There was a thread about Paul Pierce being overrated/underrated recently. In this thread, some felt he would be a 1st ballot HOFer, others believed he would not be.
This is not a thread about who will or will not get in the HOF, but rather focusing on the "FAME" aspect of the HOF. Some players may have had greater individual and/or team success than another who may have the scales tipped in their favor due to them being a famous player.
In this thread, I would like to explore some players who exemplify the word "FAME".
Who are some players that may be on the bubble or below based on accomplishments but can benefit from being famous?
I will start with Paul Pierce, because being the 2nd leading scorer in Celtics (the most successful NBA franchise) I think automatically gets him in. I dont think people realize how hard that is to do. You have to be healthy as hell, consistent as hell, but you also have to make a difference. There are guys who can outscore Pierce, but would they be starting on a team like the Celts for as many years? He obviously stands alone as the most popular player in Celtics history during his era. What Pierce lacks in individual accomplishments league-wide, he is an all-time great Celtic and when his name is up, I dont see how he doesnt get in 1st ballot.
You know what's funny? In the summer of 2007, T-Mac and VC were both ranked higher than Pierce...now, that seems pretty laughable.
I have said this before and still believe it....Carter is not short on individual accomplishments, the biggest being his scoring. On individual accomplishments and team accomplishments alone, he doesnt look like he will get in. On the other hand, he was a star of astronomical proportions because the league was very much looking to fill a huge excitement gap left by the GOAT. No one has matched MJ as of yet as far as his dominance (Kobe or Shaq perhaps being the closest), but as far as the high flying excitement elements...remember, we had lost MJ, Nique, and the Glide. Everyone was looking for that guy who could provide the highlight reels every night. Vince definitely kept them coming.
He is such a famous player and his accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at....and he will likely crack the top 30 all time in scoring. He is one player who's fame can definitely help sway votes in his direction.
Basketball-reference HOF probability metric:
Sad to see VC on this list.
Vince's stats are pretty impressive on a standalone basis. Did you know him and Kobe have made the exact same amount of 3P FG in their career...but Kobe has taken 500 more shots? While Vince is obviously a notch below Kobe in the overall picture, their career stats, to this point, are not all that far apart.
- Vince: 21.9/5.1/4.0 with 2.2to on 44.5%FG and 37.6%3P
- Kobe: 25.0/5.2/4.6 with 2.9to on 45.4%FG and 33.8%3P
I definitely think his popularity helps him. Once again, not saying he gets in, but his accomplishments were good, but when he received nearly 1.3 million All Star votes (17000 more votes than the most popular basketball player in the world at that time), that alone should tell you this guy was mega-famous.
why is it sad to see him that high on the list? remember, thats what this topic is about. its not about the best player persay. fame weighs in to it.
the reason why he is on that list is because he has 13 year career avg of 21ppg, 5rpg, and 4apg. plus, he was selected to 7 All-Star games.
we know he was not better than Worthy, Dantley, etc...but look at how the probability chart is compiled.
you should not be upset by basketball-reference's metric. the basketball HOF still holds a pretty strict criteria.
unlike other sports, like boxing for instance. it seems anyone can get in to the IBHOF.
no disrespect to Arturo Gatti (R.I.P.) because I am a huge Gatti fan, but he was not an all-time great fighter or even close to it. what he was, was one of the greatest action fighters and human highlight films of all time. he appeared on HBO over 20 times. I do believe he will be in on his 1st ballot.
Sometimes, there are athletes that make such an impact on their sport, without necessarily being winners or being the best. Gatti and Vince Carter alike fall in this catagory. Vince definitely made an impact on the sport.
If youtube and espn were always around, that probably wouldve helped the case of a few other NBA players.
Some say Pierce is overrated..But i think Pierce has gotten the most out of the limited talents that he has..He's not very athletic or explosive,but he's a good defender,a great shooter and always seems up for the big games...
But like Reggie Miller who alot of people also thought would be a surefire 1st ballot entry...Miller was also was a big game player,but there were those thats say its debatable if he was ever a top 10 player..
Looking down the list of the highest ever NBA scorers on Basketball-Reference.com the only none active guys in the top 30 scorers of all time who are not in the HOF are Reggie Mller, Shaq and Gary Payton. If we assume that Shaq and AI are locks to go in when they become eligible and Payton should make it soon and Miller also in due course then someone like Paul Pierce as a one team man, number 27 on the all time point list and likely to go a few places higher and an NBA championship winner should surely have a great HOF chance.
