[kaceyParticipant]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html

Great website, but I disagree with their model for Hall of Fame probability.  The creator completely ignored any college and Olympic accolades and achievements reached by a player. Many people, myself was included for the longest time, think of it as the NBA Hall of Fame, however, it is called the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. NBA, overseas play (including the Olympics), and college players are included, even key contributors, that have no basketball skill whatsoever, are inducted as well.  

Obviously, the inclusion of college and Olympic achievements may not have that much of an effect, but for a player like Grant Hill, it would mean alot. 2 NCAA titles, and made it to a third championship game only to lose to Arkansas, plus a Gold Medal in 1996.  Add that to six years solid years with the Pistons which included a rookie of the year award, an All-NBA 1st team selection, and four 2nd team selections, and that probability will move alot higher than 0.48 .

Maybe the 1996 Olympic team gets inducted, so Hill will sneak in that way.  Maybe the HOF starts inducting single great plays, thus his touchdown pass to Laettner against UK gets inducted.

That is my spill. Keeping in mind this is just a model based on statistics, are they any active players (names in bold) you think should be higher than where they are? Example, Steve Nash, two time MVP, at 0.3713?

[Michael.S.Participant]

Bernard King and Reggie Miller definitely.

[llperez]

looking at that list, first thing i notice is there are guys who have already been inducted who dont have a 100% chance according to their stats which is odd. As for grant hill, i could go wither way with him. His combination of college and nba success is very legit. I believe he would have been in the race for many all-nba 1st team spots had he stayed healthy. I dont put too much into his being on the dream team becasue lots of guys make the olympic teams that are not very special. It could go either way hill and i would personally enjoy seeing him in there. Newer fans were robbed of a great player.

Now some of the guys not yet in who should get in just from there list:
(LOCKS)
shaquille oneal
kobe bryant
tim duncan
allen iverson
kevin garnett
dirk nowitzki
jason kidd
gary payton
steve nash

(locks eventually)
lebron james
dwyane wade

(other strong candidates)
paul pierce
ray allen
mitch richmond
pau gasol
carmelo anthony
dwight howard
chauncey billups
reggie miller
dikimbe mutombo

[RUDEBOY_Participant]

I still can’t figure out how Adrian Dantley & Alex English got elected to the Hall and Bernard King hasn’t gotten in..

Even though all 3 of them were selfish ballhogs…They were fun to watch….

[ItsVictorOladipoParticipant]

I still can’t figure out how Adrian Dantley & Alex English got elected to the Hall and Bernard King hasn’t gotten in..

——————————————————————————————————————

 

Injuries…I mean King had 4 all-star games and 2 All-NBA first team appearances in his career that certainly doesn’t scream HOF to me. If he had been injury free he would probably be in there but that wasn’t the case.

Yeah I agree with the OP the formula basketball reference uses to determine a HOF player ignores alot of factors. Why else would Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas be higher than Steve Nash and why else would Bill Walton have his odds so low (.1162)?

Mutombo is also really low too; .0328 possibility for an 8 time all-star and 4 time DPOY…

[Toronto16Participant]

 This must be old.  Jerry Sloan has already been inducted to the hall of fame.

[Toronto16Participant]

 Tim Duncan has more titles and more MVP’s than Shaq, yet he has a less probability of getting to the Hall of Fame.  Right.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 Churchboy, not that it matters, because they are both locks for the HOF, they have the same amount of titles.

Also, regardless of Duncan’s superior intangibles, I’m taking a prime Shaq over a prime Duncan every day of the week without having to think twice.

[Toronto16Participant]

 Oh yes I forgot.  They both have 4.

[Mr.Knick 32Participant]

Also, regardless of Duncan’s superior intangibles, I’m taking a prime Shaq over a prime Duncan every day of the week without having to think twice.

 

That’s Crazy. Shaq couldn’t win a title without a star opposite of him. Duncan was the #1 guy every title they won. He never needed a superstar.

