The Official Vince Carter HOF Argument Thread
taken from my HOF 1.0 Thread:
What gets him in:
- High scoring average. Avg over 20ppg 10 out of his first 12 seasons.
- Top 35 all time in NBA scoring and only needs about 2000 pts to crack top 25.
- 8-time All-Star. 2-time all NBA.
- 2000 Slam Dunk Champion
- 2000 Olympic Gold Medalist
- 1999 Rookie of the Year
- 2 Final Four Appearances (if college is considered in body of work)
- Current HOF Probability Ranking: 64 (source http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html) no one above him on this list has not or will not get in.
What keeps him out:
- obviously his NBA playoff resume
- the fact that he was never considered the best player in the league at any point
- how much of a contributor or factor he was past his prime
- who he has to compete with on the ballots (careers and positions)
- good numbers on bad teams
- never an MVP calibur player
in addition, there is no player above him in NBA scoring list that has not gotten in or will get not get in I dont believe.....closest being Ray Allen perhaps but I think being all time in 3-pt field goals gets him in. VC does own some impressive NBA and franchise records as well. Lastly, the operative word in HOF is FAME. At the heights of his career, VC was a VERY popular player.
If he hadn't been in toronto for some of those prime years maybe he would have got more exposure and been even more popular too.
We decided to do this thread because the opinion of Vince Carter's HOF chances are split. He has a great number of detractors on one side but many supporters on the other. So we will discuss more in detail his impact and HOF qualifications and shortcomings.
I will start by saying that the Hall is definitely a place for accomplished players, but the operative word is FAME. A persons fame has a part to play in the overall picture as well. With that being said, although we had dominant players such as Iverson and Shaq...the league was still suffering in popularity due to the end of the Jordan era. The league resurgence which Magic and Bird started, cuminated with the Jordan era. After him, if you remember, everyone was looking for the next Mr. Excitement. Not so much on the competitive level but the players that could keep interest in the sport with their highlight reel exploits. Well, we had two players that basically kept the league afloat at that time until the Lebron's and D-Wade's came along. That was Kobe...and Vince Carter.
Carter has one of the highest selling jerseys of all times. He was a bridge between the Jordan and Lebron era. He was not in their class as a player but as far as popularity, this guy was a Rock Star. He had jerseys, posters, the nicknames...Vinsanity, Half-Man/Half-Amazing...etc.
I think due to the excitement and the revenue he helped generate, he played an important part in the NBA's marketability at that time and that will mesh beautifully with his accomplishments, which are pretty good to say the least.
A lot feel that he wasnt a very good all around player and was not much more than a dunker. There have been many dunkers in the league and I dont know how you can score as many points as he did with just dunking alone. I think he belongs in the Hall and I definitely think he should be a lock when/if he reaches 25,000 points. To score that much, you have to be doing more than dunking.
The fact that he was probably the best player in Toronto's history should get him into the Hall of Fame but he'll just have to wait a while because he is not a first ballot HOFer.
Also, I want to say that you cannot overstate the difficulty of acquiring stats in the NBA. To lead the league in rebounds, something that Ben Wallace did, is quite an accomplishment. Can you imagine the level you are playing at to accomplish such a feat? How many international players can you bring to the league that can average 27ppg? How about average over 20ppg in 10 of their first 12 seasons? How about to average over 20ppg in a 12 year career?
Also on another thread someone said that Vince didnt get a lot of return out of his talent or implied that in someway he was a bust. Here are some important numbers...
At UNC he was the 2nd option behind the College POY Antawn Jamison.
His 1st year he avg 7.5ppg, 2nd year 13ppg, 3rd year 15ppg.
His rookie season in the NBA as the 1st option, he avg over 18ppg in 50 games.
His sophomore season in the league, he avg OVER 24ppg in 82 games.
Its easy to see that while most rookies are not expected to come in and score a lot more than they did in college, Vince was the exception. He wasnt a great scorer in college....no where near the level of his predecessor, Jerry Stackhouse. But Vince flourished in the NBA game and his game opened up, much like Jordan's did when unchained from the college system confines.
His popularity was undeniable due to his number of All Star selections, but to make an All NBA team pretty much means you are a good player.
that is true about being in Toronto, but think about how popular he was THERE! imagine if he wouldve been in NY or NJ during those years. I am sure Toronto fans are very appreciative of the time he spent there and hated to see him go.
But I am leaning towards no. He did play great during the Olympics, was Team USA's leading scorer and of course had that incredible "Lipton" dunk on Freddie Weis, but Vince's career was never what it could have been. It might have been the injuries, but he never developed into the type of all-aroun talent that he easily could have. Plus, while you find the operative word as Fame, I think the key to getting in is accomplishment. Vince was a tremendously popular player, but so were Penny Hardaway, Tracy McGrady, Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury. Vince may have accomplished more than these players, but I still do not believe it is enough.
I want to list the names of players in the Hall of Fame. This is flat due to the fact that I do not think it is as easy to get into AS A PLAYER, as people seem to think. Yes, their have been some contributors and coaches that one might do a double take at, but I do not believe it is that easy to enter as a player. I do not think they just take people in for the heck of it, and that people are not putting enough thought into the level of basketball player enters the Hall of Fame. These are some of the best and most influential players out there, and they accomplished a lot during their playing career, more so than many of the names that have been tossed around lately.
