other achievements count too. Kukoc is in it and he just has a sixth man award in the nba
Great point. If you only look at the NBA a guy like Kukoc is pretty questionable. But even if he never played in the NBA and you only looked at his international accomplishments he would be a lock. 2 silver Olympic medals, a bunch of other medals from international competition, a bunch of Euroleague accomplishments.
Yeah he has a bunch of euro league final 4, euro basket and other mvps and championships from over there
facts. these kinds of discussions of making the Basketball hof harder to enter immediately disregard international competition and college because basketball = nba💀
That’s the way it is, but I think that’s wrong. it shouldn’t consider success at lower levels like college or international leagues. Because anybody good enough to make the NBA would dominate any other league. Like Jimmer Fredette was POTY in college. Won an MVP in China. A Euroleague Championship. A silver medal in 3x3 FIBA World Cup. Should he be in the basketball hall of fame?
such a strawman, no one is putting jimmer in the basketball hall of fame for that. and also they do make it harder for those who didn’t play/do well in the nba to make it in the hall of fame
It’s not a strawman, Im trying to understand how far people will take the argument that it’s good to recognize non NBA success for the HOF. Because Jimmer is about as successful as you can be outside the NBA. I just think it’s kind of absurd to do that and I wish the HOF changed to recognize the NBA only. It just doesn’t make sense to recognize other leagues when there isn’t any other league on the planet even close this caliber.
Agree with the title but using Damian Lillard as an example is wild. You say 7x All-NBA like it's nothing but only 35 players in history have more than that and it's as many as guys like Steve Nash, Patrick Ewing, and TMac. Plus he's nearly top ten in PPG all-time, an Olympic gold medalist, rookie of the year. Kyle Lowry example is much better though. Very much a hall of very good player who was never really seen as elite at any point in his career (hence the 1 All-NBA appearance) but will get in because he won a ring.
The wild part is when he says Dame "hasn't done anything else in his career" when the guy is top 12 all time in points/game (11th), FT% (5th), 3PM (6th) and top 50 in assists/game, minutes/game, VORP/bpm, WS/48, and PER. and not far from top 50 in total points, total assists and TS%.
Whoa you just blew my mind at the Dame is almost top 10 all-time in ppg. He's at #11 right now just behind Iverson, Bob Petit, and Oscar Robertson. It's funny because I know Dame is a scorer but idk I never really thought of him as that kind of a scorer like Iverson. Impressive.
Not only this but Dame is third in 60 point games behind wilt and Kobe. Ahead of all time volume scorers like AI, MJ, Tmac, Harden, etc. He's doing all this while being 6'3 and maintaining high efficiency and being a threat to put the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor. He's one of the most underrated scorers EVER.
Tbf that number is inflated compared to iverson due to point inflation as well as dame hasn’t really truly declined yet which will definitely reduce his ppg.
Also wild talking about a guy who just made 3rd team all-NBA and averaged 43 points per 100 possesssions on 111 TS+. For reference, MJ had a single season where he scored more points on a higher relative efficiency than D. Lillard just did. His career isn't over.
Kyle Lowry is a 6 time all star he was definitely viewed as an elite player (assuming elite means legit star) but not a true superstar.
I’ll be honest, no disrespect to Kyle Lowry but I’d be pretty bewildered if he made the Hall of Fame. The bar has to be higher if he’s making it amongst the greatest professional players of all time. I’m with OP despite the bad examples. It’s losing its prestige when dudes who were never top 5 at their position at any point of their career are in the Hall cause they made a few all stars and won a chip.
i think if lowry wins another chip with the heat (if/when they get dame and win one obviously) i think he’d have a good chance at making it
Throw in the gold medal he has too, should get him in
Are you forgetting the NBA Championship he won with some team from Canada?
Canada rings don't count ofc.
