Interesting read of Players not in the HOF that should be.

Celtics are well represented in this groupl

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-7857072

beat

Beat,

Thanks for posting this interesting article.

If I were a Lakers fan, I'd probably rate Cooper and Horry as the most egregious omissions.

As a Celtics fan, it's a no-brainer. Satch was absolutely instrumental in winning virtually all of his 8 rings. Without his defense that at least slowed down guys like Baylor enough so the Celtics could win win win, the Tyranny arguably isn't even a "Tyr."

It's been proven, again and again, that defense is instrumental in winning championships. How ironic it is that there are so many buffoons involved in the voting who can't reward a unique defensive essential and double figure scorer—11 PPG and 7 RPG in those eight championship seasons) on the only true tyranny in the history of the game. And Satch holds a record that I believe will never be broken. Let's play Jeopardy. Answer: Tom Sanders. Question: Who is the only NBA player to win a championship ring in every one of his first six seasons in the league?

Talk about being blinded by the light.

There's another example of a defensive specialist on several of Satch's own teams being inducted into the Hall. KC Jones (8 rings, 7 PPG, 4 APG).

Siggy's number should be retired by the Celtics, but he and Nellie were complementary players in many of their championship years. Jo Jo was a huge contributor, but in only two championships.

If Nellie doesn't make it as a coach, the entire voting process is an unmitigated fraud.

Sam

I believe it was Satch that said after Baylor scored 61 in a finals game..."You can't blame me for him getting 61, I fouled out after he got to 45 or so."

Beat, thanks for the link. Also, thanks for a prior thread where you educated me about the Basketball HOF, that it's for all of basketball, not just the NBA. A disadvantage of being in California is that we're so darn far from all the sports HOFs. When it comes to vacations, I can't seem to convince my wife that visiting the Basketball HOF should be higher up the list. If it was within driving distance, I'd grab my boys and go some three-day weekend, but Springfield doesn't quite fit that category. Ah, well.

Regarding the list of players not in the HOF, I think topics like this are more about what qualifies someone to be in the HOF. There are generally two factors that people differ on:

-- Championships. My personal opinion is that being on championship teams is a factor, but it shouldn't be a determining factor. A player shouldn't be excluded because he never won a title, and he shouldn't be included just because he was on multiple title teams.

-- Very good vs. great. I think that the Hall should be reserved for a select few excellent players and that you shouldn't get in just because you were a very good player. There are many very good players, but there are only a few great players. If you include all the players who are very good, then being on a couple of all-star teams, averaging 20 points, or leading the league in some category would be good enough. To me, adding players who were very good dilutes the Hall and the recognition that should be reserved for the best.

So here's my take on the list. Although players go based on their entire playing career (which includes college, the Olympics, and, I suppose, high school, AAU, and playgrounds), I considered them based on their NBA career. I comment on the Celtic players as a whole at the end.

15. Michael Cooper - No. Solid player, great defender, and good finisher on the fast break who made himself into a 3-point threat in the latter part of his career. Key member of multiple championship teams, but as I said above, that's not enough.

14. Steve Kerr - No. Good player, not great.

13. AC Green - No. Good player, not great.

12. Alonzo Mourning - No. I can understand others saying he deserves it, but to me, he's the perfect example of how the nature of the HOF is decided, whether it's for a select few great players or also those who are very good.

11. Ron Harper - No. Very good guard who filled a role extremely well and played well in pressure situations. Like Cooper, you need players like him on championship teams, but that doesn't mean he belongs in the HOF.

7. Dennis Rodman - Yes. Forget the eccentricities; he has the championship credentials, and as the article says, "Simply stated, Rodman was one of the greatest rebounders to ever play in the NBA." As a 6-7 forward, led the league in rebounding seven years in a row. During that run (1991-92 to 1997-98), there were 25 instances of a player having 12.0 or more rebounds in a season (http://bkref.com/tiny/Xdw37). Rodman has the top five spots on that list (18.7 to 16.1), Kevin Willis is in the no. 6 slot at 15.5, and Rodman has the next two spots (15.0 and 14.9). Here's the best that HOFers did during that time:

Charles Barkley - 13.5
Hakeem Olajuwon - 13.0
David Robinson - 12.2
Patrick Ewing - 12.1

Future HOFer Shaq's best was 13.9.

I'm not denegrating those HOFers' credentials; I'm emphasizing how impressive Rodman's are.

During the 1991-92 season when Rodman averaged 18.7 rebounds a game, he had an astounding 42.1% of Detroit's rebounds (1530/3631). That's on a team with Bill Laimbeer, John Salley, Orlando Woolridge, and Mark Aguirre. Behind Rodman's 1530 rebounds, the next best was Bill Laimbeer at 451. For comparison, in Bill Russell's best rebounding season (24.7 per game in 1963-64), he had 33.6% of Boston's rebounds (1930/5736).