Whether he makes it first year eligible, I don't know? My own opinion is it could well depend how many of his current rivals are also eligible that year lets say KG, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Grant Hill and Ray Allen for example all retired at about the same time as PP plus throw in Dirk, T-Mac, Vince Carter, Ben Wallace etc as players who may retire later or who could also be HOF considered then you could have a few players having to wait a year or two extra to get in.
I'd assume that KG, Duncan, Kidd, Dirk and Nash would all get in on the first year, also Kobe whenever he retires ( he's 34 this year so maybe only another 2 or 3 years left in the NBA) so there will be limited spaces for other players for a few years starting in around 2017/18.
I am one who do not believe that Miller was a top 10 player. The difference between Miller and Pierce IMO is that Pierce had a very unique career. He had a lot of expectation to help rescusitate a franchise that had been used to being the top franchise in the league. First Bird let the Celts back to glory, but then the Celtics had a serious fall from grace as Bird retired due to his back, the end of the careers of McHale and Parrish....plus the tragic death of the man they thought would carry the torch....Reggie Lewis.
Pierce came in and labored through the bad times and through sheer attrition, helped the franchise get back to the top and in the process became the 2nd leading scorer in their history.
Leaving such a footprint in an organization like the Lakers or the Celtics is different than the Pacers. Just as Kobe has been the face of the Lakers for over a decade, likewise with Pierce in Boston. Being all-time greats of those storied franchises lends a lot of popularity. They are almost like fraternities.
Where would you have Pierce ranked on the all-time Celtics list?
When its all said and done and KG 7 Pierce careers are over..Will KG be ranked higher on the Celtics all time list above Pierce?
the point of the topic is when the HOF goes "beyond" statistics. Vince's stats if he were on winning teams would be enough to get him in, however he was not. I do believe he had popularity and timing to give a boost to what he lacked in his career otherwise to get him in.
remember, this is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of GREATEST. Some players in there we never hear about but they were great...some were so popular, they could not be omitted if there was strong enough argument to get them there.
I didn't make myself clear. I love basketball-reference's metric, and I don't blame them at all.
It's sad to me because I hate VC. I saw first hand what he did in Toronto... literally jogged up and down the court and took "fall away" jumpers. He purposely hurt his trade value. It's one thing to be less motivated and not play 100%. It's another to actually sabotage your own team.
VC will make the HOF because he was a fan favourite.... and made tons of all star games. He has the best slam dunk championship of all time. He has probably the best dunk ever. Those things will get him in.
you know....thats a very good question.
this is just me personally....but I favor longevity when we talk about organizations. KG is the greatest Timberwolf of all time.
On the Celtics list however...I would have to put Pierce around 7th or 8th and KG and the Chief falling somewhere immediately after. My list would look like this.....
10. Jo-Jo White or DJ
Vince was a hugely popular player at his peak I agree Rudeboy and rather like Grant Hill his popularity may well push him well towards the HOF even though as yet neither has been on a Championship Winning Team. If for example K-Love spent his entire career with the T-Wolves and never won a title then I could still see him being an HOF contender if he has a long term successful career.
T-Mac likewise was voted an All Star starter when he was averaging about 15ppg for Houston a few years back which was due to his popularity.
I forgot to throw Yao into the mix as he'll get a lot of votes from China and his effect on raising the NBA's profile in China will surely boost his HOF chances.
incidentally, on my list, all of the other players are in the Hall except Garnett (who will be 1st ballot) and White, who I believe will get in. There is no doubt Pierce will get in, but I think what he did during the rise and fall of the Celts and his popularity in franchise history will get him in 1st ballot.
glad you brought up Yao. He is another one who people believe didnt do enough, but I believe his popularity and impact on the game culturally and universally gets him in as well. Yao, T-Mac, and Grant Hill are all very close to each other in terms of accomplishments and prime years. They were all just a few prime years short from definite induction, but Hill and Yao definitely have the popularity to push them over....not sure about T-Mac, playoff history hurts him, but was he popular enough as a 2x time scoring champ?
"VC will make the HOF because he was a fan favourite."
and there you have it.....I feel you on his Toronto days. Some will disagree with me but I dont think much attention was paid to Toronto before Vince took flight. Also, people who were not fans of Toronto or just casual fans in general tuned in just to see this guy. They didnt care about his attitude and how slack he was, but that as far as dunking.....he really eased the loss of Nique and MJ.
Make no mistake, he was much more than a dunker, but without that aspect of his game he wouldnt get in.
