Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

    Who do you guys think is going to make it next? or deserves to make it?

    http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012...sct=nba_t11_a0

    Getting into the Hall of Fame is very hard for a certain kind of very good NBA player. Players who crack 21,000 points or finish with a Player Efficiency Rating of 21.0 or higher are generally locks, provided they’ve made the requisite number of All-Star teams and haven’t irreparably sullied their reputations. A couple of future candidates, especially Vince Carter, are going to challenge the primacy of those milestones in front of a voting committee that seems to value pioneering accomplishments, college success and membership on multiple championship teams as much as it does individual NBA numbers.

    The induction this year of Ralph Sampson hammers that home. Sampson played only nine NBA seasons. He barely cracked 7,000 career regular-season points and recorded precisely three seasons — his first three — in which he played 50 games and averaged at least 15 points per game. He did make four All-Star teams and hit an iconic shot to beat the Lakers in the 1986 Western Conference finals, and a series of unfortunate injuries limited him during his career and forced its premature end. Still, there is no standard under which an NBA-only Hall of Fame would admit Sampson. He’s in mostly because of his legendary college career at Virginia, where his play convinced NBA higher-ups he would revolutionize the game and had Celtics honcho Red Auerbach traveling to Charlottesville after Sampson’s freshman year to try to persuade the big fella to enter the 1980 draft — in which Boston had the top pick. (Auerbach failed, and the Celtics ended up using that pick to swing a franchise-altering megadeal that netted Robert Parish and Kevin McHale.)

    The focus on guys like Sampson is fine. The Hall of Fame is for the general sport of basketball, not the NBA, and it’s fun to have contributors from across the world housed in one place. But that has left a particular group of NBA players out in the cold — the guys who score somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 points, make a couple of All-Star teams, fail to really distinguish themselves as elite defenders/rebounders/passers and go through their careers without playing a prominent role on a truly memorable championship team.

    A ton of names fit this bill — Eddie Johnson, Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, Glen Rice, Walter Davis, Bernard King, Terry Cummings, Reggie Theus, Dale Ellis, Lou Hudson, Cliff Robinson, Mitch Richmond, Mark Aguirre and many others. Some of those guys made more than a couple of All-Star teams (Hudson and Richmond made six each, for instance), and some (Richmond and Rice) won single rings as role players on top-heavy Lakers teams. Aguirre was a key member of two championship teams in Detroit, scored more career points than Hall of Famer Chris Mullin and barely gets a sniff from Springfield; the player the Pistons dealt away for him at Isiah Thomas’ urging, Adrian Dantley, is in the Hall, in part because he reached a sheer number of points (more than 23,000) voters simply cannot ignore. (He was also a fantastic player.)

    Here’s a quick look at a few current players who are going to finish their careers soon and end up somewhere in this Hall of Fame Netherworld Spectrum. The focus is on players clearly at the tail end of their NBA careers: Those in their mid-30s whose minutes and/or level of play are in obvious decline. If a qualified mid-30s player is not listed here, that means they are a Hall of Fame lock.

    The Big-Name Stars
    • Grant Hill: Hill is going to get in, even though a series of devastating ankle injuries limited him to six truly dominant seasons at the start of his career — a streak that ended right after he signed a massive free-agent contract with the Magic during the same summer spending bonanza that netted the next guy on this list. But Hill was one of the league’s top half-dozen or so players during that six-season stretch, and he has since reinvented himself as an effective two-way third/fourth option on the wing. He’ll approach 18,000 career points, and when you toss in a storied college career at Duke — including authorship of the best inbounds pass in basketball history — Hill meets the Springfield criteria.

    • Tracy McGrady: Covered here. McGrady’s apex was incredible, peaking with a 2002-03 season that ranks among the best in the sport’s history. At top form, McGrady shot 45 percent, hit an above-average percentage from three-point range, sported perhaps the best wing passing skills in the pre-LeBron James era and even bought in on defense — most famously in the 2005 playoffs, when McGrady guarded Dirk Nowitzki effectively as a depleted Rockets team pushed the Mavericks to seven games in a losing effort. But his career is littered with ugly stuff: the departures from Toronto and Orlando, announcing his intention to undergo microfracture surgery in 2009 before even telling the Rockets, laughing on the bench as Detroit mutinied against coach John Kuester, etc.

    Will all of that, plus his relatively early fall from elite status, keep him out of Springfield? He’ll probably end up with close to 19,000 points, seven All-Star appearances and zero postseason series wins.

