Listing players in their third year less is a completely useless thing. Why not say JR Smith is HOF Bound? I mean, why dont you just thow Pervis Ellison in there too? He was pretty good his first 4 years. How do you know this is not the way Amare, Lebron or Wade will go? http://www.basketballreference.com/players...ilkid=EllisPe01 Why not put Robert Horry in the HOF? He has more rings than any other player in the League right now. No, he has never been a "Star" like Shaq, Hakeem, or Tim Duncan, but he has always been a winner. Iverson in the HOF? Of course, he is an amazing talent, and he has won. Winning scoring titles, MVP's, and taking your team to the NBA finals is something that gets you a spot. People mention Vince Carter; but to be honest I can't remember the last time Vince was out of the first round? Yes he scores, yes he dunks, but does he really win? Jason Kidd turned the Nets from the bottom of the Eastern Conference to the NBA Finals in 2 years. He can play the game in a way that very few people can, with a pass. He is HOF. What about Grant Hill? He did all the same things as Kidd; maybe he didn't bring the Pistons to the Finals, but he had a lot less to work with then Kid did.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post">He's very good, but what makes Jason Kidd a Hall Of Fame player.....He had his best years with New Jersey, and that wasn't very long. Especially considering all the Hall of Famers were GREAT 10 years plus. I know it's knit picky, but can you actually put Kidd alongside Magic, Isiah, and Stocton. These guys were winners they're whole career.</div> Kidd didn't have his best days in only New Jersey. Go look at his stats while he was in Phoenix and Dallas and tell me that they are not good.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He's very good, but what makes Jason Kidd a Hall Of Fame player.....He had his best years with New Jersey, and that wasn't very long. Especially considering all the Hall of Famers were GREAT 10 years plus. I know it's knit picky, but can you actually put Kidd alongside Magic, Isiah, and Stocton. These guys were winners they're whole career.</div> So you're throwing out every year from 1994 to 2000? I mean, he's only been on the NBA First Team FIVE TIMES, which is the total of First Teams of Kobe and TMac combined, and he's led the league in assists five times as well. You act like he just came out of nowhere, but he was the Rookie of the Year in 1995 and has been an All-Star almost every year since 1996. And he hasn't been a winner? For four years in a row, Phoenix finished #3 in the West and since he has been in New Jersey, they've been one of the top teams in the East (minus this year when he was hurt), even winning it twice. Personally, I think Kidd's best years were in Phoenix, but if you can't remember that far back, then maybe you'd say that he's only been good since he's been in New Jersey.
Kidd has done his thing all throughout his career. One can make the argument he was even better before his Jersey days. He just proved how great a point guard he is even more when he took a lottery team to the Finals for back-to-back years. He even almost lead the Nets over the Pistons two years ago. They took it to Game 7 in the 03-04 season. Also, look at Kenyon Martin when he was in New Jersey to when he was in Denver. Kidd is the best point guard in the game because he makes his teammates look like stars and takes the team to higher levels. Make no mistake about it: with the exception of Stockton and Magic, Kidd is the best point guard in NBA history. Of course he's going into the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't even be a debate.
I'm not saying that he ain't done some amazing things in his career. But when I look at other point guard hall of famers, I question putting Kidd in that class. I think he's a had a very good career, but can you say that Kidd's career is GREAT. He's definitley the point guard of his era, but does he stack up against the GREATS? That's all I'm asking.......
First off, Rock4life should be banned. Second off, anyone who doesn't want Iverson in the HALL OF FAME is simply a hater. SIMPLE.
I agree there should be no debate over Jason Kidd. But right now, no one should question Kobe or Garnett either. Kobes been on 1st team numerous times on defense and offense just like Garnett. 100 percent for sure: Kobe Shaq TD KG JKidd GP AI Thats all I can say for sure for now but there is a high probability that Amare Lebron Dwayne will eventually make it, but you never know they havent proven themselves year in and year out yet....