Here is a list of mens players inducted from 1995 on:
1995: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Vern Mikkelsen
1996: Kresimir Cosic, George Gervin, Gail Goodrich, David Thompson, George Yardley
1997: Alex English, Bailey Howell
1998: Larry Bird, Marques Haynes (famous Harlem Globetrotter's player, dribbling machine), Arnie Risen
1999: Kevin McHale
2000: Bob McAdoo, Isiah Thomas
2001: Moses Malone
2002: Magic Johnson, Drazen Petrovic
2003: Dino Meneghin, Robert Parrish, James Worthy
2004: Drazen Dilapagic, Clyde Drexler, Maurice Stokes (who was a player, but I believe his off-court contributions played a large part in his induction. Not to mention that his life was cut tragically short)
2006: Charles Barkley, Joe Dumars, Dominique Wilkins
2008: Adrian Dantley, Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon
2009: Michael Jordan, David Robinson, John Stockton
2010: Dennis Johnson, Karl Malone, Gus Johnson, Scottie Pippen, Maciel "Ubiratan" Pareira
2011: Arvydas Sabonis, Chris Mullin, Dennis Rodman, Artis Gilmore
Now, when I look at this list, I see the names of some all-time greats and basketball icons. I see guys who for the most part had incredible basketball careers and have records that put them down as some of the best to ever do it. I find it very hard to argue that Vince Carter accomplished more than any player on this list. I did not leave out years, there were years where players just straight up did not make it. My point is, I might have even been underestimating how difficult it is for a player to make the Hall of Fame. You have all-time greats and champions. I urge you to look at these players accomplishments and tell me how Vince Carter's are greater. Not to mention, I believe Vince has a MUCH stronger case than Christian Laettner. If you go by the basketball-reference HOF rater, Vince is ranked in front of a good many players who are in (I think his 8 All-Star game selections help), and he has hit the 20,000 point plateau (only 37 have in NBA history). But, if you go by accomplishment, I think Vince will have to wait it out until he is selected, much like Adrian Dantley, Dennis Johnson or Artis Gilmore, all players I believe are more deserving than Vince. So, I urge you to look at this list before saying the Hall of Fame eventually cracks and lets players in, because I do not think that has been the case at all.
When I looked at Vinces accolades, I was so surprised that he only made 2 all-nba teams.
Individual accomplishments aside, there is just one thing bugging me about this, how do we let in a guy who admitted he didn't give 100% every damn night? Kobe, AI, Mike, they NEVER took a night off, or didn't give it his all. On opening night in 07, LA was booing Kobe, well, by the end of the night, those boos turned into cheers. But look at Vince's stats for that last part of the season with Toronto. He averaged 15 a game in Toronto, but that rose 80% to 27 points per game in New Jersey? Even stats prove that this guy litterally gave 60% of what he had in that last season in Toronto. A couple days before being traded, he said he would never dunk again, said it was overated. Well, we all forgot about that in New Jersey, right?
But, he was an amazingly exciting player to watch. Those dunks were incredible. And he still had a very nice prime, although he never got very deep into the playoffs until Orlando, but remember, he isn't done yet. Four to five more seasons averaging double figures, and he could have 25,000 points.
Overall, I'll say yes, but definatly not first ballot, probably will have to wait a bit.
There are several players who have gotten in to the hall of fame who certainly have less impressive credentials than Carter- including Calvin Murphy( 17.9, 4.4apg, no rings just an all-star once, no all-nba teams), and Chris Mullin(18 ppg, 5 all star team no all NBA teams). Mullin was good but certainly not as influential as Carter and Carter, despite also not having a ring, clearly has better all-around credentials than Mullin. He will get in for sure but it is not a guarantee he makes it on the first ballot.
I am starting to wonder whether you are on pot, Mullin made it to 4 all nba teams, 1 first team, 2 second teams and 1 third team. He had 5 great years where he had 25 ppg or more, 4 of those years being full seasons.
Oh my bad Aamir.... lol I guess I missed that section when I was looking up his stats..... Regardless, Mullin making the hall of fame is a decent indicator in my mind Vince has a better shot than not to be enshrined one day.
If you want to argue who has accomplished more, then some players would never get in. I believe it is ALL things considered. Popularity has a huge part to play in that.
The first name on your list that jumps out is Alex English. His statistics are very similar to Vince's. Same number of all-star games, 1 more all nba selection. He has a higher point total but Vince may surpass that. It took Alex English about 5 years to get going in his career....Vince's ascention was almost immediate, plus his popularity was greater early in his career.
Vince never played with another scorer in his prime like English did with Vandeweghe either, this played a huge part in English's popularity, coupled with the fact they played in the wide open offense in Denver. Even still, most of English's best scoring years was AFTER Vandeweghe left. I saw Alex play in his prime while I was growing up. He was a great scorer, but Vince was just as unstoppable in his own way. English got in the Hall for one reason and one reason only....scoring. When if Vince enters, it will be by the same token but he did it in much more exciting fashion!
Also, Vince although in the twighlight of his career hasnt played as many years as some of these guys. He's still may have 2 or 3 years left.
Dantley had higher per year scoring averages, but really, what most people love to argue about is, postseason success. Where is the separation between English/Dantley against Carter when it comes to that? You can say Carter got traded and NJ went to the finals, but I seem to remember Adrian Dantley being traded for Mark Aguirre and the Pistons winning the title. So we cant say that Dantley made a difference there because the Pistons won the whole thing...and Dantley, he never won a title.
Whether he has to wait or not, I just dont see how his credentials arent arguable enough to get him there. He doesnt need MORE accomplishments than a particular player to get him there, even though he may end up surpassing some of the guys on that list in scoring.
If something keeps him out it will be the attitude and a game that more and more people are evaluating as a "me first" stat stuffing strategy and not actually all that helpful to winning ball games. Not saying he hurt you or that he wasn't very very good. But did Vince Carter help your team win games like the other U.S. Hall of Famers? Some people think his stats overrate his actual value.