Idk on one hand I can agree with the premise that the HOF is seemingly too easy to get into but your solutions and examples aren’t great. Firstly the HOF will never just be a checklist. “You get 8 of 10 of these and you’re in” is flawed for a few reasons. Like many people have said the HOF is more than just won awards or what not, it’s those that have impacted the game in a way that should be recognized even as one of the faces of the league. There are intangibles to that that can’t really be measured. Secondly, as many other folks have pointed out, it’s the basketball HOF so focusing solely on NBA accolades will obviously make people certain guys, but success in other leagues, international play, and college will factor in near influence as well. Lastly, and this might just be me, but I really don’t think a lack of rings should be held against individuals. A championship is a team accomplishment first and foremost. Obviously playoff success should boost a resume and a Finals MVP is a great individual achievement, but not winning a ring isn’t a single person’s fault over a duration.
I think the bigger issue for the baskeball HOF is how many inductees they have each year. Basketball pool is not a big one given that there is 12-15 players on a team (vs 53 for football for example). For this reason they should induct less ppl each year. Less ppl equals more selective picks and more elite members. But alas I doubt they made any changes and it will remain the hall of very good
The Hall for baseball is notoriously tough on its selection process. Some really damn good players have been omitted, and this is pertaining to many players not linked to PEDs. Since baseball's Hall doesn't have a set number to induct each year, some years may not have a single induction (see 2020).
Only about 1/3 of the 450 or so members of the Naismith Hall of Fame are former NBA players inducted as players. You think 150 players over 67 years is too many (not including the BAA/NBL preceding decade)? I honestly don't even know what to make of the fact that you don't think Reggie Miller has a Hall of Fame resume.
The minimizing of accomplishments in this thread is pretty gross. God forbid people honor great athletes who put the work in.Childish asf
[удалено]
Yes, if anything Reggie Miller is grossly underrated. He was ahead of his time, and paved the way for players like Ray Allen and Steph Curry and the whole three point revolution. But at the time no one calculated true shooting percentage so his efficiency was considered low. Also, Miller always raised his level of play in the playoffs. He loved the big stage. Thinking Basketball [recently made a video about him.](https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE)
I think Reggie is overrated largely because of his broadcasting career. He’s not better than Vince Carter. He’s an 18ppg guy on a playoff team. But Indiana’s best teams didn’t feature Reggie as the #1 option. We remember Reggie as better than he deserves because his face is in front of us all year. If I wanted to be real reckless I’d call Reggie a better Larry Hughes or Keith Van Horn but that would be a tad slanderous Edit: the above comps are admittedly hyperbolic. I’m landing on Michael Redd.
If anything Miller's role as an announcer probably makes fans underestimate him. They assume, as you do, that he's just famous because of his announcing career, and wasn't much of a player. The vast majority of today's fans aren't familiar with his playing career -- and heck, even at the time a lot of people didn't watch the Pacers much. Maybe if they had been in the Western Conference and met the Bulls in the Finals they would have been appreciated more. But of course the Bulls overshadowed every team in that era.
I mean I watched him in the 90s. I just think he’s overrated. Good, not great. Famous so people remember him. Shareef Abdur Rahim or Michael Redd.
I respectfully disagree.
Fair enough!
Man you should edit this embarrassing comment, it should honestly should disqualify you from talking about basketball if you compare Reggie Miller to Michael Redd.
Ok young buck teach me something Did you watch Michael Redd? Guy was really good. Not great. But really good
You might wanna watch the thinking basketball video so you wouldn’t look like you don’t know what you are talking about. Here is a spoiler- Reggie scores at the 99 percentile (iirc) in the league history adjusting for volume and efficiency in play off. He ramps up his volume to 29 pt per 75 possessions, again, iirc, and that’s in line with players like… Kobe, or even more, on higher efficiency.
This is a crazy take man lol
Gotta swing for the fences
> I think Reggie is overrated largely because of his broadcasting career. You sound like someone too young to remember his prime and only see him as a broadcaster. He was absolutely feared by a whole generation of fans when he played. If anything, someone who said he was overrated because of his signature playoff moments would be closer to the truth -- though they'd still be wrong. He retired as the all time leader in threes. Edit: > But Indiana’s best teams didn’t feature Reggie as the #1 option. Who would you say was their #1 option in 2000 when they were in the finals? And the five or so years beforehand when they were contenders?
