IMO the Hall of Fame is kinda a sham..In my mind the HOF should be for the elite of the elite..the best of the best. They alot of cats in the Hall and linin' up to get in the Hall that shouldn't be there. The Hall of Fame should be extremely tough to get into...it should be for cats that changed the game of basketball or were the absolute elite at their position. It should be extrememly hard to make it in the Hall of Fame. The way it's set-up right now it should be renamed the Hall Of Achievement or the Hall Of Good & Great.... Requirements? <ul> [*]Retired from the game for 5 years(should apply to coaches and players) [*]A group of respected and elite players and coaches should be formed into a panel to review each prospective HOF member. [*]Stats shouldn't be an automatic entrance into the Hall;some cats had extraordinary stats but they were ordinary as players. [*]Longevity shouldn't be as big of an impact either,lots of guys play forever but never distinguish themselves. [*]It should be the absolute top tier of the best of the best. [/list] There are a TON of guys that shouldn't be there or shouldn't really be considered...here are a few and the reasons why..... David Thompson - he was a true high flyer and could score,but his career was shortened by drugs and he never truly lifted his team to any type of championship level. Good player but elite of the elite? no. David Bing - He was a great player in his day,could score with ease and take it to the rack with the best of the 'em. But other than 2-3 he was among the average of the league. Good player but elite of the elite? no. Artis Gilmore - He was a great player but was never in any one season truly the best in the game. Had a long fruitful career but isn't the elite of the elite by no means. ...Like I said,it should be extremely tough to get into the Hall and a look at alot of names enshrined in the Hall aren't worthy for an institution reserved for the Elite. Like Dick Vitale,why would he be enshrined he has done nothing on the basketball court of any real substance other than go like 30-60 in two pro seasons. Another thing,college players shouldn't be allowed into the Hall..this Hall would be for the professionals only. My first ballet would like this...10 players and 1 coach. Wilt Chamberlain Bill Russell George Mikan Kareem Abdul Jabbar Oscar Robertson Bob Cousy Larry Bird Jerry West Magic Johnson Julius Erving Red Auerbach Each one of these guys were the elite in the their day and they are absolutely the elite of the elite of the guys eligible for the Hall. I just think the Hall Of Fame is a sham the way it's set as of right now...they let too many people in and the requirements are nowhere near as tough as they should be..... Look at the current HOF selection process. It isn't boiled down to elite players,in fact I'm bound to say that alot of it may come down to 'basketball politics considering who some of the Selection Committee people are...anyway,have a look... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Guidelines For Nomination and Election Into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame ELIGIBILITY Candidates must meet the following requirements in order to be eligible for Enshrinement into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (hereafter BHOF): Player: A player must be fully retired for five years before being eligible for Enshrinement. He/she may then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement. Should a player come out of retirement for a short period of time, as defined by the BHOF, his/her case and eligibility for Enshrinement shall be reviewed on an individual basis. Coach: A coach must be either fully retired for five years or, if still an active coach, have coached as either a fulltime assistant or head coach on the high school and/or college and/or professional level for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of active coaching. Referee: A referee must be fully retired for five years or, if still an active referee, have been an active referee for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of refereeing. Contributor: A person is eligible for Enshrinement as a contributor at any time for significant contributions to the game of basketball. What constitutes a "significant contribution" shall be determined by the BHOF, its Screening Committee(s) or Honors Committee(s). NOMINATION PROCESS A Nomination Packet consists of a completed nomination form procured from the BHOF, one letter of support from the person making the nomination (other letters will not be reviewed), and news clippings, magazine articles or other informative, factual data about the candidate. This material shall be submitted to the Director of New Media/Library Services of the BHOF during the period beginning October 1 and ending Dec 2. All nominees with completed nomination materials are presented to the appropriate Screening Committee for review. SCREENING COMMITTEES There are four Screening Committees: 1. USA; 2. Women; 3. Veterans (an individual whose career ended 35 years before his/her nomination); and 4. International. These Committees will review and recommend individuals to be reviewed for Enshrinement by the Honors Committee. Each Screening Committee is composed of seven people. To advance to the Honors Committee, an individual requires five affirmative votes from the applicable Screening Committee. If an individual does not receive a single affirmative vote for three consecutive years (0-21) that person's candidacy is suspended for five years after which time he/she may again start the process of being reviewed by a Screening Committee. There is no limitation on the number of years a person can be considered for Enshrinement by a Screening Committee unless that person does not receive a single vote for three consecutive years. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES After the vote of the Screening Committees, those candidates who are recommended to be put forth to the Honors Committee will first be reviewed by the BHOF Board of Trustees. At this time, should it be determined by the Board of Trustees that an individual has damaged the integrity of the game of basketball, he or she shall be deemed not worthy of Enshrinement and removed from consideration. HONORS COMMITTEE The purpose of the Honors Committee is to review carefully a candidate's basketball record before casting a vote in favor of Enshrining the person into the BHOF. There are 24 people on each of the four Honors Committees. A core group of 12 people sit on all four committees. Twelve specialists are then added to the International Committee while 12 others are added to the Women's Committee. Twelve other specialists review both the Veterans Committee and the USA Committee. These specialists have an intimate understanding of the specific category of play considered by their committee. A person needs a minimum of 18 votes from an Honors Committee to be Enshrined into the BHOF. If the Honors Committee has not elected a candidate for five consecutive years, the person's candidacy will be suspended for five years and will not be considered during this time. Following this five-year period, the candidate will be eligible to be reconsidered by the appropriate Screening Committee.</div> Selection Committe Link ..By reading these standards its clear there is no real 'requirement' for entrance in the Hall. It's just whoever these experts think belongs there and by some of the people in the HOF we can safely say some of these people don't really have a clue as to what a Hall Of Fame truly is. Here is the gist of my idea. Say there are 4 different branchs to the Hall Of Fame <Players/Coaches/Personel/Broadcasting>. For each section there would be a rigid screening process to scout out people who indeed meet minimum qualifications to be accepted and of these they are to pick the absolute best from that group to elected to the Hall. But it's my contention that each group should judged by their perspective peers;meaning that the panel of Selection Committee members should be culled from the current living members of each section of the Hall. The selection process itself should have very rigid guidelines in place as to where each person being looked at is gone over with much scrutiny to make sure that they meet the bare minimum of requirements. In fact I have an idea.... Basketballreference.com has something they call the Hall Of Fame Monitor. This thing guages players based on cumilative stats and awards which are themselves awarded points and then totaled up. By using this we could maybe figure out a rough sketch of what the elite players should be judged against. The current number that is used from the HOF Monitor score,to judge HOF caliber players,is 135. By using this number it allows people to be eligible for the Hall when they haven't really done alot to deserve recognition in an institution reserved for the very elite of the sport. If we raise the bar to 200 we then cull out 70% of the people that are 'eligible' under this system...the system goes like this... <u>The Formula</u> <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list] Link for further,indepth explaination of the formula here is the list of 30 that meet this 200 score requirement... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1. Kareem Abdul-jabbar 836* 2. Michael Jordan 733 3. Wilt Chamberlain 653* 4. Bill Russell 633* 5. Magic Johnson 551* 6. Larry Bird 530* 7. Karl Malone 505 8. Bob Pettit 465* 9. Moses Malone 454* 10. Oscar Robertson 412* 11. Bob Cousy 365* 12. Tim Duncan 364 13. Hakeem Olajuwon 340 14. Charles Barkley 319 15. Jerry West 319* 16. Shaquille O'neal 313 17. Elgin Baylor 311* 18. Julius Erving 296* 19. David Robinson 294 20. John Havlicek 224* 21. Wes Unseld 223* 22. Bob Mcadoo 222* 23. Dolph Schayes 222* 24. George Gervin 215* 25. Rick Barry 212* 26. Elvin Hayes 211* 27. Allen Iverson 207 28. Dave Cowens 207* 29. Willis Reed 206* 30. Walt Frazier 201*</div>Link to HOF Monitor list ..if you look at this list you can clearly see that these guys are truly the cream of the elite crop. Of course even with this process you would have to go over it with a fine toothed comb and weed out some people that still dont belong,even though that got a high enough cumilative score. Also you'd have to make allowances for some people whose scores didn't quite reach 200 but were indeed,very much,elite players. I think the requirements should be so strict that the very good players have an extremely slim-to-no chance of getting in. And like I said earlier the selection committees should represent each section of the Hall not just 'officials' at large like it seems. Bottom line...the Hall Of Fame is for absolute very elite of the sport and requirements should meet that standard and reflect an institution that only inducts said types of players/coaches/officials/broadcasters all from the professional ranks. <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list]
I agree they let too many guys in, it isn't as special anymore. All of the guys in it were great players, but I also think it should only be for the elite- the best of the best. Guys like James Worthy were great players, but I don't think those guys should be in it *no disrespect to them because I still do believe they were great players.* I would just rather see the best of all-time in there, like the guys you mentioned. If the pace continues and all these guys keep getting added to the HOF, it won't even be that special anymore.
Why so many points for MVP? Jason Kidd has never won an NBA MVP award, yet, by the end of his career, I would call him a Hall of Fame PG. I agree with the fact that too many players get in. But it will not change now because they will not kick players out. Guys like Vitale get in not for basketball skills, or coaching, but for what they have done for basketball.
I see that you have revised this since the last time u posted it I agree that tightening the HOF standards would make it much more prestigious. However, like the guy above me said, what's done is done, and it would be difficult to change it now. What I think they should do is install a new entity into the HOF reserved for "the elite of the elite" with the requirements you listed. They should be given a title that distinguishes them from the "average" HOfers. For Example, when MJ is eligible and makes it, we could say he is a "HOFer with high honors" or something to that effect, while guys like David Thompson are just HOFers. I also have a question...you say that college players should not be included, what do you think about women players and international players? It is the "basketball HOF" and not the "NBA HOF" so that's one for thought.