Think that people had a hard time with all of the names I listed that I did not feel would make the Hall of Fame but had solid careers. Nonetheless, here were the ones I did think were going to make it:
- Shaquille O'Neal
- Jason Kidd
- Kevin Garnett
- Kobe Bryant
- Allen Iverson
- Ray Allen
- Steve Nash
- Tim Duncan
- Chauncey Billups (I have an affinity for Finals MVP's)
- Dirk Nowitzki
- Paul Pierce
- Manu Ginobili
- Pau Gasol
- Tony Parker
- LeBron James
- Dwyane Wade
- Dwight Howard
- Chris Paul (Predicition)
- Deron Williams (Prediction)
- Derrick Rose (Prediction)
- Kevin Durant (Prediction)
These are the players marked as Possibilities, who I think can or will more than likely make it:
- Alonzo Mourning
- Chris Webber
- Grant Hill (Coin flip)
- Amare Stoudemire
- Yao Ming (Because he is an incredible symbol and ambassador)
- Carmelo Anthony
- Chris Bosh (Who still has a lot left to prove, and will need to be an important player on title teams)
Finally, I listed some guys who look like they are well on their way to being HOF candidates chosen AFTER (I stated before, and can not edit unfortunately) the 2005 Draft:
- Rajon Rondo
- Russell Westbrook
- Blake Griffin
- John Wall
So, the first list is guys I think are locks to make it, including Paul Pierce. There is a reason they were called "the Big 3" when they went to Boston. All of them had been in the league for quite a while and have had Hall of Fame careers. That may not be the case with every team with a "Big 3", but for these guys, it was.
I think people put too much into the "Fame" aspect. It is about achievement in your career, not necessarily being a fan favorite. It is not voted on by fans, it is voted on by people passionate about the level of success as a player to make it onto a gold placard. Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady are definitely legitimate candidates, but I find that the names I listed (other than the last list of 2005 guys) has accomplished more.
I also think that the Hall of Fame is about your commitment to the game itself and your candidacy probably does not end after your playing career. With this being said, I am not sure that everyone I have on my list of "locks" is a first ballot guy. I thought Reggie Miller was, but he did not even make the list of finalists over Mark Jackson (once again, a travesty). Still, I think that Paul Pierce certainly is a Hall of Famer and will not have to wait very long to become one after his 5 years of waiting after retirement.
I'd put D-Will down on the possibilities list at this point. Also, where are Vince and T-Mac?
Is there a player that has led the league in scoring that isn't in the Hall of Fame?
I'd say that Zo was a better player than Pau ever was.
"It is not voted on by fans, it is voted on by people passionate about the level of success as a player to make it onto a gold placard. Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady are definitely legitimate candidates, but I find that the names I listed (other than the last list of 2005 guys) has accomplished more."
Here is the thing....are those passionate people not fans? They have to be, or I dont want them voting. If you and I were on the panel, we definitely look at achievement FIRST.
SECONDLY....however, when there are those players who are on the borderline or just below.....what criteria keeps them in/out IF you have already did all the statistically and accomplishment considerations? Myself as a voter on the panel and as a fan would vote Carter in. Let me explain why.
All the people on the panels are fans or have to know something about basketball and the candidates they are voting on, would you agree? Well, an era runs about every 15 years. If you have a voter that is 45 and one that is 60 they obviously have connections to different eras.
I get what you are saying about the FAME, where it may be overrated by some, its underrated by others. This is the whole thing about comparing players from different eras. There is no doubt in my mind had Vince played in the same era as Alex English, he wouldve been a HOFer. You have to remember, too much credit is given to old-timers as well because they were the first to do some of the things they did.
What I am saying is, as a voter, if I am looking for a reason to put Hill, Carter, or McGrady in, its much easier for me to find it because I watched them play. I didnt see George McGinnis play or enough to know his impact and whether or not he should be a HOFer....and going back on tape to watch him, Marques Johnson, Artis Gilmore, etc....wont do it for me. At least not to give that sentimental nudge. For those players I have to go by whats on paper ONLY.
You cant appreciate a player's impact if you did not witness it in the moment and all that attention and hoopla that surrounded it at that time.
A guy like Vince....his impact on the league cannot be measured by his stats and the games he won or didnt win alone. Blake Griffin is sort of re-revolutionizing his position right now the same way Carter did. When you are able to bring crossover fans to the sport....when you are able to put more eyes on Sportscenter.....you are a special/exceptional player, whether you are a great player or not.
This is also one of the reasons why some get in this year, some next and so forth.....because of the other players on the ballot, but also because of who is doing the voting.
