I went thru the list...it looks like they're all going to the hall except him:

dirk
nash
curry
kd
kobe
shaq....

the youngest season mvp ever.

Every MVP is in the HOF and every MVP but McAdoo was on the NBA @50 list. No exceptions to that since 97 either, obviously Shaq (already on the 50 list, too) Duncan, AI, Kobe, LeBron, Steph, KG, Dirk, et al are in or will get in.

But Rose, I dunno. Obviously there is the same "but but but but his peak!" argument as like Hill, Walton, Penny (not sure if a HOF'er) but I dunno. That prime was great but awfully short and didn't peak as high as Walton or have the second moment like that.

I wouldn't vote for him but like I said the NBA has pretty flimsy standards. Certainly there are worse players in when you look at the three or so great seasons he did have.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rosede01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardaan01.html

exactly 3.5 healthy seasons to start out and then injuries take their toll after that. His second act should be stronger than Penny's, but I don't think his game will age all that well given the nature of his injuries. He definitely won't have Grant Hill's second act.

Personally I think that's too short of a prime (compared to a guy like T-Mac for example) but the MVP could be the tipping point for many voters. Looking at Walton's career should make one more optimistic on Rose's chances, but Bill also won a couple rings.

Penny has got to get in just for foamposites right?

but there's a reason I don't have a vote.

<=========================================
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PYzh4v9cSf4FDnq3yMQyqNqh79o=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4079674/jlio.0.gif

Even though he had a decent year last year. He also has the honor of being one of two MVPs to never make the finals (him and Nash).

If he can do that, he'll get in. Otherwise, yeah, he might end up the exception. The Penny comparison elsewhere was a good one.

rose is 5th-8th fiddle on a chip team.

maybe he has a second act. would we have viewed walton as a surefire HoFer circa '83?

One of the best college players of all time, plus an MVP/Finals MVP, and a title? Yeah dude.

my folks were telling me he was legit in UCLA. HoF for hoops considers college and int't play on top of pro career.

>maybe he has a second act. would we have viewed walton as a
>surefire HoFer circa '83?

Well, he had won a chip by then. And his college career would have gotten him in regardless, as he's still regarded a Top 5/Top 10 college hoops player ever.

I'm not sure if that means he'd definitely have been in, but winning a Finals and a Finals MVP def helps.

But, as everyone else pointed out, the college career made him a lock for the Hall regardless. Three-time NPOY, two titles, two MOPs, part of the 88 straight wins. Only Kareem has a better collegiate resume.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2190462&mesg_id=2190462&listing_type=search#2191589

i'll rephrase: the perception of walton's PROFESSIONAL career was at an all-time low after essentially missing 4 straight seasons with the clippers and was boosted drastically by what he did in boston. it's still possible that the same thing could happen for derrick.

Rose just needs to be a support guy on a title team. That'd help his case tremendously. Ultimately, an argument of "MVP + ring" would be really, really hard to deny.

Arguably he was the best collegian ever, right there with Cap and Pistol Pete. He was in for sure before the Sixth Man of the Year award.

I would say Rose is a closer comparison to Ralph Sampson or Penny.

If Dray gets the DPOY this season he will go to the Hall...but DRose won't...

>If Dray gets the DPOY this season he will go to the
>Hall...but DRose won't...

Not if his career ended after this season.

Let's say, best case scenario, he wins another ring. Now he's a two-time All-Star, two-time All-NBA, one-time DPOY with two rings. That's a tremendous three seasons.

I don't think that's enough. The Hall likes longevity. That ASG number needs to get to four or five, for instance.

Dwight, by comparison, is an 8x All-Star, 8x All-NBA, 3x DPOY. So yeah, he's a no-brainer and should obviously get in well ahead of Derrick Rose. Even if Rose wins a ring in the next couple of years, Dwight's still ahead.

Klay actually has a *better* resume than Dray for the HOF right today. He's a higher offensive option on the ring, has the same amount of All-NBA, has *more* ASG appearances.

Dray's career isn't a HOF one today. Does it project as one? Sure, of course-- I'd imagine he can get to 5 ASGs and, if he has two rings, that should be enough. But if he has D-Rose type injury problems starting this offseason and his career falls off considerably, he's far from a lock, and he's certainly not someone in the same breath as Dwight Howard in terms of HOF likelihood.