I don't care that he was weak, even indifferent offensively; he was a game-changer defensively and on the boards. To me, it's a no-brainer -- he belongs in the Hall.

4. Donald Barksdale
3. John "Wonderboy" Isaacs
I'm grouping these two together because their main credentials appear to be as very good players who were pioneers in integrating professional basketball in its early years. I'd never heard of either one, but I'm absolutely fine with including them in the HOF. In addition to being recognized as players, people can be recognized as contributors to the sport, and they seem to apply here. I can't speak to whether they belong in the HOF solely as players.

2. Robert Horry - No. Good player, made numerous clutch shots in crucial situations that led to his team winning a title, but no.

1. Artis Gilmore - Yes. One of the greatest centers to play the game. The article makes his case. I don't understand why he's not in.

Regarding the Celtic players, I'll let others on the board pass judgment. I was too young to adequately know how good most of the Celtic players on the list were. (Nellie belongs as a coach, but that's separate from consideration as a player.) I'll only say again that, in my view, being a very good player on multiple championship teams is not enough. I don't think Cooper, Kerr, Green, Harper, or Horry belong, and I'd apply the same standards to Celtic players. As I believe others have noted in previous threads, there is a category in the HOF for teams, and the Russell-era teams belong there.

Outside

Outside,

Good analysis. But I'd have this to add.

I think the author of the article did a good job of distinguishing between (a) simply beiing on the roster of a team that happened to win a championship and (b) making an essential contribution to a championship. Frankly, in my estimation, an NBA player can have no greater legacy than an essential contribution to a championship.

When a player makes an essential contribution to a championship not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times,not seven times, but eight times, that's just about the holy grail of basketball. What's the greater proving ground? Achieving spectacular stats during the regular season or consistently providing an essential element in winning championships?

Actually, both scenarios should have their place in the Hall of Fame. Chamberlain's not in there primarily because of amazing championship exploits. He's in there primarily because of his individual achievements; which is fine. But, as I said earlier, a guy like Tom Sanders should absolutely be in there—NOT because he was ON eight championship teams but because he was an ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT of eight championship teams. There's a gigantic difference.

I've gone through this discussion scores of times regarding Sam Jones. His stats were impressive, but other SGs who are not in the Hall probably have equal or better stats. Why did Sam make it? Just because he owns a paltry 10 championship rings? No. Because he was an essential offensive contributor to multiple championships. (Just ask Russ and be prepared for a torrent of affirmatives.) Satch was an essential defensive contributor, while chipping in very reliably on offense and averaging 7 boards while playing with a human vacuum cleaner.

Perhaps it could be argued that someone else might have made as great a contribution as Satch. I'd answer that one in three words. But they didn't.

To deny Satch entry to the hall is to denigrate the importance of essential defense in the greatest proving ground in professional basketball. His 18 years of mentoring players new to the league probably shouldn't count toward the hall (although it won him the hall's most prestigious award other than hall membership); but it attests to the "other-directed" attitude Satch has always maintained, including his approach to playing professional basketball.

And I haven't seen any rebuttals to my example of KC Jones as a defensive specialist who is a HOF member. I can guarantee there's at least one precedent that acknowledges the championship contributions of a defensive specialist. Heck, Rodman was a specialist who contributed heavily to championships. He just happened to have a specialty that showed up in the stats of the day.

I watched Don Barksdale play both before and during his Celtics stint. I think he would have fit your description of a very good player—even all-star caliber. He was the third black player to join the NBA. And, many years after he retired, he started a foundation that saved Oakland school athletics from extinction. But I don't think either his individual achievements or consistent contribution to championships or any noteworthy contribution to the sport would qualify him for the hall (although he might be a worthy candidate for some sort of humanitarian hall of fame).

I didn't know who Isaacs was, so I looked him up. He went right from high school to the pros (long before the NBA was established) and led his all-black team to the first professional world championship. I guess that would qualify as contributing to basketball.

Sam

Sam,

I certainly trust your assessment of Celtic players from the Russell era.

Based on what you wrote, we have divergent opinions about what should qualify a player to be in the Hall. I assume that you'd include Cooper, Harper, and Horry since they made essential contributions to multiple championship teams, whereas I wouldn't. (I'm sure I'm more restrictive than most.) I'm not sure whether Kerr and Green rise to the level of essential contributor.

For what it's worth, based on what I know, I'd include Satch Sanders. I'd also include Jo Jo White.