I don't really care much about a player's popularity when talking about the Hall of Fame, but I know it makes a difference. It certainly helped Patrick Ewing get in that he played in New York and was also very well liked around the league. Vince Carter ultimately was not liked by the reporters and other league officials who see him as someone who squandered his talent and who didn't dedicate himself to defense and the team game enough to be a champion. That will count against him when the voting takes place.
By the way, Carter played with Jason Kidd in New Jersey. That is better than having played with Vandeweghe.
I think Carter has a good chance of making it, but I like Yao's chances better.
another key word I like to use is Contribution. the Hall of Fame is supposed to honor a player's contributions to BASKETBALL. As I explained above...Vince has contributed more than can be measured by stats alone. It was said that Lebron's signing with the Heat would be more valuable than winning a championship. The Heat's popularity is at an all time high and revenue is great, seats are filled, the whole 9, and they didnt even win the title. Think about that and think about the fact that the Grizzlies could very well still be in Vancouver if they had a player like Vince....also, its possible that the Raptors may not have remained in Toronto without his impact and popularity.
I didnt say playing with Vandeweghe was better than playing with Kidd, my point is how popular would English be without those high scorer years along side Vandeweghe in Denver with that high octane offense? Alex English only played on two 50 win squads. So obviously playing with Kidd is better.
Popularity can be helped or hurt by style of play...hence the reason the Spurs and extremely unbalanced when measuring their success against their popularity. I think its safe to say Purvis Short would have been a more popular player had he played along side some of the great scorers of that time such as King, Dantley, or Aguirre.
Vince was popular on his own accord...before he teamed with T-Mac or J-Kidd.
Ima say no..he hasn't made NBA All-first team, made second and third team once..He hasn't proved his self enough, you can't just make it off dunks alone..and the all-star stat is so wack now because you have fans voting in people who only play like 10 games because of injures (ex Iverson, Yao) He has to do something in the playoffs.. And he has been on good teams..
As a Toronto native, this has been the million dollar question for quite some time. On numbers alone, I suppose you can make an argument that he belongs there. Vince Carter, in my mind, might be one of the biggest waste of talents I've ever seen in professional sports, and I'm saying this as a Torontonian. Scoring 20 points for him was so easy, we often wondered why he couldn't aim for 30 each nite; its not like it would have been that difficult for him. I guess some athletes, regardless of talent, never have the killer instinct to win; to see how good they actually could have been. When Vince Carter retires, I wonder if he'll actually look back and wonder, or will he simply move back home with mom and enjoy home cooked breakfasts every morning?
955 games, 23,177 points, 24.3 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 3 apg, 54% FG (<-----Not impressive?), 81.9 FT%
Play-offs: 73 games, 21.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 2.3 apg, 52.5% FG, 79.6% FT
925 games, 20,520, 22.2 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4 apg, 44.5% FG, 79.7% FT
Play-offs: 56 games, 23.3 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 4.5 apg, 41.5% FG, 78.8% FT
Based off of pure numbers, you think Vince had a better career? Adrian Dantley also won 2 scoring titles, a player of the year award in college (averaging about 29 and 10 over his last two years at Notre Dame), made just as many All-NBA teams as VC and look at the shooting %! That is freaking amazing! I will go with Vince as being more popular, and possibly having much more potential to offer than Dantley, but I think Dantley's career is a tad more impressive. I know Vince is not done with his career yet, but those numbers are going down if anything as far as career averages.
Calvin Murphy was a 5'9 guard who was a prolific FT shooter (.892) and averaged over 33 ppg in college. Doing something incredibly well, and being small, help his case incredibly. If you look at the HOF score indicator on Basketball-Reference, it actually takes AWAY points the taller you are. So, if you are shorter, the odds of entrance are greater, and no little man had even close to the career Calvin Murphy did (atleast none who was LISTED as being under 5'10. Yes, Allen Iverson is better, got that out of the way so someone does not have a coronary). He made the HOF 10 years later, and I think his still being associated with basketball put him over the top. Nonetheless, breaking records matter, and at the time no one had shot FT's better the Murphy's 95.8% during the 1980-81 season, a season he was the second leading scorer on a team that made it to the NBA Finals.
I am not saying Vince will not make it, but I just do not think his case is completely open and shut. I think that it takes much more to make the Hall than Dunk Contests and popularity. Am I sleeping on what Vince accomplished? No, he was amazing at times and was one of the better players in the league at a time. But, I feel that his career was a bit of a let down, he had so much he was capable of doing and never fully put things together. He was never a factor on defense and I think an incredibly bright career went totally down hill after he missed the potential game winning shot in Game 7 versus Philly in 2001.
Even Chris Mullin, who shot 51% from the field and 86.5% from the line for his career, well, Mullin was never a guy whom you said "we could have really gotten more out of him". He had his issues with alcohol I know, but the guy gave his all, was a prolific shooter and his effort level was fantastic. No way did he have the athletic gifts of VC, but having gifts is no assurance of being in the Hall of Fame. Mullin also won two Olympic Gold Medals and was maybe given a bump by being on the Dream Team, but he was prolific in certain areas, effort and attitude being two of major importance. I believe that matters, and I think it could be a hinderance to Vince's chances, especially considering the players he will more than likely have to go up against once he finally retires. If he makes it, I would not complain much at all, but I do not think it will be as easy as people may believe it will be.
Also (just saw this once I posted) @surve: Do you know who scored the most points during the decade of the 1980's? Alex English.
I saw VC mail it in on too many nights to support his entry into the hall of fame. I think it was common knowledge of vince that if you got a little physical with him or knocked him down once or twice on his way to the basket, he wouldn't come back. He's definately earned himself a soft reputation and the way things played out in the end in toronto when he didn't even come close to giving 100%
his dunks were exciting, but his stats in large are overvalued ...him going in they may look decent on the surface, but he was never really a guy you could count on to lead a team to victory, can't recall many clutch performances, and his lack of playoff success is even more glaring considering the weakness of the eastern conference as a whole in his prime years
never a first team all nba player, never would you have considered him a top 5 guy in the league ... only 2x was he even acknowledged as being top 3 at his position, combining this with some of the other factors, i'm against
will not be in the HOF.
