2021 BBHOF finalists

[bruin805]

Originally Posted by deemsterz33

A good modern comp on paper is Blake Griffin

Good call. Never thought about that one.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by rman112

This is why basketball's HOF is a joke, and trails significantly behind football and baseball in terms of being taken seriously. The hall of storytelling? Come on.

What I said goes for all Hall of Fames everywhere. Not just basketball. Not just sports.

Hall of Fames are first and foremost physical locations built with the intent of people coming and learning about history.

Frankly, I’d hope card collectors would understand this better than other sports fans. You think the Joe Namath RC is the traditional most iconic football card because he was the best player?

By that same token: You think Kobe’s cards are so much more valuable than Duncan’s because Kobe was the better player?

Think again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by Pathora

I would say the class includes:

Pierce
Bosh
Wallace
Griffith
Lauren Jackson
Jay Wright

Don't know after that.

This is what I would go with. As Tallboy puts it, I am ok with waiting on Wright to have him flush out his career a bit more. I actually agree with most of what as in Tallboy's post.

Originally Posted by PelicanFly

The world is a strange place if Ben Wallace enters the HOF ahead of Billups, Webber, and Hardaway.

As a Pistons fan, Big Ben was the engine for those teams. Billups made the big shots, but Ben anchored the defense and sparked the offensive spurts with turnovers and rebounds. I think both Billups and Wallace will get in. I disagree with Rasheed. He just never did enough in my mind. He COULD have, but he was kept himself down. I would put in RIP before Sheed.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by rustywest

Huh? That's called personality, passion. Something we like to stamp out in this queefy culture nowadays. Beefing with referees is not a reason to blacklist a HOF candidate. Teammates loved Rasheed - A bad attitude is something that spills out into the locker room, not in heat of the moment bad calls/presumed bad calls.

1. I’d vote him in personally. I’m just talking about factors I know are involved in this - highly political - process.

2. If you think I’m just talking about heat of the moment on the court stuff, go Google.

3. I’m the one bringing Sheed up here. He ain’t on the list of HOF finalists. Me bringing him up was essentially a protest against how he’s already being relegated...and you’ve managed to think I’m the one with the issue simply because I’m the one who clued you in to stuff that’s been there for you to notice for years.

Maybe stop trying to shoot the messenger, eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mc1]

Ben Wallace doesnt deserve to be in the HOF.

I dont care what anybody says.

Especially not in over players like Webber or even Hardaway.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

What I said goes for all Hall of Fames everywhere. Not just basketball. Not just sports.

Hall of Fames are first and foremost physical locations built with the intent of people coming and learning about history.

Frankly, I’d hope card collectors would understand this better than other sports fans. You think the Joe Namath RC is the traditional most iconic football card because he was the best player?

By that same token: You think Kobe’s cards are so much more valuable than Duncan’s because Kobe was the better player?

Think again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Namath changed the direction of professional football by bringing legitimacy to the AFL. Wallace.. went to a small school and was undrafted?

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by rman112

Namath changed the direction of professional football by bringing legitimacy to the AFL. Wallace.. went to a small school and was undrafted?

1. All analogies break, by definition. We wouldn't use them to describe two things that are completely identical. We use them to allow people to see the throughlines between two different things. Look for the throughlines.

2. Why are you cherry picking by removing the main focal point of my argument? You make yourself harder to teach than a child when you do this. Don't waste the time of people who might teach you a thing if you want to be something other than ignorant your entire life.

3. Your entire point here is really focused on Namath being a bigger deal in football than Wallace is in basketball. Obviously. You think I'd be looking to talk to a basketball crowd about a fringe football candidate? If your point point is that you prefer a more selective Hall in general, fine, say that, but don't say it to me, say it at the start of the thread, because we're obviously talking about fringe cases here.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

1. All analogies break, by definition. We wouldn't use them to describe two things that are completely identical. We use them to allow people to see the throughlines between two different things. Look for the throughlines.

2. Why are you cherry picking by removing the main focal point of my argument? You make yourself harder to teach than a child when you do this. Don't waste the time of people who might teach you a thing if you want to be something other than ignorant your entire life.

3. Your entire point here is really focused on Namath being a bigger deal in football than Wallace is in basketball. Obviously. You think I'd be looking to talk to a basketball crowd about a fringe football candidate? If your point point is that you prefer a more selective Hall in general, fine, say that, but don't say it to me, say it at the start of the thread, because we're obviously talking about fringe cases here.