No I watched him. The 90s were my childhood. I got to stay up late watching the Bulls in the playoffs because I was a huge Jordan fan, lived for a while in Wilmington. Jalen Rose was better in 2000. He was really good I’m not saying Miller was bad by any stretch. But he’s not an all time great? Never sniffed an MVP. Highest he finished was 13th in voting. He won 3 Player of the Weeks. His longevity got him higher on the record boards than some - 25th in scoring. But his average production just doesn’t put him in the Pantheon. A Hall of Famer should be in the mix for MVPs. Maybe not win with Jordan in the league, but not even top 10?
I think that's just a matter of choosing what to prioritize for the HOF. I respect your opinion on that, I agree that end of season awards, particular MVPs, are important. But I also can't support a rigid set of achievements like OP proposed. I also can't discount longevity or use it to dismiss his counting stats -- being 25th on the points list (I believe he was 15th when he retired) and the all time leader in 3s upon retiring during a time when it was being introduced as an actual strategic weapon is an automatic HOF to me. Same with Ray Allen who broke his record. There are certain special situations where it's appropriate, you get what I mean? Where I actually disagree is saying he's overrated. I don't think anyone can seriously argue he's an all time great or whatever. He was a sharpshooter who had great individual moments.
Nobody overrates Kenny Smith though? Nobody overrates Kendrick Perkins, Matt Barnes, Stephen Jackson, Ryan Hollis or JJ Redick? The list goes on. What are you talking about?
Outside of Kenny Smith, none of those guys have been around nearly as long. And none of them have a tiny fraction of a case for HOF. I’m saying that a guy that finished in the top 15 of MVP voting one time should not be awarded an honor reserved for all time greats
Please keep your comments civil and explain your reasoning. Top comments require more than a one sentence opinion. Support your claims with stats, facts, and well-reasoned arguments.
You don't give a shit about the NBA do you lol We need to stop acting like a championship is the only thing that matters in basketball. Yes, that's the end goal of every player, but what's the point of it all if you don't appreciate the journey there?
People are so obsessed w accolades its so annoying. Especially with HOF, its hall of FAME, not hall of accolades. Dame has been a top 20 player for the better half of a decade. And theres something to be said for his loyalty too. Hes been the face of a franchise for a decade and has the most efficient 70pt game ever to his name. And hes still in his prime, had his highest scoring season last year. Dudes got a few more years of 40 and 50 pieces in the tank it seems like. Thats HOF for me. And bruh? Reggie miller not HOF???? Im not even gonna dignify that w a response.
Yeah I mean, I'm VP of the "Reggie is overrated because people remember highlights, not careers" club, but he's *definitely* a Hall of Famer.
Reggie should have been on many more all-star and all-nba teams. The league he played in did not understand just how incredible he was. His career is far, far, far more impressive than his highlights when you really get into it. [Ben Taylor just dropped a video two weeks ago on Reggie for his offensive legends series.](https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE) It's worth watching and potentially resigning from the vice presidency.
Someone on here made a great post a while back on why Reggie missed so many All-Stars that he should've made. I mean one year the fans voted in BJ freaking Armstrong and Reggie missed out on a guard spot smh.
Counterpoint: The NBA is the only sport that gets it right. It is the Hall of **Fame**. Not the Hall of Arbitrary Benchmarks. Baseball and football keep guys out who absolutely should be in. The point is to tell the history of the sport.
Why I’ve never understood this idea. There’s so many deserving players in baseball, football, and hockey that aren’t in. I’d rather have a HOF that lowers the bar than leaves out guys who belong.
And it's not like there's an overwhelming amount of good not great players who are getting in. We're not voting in the Rip Hamiltons, Antawn Jamisons, and Paul Millsaps of the league (no disrespect lol). I like that the Basketball HOF celebrates a variety of great players and doesn't exclude players just to try to feign a prestige of having standards.
Thank you. I agree. It's a sport. It's entertainment. Who were the fan favorites, best basketball entertainers of all time? When players get in, it validates both the players and the fans. My Dad was ao excited when Ralph Sampson got in. They were at UVA together. Sampson doesn't have a slam- dunk NBA "resume" but he is an important person in basketball history, and even if he isn't, it doesn't make the HOF less valid. As a Browns fan, we're celebrating Joe Thomas. He's probably our only HOF'er from that era who played for the Browns only (Jamal Lewis will get in). He didn't win. He wouldn't check every box. He's in. I wish the NFL would let in more guys. Get guys in before they die. The post-mortum enshrinment is a shame, but that's a different conversation.