    • Vince Carter: Covered at length last year at this time. Assuming Allen Iverson gets in at some point, Carter, with more than 21,000 points already, stands a chance at being the all-time highest ABA/NBA scorer on the outside.

    • Manu Ginobili: He’s absolutely going to get in, and he should. Ginobili’s already 35 and cracked 10,000 career points only last season, but voters are smart enough to see the context behind those numbers and the paltry two All-Star Games. Ginobili came into the league late, at 25, after dominating the Euroleague; worked as the best player on an Argentina team that won gold in the 2004 Olympics and beat Team USA twice; and has won three titles under an NBA coach who prioritizes minutes management above regular-season numbers. Ginobili is an all-around hoops genius, and a Springfield no-brainer.

    The Defenders
    • Marcus Camby: He’s played in the league forever and been an elite rebounder and shot-blocker for his entire career. He’s 40th in the NBA in total rebounds, but that undersells his glass-eating; Camby is fifth in total rebounding rate, which measures the percentage of rebounds a player grabs while on the floor. He is also a nifty passer for a big man, and could actually score in double figures for the first half of his career before morphing into the offensive nonentity (outside of rebounding) he is now. If Dennis Rodman can get in, why can’t Camby?

    For one, Rodman won five rings as part of two legendary NBA teams — the Bad Boy Pistons and the post-baseball Jordan Bulls. He started for the 1995-96 Bulls, who went 72-10 and are in the “greatest team ever” conversation. Rodman could defend wing players early in his career, and his rebounding numbers are off the charts, even in comparison to players like Camby and Dwight Howard. He is the greatest rebounder in league history, by a significant margin. Camby also helped lift UMass to prominence, including a Final Four run, but the school ultimately had to vacate that season’s record after it was revealed Camby received improper benefits from an agent.

    • Ben Wallace: Wallace is No. 8 in the NBA in rebounding rate, won a ring as part of a Detroit team that played in six straight conference finals, made five straight first-team All-Defensive teams and guarded Shaquille O’Neal decently during the 2004 Finals. But his career got off to a slow start, with three fairly low-minutes seasons in Washington, and it has ended with unspectacular (but solid) play in Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit again. Wallace was a horrid free-throw shooter and less of an offensive threat than Camby, but he made up for it to some degree with nasty screen-setting and decent passing.

    The “Clutch” Winners
    • Chauncey Billups: Voters love Finals MVPs, and though Billups never quite lived up to the “Mr. Big Shot” moniker — his clutch numbers are pretty average overall — he did make some huge shots for the Pistons, upgraded Denver as soon as he got there and has won universal respect as a locker-room leader. He could finish with close to 17,000 points and a PER around 19.0 — a top-100 mark — if he stays healthy and productive for two more seasons. He has remained very efficient as his athleticism declines by focusing almost entirely on threes and free throws. A five-time All-Star and a solid, smart defender during his prime, Billups has had trouble cracking the All-NBA teams with so many elite point guards, old and young, scattered around the league. Gun to my head, I bet Billups gets in.

    • Jason Terry: This is my pet case, if only because Terry’s Hall of Fame credentials are starting to sneak up on people. Terry has 16,487 career regular-season points, so if he can manage just 1,000 per year over the next three seasons in Boston, he’ll begin to approach the territory at which voters at least take a second look — even if Terry’s 17.5 career PER is not on pace to crack the top 150 (minimum: 15,000 minutes played). He’ll likely finish third all-time in made three-pointers–and with zero All-Star appearances, an obvious disqualifier. Terry’s size means that teams have to hide him a bit on defense, but he has always been a wily defender and has survived in Dallas’ complex hybrid zone defenses — not the easiest thing to master.

    Terry’s contributions on the other end have probably been underrated. He’s a terrific shooter who can work the pick-and-roll, and players with that skill set are enormously difficult to guard. Dallas’ offense has just about always improved by massive margins with Terry on the floor, and while lineup combinations have something to do with that, Terry’s skill set does, too. He hasn’t always been clutch (check his early postseason numbers), but he has been a steady late-game player for a team that has regularly outperformed expectations in close games. His work in the 2011 playoffs, especially the clinching game of the Finals, was exemplary, including 44 percent shooting from long range.

    Terry probably isn’t going to get serious attention without another title in Boston, but his career may at least make for a fun argument one or two beers into a Friday night.

    Somehow Doesn’t Pass The Smell Test
    • Elton Brand: True story: Every player in NBA/ABA history with a career PER above 21.0 and at least 15,000 minutes played has either made the Hall of Fame or hasn’t come up for eligibility yet. Brand’s career PER is 21.30. He also averaged at least 20 points and nine rebounds in six of his first eight seasons and came close in other two. He was a brutally efficient low-post scorer, ranked in the top 10 in PER in three seasons and has evolved into a stout defender. Depending on his longevity and role, he has an outside shot at 20,000 career points.

