"three hall of famers" ... yes or no?

[hifigator]

I've been meaning to ask people's opinions. I don't know how many times I have heard announcers over the past couple of years use the phrase "3 Hall of Famers" when referring to Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. As I am only a casual NBA fan, I'm certainly not the one to ask. I'm not taking anything away from any of them and they are all certainly great players, but if the season were to end with the Cavs coming back to win the series and then if all 3 were to retire, who do you think is already a HOFer? All 3? Just 2? Just 1? I'm just curious. I fully expect them to add some more to their respective resumes and am not saying that any of them aren't HOF material. I'm just curious what your views are of them now, factoring in solely what they have already accomplished.

[hoyarooter]

Probably. I think Garnett and Allen are locks, and Pierce is close to it.

[jacko]

I would vote for all three, possibly putting Garnett on the fringe.

Allen is right there with Reggie in the argument for best 2-guard in the 3 point line era. He won a title, but was very comparable to Reggie in similar circumstances (the best player on his team, willing them to rattle off great playoff runs).

Pierce has the weakest overall resume of the three, but his domination in rounds 2 and 4 of the 2008 playoffs was transcendent. I don't think you can leave out someone about whom you would say, "for a month and a half, when it really mattered, he was the best player alive."

Garnett is strange because he's more of an all-around competitor. He spent too much of his career on bad teams, but he has always had great defense and a great mid-range game for a post player. I think his personality/character/competitive drive push him over the top, but this the only one I would have to think about.

[SirSaxa]

May 14, 2010 1:42:21 GMT -5 jacko said:

I would vote for all three, possibly putting Garnett on the fringe.

Allen is right there with Reggie in the argument for best 2-guard in the 3 point line era. He won a title, but was very comparable to Reggie in similar circumstances (the best player on his team, willing them to rattle off great playoff runs).

Pierce has the weakest overall resume of the three, but his domination in rounds 2 and 4 of the 2008 playoffs was transcendent. I don't think you can leave out someone about whom you would say, "for a month and a half, when it really mattered, he was the best player alive."

Garnett is strange because he's more of an all-around competitor. He spent too much of his career on bad teams, but he has always had great defense and a great mid-range game for a post player. I think his personality/character/competitive drive push him over the top, but this the only one I would have to think about.

My comment is limited to your point about Pierce's "best player for a month and a half". Of course, it was an impressive performance. But, I don't think that is sufficient (along with pretty good player overall) to merit Hall of Fame consideration. A month and a half is simply not relevant to a HOF career.

I am thinking about Don Mattingly and Thurman Munson, each of whom was (arguably) the best player in baseball for extended periods. Thurman died tragically young and never had the chance to put up HOF career numbers. Mattingly suffered serious back injuries that reduced his effectiveness and curtailed his career. He was an MVP and Batting Champ.

While I love both guys, even as a big fan of their's I can't say categorically they deserve the HOF when compared with other guys who are there. Other guys who played at the highest levels year after year, not for a month and a half. Just my take on it.

[hifigator]

At the risk of taking this off-topic, I want to ask you all about something sirsaxa said. How do you evaluate careers cut short? Personally, and obviously there is a lot of subjectivity to this, but at least in my opinion, when the career was cut short by tragic external forces -- as was the case Munson and Clemente, for example -- I tend to side immediately with the individual. But given that tendency, how should I/we handle "injuries?" Griffey Jr. is going to be an HOFer, but to use him as an illustration, "should" he be if the injuries which plagued his career had been worse, such that his numbers alone wouldn't justify a HOF career, but rather a "really good player?" The obvious problem here is where you draw the line. On one hand, I am inclined to give someone like Kirby Puckett the benefit of the doubt. His ailment, vertigo, among other issues, clearly cut his impressive career short. But I see the pitfalls in such rationale. But his numbers alone would probably put him on the outside of the bubble. Without taking this too deeply, I'm just asking how do you all think such factors "should" weigh in the HOF decision?

Needless to say, there is no right answer,.