"I also think that the Hall of Fame is about your commitment to the game itself and your candidacy probably does not end after your playing career."
If thats the case, then you have to give some creedence to Dunk Contests as well. What players are graded on is individual, team, and franchise success....but there is one important thing thats missing. What about bringing success to the League and its brand???
Personal story....I watched basketball since I was about 8 years old, but there was a period (when I started raising my own family) where I stopped watching basketball because I was just too busy. I stopped watching pro and college, but they were at different times. I stopped watching pro first.....guess when? After the Bulls won their last championship and Jordan retired for the 2nd time! I still loved my college ball and my Heels though, and watched as Jamison and Carter ripped through opponents.
It seemed like MJ took the game with him when he left in 98 and the world was looking for another MJ. There was plenty of style with Kobe and others but basically the race was wide open for the heir to the throne. Whether or not these guys would be all time greats or not was yet to be seen, but one thing was for sure, just as the league needed a shot in the arm as when Bird and Magic started their rivalry....the NBA was sorely in need of that type of boost to keep going.
In comes Vince. If you would ask me back then, I wouldve thought he was the best player in the league because he surely got the most airtime. Remember, I was reduced to less than a casual fan, so I didnt know who was good or not....I just know after MJ I didnt want to watch anymore pro hoops with the fear of it not being exciting enough. Vince brought that excitement. He helped sustain the marketability of the league. He made All-Star weekend something to truly look forward to. I didnt even care about the game, just the dunk contest.
This is a small part, but it is significant. Just as significant as someone who hangs around the sport and makes an impact after their player days are over.
The "FAME" in Hall of Fame may just be the X-Factor for a player who is on the fence and needs the benefit of the doubt when the stats dont tell the full story. There are players that have done more statistically and team wise than others, but then there are those who have done a lot for the sport itself.
"I also think that the Hall of Fame is about your commitment to the game itself and your candidacy probably does not end after your playing career."
My point was, people that stay around the game tend to get the benefit of the doubt over those who just walk away. Honestly, think that is probably a good reason why Calvin Murphy and Chris Mullin made it, two people that are constantly used as reasons for Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady making it. Dunk Contests mean very little to me in this regard. You are not committed to basketball by being in one. They are fun and Vince obviously had maybe the best one in history, but his winning that does very little for me if I am a Hall of Fame voter.
Of course the people who vote on the HOF love basketball. They are fans, but they are not "fans". They are not people on this message board who have fond memories of the glory years of T-Mac and VC. They probably have criteria and a number of things they take into account when voting someone in the Hall of Fame. I do not know, I am not a voter myself, probably never will be, but I feel like some of the reasoning people give for players being in the Hall of Fame is lacking.
Vince Carter certainly has a chance to make it, as does Tracy McGrady. But, I think the fact that neither of them ever really led their teams to maintained success, even with them having injury issues, hurts there cause. It is not like either of them were Bill Walton, who played only 480 or so games but was the best player in the world for two years (Finals MVP 77'/MVP 78', than got hurt). Calvin was a prolific foul shooter and Mullin was a two time gold medalist and well respected player. Plus, they both stayed around the game. If Vince and T-Mac are not around the game after they retire, I would not be surprised if that hurts their HOF chances. That is what I meant by what I said.
ok, more food for thought....
"My point was, people that stay around the game tend to get the benefit of the doubt over those who just walk away."
What do you think the reasoning behind that is? Could it be that hanging around keeps your level of visibility heightened as opposed to one who walks away and is less seen in the public eye or in basketball organizational circles? I think you prove my point if this is the case. My point is fame helps, whether its related to a most popular contest or whatever. Remember in our old HOF discussion when someone said Fisher's role as President of the NBPA may help him get in? Why would it? Well, could it be that his impact would be remembered when his legacy was on the table?
The key word I think is, REMEMBER. I dont think the Hall is going to induct someone that NOBODY is going to remember. I do think there are some who will be well remembered and will be an exception to the rule.
I am trying to get you to look at this once we go completely past accomplishments on paper. The first thing someone is going to say is, well if you let Vince or Grant in then you gotta let such and such in....NO! Vince and Grant were exceptions to the rule when you look beyond stats, their popularity was phenomenal. I mean, there havent been too many other players who were as popular as them in their rookie seasons since except for Lebron and Blake. T-Mac although not as popular as the previously mentioned...does have a "popularity" and actual stat to hang his hat on when voting comes and that is 2x NBA scoring champ.