Based on pure dunking ability alone, I hope Vince Carter gets in . lol
He will be remembered as one of the best if not the best dunker of all time.
If players Like Joe Dumars & Dennis Green are in then VC def deserves it. Those guys may have won chips but where never on the caliber of VC. 2nd & 3rd options on in the HOF on the coat tails of real superstars. He was more highly regarded than his contemporaries who we think will make it such as Reggie Miller & Ray Allen. Talent wise VC is equal to Cydle Drexler..He should be in, maybe not 1st ballot but he was one of the best players in his era point blank...
Players like Joe Dumars and Dennis Green have multiple rings and were major cotirbutors in accomplishing those goals..
Yes thats true but that does not make them HOF talent players....They were 3rd options...Very Very Good role players..They were equivalent to a Toni Kukoc on those teams...We sometimes over value guys who played a role on championship teams and don't evaluate them based on talent. Neither one of those guys could ever lead a team or be a franchise player like VC was....
The bare minimum criteria for making the hall of fame should be - Did they leave everything on the court? Vince Carter willingly stopped trying his hardest for a team that paid him over a hundred million dollars. The guy is a lazy thief and should never be a hall of famer.
first of all i am tired of this first ballot stuff. either you r in or you r not. second you can't dunk 22pts 5rebs 4ast and 1stl. and again if bill walton gets in vince should get in.
"you can't dunk 22pts 5rebs 4ast and 1stl." LOL, my point exactly!
I dont get where you guys are saying he dunked over 20,000 points. If you say he cant get in on dunks alone, then thats essentially what you are saying. You are telling me this guy couldnt do nothin but dunk, but he has averaged nearly 28ppg in one season???
Although he was guard size...Adrian Dantley was an interior player. I knew you would say something about his FG%. But dig this...Dantley only had 7 career 3pt FGs shooting 17%. Vince made 1420 MORE 3pts than AD on 37% shooting. I mean how did you conveniently leave that stat out? You cant compare players from different eras as far as indivualism, and certainly not Vince to Dantley. Dantley was an interior player and Vince was a perimeter player, naturally AD's FG% will be higher.
I never said Vince had a better career or that Dantley didnt have impressive stats. I saw Dantley play and he was the most amazing post player I had seen for that size bar none. I said Vince had comparable stats, and you posted them yourself, look at how close they are with the exception that you are comparing FG% of an interior player to a perimeter player.
My question is, where is it that Dantley truly separates him self from Vince as a HOFer? Where AD may have had Vince in what he got out of his career, few can match Vince's popularity and what he did for the game in between the Jordan and Lebron era. He was very important. Neither one of them have one titles. So where is this huge divide between AD and VC???
I did mention that English was in the Hall because of his scoring because honestly what else could he do? Although Vince has not put up as much as English, he has scored well and done it more exciting. Thats what the Hall remembers....what everyone else who was watching at the time remembers. The same way English was remembered for his output, Vince will long be remembered for his vicious exploits at the rim. Vince along with Kobe gave the league a shot in the arm.
This thread should not just be about whether or not each of us feels he should be in or out, but about his probability....which I think is very high considered he still has some years left. Open and shut, no. First ballot or not, could care less. I am just amazed at when people compare him to others who have made it and act as if he cant hold their jock straps. Thats ridiculous, the guy has accomplished a lot even if he had all world potential and didnt live up to it. Still made a damn good go of a career.
Also with your statements about Mullin and implying he was an overachiever while implying that Vince being the great athlete he was being an underacheiver...yes you are sleeping on his accomplishments because you are penalizing him for what you thought he shouldve been instead of just looking at what he turned out to be.
I am trying to figure out why you want to argue Calvin Murphy's case but dont want to argue Vince's. Especially when you comment, its stats, raw numbers and accomplishments that you love to site.
Accomplishments alone...do you think Calvin deserves to be in and Vince doesnt? I am not saying yay or nay either way, but I want to know what you think? Calvin was an exceptional player, I get where you are coming from, but Vince was exceptional (not great) too.
that also brings this to mind...lol
you do know that Mahmoud Abdul Rauf admitted that he missed his free throw on purpose that wouldve broken Murphy's record. I remember reading that the next day and how he said he looked over and saw Calvin acting so ridiculous on the sideline that he missed it. Watch for yourself and you can see it was short and not even close. I think I also remember him saying that Murphy came up to him and thanked him for that later.
why are you surprised that Vince only made 2 All NBA teams?
did you take into consideration that
a) he played on a fricken expansion team that was crappy for years
b) he played at the same time as Kobe, AI, Payton, Nash, and Kidd?
c) Paul Pierce made the team as a guard
d) Lebron and Wade started making the teams at a time where Vince was still producing at a high level
e) some of his best statistical seasons were injury riddled?
Sometimes its relative to the situation....like when D-Will was deserving of All Star bids and All NBA selections...but CP3 was viewed as just a tad bit better. Vince was a very good player, he just wasnt in the league of Kobe and AI or Lebron and D-Wade when they came along.
some comments on this thread that I will offer my opinion on....
"never would you have considered him a top 5 guy in the league" - in VC's early career, he was considered a top 10 player, probably top 8. Let see, who were the top 5 players around that time. Shaq, KG, Duncan, AI, and Kobe. Now, not only were they the top 5 players in the league at that time but ALL of them are top 50 All Time Players and most people rank Shaq, KG, Duncan, and Kobe as top 25 on the all time list. Later in VC's career, Kidd, Nash, Nowitski, Wade, and Lebron, were the top players...throw in great years by T-Mac, Pierce, Stoudemire, J-O'Neal and that would make it pretty difficult for him to get in the top 5.
