Current Hall of Famers?

[celtsfan84]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

CUT FOR SPACE

I think you're misreading the argument.  Despite the injuries, Grant Hill has strong career NBA numbers, AND a great college and international record.  And before the injuries, he was a legitimate top-10 player for several years.  And he's done a ton of work promoting the game and for charity.  And the media love him, which shouldn't matter but does. 

Most of the guys you're mentioning have at most two or three of those factors.  Of all the players listed, the only guys in the same neighborhood as Hill are Webber and Richmond, and arguably Tim Hardaway and Rip.  Which one of them has a better overall resume than Hill?

Résumés are arguable, so we can go all day here, but I'll give it a shot:

Grant Hill
Rookie of the Year
7x All Star
1st Team 1x
2nd Team 4x
2x NCAA Champion
Gold Medal (’96)

Chris Webber
Rookie of the Year
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x

Mitch Richmond
Rookie of the Year
6x All Star and AS MVP
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 2x
Gold Medal (’96)
Bronze Medal (’88)

Tim Hardaway
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’00)

Glen Rice
3x All Star, and AS MVP
2nd Team 1x
3rd Team 1x
1x NBA Champion
1x NCAA Champion
1x NCAA MOP

Penny Hardaway
4x All-Star
1st Team 2x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’96)

The only place Grant Hill really stands out is All-Star appearances and college rings.

Look at the stats, and tell me he stands out here. Longevity isn't a big factor to me, so I focus more on Per Game Stats, if you focus on totals, Grant Hill is nice for the group I put together, but doesn't stand out.  He may even be the best player in that group, but he's not a tier above any of them. 

And what about playoff stats and performance?

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

I wouldn't really say that being the third best player in the league for a season during the MJ era is anything to sneeze at.

So if he retired after six years, would you think his case would be stronger?  After all, his per game averages would be about 22-8-6.  After the first six seasons of his career, before his ankle injury, Hill had a total of 9,393 points, 3,417 rebounds and 2,720 assists. Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird, and LeBron James are the only three players in league history to eclipse these numbers after their first six seasons.  Did Grant Hill ruin his legacy by coming back?

His resume, as you have them laid out, also looks more impressive than Webber's or Penny's.

[bdm860]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

Carmelo Anthony because he won a championship at Syracuse?

I sure hope Rip Hamilton ain’t getting in because he has a ring at UConn and with the Pistons.
Guys like Glen Rice, Danny Manning, perennial NBA All-Stars with college rings and MOP awards aren’t in the Hall, nor should they be.

Who’s in the HOF that wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for their college career?

Bill Walton, 3x college POY, 3x First Team All American, 2x college champion, 2x Final Four MVP, 88 game winning streak.
Ralph Sampson, 3x college POY. 3x First Team All American.

That’s all I can think of, plus Chris Mullin, who had a great college career (3x Big East POY) and a great international career (member of 2 of the best Olympic teams of all time, ’84 and ’92), with a pretty good NBA career.

But Bill Walton and Ralph Sampson weren't just good in college, they dominated, they transcended the game.  Unless something truly rare happens, no player is getting in for what he did in college anymore.  Nobody.  Christian Laettner had probably the best college career of anybody that has played since the 1990’s, also Dream Team member, NBA All-Star.  He’s not making the Hall of Fame as an individual (though he’s in with the Dream Team). Nobody has had as a big of an impact as the Fab Five, but Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, and Jalen Rose ain’t getting in, despite college careers that transcended the game and pretty successful NBA careers.


Plus after the ’92 Dream Team, US players international careers aren’t really a big deal (maybe if you won like 3 medals), but no way Grant Hill’s one Olympic gold medal and nice college career is going to cut it.

Now, international career matters if you're the face of basketball for an entire country.  So Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Yao Ming, I get it.  But just an Olympic appearance or two now just isn't enough if you're from the US.  Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Vin Baker, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Antonio McDyess, Tim Hardaway, Steve Smith don’t belong in the conversation.  They’re not even close despite successful NBA careers AND international success with a gold medal.  That’s why I think Grant Hill doesn’t have a chance.