I'm saying the main focal point of your argument is silly. There is no significance to Wallace's career outside of the NBA that makes him more of a HOF'er. If him going there led to it turning into a powerhouse program that churned out consistent NBA success, sure. That would mean his story had significant impact in basketball history. It doesn't look like there's been an NBA player that's come out of Virginia Union since Wallace. So what does that matter? Hypothetically, if he had gone to say, Duke or Virginia (better teams), been on a good team that lost in say, the round of 32, and ended up a mid-1st round pick.. would that have made him more of a HOF'er? Less? Why?

And all of this while saying Webber should be out; a guy who played on one of the most iconic college basketball teams of the modern fan's lifetime.

It makes no sense.

And yes, the basketball Hall is way too loose. Part of it is what we're talking about; that it gives weight to lesser leagues than the NBA (college, overseas). Baseball doesn't care if you hit .375 in Triple-A. Football doesn't care if you won the Heisman. There's a college hall for that. And weirdly enough, there IS a college hall for basketball now. Yet it still gets added to a player's total case for the (real) hall.

[Tallboy]

Y'all, I'm leaving this thread because I'm getting angry, and when I get angry about stuff like this, at my middle age, I inevitably speak with condescension. The condescension is generally deserved, but I like to avoid being "that guy".

[codered]

Wallace was arguably the best defensive player of the 00’s.

4x DPOY
5x 1st team all defensive
1x 2nd team all defensive
2x league leader in REB
1x league leader in BLKs

His defence was so incredibly good it also earned him multiple spots on all Nba teams and all-star nods

3x 2nd team all nba
2x 3rd team all nba
4x Nba all star

He’s also a NBA champion

He’s a no brainer to be honest. He wasn’t a good defender but one of the best front court defenders to ever play

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by rman112

I'm saying the main focal point of your argument is silly.

My last post in this thread:

No argument I post is silly. Period.

This should be obvious to all.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

1. All analogies break, by definition. We wouldn't use them to describe two things that are completely identical. We use them to allow people to see the throughlines between two different things. Look for the throughlines.

2. Why are you cherry picking by removing the main focal point of my argument? You make yourself harder to teach than a child when you do this. Don't waste the time of people who might teach you a thing if you want to be something other than ignorant your entire life.

3. Your entire point here is really focused on Namath being a bigger deal in football than Wallace is in basketball. Obviously. You think I'd be looking to talk to a basketball crowd about a fringe football candidate? If your point point is that you prefer a more selective Hall in general, fine, say that, but don't say it to me, say it at the start of the thread, because we're obviously talking about fringe cases here.

Joe Namath was one of the best QBs of his era. 2 time MVP, Super Bowl MVP, 5 time All Pro and was the only QB to ever throw for 4000 yards in a season under the old rules. People like to pick on Namath because his stats don't fit the modern narrative where it is much easier to throw. People say his completion % was too low and he threw too many interceptions, but they ignore his low sack percentage and high adjusted net yards per attempt. Namath was not a fringe HOF candidate.

[bruin805]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

What I said goes for all Hall of Fames everywhere. Not just basketball. Not just sports.

Hall of Fames are first and foremost physical locations built with the intent of people coming and learning about history.

I agree with you that Halls of Fame are about telling the story of the game. But the way I look at it is that to ask myself, "Can you tell the story about basketball without bringing up this individual?"

While I personally think Wallace will make it in, I also don't think that if we leave him out that we are leaving a big gap in the history of basketball. The fact that he's a finalist means he's worthy of consideration, but the fact that I think that the story of the game can be told without Ben Wallace means that (to me), he's a fringe candidate.

Using the Joe Namath comparison, you can't tell the story of Pro Football without bringing up Namath. It would be incomplete.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by codered

Wallace was arguably the best defensive player of the 00’s.

4x DPOY
5x 1st team all defensive
1x 2nd team all defensive
2x league leader in REB
1x league leader in BLKs

His defence was so incredibly good it also earned him multiple spots on all Nba teams and all-star nods

3x 2nd team all nba
2x 3rd team all nba
4x Nba all star

He’s also a NBA champion

He’s a no brainer to be honest. He wasn’t a good defender but one of the best front court defenders to ever play

And he was arguably the worst offensive player. 5.7 PPG and 41% from the free throw line. From outside 3 feet he shot 25.8%. He would be a no brainer if he was an average offensive player. His bad offense cancels out his good defense.

[ljandkg]

Bosh in and Webber out feels a bit wrong.
If Bosh stays in Toronto is he a better player than Webber and takes his team further?