"If he hadn't been in toronto for some of those prime years maybe he would have got more exposure and been even more popular too."- excellent point and I would go to far as say if you switch VC with Bibby, then Vancouver may still have a team and Toronto may not have. Fact: after the acquisition of Vince Carter through a draft day trade in 1998, the team set league attendance records and made the NBA Playoffs in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Now thats some contribution fo yo azz.
"did Vince Carter help your team win games like the other U.S. Hall of Famers?"- to some degree he did...I mean, did the Raptors appear in the playoffs before Vince got there? He didnt do too bad in NJ either, they had one of their best years in franchise history when he was there.
"he hasn't made NBA All-first team"- cant go by that alone, only five players are awarded it every year, and some years has more talented players at a position than others. Some other players that never made 1st team were: Alex English, Joe Dumars, Gus Johnson, James Worthy, etc....and eventhough Gilmore made All ABA 1st team I dont think he ever made an All NBA team period, but definitely not 1st team.
"The bare minimum criteria for making the hall of fame should be - Did they leave everything on the court?"- was he Jordan, Bird, or Kobe in that regard, absolutely not, but...this seems to be his biggest knock. Well, although Barkley never quit and gave it his all on the court, the opposite can be said about him off the court. With Charles attitude and work ethic, its not hard to see why he did not win a title. Again, this is all things considered and I dont thing one or two particular things can allow you automatic entry by the same token, one or two things shouldnt automatically disqualify you either. Some players are greatly imbalanced, as Ben Wallace is statistically, Carter is competitively when compared with flair.
A lot of people regard Vince's career as "unfulfilling" but as the number 5 pick in the draft...his career has been better than everyone picked before him up until this point. Also....out of the top 10 draft picks that year only 2 other players have had better careers, Dirk and Pierce.
There is a huge difference between Alex English, Joe Dumars, Gus Johnson, and James Worthy and I'm surprised you have not mentioned it.
- Alex English: Set 31 Denver Nuggets records during his tenure
- Joe Dumars: NBA Champion
- Gus Johnson: ABA Champion
- James Worthy: NBA Champion
If Vince Carter had won an NBA Championship, he would be in the Hall of Fame. It's very difficult for guys who don't have a ring to make it to the Hall of Fame unless they were pioneers of the game (50's-60's), they won MVP awards, or they were clearly the best player at their position and one of the greatest at their position.
Vince Carter has none of that going for him.
Let me breakdown the Hall of Fame to find players in a similar position as Vince Carter.
There are currently 149 players in the Hall of Fame. Of those 149, 3 of them also made it as coaches, which eliminates them from the list because Vince Carter was never a coach.
With 146 players left, I eliminated players from the pioneer era (pre-'70s) and women. Guys that played before the 70s have a bigger chance of making the Hall of Fame because they were pioneers and did not necessarily have to put up great stats to make it.
After eliminating pioneers and women, I was left with 40 total players.
A huge part of a Hall of Fame resume is championships. Of those 40 players, 17 did not win a championship.
MVP awards and mulitple European MVP awards also provide a huge lift. Of those 17, 11 of them did not win either an MVP or more than 3 European MVP awards.
All-NBA 1st Team is also important. Of those 11, 7 of them made it to the All-NBA 1st team at least once.
That leaves us with four players:
- Bob Lanier
- Calvin Murphy
- Alex English
- Adrian Dantley
Alex English and Adrian Dantley were both NBA scoring champions, Bob Lanier has as average 20-10 for his career, and Calvin Murphy is one of the greatest free throw shooters of all time. All of them, except for Calvin Murphy had a better statistical career than Vince Carter.
In essence, Vince Carter's resume only betters Calvin Murphy when it comes to all the Hall of Famers and when you're only better than 1 of 149, odds are, you aren't going to make it.
You raise some valid counter arguments as to what the judges would be raising, but I feel mine are just as valid. All in all, I compare it to getting into an exclusive country club, more than a night club. Yes, Vince is famous and has done quite a bit, but so are just about all of the other members. The point is, what will Vince provide to this club? I think that the "HOF Probability Score", is slightly flawed, just as most statistical analysis tends to be. I think a players level of effort is definitely measured, and I believe that even what they did off of the court and after their playing career is taken into account. Likeability matters, I think even more so than popularity. The fans do not vote for who is inducted, an "elite" group (of more than likely, people with a different standard of scoring than either you or I do) of people vte on this. I just do not feel the swaying factors are "He was really popular, and people liked seeing his dunks."
By the way, the 3 pointer argument? Really? Who scored more points at a higher percentage? Adrian Dantley or Vince Carter? Dantley took 41 three pointers! Vince has taken 3813! You are really using this as a factor whatsoever? Even without the 3's, Vince was not going to be shooting anywhere in the vicinity of 50%, much less 54%. I do not get why it matters worth a damn, especially when the person who is not taking 3's ends up averaging more points per game. I left it out because I hoped you would not stoop to such a level, but I was wrong. Yes, Vince Carter averaged a solid 37% from 3 point range. Yet still averaged fewer points per game over his career than a SF of similar size and stature.