This is just me, but I think Melo has really really without even trying or planning it changed our basketball culture in two big ways. First he showed a kid could essentially go to college and have it all and get it all done in just one year. You could lead a team to a ring and hugely improve your draft stock and become a college legend in just a year. This made the one year college draft requirement a different scenario.

Second he has somewhat engineered the public trade demand dream team build. KG is different. He agreed to a trade when he wasn't happy in the first place AFTER Ray had already been added. Melo showed if you just pout long enough and loud enough a team might actually try to jump through hoops of fire to get you. Then Chris Paul did it, and now D Howard is doing it and the NBA might never be the same.

When you add in his two gold medals and his personal achievements he is a major player in our time even if we don't like him.  RIP never led a team to anything. Melo unfortunately has a bronze Olympic medal, which hurts his stock, but you have to give him some credit that he stuck around for some of the lesser rounds as well, such as winning gold at the FIBA Americas round, and bronze in two others.

I mean this guy is ALWAYS on the all star team.  I don't like it but he's one of the best of his time.

Hey eja, I disagree with just about all your Melo points, but I do unfortunately agree he may be on his way to the HOF.

I was basically just saying his college career is going to have nothing to do with him getting in.

If he would be borderline without it, that wouldn't get him in once you added it in.  College career is pretty much a non-factor getting in the HOF now.

[fairweatherfan]

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

Thanks for the response.  Per game metrics are a useful tool but skewed towards players who retired (or got benched due to ineffectiveness) earlier in their careers.  If these guys had played as long as Hill, their per-games and per-minutes would look substantially worse.  I mean, Jason Kidd's final per-games aren't going to accurately reflect how great he was for most of his career.

More importantly, I think we may be falling into the classic HOF debate trap - where one person's arguing based on what the HOF is, and the other on what it ought to be. 

If I ran the HOF, I might agree with you.  But the way the actual HOF is run, Hill is very likely to get in.  Is that fair?

BTW based on that same criteria it wouldn't surprise me to see Webber sneak in either.

[celtsfan84]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

Carmelo Anthony because he won a championship at Syracuse?

I sure hope Rip Hamilton ain’t getting in because he has a ring at UConn and with the Pistons.
Guys like Glen Rice, Danny Manning, perennial NBA All-Stars with college rings and MOP awards aren’t in the Hall, nor should they be.

Who’s in the HOF that wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for their college career?

Bill Walton, 3x college POY, 3x First Team All American, 2x college champion, 2x Final Four MVP, 88 game winning streak.
Ralph Sampson, 3x college POY. 3x First Team All American.

That’s all I can think of, plus Chris Mullin, who had a great college career (3x Big East POY) and a great international career (member of 2 of the best Olympic teams of all time, ’84 and ’92), with a pretty good NBA career.

But Bill Walton and Ralph Sampson weren't just good in college, they dominated, they transcended the game.  Unless something truly rare happens, no player is getting in for what he did in college anymore.  Nobody.  Christian Laettner had probably the best college career of anybody that has played since the 1990’s, also Dream Team member, NBA All-Star.  He’s not making the Hall of Fame as an individual (though he’s in with the Dream Team). Nobody has had as a big of an impact as the Fab Five, but Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, and Jalen Rose ain’t getting in, despite college careers that transcended the game and pretty successful NBA careers.


Plus after the ’92 Dream Team, US players international careers aren’t really a big deal (maybe if you won like 3 medals), but no way Grant Hill’s one Olympic gold medal and nice college career is going to cut it.

Now, international career matters if you're the face of basketball for an entire country.  So Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Yao Ming, I get it.  But just an Olympic appearance or two now just isn't enough if you're from the US.  Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Vin Baker, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Antonio McDyess, Tim Hardaway, Steve Smith don’t belong in the conversation.  They’re not even close despite successful NBA careers AND international success with a gold medal.  That’s why I think Grant Hill doesn’t have a chance.

