Bar So Low, TMac In The HOF

He's one of those guys I used to wonder about "If Kobe had his talent...., what would he be able to do with it."

What if's shouldn't be in the HOF discussion.

 

It's a bball hof, not an NBA one. A lot of the season he is there because of when he was at UCLA.

 

Physical attributes may be God given but I would disagree with "talent". Hard work and practice and strong mind come into play.

 

is the HOF about era-defining players? if so, tmac's in the conversation, as is vc, despite their difficulties carrying teams to playoff wins. tmac was actually a pretty darn good playoff performer, too. things just didn't work out.

my point is that if you're in the conversation for all-nba first team for nearly a decade, you probably deserve consideration.

i will revise this opinion if and when james harden is in the conversation for 1st team all nba for a decade.

 

Which to be fair, Reggie wasn't, longevity and durability matter. In tmac's prime, he was not even close to his play, and tmac had more all star games. But Reggie's 7k more points, plus deep playoffs run outweigh that.

 

Hmm, more ref conspiracies, if he played with so and so and bad health. We didn't play with Duncan or Shaq. So we can't measure that. The Rockets lost to the Mavs. Final. But we all know the league loved Cuban and were trying to take a Chinese would be super star down. That makes a lot of sense. Btw in 08, he, Yao, and a very solid bench lost to the Jazz. He shot 39% and 25%. And we're back on health. Sucks. Talk to Penny and Grant Hill. They were less versions of him, for sure but again, it's not called the Hall of What If's.

 

i'm a fan of a good ref conspiracy, but the issue in that rockets mavs series was that officials starting calling moving screens (which were, indeed, illegal). that jvg whined about it was the funny part: "we've been getting away with this illegal strategy all year long!" is not a good defense.

to the other, longevity becomes a factor in parsing out the best of the best, but even longevity can't be objectively defined. the counter to the hill/hardaway argument is obviously the same as the counter to the tmac argument: their peaks were too short. i invoked an arbitrary "near decade" above, but i'd hear arguments against it.

my question to OP at this point is: if tmac's a "bar so low" case, is iverson? how small should the HOF be?

 

Like hell Hill was a lesser version of T-Mac. And BTW, I wouldn't put Hill in as well. And he will get in, next year, because you guys (or them guys) love sob stories.

 

You can't possibly consider AI accomplishments similar to T-Mac. AI took a team of nobodies, hasbeens and Deke on his last leg (or half-last) to Finals and took 1 game from the best PO team ever (or, one of 2 best).

 

A lot more points, made the playoffs and out of the 1st round more than once. In 2001, there were a lot more good eastern teams.

Hill's peak was maybe 4 years. Once he stopped getting hurt, he because a very good player. Probably like a good Odom level for about 6 years.

 

Yeah, but when healthy -- Hill was twice the player T-Mac was. People forget -- he was Jordan's heir apparent, before Kobe came along.

 

Twice the player that T-Mac was? Dunno about that. And talk about what if scenarios for players not living up to their promise coming out of college. How many years was Grant healthy before he got hurt? Look Dwight clown Howard will be going in and he's never won anything either and ends his career bouncing around the league because he's a cancer in locker rooms.

 

Noooo, he has another big mark on him and that's overall stats. How many, modern players, who only's only notable stat was scoring are 18k points and the hall. Durability and longevity matter. His number fell off a cliff he was 29. And I'm not sure how many HOFers never made it out of the 1st round. I'd wager none. You have 2 years with Kobe, and before they got Pau they were looking like having home court in at least one series. Btw, in 03 his Magic were up 3-1.

The 1st four games
.516 .400 .740 5.8 4.5 2.3 1.3 36.3

the last 3 losses
.361 .235 .840 8.0 5.0 1.7 0.3 25.7

Pretty similar to his numbers to his below average series in vs Utah. And an up and down series the next year.


Btw, I'd say though very different players, it would be a toss up, in their primes, between Hill and him.

 

Kobe has about 15k more points than him. Shaq isn't that much different. That's what I meant by overall stats. T Mac is 86th on the point list. And we wasn't a dominant passer or rebounder, just for his size. So basically a couple more dimes and boards in his prime aren't going to tip the scales. Again, he never made an all defense team, so all that leaves is his scoring. Yes, he was a great all all around player, but not superstar in any aspect except scoring. Which career wise, he falls short.