Tracy McGrady makes the Hall of Fame
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:52 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


Basketball Reference has a good formula where they predict the probability of someone getting in the Hall based on how their career stats, awards and other accomplishments compare to actual Hall of Famers.

According to their formula, McGrady had a 96% chance of getting in and Carmelo has a 98% chance.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SwissLakerFan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 113

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:57 pm    Post subject:

I would put McGrady at that level just below Hall of Fame. Hall of Very Good. I wouldn't put guys like Zach Randolph, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudamire in either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27805

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:39 am    Post subject:

If T-Mac gets in then why isn't Grant Hill?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Don Draper
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 24399
Location: RIP DLO

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:05 am    Post subject:

He had cool sneakers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vishnu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 15874

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:04 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
If T-Mac gets in then why isn't Grant Hill?


He will be. His college days along with his brief peak as a superstar will get him there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:57 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
If T-Mac gets in then why isn't Grant Hill?


I don't think Hill is eligible until next year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18924

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:15 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


In addition to what AV said, take a look at the guys who have made the HoF. Calvin Murphy. Jo Jo White. Reggie Miller. Jamaal Wilkes. Maybe you think some of those guys belong in the HoF. Okay. The point is that the real world standard for the HoF doesn't require a player to be one of the all-time greats, a perennial MVP candidate, or a guy with a bunch of rings.

TMac had two scoring titles, seven all-star games, seven all-NBA teams (twice first team), and got MVP votes in six seasons, finishing fourth twice. There was a time when he was at least in the conversation with Kobe, though Kobe won that argument soundly. In the real world of the basketball HoF, TMac's a no-brainer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:01 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


In addition to what AV said, take a look at the guys who have made the HoF. Calvin Murphy. Jo Jo White. Reggie Miller. Jamaal Wilkes. Maybe you think some of those guys belong in the HoF. Okay. The point is that the real world standard for the HoF doesn't require a player to be one of the all-time greats, a perennial MVP candidate, or a guy with a bunch of rings.

TMac had two scoring titles, seven all-star games, seven all-NBA teams (twice first team), and got MVP votes in six seasons, finishing fourth twice. There was a time when he was at least in the conversation with Kobe, though Kobe won that argument soundly. In the real world of the basketball HoF, TMac's a no-brainer.



I think one of the best approaches is to list the guys at a position who are in the Hall and rank them in order. And then determine where a new guy would fall on the list. If it's in the middle, that's a pretty good case. If he's at the very end, it shows he might be borderline or not deserving.

And when do this for SF, you see the Hall is not just filled with Larry Birds and Scottie Pippens, but also with Jamaal Wilkes, Bernard King, and Chet Walker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 27752
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:08 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


In addition to what AV said, take a look at the guys who have made the HoF. Calvin Murphy. Jo Jo White. Reggie Miller. Jamaal Wilkes. Maybe you think some of those guys belong in the HoF. Okay. The point is that the real world standard for the HoF doesn't require a player to be one of the all-time greats, a perennial MVP candidate, or a guy with a bunch of rings.

TMac had two scoring titles, seven all-star games, seven all-NBA teams (twice first team), and got MVP votes in six seasons, finishing fourth twice. There was a time when he was at least in the conversation with Kobe, though Kobe won that argument soundly. In the real world of the basketball HoF, TMac's a no-brainer.



I think one of the best approaches is to list the guys at a position who are in the Hall and rank them in order. And then determine where a new guy would fall on the list. If it's in the middle, that's a pretty good case. If he's at the very end, it shows he might be borderline or not deserving.

And when do this for SF, you see the Hall is not just filled with Larry Birds and Scottie Pippens, but also with Jamaal Wilkes, Bernard King, and Chet Walker.


What's wrong with Bernard King? 16th all time in scoring.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18924

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:20 am    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
What's wrong with Bernard King? 16th all time in scoring.


There is nothing wrong with him. The point is that he is more or less a typical HoFer. King is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. He did score more points in his career, but TMac beats him easily when you look at advanced stats. In the context of his time, TMac was a better player than King was in the context of his own time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:27 am    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


In addition to what AV said, take a look at the guys who have made the HoF. Calvin Murphy. Jo Jo White. Reggie Miller. Jamaal Wilkes. Maybe you think some of those guys belong in the HoF. Okay. The point is that the real world standard for the HoF doesn't require a player to be one of the all-time greats, a perennial MVP candidate, or a guy with a bunch of rings.

TMac had two scoring titles, seven all-star games, seven all-NBA teams (twice first team), and got MVP votes in six seasons, finishing fourth twice. There was a time when he was at least in the conversation with Kobe, though Kobe won that argument soundly. In the real world of the basketball HoF, TMac's a no-brainer.



I think one of the best approaches is to list the guys at a position who are in the Hall and rank them in order. And then determine where a new guy would fall on the list. If it's in the middle, that's a pretty good case. If he's at the very end, it shows he might be borderline or not deserving.