This is just me, but I think Melo has really really without even trying or planning it changed our basketball culture in two big ways. First he showed a kid could essentially go to college and have it all and get it all done in just one year. You could lead a team to a ring and hugely improve your draft stock and become a college legend in just a year. This made the one year college draft requirement a different scenario.

Second he has somewhat engineered the public trade demand dream team build. KG is different. He agreed to a trade when he wasn't happy in the first place AFTER Ray had already been added. Melo showed if you just pout long enough and loud enough a team might actually try to jump through hoops of fire to get you. Then Chris Paul did it, and now D Howard is doing it and the NBA might never be the same.

When you add in his two gold medals and his personal achievements he is a major player in our time even if we don't like him.  RIP never led a team to anything. Melo unfortunately has a bronze Olympic medal, which hurts his stock, but you have to give him some credit that he stuck around for some of the lesser rounds as well, such as winning gold at the FIBA Americas round, and bronze in two others.

I mean this guy is ALWAYS on the all star team.  I don't like it but he's one of the best of his time.

Hey eja, I disagree with just about all your Melo points, but I do unfortunately agree he may be on his way to the HOF.

I was basically just saying his college career is going to have nothing to do with him getting in.

If he would be borderline without it, that wouldn't get him in once you added it in.  College career is pretty much a non-factor getting in the HOF now.

Here is Ralph Sampson's write up from the official Naismith press release for the 2012 Hall of Fame class:

RALPH SAMPSON [Player] – Sampson is one of the top collegiate players of all-time, where at Virginia he became only the third three-time National College Player of the Year.  He was a three-time Naismith Award winner, two-time Wooden Award recipient and led the Cavaliers to the NIT Championship and one Final Four appearance.  He was only the sixth player in NCAA history to collect 2,000 points and 1,500 rebounds.  In 1983, he was the No. 1 draft pick by the Houston Rockets.  In the NBA, he was named to three NBA All-Star games, collected Rookie of the Year honors in 1984 and was named MVP of the 1985 NBA All-Star game.

We're not saying that is is the definitive factor or even a major factor.  However, to call college performance a non-factor seems pretty inaccurate.  Naismith leads all of their Ralph Sampson related copy by calling him one of the top collegiate players of all-time.  This doesn't mean Christian Laettner gets in, but collegiate performance definitely helps a borderline case like Sampson (and potentially Carmelo Anthony and Grant Hill).  It is most definitely not a non-factor.

[bdm860]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

CUT FOR SPACE

I think you're misreading the argument.  Despite the injuries, Grant Hill has strong career NBA numbers, AND a great college and international record.  And before the injuries, he was a legitimate top-10 player for several years.  And he's done a ton of work promoting the game and for charity.  And the media love him, which shouldn't matter but does. 

Most of the guys you're mentioning have at most two or three of those factors.  Of all the players listed, the only guys in the same neighborhood as Hill are Webber and Richmond, and arguably Tim Hardaway and Rip.  Which one of them has a better overall resume than Hill?

Résumés are arguable, so we can go all day here, but I'll give it a shot:

Grant Hill
Rookie of the Year
7x All Star
1st Team 1x
2nd Team 4x
2x NCAA Champion
Gold Medal (’96)

Chris Webber
Rookie of the Year
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x

Mitch Richmond
Rookie of the Year
6x All Star and AS MVP
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 2x
Gold Medal (’96)
Bronze Medal (’88)

Tim Hardaway
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’00)

Glen Rice
3x All Star, and AS MVP
2nd Team 1x
3rd Team 1x
1x NBA Champion
1x NCAA Champion
1x NCAA MOP

Penny Hardaway
4x All-Star
1st Team 2x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’96)

The only place Grant Hill really stands out is All-Star appearances and college rings.

Look at the stats, and tell me he stands out here. Longevity isn't a big factor to me, so I focus more on Per Game Stats, if you focus on totals, Grant Hill is nice for the group I put together, but doesn't stand out.  He may even be the best player in that group, but he's not a tier above any of them. 

And what about playoff stats and performance?