If Ws win the Finals AND Dray wins the DPOY, yes he's going to the hall in my opinion. The 73-9 thing is a joke to me but if Ws win this year, it turns to "Warriors have the most wins in a 3-season span, best season record all-time, and won 2 rings...."

>If Ws win the Finals AND Dray wins the DPOY, yes he's going
>to the hall in my opinion. The 73-9 thing is a joke to me but
>if Ws win this year, it turns to "Warriors have the most wins
>in a 3-season span, best season record all-time, and won 2
>rings...."


You serious? The Warriors started this stellar style of play roughly four seasons ago, correct? So Curry, Klay, AND Draymond are going to get into the Hall of Fame based on a great five year window of play? Really? I know the NBA Hall of Fame is the easiest to get into compared to the other major sports, but five years is an incredibly small window of time.

I'm not saying neither of those guys will never get in the Hall of Fame, but I really think folks need to pump the breaks a bit, at least as of today.

he has the top 3 spots for most 3pters in a season. he'll probably finish most 3s made all-time.

Dray needs the 2nd ring AND a DPoY award.

Klay needs a 2nd ring. Thanks to KD, ppl are already forgetting Klay dropping 37 in a quarter.

the 2nd ring will solidify their 3-season run. But that's if they beat the Cavs and as of right now I don't have the Warriors beating the Cavs.

Is Ben Wallace a Hall-of-Famer?

The Hall rewards longevity, it's the point of this entire post. If Klay and Dray have, say, 5 ASGs each and two rings each, then yeah, they're both in. But even if they win this season, neither of them is in yet, the other dude must be a Warriors fan.

as long as Klay and Dray dont get hurt they're in as well. Dray closer than Klay with his college resume.

guess grant ain't a HOFer either.

So people bringing up Steph or Dray's college careers are missing the point. No one's gonna be like "Draymond Green, he's on the fence... but hey, he was an All-American one time in college, so let's put him in!" If Steph didn't have a HOF NBA career, one miracle run in the NCAA tournament and one First-Team AA weren't gonna put him into the Hall. Juan Dixon ain't getting in. Tyler Hansborough ain't getting in. Shit, Jay Will ain't getting in.

Grant Hill, on the other hand, has two rings and a POY to his name. But you knew that, you're just trying to troll Basa. Just figured I'd post this here before people start cysing Klay Thompson's Pac-12 First Team honors and shit.

>Grant Hill, on the other hand, has two rings and a POY to his
>name.

Grant does not have a POY. Lionel does.

L-Train better.


>But you knew that, you're just trying to troll Basa.

No, Basa was trying to troll BrooklynWHAT. I just knew that Lionel Simmons was better than Grant Hill in college. And so does Basa.

If it's going to make the difference for you, you gotta be GREAT.

Honestly the only guy I think is in the HOF because of his NCAA career is Laettner, and frankly he shouldn't be in (sorry, Longo). What the fuck is the NCAA HOF for then? People like him, Johnny Rodgers, Archie Griffin and Mark Fusco. I realize his pro career was better than Rodgers or Fusco, but it was eons from HOF level.

He could deserve it on that alone.

NBA HOF if the hall of very good. If you ain't first ballot, you ain't shit these days.

8x All-NBA (5x 1st team), 5x All-Defense (4x 1st team), 3x DPOY, 2 blocks crowns, has put up double-digit boards 13 straight seasons since he stepped foot in the NBA including leading the league 5x, ranks 4th all-time in FG%, 3rd all-time in REB%, was the best defender and rebounder in the league in his prime averaging 21/14/2.5 BPG shooting 59% FG over his 5 year peak, and led his team to the NBA Finals. People can think he's a mentally soft goofball and whatever all they want, but he's put up a pretty unassailable HOF resume.

He will get in but again I think the standards are weak, they are so weak that now the league is going back and readjusting for the past (guys like Gilmore and McGinnis, both of whom I like a lot, getting in after all these years). Howard racked up a lot of accolades at a time when the position was paper thin. Today it's back to being pretty robust and no one even thinks about him. He did have a dominant stretch when I think you could look at him as a top 2 or 3 player in the league but it was short, then he had a couple more years where he was very good. Overall he has not realized his potential and never grew in a way that would ensure he'd stay nearly as relevant into his old age. When I think HOF I think about players like Howard in his prime who play at that level or close to it over about ten seasons.