I agree there should be no debate over Jason Kidd. But right now, no one should question Kobe or Garnett either. Kobes been on 1st team numerous times on defense and offense just like Garnett. 100 percent for sure: Kobe Shaq TD KG JKidd GP AI Thats all I can say for sure for now but there is a high probability that Amare Lebron Dwayne will eventually make it, but you never know they havent proven themselves year in and year out yet....
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">Since when is Nash a shoe-in? Career averages of 13 points and seven assists a game, a couple of All-Star appearances, no rings and one MVP award. I don't think he's HOF worthy yet, before last season people would have laughed at the mere suggestion. I think you need more than one season to change that.</div> Voodoo Child Since when? Since he won the MVP, that's when. I think the MVP should be like an automatic invitation to the hall. It's true that he hasn't had the best long-term success, but the Hall of Fame is not necessarily a place for the players who have had the best careers. In fact, there are lots of people in the Hall of Fame who have never played professional basketball in their life. How can you say that Dave Cowens is justified as a Hall of Famer yet deny Steve Nash his right to make it in? -voodoo child I am going to take Sir Desmond's Side on this one. Steve at this point in his career is certainly not a Hall of Famer. Yes he won an MVP but it is a hotly debated topic on who actually deserved it (Shaq). Some MVPs such as Bob Mcadoo, took forever to get into the HOF. Nash may get there but he had one great year along with several good years. If he puts up the same numbers as he did this year for a couple of years then he will deserve to be in the HOF. BY the way Dave Cowens deserved to be in the HOF. He played center at 6-9 but he is closer to 6-7. His credentials were 18pts/gm 14 rebs over his career. He was argueably the best player on two championship teams (people will argue for John Havlicek). Cowens was also voted to NBA Top 50 team. His credentials put him in the HOF. Steve Nash is not Dave Cowens.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting RuN WiT iT:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, Rock4life should be banned. Second off, anyone who doesn't want Iverson in the HALL OF FAME is simply a hater. SIMPLE.</div> lol.....Some of you are so sensitive, do you need a hug? Don't like somebody too critical of your favorite player, ban him, that's it. However, Iverson isn't Hall Of Fame material. You and others make the silly mistake of just comparing AI to the people of this era. When you compare him to other Hall of Fame Guards, it's a legitimate question whether he belongs. But since your an Iverson "Stan", you refuse to even have this debate. The next thing you'll probabaly say is the Sixers are going to the championship..........Let me know when you wake up son Kobe's a shoe in. He's head over heals better than any guard right now, has played incredible on all stages, and has 3 rings to fall back on. He's the best guard outside of MJ. To me, a hall of famer has to DOMINATE on every stage. Garnett hasn't done that. He could go to the Finals this year, and CHOKE. We still have to see if KG can come through. I love the guy, but we're talking Malone, Mchale, Moses etc...............
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post"> Kobe's a shoe in. He's head over heals better than any guard right now, has played incredible on all stages, and has 3 rings to fall back on. He's the best guard outside of MJ. To me, a hall of famer has to DOMINATE on every stage. Garnett hasn't done that. He could go to the Finals this year, and CHOKE. We still have to see if KG can come through. I love the guy, but we're talking Malone, Mchale, Moses etc...............</div> Nice one,AI dominates on every stage.He averaged 30 and 10 against a top 3 defensive team in the playoffs.Scored 55 against the Hornets few years ago,led 2001 Sixers team to finals and did anything to win but Sixers had too many injuries and Shaq was in his prime.Why are rings so important? Horry has more rings than Karl Malone,he's better? You just have to admit that you're a hater
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Martin:</div><div class="quote_post"> Nice one,AI dominates on every stage.He averaged 30 and 10 against a top 3 defensive team in the playoffs.Scored 55 against the Hornets few years ago,led 2001 Sixers team to finals and did anything to win but Sixers had too many injuries and Shaq was in his prime.Why are rings so important? Horry has more rings than Karl Malone,he's better? You just have to admit that you're a hater</div> First off, rings aren't everything. But was there ever a time you looked at John Stockton, and the Jazz and said "there going to be mediocore this year". Probably NEVER. However, I've said that multiple times about your "Hero" and his Sixers. The Sixers did go to the finals, but for the most part haven't been anything special (and won't be anything special). So you can bring up his MVP trophy from 2001, his scoring titles and all, but that's irrelevant. Hall of Fame shouldn't be judged on how many times you've dropped 50, or how many people you crossed over, it should be how good do you make your team. Overrall, has Iverson been a winner is whole career?