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

I wouldn't really say that being the third best player in the league for a season during the MJ era is anything to sneeze at.

So if he retired after six years, would you think his case would be stronger?  After all, his per game averages would be about 22-8-6.  After the first six seasons of his career, before his ankle injury, Hill had a total of 9,393 points, 3,417 rebounds and 2,720 assists. Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird, and LeBron James are the only three players in league history to eclipse these numbers after their first six seasons.  Did Grant Hill ruin his legacy by coming back?

His resume, as you have them laid out, also looks more impressive than Webber's or Penny's.

3rd in MVP does not mean 3rd best player.  He got 0 first place votes.  He wasn't anywhere close to winning MVP.  Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice finished 4th and 5th right behind Hill, which I think adds to the point I'm making that Hill is right there with those players.

If he retired after 6 years, no.  Because being good for a short period of time shouldn't be enough to get you in the HOF.  Overall career should.  Hill had a nice career and would have been a HOF lock without injuries.  But injuries happen and any HOF opportunities should have gone with it.  Ask Bernard King.

[bdm860]

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

Thanks for the response.  Per game metrics are a useful tool but skewed towards players who retired (or got benched due to ineffectiveness) earlier in their careers.  If these guys had played as long as Hill, their per-games and per-minutes would look substantially worse. 

More importantly, I think we may be falling into the classic HOF debate trap - where one person's arguing based on what the HOF is, and the other on what it ought to be. 

If I ran the HOF, I might agree with you.  But the way the actual HOF is run, Hill is very likely to get in.  Is that fair?

BTW based on that same criteria it wouldn't surprise me to see Webber sneak in either.

Lol HOF trap this debate definitely is.

Stats are tough, so many ways to dice 'em up.  Of course I'm going to look at them the way that best helps support my opinion. 

TP.

[Galeto]

If Carmelo stays healthy, he'd likely be a Hall of Famer even if his teams don't do much in the playoffs as he might end up with around 25,000 or more points. Once you score that many points, you're going to eventually get in. Carmelo doesn't enjoy the greatest rep in all corners but his reputation as being a great talent and the best pure scorer in the league (which I disagree with) also helps his mystique rise to Hall of Fame standards.

[celtsfan84]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

CUT FOR SPACE

I think you're misreading the argument.  Despite the injuries, Grant Hill has strong career NBA numbers, AND a great college and international record.  And before the injuries, he was a legitimate top-10 player for several years.  And he's done a ton of work promoting the game and for charity.  And the media love him, which shouldn't matter but does. 

Most of the guys you're mentioning have at most two or three of those factors.  Of all the players listed, the only guys in the same neighborhood as Hill are Webber and Richmond, and arguably Tim Hardaway and Rip.  Which one of them has a better overall resume than Hill?

Résumés are arguable, so we can go all day here, but I'll give it a shot:

Grant Hill
Rookie of the Year
7x All Star
1st Team 1x
2nd Team 4x
2x NCAA Champion
Gold Medal (’96)

Chris Webber
Rookie of the Year
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x

Mitch Richmond
Rookie of the Year
6x All Star and AS MVP
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 2x
Gold Medal (’96)
Bronze Medal (’88)

Tim Hardaway
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’00)

Glen Rice
3x All Star, and AS MVP
2nd Team 1x
3rd Team 1x
1x NBA Champion
1x NCAA Champion
1x NCAA MOP

Penny Hardaway
4x All-Star
1st Team 2x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’96)

The only place Grant Hill really stands out is All-Star appearances and college rings.

Look at the stats, and tell me he stands out here. Longevity isn't a big factor to me, so I focus more on Per Game Stats, if you focus on totals, Grant Hill is nice for the group I put together, but doesn't stand out.  He may even be the best player in that group, but he's not a tier above any of them. 

And what about playoff stats and performance?

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

I wouldn't really say that being the third best player in the league for a season during the MJ era is anything to sneeze at.