    But through no fault of his own, Brand hasn’t played on any great teams, and his production has tailed off since a mid-career Achilles injury. He won’t maintain that 21-plus PER as he ages.

    • Richard Hamilton: Rip averaged between 17 and 20 points per game for 10 straight seasons and was the most reliable scorer on those Detroit teams that made six consecutive conference finals. His trade from the Wizards to the Pistons was one of the central moves in the construction of that team because Hamilton, unlike Jerry Stackhouse (who went to Washington in that deal), could thrive off the ball. Hamilton was a decent defender in his prime but never an especially good one, and he was an underrated passer who could run a nice pick-and-roll on the wing and drop the ball to big men as he caught the ball sprinting around a pick. Just three All-Star Games and zero All-NBA appearances. Never developed a reliable three-point shot. Won a title at UConn, but still seems destined for the Hall of Fame netherworld.

    • Jerry Stackhouse: He was on the flip side of that Washington-Detroit trade, and like Hamilton, Stackhouse butted heads with Michael Jordan in his desire to emerge as a star in his own right. He’s hanging on to an NBA career with 16,000-plus career points, but he has never been an accurate shooter (career 40.9 percent from the floor), and his efficiency fell off a cliff when he couldn’t draw the heaps of free throws that sustained him during prime years. Had his chance at a ring in Dallas, as a pre-Terry sixth man, but never got it. Was never quite special as a passer or defender. A tough, tough dude and hoops junkie who just doesn’t have enough on the résumé.

    • Shawn Marion: Don’t laugh. Marion has nearly 16,000 career points, a championship ring on a memorable Dallas team and worked as a key third-option type on the Seven Seconds or Less Suns that rejuvenated offense around the league. He’s a four-time All-Star who has also piled up some nice rebounding numbers; his career rebounding rate is just about the same as Pau Gasol’s. He’s always taken care of the ball, and has developed into an elite defender capable of guarding four positions. It’s puzzling that Marion has never made a single All-Defensive team, especially as Kobe Bryant (at another position, I realize) continues to make them on an outdated reputation. Marion’s ability to play both forward positions has made him enormously valuable, capable of playing in several different kinds of first- and second-unit lineups.

    And yet, aside from some unmemorable time in Toronto and his work on the 2005-06 Suns, Marion has rarely been even the second option on his teams. That Suns team did have a conference finals run without Amar’e Stoudemire, their real second option, but it got that far only because the league’s silly seeding rules had by far the two best teams — Dallas and San Antonio — meet in the second round.

    • Jermaine O’Neal: Elite two-way big men deserve extra credit. Other than true top-five superstars, they are the most valuable commodity in the league, and for a bit longer than a half-decade, O’Neal was a very, very good two-way big. But he missed significant time during two seasons of that prime stretch, and his peak just didn’t last long enough or reach high enough highs to warrant serious Hall consideration. He has slightly more than 12,000 points, and it’s unclear how much he has left in the tank after a series of injuries limited him to just 34 games over the last two years in Boston.

    • Andre Miller: Miller is 10th all-time in assists, a basketball professor with a unique understanding of how to create space, generate the best kind of shot attempts (threes and layups) for teammates and work the post. Perhaps the greatest lob passer in NBA history. Miller is also an uneven defender, owns a middling (by Hall standards) 17.84 PER and has never won a playoff series in the NBA.

    • Antawn Jamison: The new Lakers’ forward is going to blow past 20,000 points this season, and if he stays healthy for another couple of years, he will get into that points territory in which guys nearly automatically gain entry to the Hall. But I don’t buy it. Big men have to provide defense, and Jamison has teetered between “average” and “disastrous” during most of his career, falling into the latter category for the last half-decade or so. His inability to even pretend to guard Kevin Garnett is one of the two or three biggest reasons the Celtics upset Cleveland in the conference semifinals in 2010, setting off a chain of events that has reshaped the league. Jamison is a funky scorer and has developed into a league-average three-point shooter, but he’s not a Hall of Famer.

    • Baron Davis: We all love Baron Davis. We all enjoyed the 2007 “We Believe” Warriors. He’s smart, funny, thoughtful — a great interview. In three or four healthy, productive seasons during a much longer career, Davis played point guard with a combination of destructive force, fun spirit and passing genius we’ve seldom seen. It’s just not close to enough for a Springfield case.