Still, I have actually always been a fan of Vince Carter, but I have a hard time calling him a Hall of Famer. I think there are many more deserving players than him, who helped in winning situations and were probably greater at points in there career. Is Vince all that different from a Chris Mullin, Alex English or Adrian Dantley? Not really, but I think the respect and longevity of those players, not to mention percentages, go in their favor. Plus, I think they did personify dedication to their craft. Do I think that Vince is better than most players picked 5th in the draft? Absolutely, but Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce were picked after Vince, both are much more deserving and I do not think that being the third best player in your draft class necessarily merits you Hall of Fame consideration. Of course you are supposed to exceed the norm where ever you are picked as a Hall of Famer. The biggest thing will be, who will be the people Vince goes up against? When ever Vince retires, he will have numerous formidable opponents.
Here is my list of players who I deem more deserving than Vince, just from my 1992 draft and I will make the cut off 2004:
- Shaquille O'Neal
- Jason Kidd
- Kevin Garnett
- Kobe Bryant
- Allen Iverson
- Ray Allen
- Steve Nash
- Tim Duncan
- Chauncey Billups
- Dirk Nowitzki
- Paul Pierce
- Manu Ginobili
- Pau Gasol
- Tony Parker
- LeBron James
- Dwyane Wade
- Dwight Howard
- Alonzo Mourning
- Chris Webber
- Grant Hill
- Amare Stoudemire
- Yao Ming
- Carmelo Anthony
These are all players, just from the draft periods of 1992-2004, that I believe are more deserving than Vince Carter. I also am not so sure that Tracy McGrady, who won a couple of scoring titles and at a time was definitely considered a better player than Vince for a good point of his career, is not more deserving, despite what the HOF meter on basketball reference states. A lot of your career is indeed circumstance, but I will say, Vince would have made NO difference between the Vancouver franchise staying there and Toronto losing there franchise. I live in Toronto, but this is no bias, I just believe that the Vancouver franchise was kind of doomed. Not at all because of the fans in Vancouver, but the management killed them, it was beyond fan support. Though I will say, you can just look at the population of Vancouver versus Toronto and know that Toronto has a bigger base to choose from.
Still, Vince might have hurt his chances by the way he left Toronto. It was a bit ugly, and while it seemed like he was destined to leave eventually, the method in which he chose to do so was not exactly HOF worthy. His general disinterest for half of a season was incredibly obvious, and I think the reason a lot of Torontonians still feel bitter towards him. I for one have always liked him, but I do think that he basically gave up to try and get out, which sucks. There are better ways to get traded, and his immediate resurgence on the Nets was a slap in the face. Also, what season with Vince was one of the best in Nets franchise history? Was I asleep or something? Or do the Nets just have a pretty awful history (I know the answer to that one)? Vince lead the best season in Raps franchise history, that is for sure and the start of his career made it seem like he was a potential HOF player. I liked Vince over Paul Pierce for the longest time, but Pierce's longevity totally trumped Vince YEARS ago.
So, right now I have 23 players (only that), who I believe could give Vince a run for his money in entrance. These are either players who have recently retired, and many of whom could retire around the same time Vince does. Also, here are players I feel are more deserving than Vince who have yet to make the HOF:
- Gary Payton (Eligible nest year, one would hope he makes it)
- JoJo White (Ranked below Vince, I will say I have an affinity for Finals MVP's, and JoJo fits the bill)
- Reggie Miller (How he did not make it is beyond me. In fact, his not making it should show you that excitement and fan appreciation may not be as much of a factor. A guy who has incredible, long term success, on one team mind you, and still does not even make it past the cut list. Tough crowd.)
- Jamaal "Silk" Wilkes (Won 3 rings, the first of which on one of the bigger anomalies champions in NBA history. As a rookie, Wilkes was the second leading scorer on the 1975 Golden State Warriors. Than he was a big contributor on two Lakers title teams, averaging 20 ppg in each play-offs on the way to a title.)
- Spencer Haywood (Totally dominant early on his career, even more so than Vince.)
- Dikembe Mutombo (His defensive capability, not to mention his work as an ambassador for the game, gets him in, well over Vince I would think)
- Bernard King (Really feel he was a better player. He had a much longer run than Vince, and though he has fewer career points, he has a higher career scoring average and is held in higher esteem by many.)
So, that is another 7 he may have to deal with (though I have a feeling at least a couple will be in before Vince is eligible). Still, Vince has a very solid chance of making it, but I think it will take him time. If Mark Jackson is deemed a better candidate than Reggie Miller (Mind bogglingly idiotic if you ask me), than we really have little idea of what the criteria seems to be. Still, in my opinion, while Vince is a candidate, there are many more worthy candidates. Vince's point total will go up, but his averages will dip rapidly. He was never considered the penultimate player at his position, and usually was behind a few others. I do not think his team would have made much of a difference, as there were simply better players out there than Vince.
Mitch Richmond is a very similar case to Vince. He averaged over 21.9 points for his first 10 seasons, but was always on teams that were not going exceptionally far in the play-offs. He averaged 21 ppg for his career, all of his shooting percentages are higher than Vince, he played in 6 All-Star Games and made the All-NBA 5 times (3 times Second Team, 2 times Third Team). He played in fewer play-off games than Vince, won a ring while sitting on the bench in LA, but still, at this point he has over 20,000 points. Now, Vince may be viewed as a more accomplished player than Mitch, but was he really that much more? You do not here a lot of people campaigning for Rock (Mitch's nickname, given for his consistency) to make the Hall of Fame. I am not saying Mitch is more deserving, but he seems to sit on the outside when you are talking about guys making an instituion such as the Hall of Fame.