>He will get in but again I think the standards are weak, they
>are so weak that now the league is going back and readjusting
>for the past (guys like Gilmore and McGinnis, both of whom I
>like a lot, getting in after all these years). Howard racked
>up a lot of accolades at a time when the position was paper
>thin. Today it's back to being pretty robust and no one even
>thinks about him. He did have a dominant stretch when I think
>you could look at him as a top 2 or 3 player in the league but
>it was short, then he had a couple more years where he was
>very good. Overall he has not realized his potential and never
>grew in a way that would ensure he'd stay nearly as relevant
>into his old age. When I think HOF I think about players like
>Howard in his prime who play at that level or close to it over
>about ten seasons.

at his peak he was a short-list mvp candidate for sure, but his peak was a little shorter than you're describing and he never expanded his skill set. he could have been the next moses malone but he didn't have that kind of fire.

>at his peak he was a short-list mvp candidate for sure, but
>his peak was a little shorter than you're describing and he
>never expanded his skill set. he could have been the next
>moses malone but he didn't have that kind of fire.

he was a dominant player in his prime, top 2-3 player like you said, the best center in the NBA and best defender & rebounder in the league. Then he hurt his back and hasn't been the same dominant player as before, but he's still been a productive player and has put up a total body of work that is HOF caliber. his resume speaks for itself as outlined in the previous post.


>He will get in but again I think the standards are weak, they
>are so weak that now the league is going back and readjusting
>for the past (guys like Gilmore and McGinnis, both of whom I
>like a lot, getting in after all these years).

they got voted in by the ABA committee, as it's the basketball HOF, not just the NBA HOF. that's a separate issue. you're acting like they're letting Kiki Vandeweghe in or something.


Howard racked
>up a lot of accolades at a time when the position was paper
>thin. Today it's back to being pretty robust and no one even
>thinks about him.

1st team All-NBA center the past 3 years has been Marc Gasol, Deandre and PF Brow masquerading as a C. Howard in his prime today would be getting the same accolades as he did before.


>into his old age. When I think HOF I think about players like
>Howard in his prime who play at that level or close to it over
>about ten seasons.

that's not what the HOF criteria is though, and it never really has been.

i actually said for a long time that those guys belonged in, particularly gilmore. but i do think there is some retroactive correction now that they are seeing successive generations have lower standards.


>1st team All-NBA center the past 3 years has been Marc Gasol,
>Deandre and PF Brow masquerading as a C. Howard in his prime
>today would be getting the same accolades as he did before.

i am talking about right today. KAT, Cousins, Gobert, Gasol, DJ, Brow ... that's a much more formidable crop of centers than what D12 was going against in his prime, like heads above.



>that's not what the HOF criteria is though, and it never
>really has been.


no, but it does speak to him reaching his potential or not, and also being able to continue at an all-nba level despite not being in his physical prime. both of those points speak to the major you're not addressing is, which is the same issue rose has: his prime was too short.

>i actually said for a long time that those guys belonged in,
>particularly gilmore. but i do think there is some retroactive
>correction now that they are seeing successive generations
>have lower standards.

the standards were always lower than what you are presenting them to be. go back and look at some of the guys from the 50's and 60's who were already in Springfield years ago.


>>1st team All-NBA center the past 3 years has been Marc
>Gasol,
>>Deandre and PF Brow masquerading as a C. Howard in his prime
>>today would be getting the same accolades as he did before.
>
>i am talking about right today. KAT, Cousins, Gobert, Gasol,
>DJ, Brow ... that's a much more formidable crop of centers
>than what D12 was going against in his prime, like heads
>above.

yeah that's what I said - Howard in his prime was better than those guys right today. his accolades wouldn't be any different if he was going against them in his prime.


>>that's not what the HOF criteria is though, and it never
>>really has been.
>
>
>no,

then there's really no argument here.


>but it does speak to him reaching his potential or not,
>and also being able to continue at an all-nba level despite
>not being in his physical prime.

neither of those are HOF criteria. and Dwight was able to continue at an all-nba level after his back injury despite not being in his physical prime (made all-nba in LA & 1st year in houston)


both of those points speak to
>the major you're not addressing is, which is the same issue
>rose has: his prime was too short.