    • Derek Fisher: Only because it will come up: No. Fisher has hit some monstrous shots en route to five titles with the Lakers, including the 0.4 shot against San Antonio, the tying and clinching shots in Game 5 of the 2009 Finals and an improbable series of baskets late in Game 3 of the 2010 Finals in Boston to swing that game — and that series. And there is precedent, in the form of K.C. Jones and others, for letting in low-scoring members of dynastic teams. But Fisher was a limited role player on two mini-dynasties set apart by a half-dozen seasons, and he has been a below-average player his entire career. And just to reiterate: Bernard King is not in the Hall of Fame. Fisher’s had a nice career and his stewardship of the players’ union will win him gravitas points, but he’s not a Hall of Famer.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

  • #2
    Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

    The Big-Name Stars
    • Grant Hill: probably
    • Tracy McGrady: He deserves. Poor guy, injuries killed him
    • Vince Carter: Probably
    • Manu Ginobili: Yes

    The Defenders
    • Marcus Camby: Ehh.. Sure, he was decent. But if Mutombo didn't get in than this guy shouldn't
    • Ben Wallace: Mutombo again

    The “Clutch” Winners
    • Chauncey Billups: Yes. I think he was the best player on the thug pistons team, done ***** with team USA, he deserves it
    • Jason Terry: NOOOOOOOOOOO

    Somehow Doesn’t Pass The Smell Test
    • Elton Brand: no
    • Richard Hamilton: No! Who's nominated next? Richard Jefferson?
    • Jerry Stackhouse: hmm maybe
    • Shawn Marion: Maybe, if times get real bad
    • Jermaine O’Neal: no
    • Andre Miller: not HOF talent, but might have gotten in if he were part of a champ team
    • Antawn Jamison: lol?
    • Baron Davis: lol no
    • Derek Fisher: NO
    Originally posted by Piston Prince
    Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
    "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

      They forgot to mention Robert Horry I think there is a chance for him to be in, Iverson is in for sure, Fishers maybe because of all the championships.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

        The HOF is even more of a joke if Horry gets in, yes he made some clutch shots but talent wise he is a slightly better 90's-mid aughts version of Kyle Korver, for God's sake his career average ppg is 7.0! That's like barely a point more than Ben Wallace, who isn't even expected to be a decent scorer.
        Last edited by idioteque; 09-09-2012, 05:22 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

          Wow, Hall of very good I guess

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

            Just eyeballing it, the vast consensus of those players shouldn't get it. They were good players, but not great (granted the basketball hall of fame factors in collegiate careers, etc.).

            I'd say Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Manu and Billups.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

              Manu and McGrady are the only two that should be considered, with Billups being on the bubble.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                Are are we ignoring KG, Pierce, and Kidd because we think they are absolute locks or because they aren't at the end of the road yet?


                Carmel HS Class of 2011

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                  What about Nash? I think he needs to be in.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                    Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
                    Are are we ignoring KG, Pierce, and Kidd because we think they are absolute locks or because they aren't at the end of the road yet?
                    They are getting ignored because everybody knows they are in.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                      Kidd is a lock? Ok, you guys have low standards.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Kidd is a lock? Ok, you guys have low standards.
                        Uh?



                        edit: Just look at his career awards:

                        Rookie of the year, 10 NBA All Stars, 5 all NBA first teams, 4 NBA all defensive teams, 5th NBA assist leader, NBA Champion, 3rd place for regular season triple doubles, second in playoffs triple doubles, 3rd all time three point leader, yep more than enough numbers an awards for him to be in the Hall of Fame.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 09-09-2012, 07:53 PM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Kidd is a lock? Ok, you guys have low standards.
                          Really? To me Kidd is prominent in the conversation of best PGs in the last 20 years. Why not?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                            Kidd and Nash are both locks.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Which players nearing the end of the road will get the Hall call?

                              Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                              Really? To me Kidd is prominent in the conversation of best PGs in the last 20 years. Why not?
                              this.
                              Kidd, Nash, KG, Pierce, Ray Allen, Kobe, Tim, Wade, Dirk, Ben Wallace are pretty much locks (speaking of over-30 players). I don't think that all of them will get in on the first ballot (I think Big Ben and Pierce/Ray might end up waiting a little bit), but I'd bet money that they'll be in.

                              There are also multiple players I think are bound to make it (eventually) because of their combination of NBA and international careers. Manu, Pau, Tony Parker, Peja Stojakovic.

                              Then there's Chauncey Billups, T-Mac, Vince and Grant Hill, I'd give them ~50% chance, with Chauncey and T-Mac more likely than the other two.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X