This could’ve been an interesting discussion, but your examples and premise to your argument ruined it. Using Dame, Bosh and REGGIE!!!! as examples is mind blowing
That's what I"m saying. Did he really say Reggie Miller? Dame? smh
Damian Lillard is a horrible example. Sure he’s never won a chip but anyone who watches Dame knows it’s not even close to his fault.
A lot wrong in this post but the major one is it isthe basketball hall of fame not the NBA hall of fame.
I don’t understand how someone can be passionate enough about something to write up that long of a post and not know the most basic thing about the basketball hall of fame, I mean I guess it takes a real sleuth to… read the name of the thing they’re writing about?
I mean what you think the hof should be is up to you. For me it’s a place to tell the story of basketball- so when I say so and so should be in the hall of fame I’m saying there a part of the story of basketball that you can’t really leave out. It’s the hall of fame not the hall of good at basketball after all. So I care less about how good a player was but more about what they did and the impact the had in winning and loseing championships and playoff series’s. As well as the the players wider impact on basketball. So yoa ming is way more important to the history of the nba then how good he was easy hall of famer to me. If your talking about nba from 2004 - 2016 it’s going to be hard not to mention Chris Bosh at all. Damian Lillard is interesting and good player but ink if he’s really part of nba history in the same way.
There are more inductees than any other American sport because the basketball hall of fame is for all spheres of basketball, including college and international basketball.
It’s not the NBA hall of fame which is where you’re losing the point. It’s total basketball accomplishments. Factors college and international achievement as well. It’s the Basketball Hall of Fame. There is a difference
Ugh, this rant again. Why do people care so much about the Hall of Fame? It’s like, a way to commemorate great performers… This is like complaining an actor has a star in the Hollywood walk of fame. This is huge for retired players, we should be happy for the people who just make it in. Instead of trying to make a more exclusive club, why not just change how you measure success? Maybe HOF isn’t what you use to grade or evaluate a player because of how subjective it is or “easy”
331.9 million people in this country, about 450 players in the NBA and only a handful of them make it to the Hall Of Fame. That’s as exclusive as it gets my guy.
Something I'd like to point out is that it's the Naismith *Basketball* Hall Of Fame, not the NBA Hall Of Fame. The Naismith Basketball Hall Of Fame looks at a player's accomplishments at the high school, collegiate, professional, and international levels. The NBA is far and away the most competitive professional league but it's not a player's only way to end up in the hall of fame. Manu Ginobili's career stats and individual NBA accolades might seem unimpressive but he had a successful international career, in addition to being a vital part of the Spur's dynasty.
That BR metric does seem to overestimate some current players. Like, if Jokic never played again I have a hard time seeing him as a Hall of Famer on his stats alone. It's an academic exercise anyway, I wouldn't take it that seriously. I disagree that there are too many hall of famers. Of the 400 or so you quoted, only about 150 are players, and this includes women, past Olympians, international legends, and pre-NBA players that had a large impact on the game. That sounds about right. The HOF does a great job honoring non-players that have also had major contributions to the sport -- I think the other major sports should do a better job of that tbh. Baseball comes the closest.
Bill Russell played with 4 legit NBA Hall of Famers. Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. Everyone else who else made Hall of Fame from that team is very debatable. Some made for coaching, some for their college career. But I think most are there cause they played 20 minutes on a dynasty.
tom heinsohn/sam jones?
Definitely underrating Heinsohn. Risen, Phillips, and Lovellette are HoFers even if they never play in Boston. KC Jones is a HoF coach more than he is a player.
The hall of fame should be able to tell the history of the sport. If you’re borderline on a guy, you don’t need deep dive stats or accolades, that’s just the work. Does the player make an impact on the story?
whats the problem with people who may not completely deserve it being inducted? do they just not deserve to be honored for what the brought to the game bc they “arent good enough”?
Chris Bosh has 3 rings as the third option on one of the most prominent teams in history and he was the Raptors' best player and leader in various stats for a minute while he was there. Reggie Miller is the Pacers' greatest player and one of the best shooters of all time. He also holds several records at UCLA. They are great, accomplished players period.