If you indeed look at the formula for the HOF indicator, it states "it is not for who should make the Hall of Fame, but rather who is likely to be in the Hall of Fame." It also indicates that averages are taken into account for your final career statistics, so do not be surprised if Vince slips down the list, as far as probability goes. Vince has entered an elite class of scorers in NBA history, but even if he were to surpass Reggie Miller's 25,000 point plateau, remember that not even Reggie was a first ballot guy. Vince could indeed be in the Hall of Fame, but I just wanted people to be aware that there are others who may indeed be more likely to, despite the HOF indicator saying otherwise (at this current time, mind you). One last thing I will say, is that you have to take into account more than just has play on the court, but his overall accomplishment in accordance to the game. It seems like many Hall of Famers have given to the game far after their playing days, and I have a feeling this is also taken into account. So, if Vince fades into the sun, so may his HOF chances. He has a convincing case, but I have a feeling you and I will be much older (at least more so than the 5 years after he retires) before it is solved.
"There is a huge difference between Alex English, Joe Dumars, Gus Johnson, and James Worthy and I'm surprised you have not mentioned it."
It has all been mentioned at some point or another, dont take what I say about one fact as absolution, I was merely countering what someone said about Vince not making 1st Team All NBA, thats all. I feel I have to put a disclaimer in each of my posts because people take something that is said and make it into something else. I wasnt comparing them to Vince with that statement other than to prove one point.
"In essence, Vince Carter's resume only betters Calvin Murphy when it comes to all the Hall of Famers and when you're only better than 1 of 149, odds are, you aren't going to make it."
So you dont take into consideration his contributions to a fledgling expansion team and its first early success. That doesnt come into play huh? Just raw data, pure stats. If thats the criteria, I agree and have said it many times before....he will not get in. I think you are sadly mistaken if you do not attach the value of a players contributions outside of raw stats alone and how it relates to HOF consideration.
This is ALL Things Considered.
I guess from your assumption the 2 things that will collectively hold him out is the fact that he was not a 1st teamer in conjunction with the fact that he has not won a title.
I brought up the 3pt stat because it is important IF you wish to compare FG%, which in this case you should not. Adrian Dantley took so few 3pts because he was an INTERIOR player. You cant compare the 2. You say SF, but their games were nothing alike. Regardless of if they were the same exact size, Dantley did not play on the perimeter. If Vince doesnt take a 3pt period yes, his FG still will be lower because a bulk of his shots were on the perimeter, Dantley was in and around the paint. Thats apples and oranges.
and yes, the Nets were that bad, Vince helped lead them to a 49 win season and playoff birth, they didnt reach that plateau often and I think they only won more than 50 games once...which Vince was not a part of. Actually, I just checked...the Nets won 49 games only 3 times and the only other season they had to surpass that was a 52 win season.
It's not the lack of All-NBA 1st/2nd/3rd team selections, it's not the lack of an MVP, it's not the lack of an eye-popping breakout year or two, it's not the lack of playoff success.. it's the fact that he holds ALL of those COMBINED that keeps him out of the Hall of Fame.
What more should we consider? You seem to be using raw stats (which are pretty much what the HOF score is based on, afterall) and popularity as your basis. Why are these other factors not considered? You act like Vince Carter rejuvenated the Raptors from the dead, but if anything he gave them one incredibly exciting year as the best player on a play-off team (his best year in the league, 2000-01), and than never went to the play-offs until he went to New Jersey. Look at this:
That is the year after, when the Raptors again went to the play-offs, despite Vince only playing in 60 games. They actually were 12-10 without Vince, this was the year after he apparently lead the Raptors from the dregs of the NBA. My point is, Vince was not exactly the franchise savior you are making him out to be. He more than likely is the best player to have played for the Raptors, but does Gerald Wallace being the best player to have ever played for the Bobcats make him a Hall of Famer? Was Pau Gasol a Hall of Famer before going to LA? Vince made some tragic flaws in his career, and I think one of them was not looking to go to a true contending team at a younger age. New Jersey never was a contender with Vince, that is for sure. Orlando got to the conferences, but if you do recall, Vince blew in the play-offs.
I think that indeed, we are maybe looking at just as much as you are, just maybe from a different angle. You seem to know your stuff, but as much as you are saying we are discrediting your valid evidence or sleeping on Vince's career and accomplishments, you seem to looking past quite a bit as well. You are over looking poor shooting percentages in the play-offs and the fact that Vince Carter was much more glamour than result. He was an incredibly exciting player, but than became synonomous with some of the not so glamorous parts of being a complete basketball player. The thing is, you act as if everything he has done is enough to be in the Hall of Fame, rather than measuring him up against those who have set the standard. Is being 64th on a list of players mean he is a Hall of Famer? It could, but I think their have been valid reasons given as to why Vince might not measure up, and I do not know if you have done much of a job of saying he is more deserving than anyone other than Calvin Murphy. Hence, the 1 in 149 thing might not be right, but that is kind of the odds you have given yourself.
On the Adrian Dantley thing: Still, you not taking the apple who averages 24.3 ppg over his career on 54% shooting? I mean, just player to player, not with Vince's supposed popularity that makes him a better player (how?)?
Vince has several things that he accomplishments that trump Reggie's. (pre-flamer disclaimer: I am not saying he deserves to be in before him)
Reggie Miller was a scorer and a scorer ONLY, yet he only cracked the top 10 in league scoring once. Vince? I know he was top 10 in scoring I think 7 times (correct me if I am wrong...but I know it was at least 6). He also cracked top 5 twice I believe.
Vince has a 2nd team All NBA Team, I think most of us agree here now that there is some importance to ALL NBA teams.
Vince has more All Star appearances, and I will always have to argue that Vince was more popular of a player. Reggie was cold blooded in the playoffs, but his rivalry with Spike Lee and his subsequent scoring rampage gave a huge boost to his popularity and infamy.
My point in saying the above is, I think this is how the selections work, not every judge will agree on the same things, just as me and MikeyV respectfully disagree on a lot of things, we each will have some things that we may hold in different regard and that is what goes into the process. I may be wrong, the decked may be too stacked against Vince, as I said, I believe us that feel he will get in are in the minority. I think each judge has their own criteria and it will be up to them as to if and how soon he will get in. If enough people on the committee thinks that because he was a quitter he shouldnt be allowed in, trust me, he wont get in.