In his heart he's always been a winner.You said you think that a Hall of Famer should be able to dominate on every stage.Allen Iverson has done that. Ofcourse he hasn't been on a winning team every year when he's been in the League but if you'd put Stockton on the Sixers you wouldn't get the same result as AI has.Same with Isiah Thomas.Now put AI with Karl Malone or the Pistons team that won it all twice in a row and you see that the team would still be the same or even better.You couldn't say the same about the Sixers with Isiah or Stock.Ofcourse Stockton is better than AI but he had one of the best coaches for his whole career and another Hall of famer on his side. Iverson has made anything that he could to make his team a winner.This year he'll take it to another level by passing more.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Martin:</div><div class="quote_post">In his heart he's always been a winner.You said you think that a Hall of Famer should be able to dominate on every stage.Allen Iverson has done that. Ofcourse he hasn't been on a winning team every year when he's been in the League but if you'd put Stockton on the Sixers you wouldn't get the same result as AI has.Same with Isiah Thomas.Now put AI with Karl Malone or the Pistons team that won it all twice in a row and you see that the team would still be the same or even better.You couldn't say the same about the Sixers with Isiah or Stock.Ofcourse Stockton is better than AI but he had one of the best coaches for his whole career and another Hall of famer on his side. Iverson has made anything that he could to make his team a winner.This year he'll take it to another level by passing more.</div> I think your wrong. Put Isiah, or Stockton on the Sixers and the team will be much better. First off, instead of one man taking 40 shots, everybody would get atleast 10-15 shots a game. Everybody would touch the ball. Put Iverson with Malone, it'll be a trainwreck. Iverson's style of play doesn't suit well with other superstars. In order for him to be effective, he has to have the ball in his hands. Putting him on a team with another superstar won't do any justice. His "shoot till I miss" mentality isn't going to help his team get to the next level.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think your wrong. Put Isiah, or Stockton on the Sixers and the team will be much better. First off, instead of one man taking 40 shots, everybody would get atleast 10-15 shots a game. Everybody would touch the ball. Put Iverson with Malone, it'll be a trainwreck. Iverson's style of play doesn't suit well with other superstars. In order for him to be effective, he has to have the ball in his hands. Putting him on a team with another superstar won't do any justice. His "shoot till I miss" mentality isn't going to help his team get to the next level.</div> Alright, lets put Stockton on the current Sixers. The starting lineup consists of Stockton, Iguodala, Nailon, Webber, and Dalembert. Your only real threat from the bench is Korver. Are you telling me you're willing to give ten to fifteen shots a game for Iguodala (who last year had barely an offensive game), Nailon (a decent role player), Webber (played on bum knees last year), and Dalembert (weak offensive player). Apparently, Iverson's "shoot till I miss" did in fact get them to the next level when he had the right pieces put alongside him. But really, do you actually think he wants to take all those shots a game? Don't you think he would savor a season when he doens't have to handle all the pressure of holding the team together?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AznxBaller:</div><div class="quote_post">Alright, lets put Stockton on the current Sixers. The starting lineup consists of Stockton, Iguodala, Nailon, Webber, and Dalembert. Your only real threat from the bench is Korver. Are you telling me you're willing to give ten to fifteen shots a game for Iguodala (who last year had barely an offensive game), Nailon (a decent role player), Webber (played on bum knees last year), and Dalembert (weak offensive player). Apparently, Iverson's "shoot till I miss" did in fact get them to the next level when he had the right pieces put alongside him. But really, do you actually think he wants to take all those shots a game? Don't you think he would savor a season when he doens't have to handle all the pressure of holding the team together?</div> First off, taking all those shots has been something he's been doing his whole career (including college). So it's safe to say he chooses to play like that. Alot of times when people are open, he'll still throw up a brick. That's the only way he can play. That's why I don't think he's hall of fame material. If it were based on just scoring, then he'd be a shoe in. But since we have to factor in how much he's won, and what impact he's had on his team, then you have to reconsider. That "shoot till I miss" style isn't a winning style (unless coached by Larry Brown). It just ain't going to get you very far. If he were a hall of famer, he'd change his game according to the players around him. Lol. You can't blame everything on management.............