For those who may not be aware, Basketball-Reference.com has a "Hall of Fame probability" stat that is a pretty good indicator of who will make it into the Hall. Neil Paine, the guy who created the site and the stat (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html) uses seven criteria to determine probability:

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

As he explains, the probability indicator isn't an indicator of who he thinks should be in the Hall, but who is likely to be in the Hall based on the characteristics of those who have made it. His model is 96.6% accurate. According to the model, Jo Jo White's probability is .843 and Satch Sanders' probability is .403 (anything over .500 is considered likely to get into the Hall). Again, this isn't his indicator of who should get into the HOF, just who is likely to get in based on who actually gets voted in. From what I can tell, Jo Jo has the highest probability of any player who is eligible to be voted in but hasn't been voted in (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html). Others have higher probabilities but are either still active or haven't been retired the requisite five years.

Outside

Speaking of which.

How is it possible the Chick Hearn is in the HOF and Johnny Most is not?

For the record, the reason Bill Russell gave for refusing induction into the Naismith Hall of Fame was the racial attitudes of the men who built the thing. Where I come from, they were called WASPs. Notice that almost every player listed above is of African ancestry. They don't care much for Jews, either, so tough luck for Johnny. They're also prejudiced against the Boston Celtics, if you believe Red, which is why Jo Jo isn't enshrined.

Lastly, basketball is the ultimate team game, so the idea of rewarding players for individual achievement is just plain wrongheaded.

Outside

No answer other than it's a grave injustice. Johnny should be in there no doubt. And this breadcrumb is not quite enought

Shortly after his death, Johnny Most was awarded the prestigious Curt Gowdy Media Award by the Trustees of the Basketball Hall of Fame for his contribution to basketball.

As big an oversight as any.


beat

Outside,

First, I have to correct an error in one of my earlier posts. Actually, KC Jones holds the record for being on the most consecutive championship teams at the beginning of his career, with eight. I believe Satch is second, with six.

I'd also like to post a link listing the players with the most championship rings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_players_with_most_championship_rings

Third, please note that I said IF I WERE A LAKERS FAN, I'd probably be complaining about Cooper and Horry not being in the HOF. You've probably noticed that I am NOT A Lakers fan. So it should most definitely NOT be assumed that I would necessarily recommend either Cooper or Horry for induction. Frankly, I've never given it much thought.

I'm most appreciative of the Basketball Reference site and of those who initiated it and maintain it. I don't happen to be a huge fan of the HOF probability ratings because I don't agree with the criteria. Height? Are you kidding me? Even the category of championships "won" should have relevance only if a player was essential to the effort—not just a contributor, but essential.

But my big concern is that here's virtually no allowance for defensive greatness (except possibly indirectly since something like three-quarters of the rebounding stat involves defensive boards).

I'm not knocking his formula because he's only trying to replicate the way voting is done. He's not commenting on the validity of the seven factors. And it's the validity of those factors with which I have a gripe.

I fully understand that defensive stats are not available, except for blocks and steals (neither of which was recorded in the old days). But the unavailability of readily available defensive stats doesn't make defense any less valuable a factor. This is where informed subjectivity should come into play. And one of my main points is that it doesn't come into play nearly enough—perhaps because so many of the HOF voters are not sufficiently informed, although I suspect the real reason is that relying on stats is just more convenient.

Somehow, guys like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey were elected to the HOF despite the fact that they have "HOF probability" ratings of only 45 and 65 respectively. This leads me to conclude that there have been precedents in which statistics have not been the dominant decision criteria. But they certainly seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

If I were a HOF voter who had no first-hand knowledge of a given era, and if I were trying to determine how "essential" a given player might have been in winning a championship, the first thing I'd do would be to look at his playing time. Did he have enough playing time to make him more than a "bit player" who might have hit a couple of famous shots?

I figure that a player should have been one of the top six players on his team, in terms of minutes per game, in order to have the opportunity to exert sustained, significant influence on the fortunes of the team. I picked the figure of six to include the possibility that a sixth man (such as Havlicek and McHale were for much of their careers) could exert significant influence. For the same reason, plus the fact that records are not available for years ago, I avoided using number of starts as a criterion.

I actually did the calculations for five players: KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Sam Jones (just out of personal interest), Michael Cooper, and Robert Horry. Following are the number of seasons when each player was part of that vital core:

KC: 6 of his 9 years, rising as high as #2 on the team in terms of MPG
Satch: 10 of his 14 years, rising as high as #2 on the team
Sam: 10 of his 12 years, rising as high as #2 (for five years) on the team
Cooper: All of his 12 years, rising as high as #5 on the team
Horry: 7 of his 16 years, rising as high as #3 on the team

It became a simple matter to determine in how many of each player's "vital contribution" years the team won a championship:

Sam: 9
Satch: 7
Cooper: 5
KC: 3
Horry: 3

Of course, this is far from the whole story. Simply ranking very high on this "vital contribution to a championship" list is not enough. There must be some evaluation of how vital the respective contributions were. And this is where I feel a heavy dose of subjectivity is needed—especially in terms of players being considered primarily for their defensive capabilities.