So if he retired after six years, would you think his case would be stronger?  After all, his per game averages would be about 22-8-6.  After the first six seasons of his career, before his ankle injury, Hill had a total of 9,393 points, 3,417 rebounds and 2,720 assists. Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird, and LeBron James are the only three players in league history to eclipse these numbers after their first six seasons.  Did Grant Hill ruin his legacy by coming back?

His resume, as you have them laid out, also looks more impressive than Webber's or Penny's.

3rd in MVP does not mean 3rd best player.  He got 0 first place votes.  He wasn't anywhere close to winning MVP.  Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice finished 4th and 5th right behind Hill, which I think adds to the point I'm making that Hill is right there with those players.

If he retired after 6 years, no.  Because being good for a short period of time shouldn't be enough to get you in the HOF.  Overall career should.  Hill had a nice career and would have been a HOF lock without injuries.  But injuries happen and any HOF opportunities should have gone with it.  Ask Bernard King.

Bernard King's window to get into the Hall of Fame isn't closed.  He was a finalist as recently as this year.  Not every Hall of Famer gets in on their first (or second, or third) try. Ask Dennis Johnson and Don Nelson.

[fairweatherfan]

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

Thanks for the response.  Per game metrics are a useful tool but skewed towards players who retired (or got benched due to ineffectiveness) earlier in their careers.  If these guys had played as long as Hill, their per-games and per-minutes would look substantially worse. 

More importantly, I think we may be falling into the classic HOF debate trap - where one person's arguing based on what the HOF is, and the other on what it ought to be. 

If I ran the HOF, I might agree with you.  But the way the actual HOF is run, Hill is very likely to get in.  Is that fair?

BTW based on that same criteria it wouldn't surprise me to see Webber sneak in either.

Lol HOF trap this debate definitely is.

Stats are tough, so many ways to dice 'em up.  Of course I'm going to look at them the way that best helps support my opinion. 

TP.

Right back at ya.  My favorite example of the "HOF trap" is always Vince Carter.  I don't think he deserves to make the HOF, but based on the bar they've set, I think he will get in eventually, whether I like it or not.

Good discussion for sure though.

[celtsfan84]

since it's the basketball HOF I think Melo gets it when you add in his Cuse year

Grant probably gets in with help from his collegiate and international career, as you both had mentioned.

I think you guys are giving wayyyy too much weight to college careers.

CUT FOR SPACE

I think you're misreading the argument.  Despite the injuries, Grant Hill has strong career NBA numbers, AND a great college and international record.  And before the injuries, he was a legitimate top-10 player for several years.  And he's done a ton of work promoting the game and for charity.  And the media love him, which shouldn't matter but does. 

Most of the guys you're mentioning have at most two or three of those factors.  Of all the players listed, the only guys in the same neighborhood as Hill are Webber and Richmond, and arguably Tim Hardaway and Rip.  Which one of them has a better overall resume than Hill?

Résumés are arguable, so we can go all day here, but I'll give it a shot:

Grant Hill
Rookie of the Year
7x All Star
1st Team 1x
2nd Team 4x
2x NCAA Champion
Gold Medal (’96)

Chris Webber
Rookie of the Year
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x

Mitch Richmond
Rookie of the Year
6x All Star and AS MVP
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 2x
Gold Medal (’96)
Bronze Medal (’88)

Tim Hardaway
5x All Star
1st team 1x
2nd Team 3x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’00)

Glen Rice
3x All Star, and AS MVP
2nd Team 1x
3rd Team 1x
1x NBA Champion
1x NCAA Champion
1x NCAA MOP

Penny Hardaway
4x All-Star
1st Team 2x
3rd Team 1x
Gold Medal (’96)

The only place Grant Hill really stands out is All-Star appearances and college rings.

Look at the stats, and tell me he stands out here. Longevity isn't a big factor to me, so I focus more on Per Game Stats, if you focus on totals, Grant Hill is nice for the group I put together, but doesn't stand out.  He may even be the best player in that group, but he's not a tier above any of them. 

And what about playoff stats and performance?

Grant Hill gets by on a good image.

He was a great player, but injuries cost him, but hey injuries cost Penny Hardaway and Webber too.  That's life.