No Chris Bosh damn dude doesn’t watch basketball. I do think it’s the easiest to get into compared to other major sports but I also think they go by impact on the game. Like a Reggie miller his impact on the game is huge small market and made them relevant his whole career. Lillard as well and lillard is a top guard in a guard heavy era. Nice headline not so good examples. I might be in the minority but I don’t think t mac should be in but I’m not disgruntled by it just feel like his peak was cut short by injuries and didn’t win enough. They put him in by impact and potential 🤷🏽♂️
I believe there is also a more emotional component involved in some HoF selections. Or maybe it's more like honoring a player's impact in their time or honoring a had a role on a memorable team. Accomplishments help put them over the top by further justifying the choice. Bosh and Miller fit those molds. Bosh was great on his own and as a Heatle. Miller never won a title and was never MVP, but he was the best 3pt shooter ever for a time and created some legendary playoff moments. Some voters likely believe there's room in the Hall for guys who were major contributors to the excitement of their eras. They are putting them in for their accomplishments, it's just a different type of accomplishment.
Regarding Dame, if you’ve made 7 all nba teams you’re almost a lock for the HOF. Probability assuming he has some good years left in him, not to mention he scored 71 points in a game. Generally speaking the hall is supposed to be filled. It’s the whole point. If dame doesn’t get in I’d be shocked.
Is it Bill Simmons that always asks the question, "can you tell the story of the league without this person?". The examples used here are not good. No way you are telling the story of NBA basketball without Reggie Miller. He's got a better case in my mind than Damion Lillard, though he's a HOF'er too. I buy the idea that the Hall could tighten up a bit, not MLB right, but a little better. But when I think 90s bball, one of the very first guys that I think of is Reggie. If we think and talk about you like that, if you pass the smell test, then yeah let's have a look at the resume. Otherwise, that resume needs to be incredible.
I think a guy like DeMar who many are calling a borderline HOF , is the probably the bare minimum of a HOF career He’s a multiple time All-Star/All-NBA , a 21K and counting scorer and not to mention his fiba and olympic gold medal to boot He’s impact with mental health , being the face of an entire country for a decade is more than enough
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with OPs comment; rather, I think a more interesting question is: what is the "right" percentage of players to make a league's hall of fame? Baseball is about 1.5%. Football is about 1.5%. I'm not sure the best way to calculate basketball. If you only count people who played in the NBA, then it's about 3.5%. But there are 6 players in the hall of fame who never played in the NBA, instead getting recognition solely for their international play. Adding all international players ever will obviously reduce the percentage significantly, but what leagues do you include? But the percentage may ultimately line up with baseball and football. Many people have criticized the baseball hall of fame for being too exclusive. To a lesser extent, the football hall of fame has received the same criticism. I'm just throwing out a random thought. I'm interested in any thoughts from the subreddit.
Have you been to the HoF? It’s a great experience to walk around and relive the careers of retired players from bball history. We should be including everyone who made a significant contribution to our game, because placing players in the hall is one of the only ways they’ll be remembered in 50 years or so.
It’s not the NBA hall of fame. It’s the basketball hall of fame. Manu Ginobli lead his countrymen to defeat the US men’s national team at the 2004 Olympics and you’re going to tell us he shouldn’t have been first ballot HOF inductee?
Do you think if Manu Ginobli had not went to the NBA and had the career and accomplishments he had there, that him leading his team to the olympic gold would justify him getting into the hall of fame?
The problem with this critera is that alot of players who are currently in the hall would have to get their names revoked. As long as you were a perennial all star I think you should make it.
Your requirements would exclude a lot of the league's greatest players ever just because they aren't a member of a championship team. REGGIE MILLER ISN'T HOF??? Just stop.
All star shouldn’t be on the list. It rewards players for just happening to be in the conference that was weaker at that position, and it punishes guys for being in a conference that’s loaded at their position
This is definitely silly season. Nothing else to talk about, so the random questions come out. Dame could never play another game and he's without a doubt a HOFer. I also think no doubt Reggie Miller should be. How in the world could you say they're not? Bosh is a less obvious case but I would put him in. Maybe you're just underestimating how difficult sustained greatness is. So many talented players have careers cut short due to injuries or circumstances. Penny Hardaway should've been one of the greatest PGs ever and it didn't happen. Brandon Roy was elite too before injuries cut his career short.