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hall of Fame shouldn't be judged on how many times you've dropped 50, or how many people you crossed over, it should be how good do you make your team.</div> So how is Kobe a shoe-in?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, rings aren't everything. But was there ever a time you looked at John Stockton, and the Jazz and said "there going to be mediocore this year". Probably NEVER. However, I've said that multiple times about your "Hero" and his Sixers. The Sixers did go to the finals, but for the most part haven't been anything special (and won't be anything special). So you can bring up his MVP trophy from 2001, his scoring titles and all, but that's irrelevant. Hall of Fame shouldn't be judged on how many times you've dropped 50, or how many people you crossed over, it should be how good do you make your team. Overrall, has Iverson been a winner is whole career?</div> What is your definition of mediocre? The 76ers have been a playofff team consistentlyl for a while now, they missed out a couple of seasons ago but besides that they have been consistent. Which brings me to my next point, all playoff teams are better than mediocre. If you make the playoffs then anything can happen, so I don't understand why you say the 76ers are only mediocre because they are and have been a solid team just not really contenders, not yet at least. So if the hall of fame is about who good your team is, then why do other hall of famers who didn't win titles deserve it compared to Allen Iverson who you say doesn't. The Pistons one the title, do any of them deserve to go to the hall of fame? Also it doesn't matter if Iverson was a winner his whole career. Uhm exactly how many players have been winners their "whole career"? MJ, nope, Kobe and Shaq no, so I don't know where you got that point from because nobody has been a winner their whole career. Overall your argument is weak by saying only the best winners can make the hall of fame, what about the players that never got the chance to play with a team capable of winning it all but was always one of the best in the league? How does your team winning justify how great of a player your are individually, the Hall of Fame is not about your teams win total or ring total, it is about what you did as an indivdual.
The only current shoe ins for the HOF off the top of my head are Shaq, Duncan, Payton, Kidd, AI, Kobe and Mutumbo. If their careers were to all end right now, every single of one of them would make the HOF.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting B-22:</div><div class="quote_post">What is your definition of mediocre? The 76ers have been a playofff team consistentlyl for a while now, they missed out a couple of seasons ago but besides that they have been consistent. Which brings me to my next point, all playoff teams are better than mediocre. If you make the playoffs then anything can happen, so I don't understand why you say the 76ers are only mediocre because they are and have been a solid team just not really contenders, not yet at least. So if the hall of fame is about who good your team is, then why do other hall of famers who didn't win titles deserve it compared to Allen Iverson</div> I'll tell you why..........because they all consistently competed for a championship. Stockton didn't win a ring, but he gave his team a chance almost every year he played. The Sixers are mediocore. Most of the East is mediocore. Anytime you can get in the playoffs with a below 500. record, that's medicore. AI had one great year in which made it to the finals, but other than that, the Sixers have been average. If your going to the Hall Of Fame, I would think how your team played would factor in. Iverson can win 25 scoring titles for all I care, but aslong as the Sixers aren't competing for a ring, then he shouldn't be in the Hall Of Fame. He's going to have to expand his game, and become more efficient. Until then, he doesn't belong......... <div class="quote_poster">Quoting B-22:</div><div class="quote_post"> Overall your argument is weak by saying only the best winners can make the hall of fame, what about the players that never got the chance to play with a team capable of winning it all but was always one of the best in the league? How does your team winning justify how great of a player your are individually, the Hall of Fame is not about your teams win total or ring total, it is about what you did as an indivdual.</div> This is you kids problem. How can it be about "individual" accomplishments, but be a "team" game? A great player not only has to step up his game, but make his teammates better also. This is where Iverson fails. He isn't much of a team player. He'll continue to score 30pts a game, but the Sixers will always be around 500. That's why I can't give him the green light. Winning has ALOT to do with it.................