I happen to think Satch's coverage of great opposing forwards (heck, Baylor alone) was so essential that the Celtics probably wouldn't have won most of those 7 championships without him. That factor, plus the sheer number of championships to which he made vital contributions, puts him over the top in my estimation.

I'll leave it to Lakers fans to exercise judgment concerning Cooper. In my mind, Horry's an also ran. And one would have to think that Red Auerbach's fine hand might have had something to do with KC's eventual enshrinement.

I thought Jo Jo was a fine player, and he was a very reliable one. But I'd put Satch ahead of him in terms of vital contributions to championship teams.

Sam

Sam,

A couple of things.

As Neil Paine states and you acknowledge, the HOF probability rating has no correlation to how he would choose who is in the Hall, it's merely an attempt to predict how the voters who determine who gets in will vote. You are dismissive of the rating altogether and his criteria n particular, but for its stated purpose, it's quite accurate. Trust me, I agree with you about height being a ridiculous factor, that defensive specialists don't get proper consideration, and that subjectivity is needed to properly assess players. I'm wandering into a discussion about the validity of statistics, which in this case is asking to get squashed like a bug, but here goes... an analogy that comes to mind is John Smith using gender as a factor in creating an earnings potential rating, and you saying that it's ridiculous and unfair for gender to be a consideration, but the data shows that gender is a factor. It's not John Smith's fault or the rating's fault that there is a correlation between gender an earnings potential, and I would think that an earnings potential rating that was 96.6% accurate would be considered an exceptionally accurate rating.

Sigh... I await my squashing.

On the second topic, from what I've read so far, the impression I get is that you think a player belongs in the Hall if a) he was an essential contributor to a championship; or b) he has compelling individual statistics. Players such as Russell, Cousy, and Bird obviously qualify using both scenarios. You give KC Jones, Ramsey, and Sanders as examples of players who qualify using scenario a, and you give Wilt as an example of a player who qualifies using scenario b. I'd like to respectfully make several observations.

While being an essential contributor to a championship is certainly a valid factor, I think your position as a Celtic fan leads you to put an overreliance on it as a factor. You are so fortunate to be a fan of a team that has seen such incredible achievement and has won so many titles. We agree wholeheartedly on the value of team play over "me ball," and we both consider that a defining aspect of a great championship team, but there are players and teams who exhibit that selfless, team play, who have all the competitive drive that anyone can have, and yet don't win the title. The Laker teams that lost to the Russell teams were great teams. The Russell teams were better, but many times, just by a whisker, where a single play sometimes made the difference. You can say that the Russell teams always did what was needed to make that one play go their way, but the fact of the matter is that those Laker teams had great players with the ultimate competitive drive and played the highest level of team ball. What happens when two teams playing with the utmost skill, at the highest level, with complete dedication to team goals, play for the title? One wins, and one doesn't. It is not possible for both to win, even though both have all the qualities of a championship team. The fact that those Laker teams came so close to beating the greatest dynasty in the history of team sports shows how great they were. The fact that they lost doesn't mean that Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are somehow less worthy of being in the Hall or that other players who made essential contributions to those championship-level teams shouldn't get consideration. Titles are important, and titles are a significant factor why KC Jones, Ramsey, and Sanders belong in the Hall, but consider the possibility that there are players on other teams who do the unheralded things just as well but weren't fortunate enough to be on a title-winning team (Jeff Hornacek is an example that comes to mind).

As a corollary, there are more than the two scenarios you mention. (You didn't say explicitly that those were the only two scenarios, but that was the implication I got.) If a player wasn't an essential contributor to a championship, scenario b says he can get in based on individual accomplishments. But to me, it's so much more than that. Even if Steve Nash doesn't win a championship, he belongs in the Hall, but not just on individual accomplishments. He belongs because he is the ultimate team player who makes his team better. Allen Iverson has great stats, but he doesn't belong in the Hall. The difference between the two couldn't be more stark.

Outside

Outside,

My concern is about the criteria used for HOF selection. I'm not concerned about the probability rating formula except that it—just just like the selection process is heavily (if not totally) skewed toward statistics—therefore heavily skewed toward offense.

I realize there are many ingredients of the HOF selection process. In fact, that's why I feel there needs to be some subjectivity exercised. I simply elected to discuss the championship factor because it's of interest to me and (in my estimation) the most relevant proving ground in basketball.

Sam

Sam,

Then it sounds like we agree.

Outside

Oops. Note correction of important typo in my previous post. Changed "irelevant" (which would have been an incorrect spelling and not my intended meaning) to "relevant."

Sam