[hoyarooter]

"Allen is right there with Reggie in the argument for best 2-guard in the 3 point line era. He won a title, but was very comparable to Reggie in similar circumstances (the best player on his team, willing them to rattle off great playoff runs)."

I assume this comment relates to three point shooting. If not, MJ and Kobe might beg to differ.

[jacko]

May 14, 2010 12:53:12 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

"Allen is right there with Reggie in the argument for best 2-guard in the 3 point line era. He won a title, but was very comparable to Reggie in similar circumstances (the best player on his team, willing them to rattle off great playoff runs)."

I assume this comment relates to three point shooting. If not, MJ and Kobe might beg to differ.

Yeah, let's rephrase that to "best pure/conventional 2 guard," as opposed to "best scoring 2 guard" or "best 2 who played like a small forward." Allen and Miller "fit" into the 2 position, but MJ and Kobe are hard to classify with one number in terms of what they do on the court.

[SFHoya99]

Garnett is beyond a clear HOFer and it isn't close.

The other two are borderline, but I think they eventually get in. The basketball HOF is weird.

[redskins12820]

May 15, 2010 22:02:16 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Garnett is beyond a clear HOFer and it isn't close.

The other two are borderline, but I think they eventually get in. The basketball HOF is weird.

I agree that Garnett is a no-brainer and that the other two are borderline. Contrary to what other people on this board are saying, I think Pierce has a better chance than Allen. For Pierce, he was at least dominant for awhile and you could throw him the ball and ask him to go get you points. As for Allen, I never saw him as a dominant #1 player, and that's something I definitely look for in a hall of famer. As of right now, I would say neither Pierce nor Allen should get in; however, if they win a second championship, I may have to change my tune.

[Buckets]

FWIW: www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html

I would say my feelings are pretty much in line with that. Garnett is getting in on his first ballot. He compares pretty favorably to Charles Barkley who was also first ballot - trailing in point/rebound averages, comparable in All-NBA Teams and MVP finishes, much better defender, has a ring.

Pierce's numbers are good not great, eight All-Star games (very few MVP votes), but I think that being the go-to guy on a championship team puts him over the top. Allen is in a pretty similar situation with nine All-Star games but very few MVP votes, but is notable as one of the great distance shooters of all time, which will probably get him in.

[SFHoya99]

Garnett is a 13-time All-Star, 9-time All-NBA (top 10 player in league), and 10-time all defensive (and deserved more).

He's one of the best defensive PF of all time, and possibly the best ever for his era (given the dominance of the pick and roll). He was a strong offensive player for most of his career, if not HOF-worthy on its own, but defense is half the game and leaving Garnett out would be crazy.

[hoyarooter]

May 18, 2010 20:38:19 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Garnett is a 13-time All-Star, 9-time All-NBA (top 10 player in league), and 10-time all defensive (and deserved more).

He's one of the best defensive PF of all time, and possibly the best ever for his era (given the dominance of the pick and roll). He was a strong offensive player for most of his career, if not HOF-worthy on its own, but defense is half the game and leaving Garnett out would be crazy.

Yep, I agree with this, and, off topic, this is my argument for the Worm. Rodman may have been bat-s$&t loco, but he was easily the best defensive player and rebounder of his era, even if he had no offensive game whatsoever. Guys get in who had no discernable defensive skills all the time. Rodman deserves equal time.

[SFHoya99]

Rodman is no question a HOF in my mind. Scoring is way over-emphasized.

[hifigator]

I agree totally, and as much as I thought he was a kook and never seemingly on the right side, there's no denying his talent, and coming from someone who appreciates the lost art of boxing out and rebounding like it is supposed to be done, I have to give the guy his props.

[Jack]

May 18, 2010 19:45:09 GMT -5 Buckets said:

FWIW: www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html

Somewhat shocking to see Steve Nash so low on that list, down at 118 behind the likes of Spencer Haywood, Mitch Richmond, and Gilbert Arenas. Of course he still ranks ahead of a fair number of guys who made it and they way he is going now he is likely to move up the list even as he moves into his late 30s.