I already addressed his prime being short. what you are not addressing is that his accomplishments in his prime together with his continued production after the decline in his physical prime due to injury merit HOF induction by any historical measure.

>the standards were always lower than what you are presenting
>them to be. go back and look at some of the guys from the 50's
>and 60's who were already in Springfield years ago.

then they pertained more to the teams they played for, if you were on a winning team it enhanced your chances a lot but overall i don't see nearly as many suspect selections as in recent years.


>yeah that's what I said - Howard in his prime was better than
>those guys right today. his accolades wouldn't be any
>different if he was going against them in his prime.

agree to disagree on that, for about three years, sure, for the whole stretch (eight selections, five first team)? eh, i am not as sure.



>
>I already addressed his prime being short. what you are not
>addressing is that his accomplishments in his prime together
>with his continued production after the decline in his
>physical prime due to injury merit HOF induction by any
>historical measure.

like i said, he will get in. i don't doubt it. same with bosh, cwebb, reggie miller and other guys i wouldn't vote for personally.

particularly when you are bringing them up as an example of weakened HOF standards.


>then they pertained more to the teams they played for, if you
>were on a winning team it enhanced your chances a lot but
>overall i don't see nearly as many suspect selections as in
>recent years.

that's a whole other bag of worms. not sure who all these suspect selections in recent years are who are so much worse than guys who have gotten in before even without playing on big time winning teams though (aside from ABA/international guys, which is a different issue)



>>yeah that's what I said - Howard in his prime was better
>than
>>those guys right today. his accolades wouldn't be any
>>different if he was going against them in his prime.
>
>agree to disagree on that, for about three years, sure, for
>the whole stretch (eight selections, five first team)? eh, i
>am not as sure.

so who would get it over him? cuz as of yet none of the guys you mentioned are better than Dwight in his prime.


>like i said, he will get in. i don't doubt it. same with bosh,
>cwebb, reggie miller and other guys i wouldn't vote for
>personally.

you don't think he merits it though, which is not consistent with what has historically merited HOF induction.

>particularly when you are bringing them up as an example of
>weakened HOF standards.

we've been posting here for 15 years and i have brought those guys up as guys that should be in over other potential HOF'ers several times. what i said was that now that the standards are falling the HOF *has* to go back and right any wrongs or borderline wrongs. never said they were undeserving in any way.

>

>that's a whole other bag of worms. not sure who all these
>suspect selections in recent years are who are so much worse
>than guys who have gotten in before even without playing on
>big time winning teams though (aside from ABA/international
>guys, which is a different issue)

i don't harp on the international thing, the one guy i thought was iffy was sarunas but i was happy for him anyway.


>so who would get it over him? cuz as of yet none of the guys
>you mentioned are better than Dwight in his prime.

having a longer prime. i think i have been pretty clear on that, the issue is that his prime was too short and while injuries have limited him, they haven't debilitated him. his injuries were also in some part because he took his genetics for granted. this is a guy who was eating about two dozen candy bars a day for much of his career. he also never refined his offensive game. in the end his game was based so much on being 100% physically that he couldn't adjust. think about guys like antonio mcdyess and grant hill who had even more severe injuries, they were able to adjust because they had game between their ears. howard never did.


>you don't think he merits it though, which is not consistent
>with what has historically merited HOF induction.

well the established standards and what i consider standards for the basketball HOF are not congruous, so that's hardly surprising. basketball is a game where you can put up empty numbers or dominate for a while. the guys who are HOF'ers should be the guys who put up substantive numbers and do it for a long time.

>we've been posting here for 15 years and i have brought those
>guys up as guys that should be in over other potential HOF'ers
>several times. what i said was that now that the standards are
>falling the HOF *has* to go back and right any wrongs or
>borderline wrongs. never said they were undeserving in any

they did not go back and induct them to right any wrongs because of any supposed falling standards, they were inducted because the HOF instituted an ABA committee to recognize the contribution of ABA players to the history of the game.