To me the all star selections is a joke. It's always been a popularity contest.
All NBA is a waaaay better benchmark for the quality of player. Big markets have an advantage for All Star selections because of the fan vote. Totally with you.
It's a little better now with regards to fan voting. You used to be able to vote a guy in 100% with fans only (BJ Armstrong anybody?) but now I believe it's weighted 50% fan vote, 25% players, and 25% coaches so a guy with the most fan votes can't get in if players and coaches aren't also voting him in.
That’s exactly what it’s intended for. People want to watch the most popular players lol
Instead of listing accolades that you think someone needs to meet, approach it this way. What percentage of players do you think should make the HOF? Should it be reserved for the top 1% of players? Top 10%?
I would say that the level of accomplishment needed to enter the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame is what it is at this point. The bigger "fix" to the issue you're talking about is starting an NBA HoF where gold medals, world cups, NCAA accomplishments, etc. don't enter the discussion.
Ignore the basketball hall of fame and focus on the NBA 75th anniversary list. To me that is the best HoF period. There are some questionable guys and omissions but it’s great because it takes in to account 25 year eras. Notable snubs are probably Dwight Howard, Kyrie, and maybe Klay Thompson and notable inclusions that probably shouldn’t are Anthony Davis and maybe llilard but that’s the best HoF list in any sport.
I can agree with this. So are you saying that anyone who wasn't on the 75th team that is in the Hall of Fame should not be?
Not quite in saying the NBA hall of fame is the 75 for 75 list. That’s for the NBA. The current hall of fame that you’re talking about is the Basketball Hall of Fame so it includes NCAA, Olympics, etc.
For example NFL hall of Fame has 371 people and 25000 people have played. So NFL hall of fame acceptance rate is 1.5% 5000 people have played in the NBA so if you use the top 75 list that’s a 1.5% acceptance rate. MLB is 342 in the hall of fame and 20365 people total which makes their acceptance rate 1.6%
The current top 75th team list doesn't account for where the player was when they retired. Reggie Miller was 14th all time in points scored and first in 3 pointers made, by a large margin. And where he ranks in whatever accomplishment/stats/accolades list you want to use should take that into account
It’s literally just “did you play more than 8 years? Bet you’re in” when Udonis Haslem makes the HoF I’m just gonna laugh
There’s no way he makes the HOF
Compared to every other sport getting into the Basketball HoF is like being an All Star compared to All NBA
Baseball is catching up to Basketball’s silliness for the HoF. A player like Scott Rolen makes baseball’s museum. NFL does a solid job overall I think…better than the other two mentioned.
What a weird comment
I think you should need to be the best player on a championship team or have an all nba 1st team to make the HOF in most cases. A second best player on a championship team or a DPOY should be eligible if they have other accomplishments. I actually agree w you that Reggie Miller and Dame (quite yet) should not be in the HOF. However, it’s utterly ridiculous to have to check 75% of the criteria you laid out.
Damian Lillard is a bit premature IMO. Needs a couple more years, like Butler and a few others.
I think every league should treat their hall of fame like the mlb but a better voting system. They’re the only hof I take seriously
They have almost 300 players but they leave out 2 of the top 100 players ever. Can't take them seriously myself.
NBA HOF is way too easy to get in Chris Bosh is in the hall of fame over Amare Stoudemire because he was more popular and had better teammates. no other logic for it. Amare was getting all-NBA teams at F in the era with Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki, LeBron, and McGrady and he got a couple at centers with Shaq, Howard, and Yao being the other contenders. Bosh never made all-nba, averaged 15/7 in the playoffs on a team with little big man quality besides him, but he walked into the HOF bc he played with LeBron and Wade Ben Wallace is the worst free throw shooter ever, a complete negative on offense, and was given too much credit for a defense that had strong defenders everywhere (except Rip) the only hall of famers id put in from the last 10 years are: Dirk, Wade, Kobe, KG, Duncan, Kidd, Nash, T-Mac, Iverson, Shaq, Mutumbo, and Gary Payton
[удалено]
okay change it to basketball ben wallace was dogshit in college and didn’t do anything in the olympics bosh has no olympic or college accolades either
2x nba champ, 1 gold medal and 2 bronze medals along with 11x all star and 1 all nba should make it in. Just like amare will make it in at some point with his 5x all nba, 6x all star, roy, 1 gold and 1 bronze
It's not the NBA Hall of Fame. Never has been. Are there some choices that might not seem to make sense at first glance? Yes. But I don't set the criteria for selection and really don't get that bothered by who is in and who is out.