[kaceyParticipant]

The developer intentionally left the current HOF players on the list, just for comparison.  I’m surprised you mentioned Jerry Sloan before the 75+ HOF players listed ahead of him.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 Say what you like, A prime Shaq was the single most unstoppable force in the history of the NBA. And it’s not like Duncan was playing with scrubs, Ginobli and Parker are both All-Star talents. Just because Shaq did win with Kobe doesn’t mean he couldn’t have one without him.

You are telling me that if you can pick one player in their prime to start a team with, to start a team with, you are going Duncan? There was a point and time, where Shaq was close to unguardable, while also pulling down a ton of rebounds and blocking double digit shots.

[llperez]

prime shaq vs prime duncan goes to shaq. Not sure who had the better career becasue shaq was a lazy as.s and duncan has always been consistent. But at thier very best, i have never seen anyone as dominant shaq. Shaq from about 99-2002 i woudl put ahead of prime jordan, kobe, lebron, duncan anyone i have seen. And anyone on here who knows me knows i hate shaq.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 Exactly, If there is an all-time draft of players in their primes, I’m going Shaq with the first over all pick over anyone, Jordan, Magic, Wilt, etc. Now obviously he didn’t have the greatest work ethic and didn’t sustain his highest level of play, so a few players have had better careers.

[billykParticipant]

How is Steve Nash a LOCK to make the hall of fame but, Reggie Miller and Ray Allen not a lock???

Gemmie Jordan in his prime over Shaq anyday… In his prime Jordan is literally giving you multiple championships regardless who’s on the other team… What would seperate Jordan and Shaq is the ability to close out a game, Jordan in his prime was just as dominante as Shaq.. Im not sure Shaq in his prime could handle Hakeem in his prime (the Dream could neutralize Shaq)…

[HitsterParticipant]

Reggie Miller is probably the next top former player to be HOF eligibe, then it will work around to the likes of Mutombo, Mourning, C-Web, Payton etc to be considered. With the likes of Shaq deciding to play on and so many veteran players out of contract in 2012 then come 2017/18 then the HOF will be very interesting.

Most MVP’s tend to get in so Shaq, Duncan, Nowitzki, Nash, AI, Kobe, KG and many years down the line LeBron will be locks to get in.

Looking at players who may retire over the next few years and were not MVP’s then Grant Hill, T-Mac, Kidd, Billups, Ben Wallace, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Paul  Pierce etc will all have strong claims.

[HitsterParticipant]

Reggie Miller is probably the next top former player to be HOF eligibe, then it will work around to the likes of Mutombo, Mourning, C-Web, Payton etc to be considered. With the likes of Shaq deciding to play on and so many veteran players out of contract in 2012 then come 2017/18 then the HOF will be very interesting.

Most MVP’s tend to get in so Shaq, Duncan, Nowitzki, Nash, AI, Kobe, KG and many years down the line LeBron will be locks to get in.

Looking at players who may retire over the next few years and were not MVP’s then Grant Hill, T-Mac, Kidd, Billups, Ben Wallace, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Paul  Pierce etc will all have strong claims.

[HitsterParticipant]

Reggie Miller is probably the next top former player to be HOF eligibe, then it will work around to the likes of Mutombo, Mourning, C-Web, Payton etc to be considered. With the likes of Shaq deciding to play on and so many veteran players out of contract in 2012 then come 2017/18 then the HOF will be very interesting.

Most MVP’s tend to get in so Shaq, Duncan, Nowitzki, Nash, AI, Kobe, KG and many years down the line LeBron will be locks to get in.

Looking at players who may retire over the next few years and were not MVP’s then Grant Hill, T-Mac, Kidd, Billups, Ben Wallace, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Paul  Pierce etc will all have strong claims.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 How do you know Jordan would give you a Championship regardless of the players around him? He had an excellent supporting cast, and another hall of famer. 

I’m not disputing the fact that Jordan was a better player, but I don’t think that in his prime he was more dominant than Shaq. 