Don't act as if Reggie Miller scored half of his point on layups and the other half on mid-range jumpshots... you know damn right what Reggie Miller has done to get into the Hall of Fame...
where did I say Vince was better than AD? LOL. I never said that, and never said he was more deserving of the Hall. What I said was, how u gonna compare an interior player's FG% to a perimeter player's? The size doesnt matter...hell Jordan was bigger than Dantley and has a lower career FG%. I mean really, where are you going with that?
As far as who would you take...lets choose 2 apples, Dantley and Aguirre. Well, the Pistons chose Aguirre. Who was the better player and the HOFer? Dantley right?
So its not about choosing, because although Dantley is the better player he still doesnt have a ring, so it really doesnt matter in THAT regard.
question for you though, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, just curious, how old are you? I am 40. I am just trying to see if I can look at some of these things from your POV from an age perspective. I saw a lot of these guys play, and I am glad I did. My first favorite player I think was George Gervin.
maybe you missed this..... (pre-flamer disclaimer: I am not saying he deserves to be in before him)
MikeV says you should measure against the standard(s) and I was merely pointing out something that could be measured when its Vince turn to go in....assuming that Reggie is already in. So because Reggie deserves to be in the Hall, then those things I mentioned about Vince doing better than him dont count right? lol, ok.
and dont you act like Vince has averaged 22ppg over a career with just dunks.
MikeV said it best...we are looking at it from different angles....I think it will come down to how many commanalities the committee can agree on. Like I said, Vince may very well not get in, but if I was on the committee he would get my vote.
On the Reggie deal, what did he do to deserve a spot, well most notably, he retired as the most prolific 3pt shooter in history, a record that has been surpassed by Sugar Ray...who I think was a better player and had a better career and still has years left.
"It's not the lack of All-NBA 1st/2nd/3rd team selections, it's not the lack of an MVP, it's not the lack of an eye-popping breakout year or two, it's not the lack of playoff success.. it's the fact that he holds ALL of those COMBINED that keeps him out of the Hall of Fame."
well, I thought I followed you for a min, not sure about the ALL NBA selections, he made 2nd and 3rd team. and not sure I follow you about the eye-popping breakout year thing because he went from 18ppg as a rookie (which shouldve been breakout enough considering he wasnt a 1st option in college) to 25ppg and an ALL NBA team selection. Maybe our opinions vary on what a breakout is.
Ok, now, with that out of the way, I am back with you....so...I get it. He wont get in as his career stands now. Hypothetically, if he hits 25k total points do you think he will get in?
The year before he went to Orlando. Basically, Orlando technically did a sign and trade for Vince for Hedo. They did worse with Vince than with Hedo, especially in the play-offs. That has bupkus to do with this debate. I know all about the Aguirre and Dantley situation, and I have no idea where you are going with that. My point is, that Adrian Dantley deserved to get in over Vince Carter, and his FG % shows his incredible efficiency. They were different players, but so are a lot of players in the HOF. Michael Jordan did have a worse shooting % than Adrian Dantley, but he also won 5 MVP's , 6 titles/finals MVP's, 10 scoring titles and averaged more PPG than any other player. Have no idea where you are going with that one, but I think my point was pretty simple to understand. So, yes Adrian Dantley is more deserving than Vince Carter, and has made the Hall of Fame. That is established.
Now, here is where I disagree with you. Reggie Miller not being more deserving than Vince Carter. I am going with no on that one, in that he is DEFINITELY more deserving. Vince may have been maybe a little more than "just a scorer", but honestly, was he that much more? Not really. The number that I think pushes in Reggie's favor is 144. As in, 144-56. Play-off games. Of which many of those, were led by Reggie. Now, throw in the fact that Reggie was a MUCH more efficient shooter (definitely was in the play-offs, in 88 more games than Vince played), who exactly is more deserving? Winning matters, and being great matters, and Reggie did more winning and was great. Vince was great, but I am not sold on the winning. He has played more play-off games than one might think, but Reggie crushes him in this factor. If you talk about Vince carrying the Raptors and Nets, well he ain't got $hit on Reggie in that regard. Vince Carter ever push Michael Jordan out of the way for a game winner? Is he known as one of the most clutch performers of All-Time? Well, he is known for jumping over a 7 footer, but I do not think that measures up.
Whoever says that Vince is "just a dunker" is a clown, the guy could ball. But, he was a scorer, and while his 2 more rebounds and 1 more assist per game may make some see him as better than Reggie Miller, I think a whole flock of people will go with Reggie's winning. Vince is 64th on this list, man. He is not in the top 50, he is not Michael Jordan, heck, he is not even Clyde Drexler. The probability for him being inducted is high, but it is not 100%. Throw that in with the current players who are selected, and the level of difficulty of being selected to the Hall of Fame as a player, and Vince's chances look a lot lower than HOF probability score (which again, should more than likely dip, unless he rides the pine to a title).
I think that 25,000 points could indeed get him in the HOF. But, time is running out. He is 34, and he scored 1022 points this past year. Do you see Vince being around in 5 years? I do not know, but if he is, I am guessing those career averages do not look as nice as they do now. Which, according to the HOF probability, is not good.
the only place I am going is to say that INTERIOR players historically have a higher FG% percentage than PERIMETER players. Size does change that equation. We are not comparing accolades, merely FG% of players with different styles of play.
Did I say Reggie was not more deserving than Vince? If I did that was a mistake or mistype. I dont feel that way, I only wanted to point out that Vince does have some accomplishments that Reggie doesnt, which I noted above.