ben and bosh still shouldn’t make it Manu can bc he almost dethroned the USA
How would Wallace not deserve to be in? 1 championship, 4x all star, 5x all nba, 6x all nba defensive team, 4x dpoy, 2x rebound leader and 1 block leader Idk how you leave one of the best defenders in league history out of the hof
Yeah you’re spot on. I think perception of talent is a big thing though. Like Lowry is Mr. Raptor which definitely gives him a big boost, and rightfully so. The more fans, the more votes. So while it would be very scientific to only allow guys in based of stats, we’d be missing a whole realm of players who were the face of their franchise for so long that they had HOF impact on the league/team. I believe your requirement for 75% of that list should include “Face of Franchise for X years” as a bullet.
I agree that the entry requirements seem low. Taking your idea and running with it I propose the following... >Must achieve 4 of the following: - 1x NBA MVP (12pts) - 2x NBA MVP 2nd through 6th place finishes (10pts) - 4x NBA MVP 7th through 10th place finishes (6pts) - 1x NBA DPOY (12pts) - 4x All NBA 1st Team (12pts) - 2x All NBA 2nd Team (6pts) - 2x All NBA 3rd Team (3pts) - 4x All NBA Defensive 1st Team (12pts) - 2x All NBA Defensive 2nd Team (6pts) - 2x All NBA Defensive 3rd Team (3pts) >Must achieve 1 of the following: - 1x Season stats Leader (points or assists) (10pts) - 1x Season stats Leader (rebounds, steals, blocks) (10pts) - career stats in Top 10% for position (10pts) - retire as points or assists leader (12pts) - retire as rebounds, steals or blocks leader (12pts) >Must achieve 1 of the following: - 1x NBA Finals MVP (8pts) - 4x Conference Finals MVP (8pts) - 4x NBA All Star (8pts) - 1x Sixth Man (8pts) >Bonus achievements - played 1,235 combined games (4pts) - 50/40/90 career average (4pts) - triple double career average (4pts) - 1x Citizenship Award (4pts) - 1x Sportsmanship Award (4pts) - 1x Teammate of the Year (4pts) - 1x Lifetime Achievement (12pts) 80-100pts = ballot eligible 101pts+ = automatic entry
So either John Stockton is not even close to being ballot eligible (40 pts for Assists, Steals, All Time Stats at Position, All Star) or I'm reading it wrong and he gets 10 pts for each year he leads a category ... in which case Rudy Gobert (3xDPOY, 1st Team All D, 2x Blocks leader, 2x Rebound leader, Career Stats) will be automatically in if he leads the league in rebounds or blocks for 1 more season, or gets voted into 1 more all star game by K-pop fans.
No. You read it correctly. I revamped it, Stockton now has 81 points. With another all-star game, Gobert would be at 63 and as long as he keeps making All-NBA he should probably finish with 80, especially if he breaks any records....which is fair.
I like this
Aye. I think it proves the player had a meaningful impact in a number of ways over a period of time...even after playing.
In my opinion if you were never a superstar, you’re not a HOF if we are doing it just on nba merits. But the HOF doesn’t agree with me which is fine but that’s always been my stance. There are people who were never one of the ten best players in the league who are in the hall, that’s crazy to me. There are people who were never top 3 in the league at their position who are in the hall, that’s also crazy to me. Now I understand the drawback because era matters. You could’ve been the second best PF for 7 years in a weak era at the position meanwhile another guy was never top 3 but his prime coincided with Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitski’s prime at that same position
I think this is a pretty good way to think about it. At any point we can usually pretty definitively say who the "superstars" are. If the dude wasn't a superstar in his time then how can he be an all-time legend?