Some of the things to support Grant Hill mentioned in this thread are "solid role player" for the later part of his career and "finished third in league MVP voting" one year.  When these are some of the supporting résumé  items highlighted, I say he shouldn't be in the HOF.

I wouldn't really say that being the third best player in the league for a season during the MJ era is anything to sneeze at.

So if he retired after six years, would you think his case would be stronger?  After all, his per game averages would be about 22-8-6.  After the first six seasons of his career, before his ankle injury, Hill had a total of 9,393 points, 3,417 rebounds and 2,720 assists. Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird, and LeBron James are the only three players in league history to eclipse these numbers after their first six seasons.  Did Grant Hill ruin his legacy by coming back?

His resume, as you have them laid out, also looks more impressive than Webber's or Penny's.

3rd in MVP does not mean 3rd best player.  He got 0 first place votes.  He wasn't anywhere close to winning MVP.  Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice finished 4th and 5th right behind Hill, which I think adds to the point I'm making that Hill is right there with those players.

If he retired after 6 years, no.  Because being good for a short period of time shouldn't be enough to get you in the HOF.  Overall career should.  Hill had a nice career and would have been a HOF lock without injuries.   But injuries happen and any HOF opportunities should have gone with it.  Ask Bernard King.

Check out Ralph Sampson's career and career statistics.  Ralph only had 3 or 4 good seasons.  Ralph was just elected this year.

What NBA credentials does Ralph Sampson possess that Grant Hill is missing?

[bdm860]

We're not saying that is is the definitive factor or even a major factor.  However, to call college performance a non-factor seems pretty inaccurate.  Naismith leads all of their Ralph Sampson related copy by calling him one of the top collegiate players of all-time.  This doesn't mean Christian Laettner gets in, but collegiate performance definitely helps a borderline case like Sampson (and potentially Carmelo Anthony and Grant Hill).  It is most definitely not a non-factor.

I addressed the Ralph Sampson issue before (and mentioned Bill Walton too).

Ralph Sampson and Bill Walton's NCAA careers are in a different stratosphere than most other players.

Pre 1990's the college game was a stronger factor to get you in.

But since then, it doesn't really matter.  That's why I don't see this as a strong point for Hill or Melo, it no longer matters.

Hey the NIT used to be a relevant tournament too. Dominating the Big East used to hold a lot of weight too (let's see where that is in a few years).

College basketball has changed.  Not a factor anymore.  Pre-90's it mattered and was more relevant to the HOF, I just don't see it anymore.

[celtsfan84]

We're not saying that is is the definitive factor or even a major factor.  However, to call college performance a non-factor seems pretty inaccurate.  Naismith leads all of their Ralph Sampson related copy by calling him one of the top collegiate players of all-time.  This doesn't mean Christian Laettner gets in, but collegiate performance definitely helps a borderline case like Sampson (and potentially Carmelo Anthony and Grant Hill).  It is most definitely not a non-factor.

I addressed the Ralph Sampson issue before (and mentioned Bill Walton too).

Ralph Sampson and Bill Walton's NCAA careers are in a different stratosphere than most other players.

Pre 1990's the college game was a stronger factor to get you in.

But since then, it doesn't really matter.  That's why I don't see this as a strong point for Hill or Melo, it no longer matters.

Hey the NIT used to be a relevant tournament too. Dominating the Big East used to hold a lot of weight too (let's see where that is in a few years).

College basketball has changed.  Not a factor anymore.  Pre-90's it mattered and was more relevant to the HOF, I just don't see it anymore.

What is the basis for saying it no longer matters?  All of the guys that the 90's-00's college game would be relevant to are not up for Hall of Fame consideration yet.  We have no way of knowing if that matters to the folks of Naismith.  You and I don't have votes, but they do.  How do you know the 90's-00's college game doesn't matter to them, beyond taking a guess?

I sure think the college game still matters, and Carmelo went on one of the more memorable runs in quite a while in his Freshman (and only) season.  How do you know that is a non-factor?  You seem to be saying this pretty definitively without any actual proof.  Has anyone from Naismith said that the college game is no longer a factor?