>>so who would get it over him? cuz as of yet none of the guys
>>you mentioned are better than Dwight in his prime.
>
>having a longer prime. i think i have been pretty clear on
>that, the issue is that his prime was too short and while
>injuries have limited him, they haven't debilitated him. his
>injuries were also in some part because he took his genetics
>for granted. this is a guy who was eating about two dozen
>candy bars a day for much of his career. he also never refined
>his offensive game. in the end his game was based so much on
>being 100% physically that he couldn't adjust. think about
>guys like antonio mcdyess and grant hill who had even more
>severe injuries, they were able to adjust because they had
>game between their ears. howard never did.

what? I asked which of the current centers you listed before are better than Dwight in his prime.


>>you don't think he merits it though, which is not consistent
>>with what has historically merited HOF induction.
>
>well the established standards and what i consider standards
>for the basketball HOF are not congruous, so that's hardly
>surprising. basketball is a game where you can put up empty
>numbers or dominate for a while. the guys who are HOF'ers
>should be the guys who put up substantive numbers and do it
>for a long time.

then you are not discussing the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, you are discussing the ConcreteCharlie NBA Hall of Fame. which is fine in and of itself, but not what this post is about.

Shit, that would be a great situation all around. They need another creator.

Spurs obviously, Cavs could use him in Deron's role, Dubs will have to jettison salary so might lose Livingston, Iggy. Question is how cheap he will play and if they are confident enough in his health.

Maybe Thibs went to the Doc Rivers School of GMs.

I hope he doesn't go to Minnesota. He's really the last thing they need right there. Maybe he could be a good mentor to Dunn but kind of hate his fit on that squad.

smh i have no argument for him tho...

The Hall won't give a shit about the #1 pick or ROY, as there's countless of both who aren't sniffing in.

he's nowhere near borderline HOF or close to consideration. the MVP will just be a footnote.

no he wasnt as good at his peak as walton and no he didn't have a single tragic accident like stokes but those guys set a precedent for extenuating circumstance.

i would say HOF, no, but borderline? sure, the MVP alone is such a strong predictor and it's not like he played one MVP year and died, he had a couple good years leading up to it.

>no he wasnt as good at his peak as walton and no he didn't
>have a single tragic accident like stokes but those guys set a
>precedent for extenuating circumstance.

Walton won a chip, plus 2 more in college as one of the greatest college players ever. he got in largely if not primarily because of his college career. and stokes' extenuating circumstance is a pretty singular one (and truth be told he actually had a longer prime than Rose did.)


>i would say HOF, no, but borderline? sure, the MVP alone is
>such a strong predictor and it's not like he played one MVP
>year and died, he had a couple good years leading up to it.

correlation is not causation. the fact that every other MVP winner is a HOFer does not automatically grant Rose a HOF pass. he had 2 1/2 seasons as a star player, and only had 1 great season. he only made All-NBA once, meanwhile Howard made All-NBA 8x and 1st team 5x yet you think Dwight's prime was too short. you're all over the place here.

you are repeating exactly what i said about walton above. i know. relax. rose is probably not getting in but falling standards and the MVP give him a remote AF chance. not really worth this many keystrokes but OK.

>you are repeating exactly what i said about walton above.

if by repeating exactly you mean saying something entirely different then sure.


>know. relax. rose is probably not getting in but falling
>standards and the MVP give him a remote AF chance. not really
>worth this many keystrokes but OK.

as it stands now he has no chance. the supposed falling standards you keep harping on and MVP do not give him even a borderline or remote chance.

We don't disagree.

As I said, the only reason *anyone* would consider him *at all* right now is his MVP. Otherwise, this post wouldn't even exist.

that's not the same thing. a GP in '06 bench ring does not get him in.

if the MVP alone were enough to get him in, it wouldn't shock me.

and if he never comes even remotely close to getting the necessary votes, i also wouldn't be surprised in the least.

like I said above, the fact that every other MVP either is or will be in the HOF does not mean the MVP alone is enough to get you in. Every other MVP has a body of work besides just winning a Podoloff to base his induction on. Rose really doesn't. It's not his fault, dude's knee exploded at 23, just a really unfortunate turn of events, but that happens in sports sometimes.

Saying Rose isn't a Hall of Famer isn't in the same galaxy as partying.

I'm pretty sure everyone in here would agree that if Rose had healthy 80-game seasons the last six years uninterrupted, he'd be on everyone's short-list for real HOF consideration.

So it's not out of the realm of possibility that he has another all star season or two and puts together 5-6 more productive seasons and strengthens his resume.

I wouldn't count on it, but you never know. On the right team, it could be possible.