'Ifs' are useless of course but he shouldn't just get in for winning rings as third banana in Miami.

[codered]

Originally Posted by rats60

And he was arguably the worst offensive player. 5.7 PPG and 41% from the free throw line. From outside 3 feet he shot 25.8%. He would be a no brainer if he was an average offensive player. His bad offense cancels out his good defense.

So guys like Reggie Miller and Steve nash have no business being in the hall for being terrible defenders either? I guess Harden will never be a hall of famer? Wallace has the 5th best defensive rating of all time. I don’t think it matters he was a below average offensive player. Again he wasn’t just a good defender but one of the best ever. That gets him in

[Spacemanspif]

Originally Posted by ljandkg

Bosh in and Webber out feels a bit wrong.
If Bosh stays in Toronto is he a better player than Webber and takes his team further?

'Ifs' are useless of course but he shouldn't just get in for winning rings as third banana in Miami.

Is James Worthy not.... worthy? Being the 3rd banana on a generational, iconic team is always going to be remembered more than “another 20/10 guy who never won”. Numbers wise, Worthy looks like Tom Chambers. Could he have put up better numbers on a different team? Sure, but then of course we wouldn’t remember him either, and certainly not put him in the HOF.

What hurts Webber is never even making the finals. I’m a believer that they got robbed in 01-02, but again in the annals of history, the only thing that will be remembered is another ring for Kobe/Shaq

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

If Latrell Sprewell isn’t in the HOF then Da Art of Storytellin’ is a sham

Milwaukee's Finest!!

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Spacemanspif

Is James Worthy not.... worthy? Being the 3rd banana on a generational, iconic team is always going to be remembered more than “another 20/10 guy who never won”. Numbers wise, Worthy looks like Tom Chambers. Could he have put up better numbers on a different team? Sure, but then of course we wouldn’t remember him either, and certainly not put him in the HOF.

What hurts Webber is never even making the finals. I’m a believer that they got robbed in 01-02, but again in the annals of history, the only thing that will be remembered is another ring for Kobe/Shaq

I don't think that's fair. They were losing to an elite team in the Lakers.

It reminds me of the Red Sox and Yankees way back when. Now obviously Webber isn't Ted Williams, but I don't think losing to the Lakers (like Boston kept losing to the Yankees, even though the Sox were a good team themselves) should be much of a negative. The Lakers were great.

[gmunay]

I have to agree with Tallboy that Webber was overrated as a player. He looks good on paper when you look at his statistics and also being THE star of the Fab Five gives him an additional boost.

However when you actually watched Webber play, I always thought he was soft. This guy had the prototypical power forward body of the time combined with elite athleticism but he did not dominate the paint. He tended to rely on a fadeaway or midrange jumper instead of going hard to the rim. Also, when did he EVER take, let alone make a big shot when the Kings were contenders? Seemed like Peja Stojakovic was always the guy taking those shots.

I've accepted that he has the stats and will get in but I still feel he was overrated. He projects this image of being a big bad dude but really wasn't. He could have been a much more dominant player with a no doubt about it, first ballot entry resume.

Full disclosure: I'm a lifelong Warriors fan that still harbors resentment towards Webber for forcing the trade to Washington that cursed the franchise for years.

[gomiamigo]

Originally Posted by deemsterz33

A good modern comp on paper is Blake Griffin

Not really, Marques was really, really good defensively as well.

Jay should get in, what he's done at Nova is amazing.

[chetb]

As a late 90s/early 00s Kings fan, I'd love to see Webber make it. But I'm not holding my breath. He is definitely a flawed candidate.

Zach Lowe made a case for why Webber should be inducted on Grantland. That said, it was written 8 years ago, and he's still not in.

[chetb]

2021 inductees announced today:

Paul Pierce, Chris Bosh, Chris Webber, and Ben Wallace are in.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ball-hall-fame

As a C Webb fan since childhood, I’m both surprised and excited to see he made it.

[bpc3qh]

Glad to see Ben Wallace get in. I've always believed he should be in.

[Ferg1945]

Originally Posted by chetb

2021 inductees announced today:

Paul Pierce, Chris Bosh, Chris Webber, and Ben Wallace are in.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ball-hall-fame

As a C Webb fan since childhood, I’m both surprised and excited to see he made it.

After the class that went in yesterday.... They could have waited a little longer to announce this.

Kinda feels like yesterday was the HOF and the class today is the complete opposite of what we saw yesterday.