Do you think not winning a championship should count torwards whether a player makes the hall of fame? It can be thought of as maybe the player wasn't good enough to lead their team victory and therfore they don't deserve to be in. Or they could have just played in a tougher era for example.For example, if KG doesn't end up winning one, should he be considered HOF worthy?
I don't think it should be held against players for not having a ring... I mean, generally speaking the guys in the HOF have earned it with their amazing careers. A ring is definitely what everybody works towards, but there are so many other things that would go into consideration. So, no, it shouldn't really be a "requirement" to be inducted into the HOF if that is what you're asking.
I think a ring should be extra credit, but not a requirement. There is no player in the history of the game who could have won a ring in KG's situation,
The HOF is and always has been about individual performances, and contribution to the game, so no it shouldn't be a factor at all. James Naismith doesn't have a ring, and I think everyone agrees he should be in the HOF. A player or a persons contribution to the game is what matters, thats why guys who really didn't contribute that much, such as Adrian Dantley, aren't in the HOF.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Feb 27 2007, 11:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The HOF is and always has been about individual performances, and contribution to the game, so no it shouldn't be a factor at all. James Naismith doesn't have a ring, and I think everyone agrees he should be in the HOF. A player or a persons contribution to the game is what matters, thats why guys who really didn't contribute that much, such as Adrian Dantley, aren't in the HOF.</div>I agree. It's more based on personal success and what you gave to the NBA that qualifies you for HOF, not necessarily if you have a ring or not.
Absolutely not.What if Cleveland wins 3-4 rings, with Ira on the bench? So he has 3 rings now, does that mean he gets in the HOF? Helllllllllll noooooooo.I agree on individual performances, that is what it is all about when you get into the HOF.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Feb 28 2007, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think a ring should be extra credit, but not a requirement. There is no player in the history of the game who could have won a ring in KG's situation,</div>Or AI's situation....................I mean KG+AI had idiots for gm it's stupid if they did not make the HOF cause of there gm's not there fault they are not the people who hire the gm's. So this be a stupid idea there should not be a diff.
When're Karl Malone and John Stockton eligible to get in? It won't be based on that, because AI is going to get in for sure even though he probably won't have one. I mean, if it were, it'd suck for all the 90s players, because you just CAN'T get by Jordan to get the chip, so they'd be out by default. So no, it doesn't account too much toward HOF.
I don't think it should be the main deciding factor. Like Pestilence said, it should be like "extra credit." For guys like Karl Malone, John Stockton, etc. it should not make or break the decision. Those two are both top 3-5 at their position of all-time, no doubt they should be there.But for example.. say Gary Payton never played for Miami and never won that ring last year. He should still be in there, ring or not. I mean if Reggie Miller comes back and scored 6 ppg, wins a ring with Dallas.. that shouldn't be the deciding factor at all.
I think Stockton is eligible next year, I think its 5 years since you retired. the HOF class with him, Jordan, and Robinson is going to be one of the best HOF classes ever.Gary Payton gets in regaurdless, like I said its based on your contribution to the game. GP is the greatest defensive point guard ever, thats a mighty big contribution.
Yes and no. Obviously a lot of rings for guys with lesser stats (say like 17/4/9 for the career), vs. a guy with no rings and great stats (28/9/8 for the career). I'd say both guys should get in. Rings should be extra credit like someone noted, it should be able to help you, but most definitley not hurt you.
No it doesn't, because if you looke under the Hall Of Fame, you will see some names under the title, "Contributor". Wayne Embry, won a ring, made five all star teams, but was recognized for his contributions to the NBA. (Yes Im talking Wayne Embry of the Raptors ) He was the first african american GM, and the first african american sports team president. You will even see referees in the HOF.
It depends...If you are an all time great player an never win it, you should still be in the HOF.If you are just a really good player, but not great than it should count. IMO.
A championship is something that just makes a players profile look even better than it already is. If you were a great player over your career, put up great numbers, and you were a first option for alot of your career, you have a good chance of being in the hall even if you dont have a ring. For guys like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, not having won a championship isnt going to make them look any worse as a player. But if they did have it, they would look alot better...Its just a bonus IMO.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KobeBryant_24 @ Feb 28 2007, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Robert Horry has what, 9 rings?HOF in my book. "Horry, for the win, good!"-Game 4, Lakers vs. Queens</div>In no way shape or form should Robert Horry be in the hall of fame. He has 9 rings, but he wasnt a top 2 or even 3 player on any of his championship teams. He was a great role player who hit big shots in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean that he deserves to be in the hall of fame....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Feb 28 2007, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In no way shape or form should Robert Horry be in the hall of fame. He has 9 rings, but he wasnt a top 2 or even 3 player on any of his championship teams. He was a great role player who hit big shots in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean that he deserves to be in the hall of fame....</div>That's why I said, "In my book" and it was meant sarcasticly. I was giving an example of why rings shouldn't count towards the H0F.
I never said anyone like Horry deservers to be in, the topic is about whether good players such as KG or Jason Kidd for example should get into the HOF despite not having a ring. Whether it should account against them if they don't, showing they couldn't lead their team for example.