[llperez]

so no matter who is on the teams and who the opponent is, jordan gaurantees automatic championships everytime? Interseting argument there.

[llperez]

and for the nash vs reggie miller thing, nash has 2 mvps. Miller was never at any poiint in his career a top 10 player in the league.

[billykParticipant]

No im saying when Jordan was in his prime give him a decent supporting cast and he wins championships… Im saying he was sooo dominant in his prime all needed was another star player and a solid team around him, I believe he was that good… Put him on any playoff team in the playoff team in the East in the 90’s and he wins a championship…  

"In his prime Jordan is literally giving you multiple championships regardless who’s on the other team." (thats what I wrote Im your father and llprez)…

 

[llperez]

yeah, i read it right the first time and you didnt explain any of that, so dont act like we misread or misquoted you.

“In his prime Jordan is literally giving you multiple championships regardless who’s on the other team.”

that is the comment im reffering to and this comment simply implies that jordan in his prime wins against anyone no matter what.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 I think the same could be said for Shaq though. From 99-02, I think all HE needed to win a championship was another star player and a decent supporting cast.

[billykParticipant]

Shaq had weakness in this prime and Jordan didnt have any… The point I was trying to make that you were taking literally is that Jordan had ability to close games out and enhance the play of his teamates.. The reason in my opinion he was more dominant in his prime was because he played with a instinct that I dont think Shaq ever had, Jordan was a great freethrow shooter and never took games off… But, I guess its only about opinions..

To the Reggie Miller and Ray Allen situation… Anybody who has seen Reggie Miller play would say he has had a HOF career.. He was a BEAST in the playoffs and in his prime was a top 5 SG and he carried the Pacers franchise.. Most of the top 10 players that played when Miller was in his prime where HOF players..

Ray Allen arguably one of the top 5 greatest shooter of all time..NBA champion, 9 time all star, career 20 ppg… IMO winning a NBA championship really put him over the hump..    

[llperez]

i agree that miller and ray allen should get in. I just didnt list them as locks and someone mentioned that if nash is a lock then reggie miller has to be a lock as well and i think nash had the beter career. But thats not to take away from ray or miller and they both should be in as well. Lots of guys that i didnt call "locks" i tihnk should get in.

[Im Your FatherParticipant]

 I agree that Shaq had more weaknesses, but that doesn’t mean he was any easier to stop. I repeat, there is no player in the modern era who was harder to guard than Shaq. He was going to get his no matter what. Jordan, by nature of being a guard was prone to some off-shooting nights. Shaq on the other hand played so close to the basket and was so big and quick that he just couldn’t be contained. I just think big men have the ability to be more dominant than wing players and it is easier to win a chamionship with a dominant post presence than with a dominant guard.

[JoeWolf1]

 I think Reggie should get in for sure, he scored 25,000 career points and is the all time career leader in 3 pointers made.  Title or not, if thats not a HOF career I don’t know what is.

[PureshooterParticipant]

Looking at how the stats were modeled, the guy doesn’t use whether or not a player has already been voted in as a factor.  That is why you have some guys rated as 100% that aren’t in and guys that are 99% that are already in.  Here are the variables he used:

1. height (in inches)
2. last season indicator (1 if 1959-60 or before, 0 otherwise)
3. NBA points per game
4. NBA rebounds per game
5. NBA assists per game
6. NBA All-Star game selections
7. NBA championships won

#2-7 are pretty clearcut, but #1 really bothers me.  According to the model, the shorter of two people with identical careers is more likely to be voted in than the taller.  Being short actually helps you get votes.  I’m not saying that it isn’t a valid predictor (I’m sure he ran a regression model that proves otherwise), but do you think height should come into play?  If Shawn Bradley and Muggsy Bogues were to put up completely identical stats (hypothetically), should Muggsy get more nods?  It doesn’t play a huge part as a predictor, so I’m sure it’s more in the subconscious of voters, but it is still interesting.  I personally feel that physical attributes of the player shouldn’t matter.  It’s all about results. 

[Author]

Posts