[Moranis]

We're not saying that is is the definitive factor or even a major factor.  However, to call college performance a non-factor seems pretty inaccurate.  Naismith leads all of their Ralph Sampson related copy by calling him one of the top collegiate players of all-time.  This doesn't mean Christian Laettner gets in, but collegiate performance definitely helps a borderline case like Sampson (and potentially Carmelo Anthony and Grant Hill).  It is most definitely not a non-factor.

I addressed the Ralph Sampson issue before (and mentioned Bill Walton too).

Ralph Sampson and Bill Walton's NCAA careers are in a different stratosphere than most other players.

Pre 1990's the college game was a stronger factor to get you in.

But since then, it doesn't really matter.  That's why I don't see this as a strong point for Hill or Melo, it no longer matters.

Hey the NIT used to be a relevant tournament too. Dominating the Big East used to hold a lot of weight too (let's see where that is in a few years).

College basketball has changed.  Not a factor anymore.  Pre-90's it mattered and was more relevant to the HOF, I just don't see it anymore.

What is the basis for saying it no longer matters?  All of the guys that the 90's-00's college game would be relevant to are not up for Hall of Fame consideration yet.  We have no way of knowing if that matters to the folks of Naismith.  You and I don't have votes, but they do.  How do you know the 90's-00's college game doesn't matter to them, beyond taking a guess?

I sure think the college game still matters, and Carmelo went on one of the more memorable runs in quite a while in his Freshman (and only) season.  How do you know that is a non-factor?  You seem to be saying this pretty definitively without any actual proof.  Has anyone from Naismith said that the college game is no longer a factor?

Because Christian Laettner has one of the top 5 greatest college careers of all time, played in the 90's, was on the greatest team ever assembled (the Dream Team), was on one of the best college teams ever, had one of the most iconic shots in NCAA history, played in the NBA for 13 years (with some decent seasons including an All Star appearance), and has gotten no where near the basketball HOF.

[slamtheking]

The discussion in the CelticsTalk section about Jason Terry's chances of making the Hall of Fame got me thinking about which current NBA players would make the Hall if their careers ended today.

Shoo-ins:

Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Lebron James


On the Bubble:

Dirk Nowitzki
Paul Pierce
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Dwayne Wade
Chris Paul
Manu Ginobili
Tony Parker
Tracy McGrady
Ray Allen
Vince Carter
Dwight Howard

I'm looking for additions, corrections, or other thoughts on what current NBA players have Hall of Fame resumes or not quite good enough ones.

my take based on your criteria of their careers ending today:
Shoo-ins:
Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Lebron James
Dirk Nowitzki
Paul Pierce
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Dwayne Wade
Ray Allen
Pau Gasol

On the Bubble:
Manu Ginobili
Tony Parker


-->Carter, Mcgrady and Hill weren't great enough for a long enough time.
-->The other current 'stars' of the game haven't been playing long enough to get in yet.  If we were speculating on anticipated careers, this would be a longer list (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, etc...)

[Celtics18]

I think all of these guys are locks for the HoF.

Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Lebron James
Dirk Nowitzki
Paul Pierce
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Dwayne Wade
Manu Ginobili
Pau Gasol
Tony Parker
Ray Allen

^^^dis right chea rofl @ da Celtics 2nd all-time leadin scorer being on da bubble in da OP

Man, you amuse easily.  I'm picturing you literally rolling on the floor laughing over a hypothetical Hall of Fame list.

I do agree with most posters that my list of locks to make it was probably a bit too exclusive.  I'm guessing that a majority of my bubble picks are fairly close to a certainty as well. 
I just thought that those four guys--Garnett, Bryant, Duncan, and James--are a tick above everyone else for Hall of Fame candidacy and career accomplishments. 

Maybe the categories should have been  "shoo-in first ballot Hall of Famers" and "almost certain to be Hall of Famers." 

I forgot about Pau, who's a really strong candidate as well even if he never plays another game.