Stockton never won league MVP's either, but he remains arguably the best pure point guard in history.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Stockton never won league MVP's either, but he remains arguably the best pure point guard in history.</div> Exactly. Never won an MVP, or a championship. But if his point total comes up real low, are you going to deny him? No.
How many people do they let into the Hall each year? Sometimes people can get in out of necessity (i.e. a weak year of eligible nominees) rather than because they were truly elite.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ANiMuS:</div><div class="quote_post">How many people do they let into the Hall each year? Sometimes people can get in out of necessity (i.e. a weak year of eligible nominees) rather than because they were truly elite.</div> I don't think there is a set number...they just vote in the people they feel deserves it.
I think guys like Artis Gilmore & David Thompson are in the hall of fame because when the NBA combined with the ABA in the late 1970's, along with others, were the players who had a huge impact on the way basketball was played from the late 70's until now. The contribution of the great ABA players on the NBA & basketball period cant be measured by championships in the eye of the Hall of Fame selection committe. Alot of guys are in the hall of fame for their influence on basketball culture & style. And there are alot of former NBA players who are in the Hall of Fame as much or more for their college career. A guy like Bill Walton, yes he has championship on the NBA level. But his NBA # arent Hall of Fame, his NBA career was filled with injuries. He really a Hall of Framer & praised imo because of his career at UCLA. So inorder for the NBA to seperate their true greats, maybe they need to come up with a seperate Hall of Fame. You only allow NBA players/Coaches in. No announcers, No referees, No basketball newpaper writers/reporters etc. Then you can get more strict about championships & indiviual accomplishments on a NBA level. And then you can limit the # to only the truely great NBA players.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting notMuchgame:</div><div class="quote_post">I also have a question...you say that college players should not be included, what do you think about women players and international players? It is the "basketball HOF" and not the "NBA HOF" so that's one for thought.</div> Well,I think there should be seperate Halls Of Fame...Amatuer and Pro...I look at the Hall and see some of the coaches in there and people and it makes me wonder if they even have standards. I just think the Hall Of Fame should stand head and shoulders above everything as a Pantheon of the greatest of the great.
I disagree with the MVP points being so much higher than anything else. What about the amount of greats who were in the league while MJ was playing - here you have guys like Olajuwon, Robinson, Barkley, Malone etc, all of whom are having MVP calibre seasons year after year, but they are disadvantaged by playing with the greatest player of them all. The MVP is a media vote anyway. Career numbers should be the defnining factor IMO. John Stockton isn't in your list, yet his numbers are arguably the greatest of all time for a point guard. Maybe a certain amount of points each time a player reaches a certain plateau - such as every 1000 points, every 500 rebounds, every 200 assists etc. Offensive rebounds worth more than defensive rebounds, assists worth more than points etc.
Like everyone said, MVP status should matter, but not that much. To not include John Stockton in the Hall of Fame is a sham in itself. A separate hall of fame would be feasible, but I highly doubt it'll ever happen.
I think it should also have something to do with the way the player conducted themselves, on and off the court. Larry Bird was a class act, Allen Iverson, is quite the contrary. It should be a point system, and once you pass that, it should be up to a panel of judges, elected by the people.
Great post Dre. I think the NBA tried to distinguish the greats of the HOF with some of the less talented players by releasing the Top 50 players of All Time. Of course the list is very debatable as to who the Top 50 actually are. I think the point system works to center extent, but there are some intangibles you cannot measure with the system. For example, a pioneer player like Drazen Petrovic, wouldn't even come close to being considered a member of the HOF if it was just a standard point procedure because of his tragic accident. Players who had their careers shortened by hardship or injuries would be overlooked. Despite the short comings of a standardized point system, I do agree the HOF needs to be more strict with who they allow in it. It has lost some of it's luster over the last few years and I think a lot of it has to do with self promotion by allowing new members to the fraternity and a lot of outside politics and influence for the nominees.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jamesshieh88:</div><div class="quote_post">the title of being in the HOF isnt as prestigious with so many people in the HOF</div> Care to elaborate and offer some examples?
Bill Walton in HOF Do you guys think that Bill Walton should be a hall of famer. I mean the guy was a great player undoubtedly, but too many injuries. He averaged just 47 games a year, and 13 points and 10 boards a game. For a guy with just over 6000 career points I don't think he should be in the hall.
IMO people were in love with his college career at UCLA,so thats why they praised him so much despite him having an average NBA career imo. I think due to his college career he should be in the Hall of Fame. You cant agrue that he is probably a top 10 college player of all-time. But he shouldnt be on the NBA top 50 players list. Dominque & Bernard King are two of the players left off the list that I think deserve to be their over Walton.
Without a doubt he had one of the greatest college careers. I definately agree with you that he was not one of the top 50 nba players of all time.