[hifigator]

One thing that is kind of strange is that in the explanation of the probablity, the statistics are attempting to answer the question if the player retired today, what is the likelihood of his making the HOF. Now I understand that is a flawed question to begin with since it's not an even playing field. Guys who are dead don't directly compare with current superstars for example. Even recently retired players might not be on the same table for comparison purposes. Still, it's not surprising the the most probable player to get in who isn't there yet is Shaq. Then Kobe, Duncan and Iverson followed by Garnett. After that though, it gets a little sketchy. Lebron is next followed by D Wade. Now if they were to retire today, I don't think they get in, unless there was some kind of tragedy causing their careers to get cut short. If they were to just walk away from the game, I don't think they get in. The next group however -- Pierce, Nowitzki, Kidd, Allen -- do have the longevity to get in. Now I'm not saying they are "better" than LeBron or Wade, but given the definition of the rating, it doesn't seem to be consistent.

[redskins12820]

May 19, 2010 14:26:18 GMT -5 Jack said:

May 18, 2010 19:45:09 GMT -5 Buckets said:

FWIW: www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html

Somewhat shocking to see Steve Nash so low on that list, down at 118 behind the likes of Spencer Haywood, Mitch Richmond, and Gilbert Arenas. Of course he still ranks ahead of a fair number of guys who made it and they way he is going now he is likely to move up the list even as he moves into his late 30s.

Nash's low ranking is probably due to the fact that he was a backup his first 3?? years in Phoenix before moving to Dallas. I don't know too many Hall of Famers who were not starting until year 4, so I think that's why his numbers took a hit.

Gasol will be an interesting question in a couple years. Probably will depend on how well the Lakers do, but he's definitely got a shot if the Lakers keep winning.

[kchoya]

May 19, 2010 15:54:29 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

May 19, 2010 14:26:18 GMT -5 Jack said:

Somewhat shocking to see Steve Nash so low on that list, down at 118 behind the likes of Spencer Haywood, Mitch Richmond, and Gilbert Arenas. Of course he still ranks ahead of a fair number of guys who made it and they way he is going now he is likely to move up the list even as he moves into his late 30s.

Nash's low ranking is probably due to the fact that he was a backup his first 3?? years in Phoenix before moving to Dallas. I don't know too many Hall of Famers who were not starting until year 4, so I think that's why his numbers took a hit.

Gasol will be an interesting question in a couple years. Probably will depend on how well the Lakers do, but he's definitely got a shot if the Lakers keep winning.

Gasol isn't a hall of famer. A pretty good player, but not a hall of famer.

[redskins12820]

May 19, 2010 18:00:53 GMT -5 kchoya said:

May 19, 2010 15:54:29 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Nash's low ranking is probably due to the fact that he was a backup his first 3?? years in Phoenix before moving to Dallas. I don't know too many Hall of Famers who were not starting until year 4, so I think that's why his numbers took a hit.

Gasol will be an interesting question in a couple years. Probably will depend on how well the Lakers do, but he's definitely got a shot if the Lakers keep winning.

Gasol isn't a hall of famer. A pretty good player, but not a hall of famer.

Not yet, but if Ray Allen is in the conversation, then Pau in 5 years (their age difference) will likely be too if the Lakers keep winning. If he ends up averaging around 20 and 10 for his career with a couple championships? I think he would definitely be in the picture. That would be significantly better numbers than James Worthy, who is in the hall of fame. Worthy was not even the #2 option on those teams and he made it. The difference is Worthy won a lot more than Pau has, but my question is what happens if the Lakers keep winning.

[hoyarooter]

Worthy was overrated. He just happened to be a great fit on those Laker teams, and he did have the propensity for coming up big in big games (hence, the Big Game James nickname Chick gave him). However, the day Magic retired, Worthy's numbers plunged, as he couldn't come up with the same level of performances once he was defended like a number one option. I don't think Worthy was nearly as talented as Dominique, but he was a much better fit on the Lakers than Dominique would have been.

As for Pau, he's nowhere close yet. Let's renew that discussion in five years.