And when do this for SF, you see the Hall is not just filled with Larry Birds and Scottie Pippens, but also with Jamaal Wilkes, Bernard King, and Chet Walker.


What's wrong with Bernard King? 16th all time in scoring.


He's 45 in all-time scoring. He was a very good player, particularly as a scorer. He just wouldn't make my cut for Hall of Fame.

The point is that some people think the standard for the Hall should be the Magic, Wilt, MJ level.

But in reality the average Hall of Famer are guys like Bernard King, Lenny Wilkens, Willis Reed, Bob Lanier and Jerry Lucas.

There were all great players but their names don't pop to many people's minds when they talk about the greatest of the great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 27752
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:18 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
What's wrong with Bernard King? 16th all time in scoring.


There is nothing wrong with him. The point is that he is more or less a typical HoFer. King is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. He did score more points in his career, but TMac beats him easily when you look at advanced stats. In the context of his time, TMac was a better player than King was in the context of his own time.


Was King a good defender? He averaged 32.9 points in his best season and averaged 28.4 in his final season aside from a brief comeback.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 13079

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:52 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Does this mean Carmelo has a shot? They're similar level to me


Carmelo is an absolute lock to make it, just like McGrady was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18924

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:48 pm    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
There is nothing wrong with him. The point is that he is more or less a typical HoFer. King is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. He did score more points in his career, but TMac beats him easily when you look at advanced stats. In the context of his time, TMac was a better player than King was in the context of his own time.


Was King a good defender? He averaged 32.9 points in his best season and averaged 28.4 in his final season aside from a brief comeback.


No, he was a below average defender. He wasn't terrible, but he didn't add much value on the defensive end. He was a volume scorer, and quite a good one during his healthy seasons. He was sort of a black hole on the offensive end, though.

Remember that the '80s were a fast-paced offensive era and that there wasn't much of a premium on defense. King was having an amazing season when he had that horrific injury after the all-star break. It is a tribute to him that he ever played again, much less that he played well. Still, the post-injury King was not the same.

This is what he looked like with his knee brace after the injury. At the time, people marveled at his toughness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 27752
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:53 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
There is nothing wrong with him. The point is that he is more or less a typical HoFer. King is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. He did score more points in his career, but TMac beats him easily when you look at advanced stats. In the context of his time, TMac was a better player than King was in the context of his own time.


Was King a good defender? He averaged 32.9 points in his best season and averaged 28.4 in his final season aside from a brief comeback.


No, he was a below average defender. He wasn't terrible, but he didn't add much value on the defensive end. He was a volume scorer, and quite a good one during his healthy seasons. He was sort of a black hole on the offensive end, though.

Remember that the '80s were a fast-paced offensive era and that there wasn't much of a premium on defense. King was having an amazing season when he had that horrific injury after the all-star break. It is a tribute to him that he ever played again, much less that he played well. Still, the post-injury King was not the same.

This is what he looked like with his knee brace after the injury. At the time, people marveled at his toughness.


Oh. Which modern day player would you compare him to, style and impact wise?
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
There is nothing wrong with him. The point is that he is more or less a typical HoFer. King is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. He did score more points in his career, but TMac beats him easily when you look at advanced stats. In the context of his time, TMac was a better player than King was in the context of his own time.


Was King a good defender? He averaged 32.9 points in his best season and averaged 28.4 in his final season aside from a brief comeback.


No, he was a below average defender. He wasn't terrible, but he didn't add much value on the defensive end. He was a volume scorer, and quite a good one during his healthy seasons. He was sort of a black hole on the offensive end, though.

Remember that the '80s were a fast-paced offensive era and that there wasn't much of a premium on defense. King was having an amazing season when he had that horrific injury after the all-star break. It is a tribute to him that he ever played again, much less that he played well. Still, the post-injury King was not the same.

This is what he looked like with his knee brace after the injury. At the time, people marveled at his toughness.


Oh. Which modern day player would you compare him to, style and impact wise?


King himself said the most comparable player to him today is Carmelo Anthony. And Carmelo has said he patterned his game after King, so that's probably as good as any.

King had a great post-up game and good mid-range. Quick release, good first step. Not much of a defender, passer or rebounder. He was a one-dimensional scorer, but great at that one dimension.

He bounced around in the early part of his career, and got treatment for alcohol addiction. He got most of his attention for a couple of big seasons in the spotlight of New York, and coming back from that horrible injury. His teams were pretty bad overall. I think he only played a couple of dozen playoff games, and only made the second round once.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18924

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:33 pm    Post subject:

Style wise, Carmelo is the best answer. Carmelo is a lot bigger than King, though. Players in this era are generally bigger, but even back in the '80s, King was sort of sleek for a forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 27752
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject:

How would you rank these Small Forwards: Bernard King, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Mark Aguirre, James Worthy, Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony?
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:03 pm    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
How would you rank these Small Forwards: Bernard King, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Mark Aguirre, James Worthy, Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony?


I'd go:

1. Paul Pierce
2. Dominique Wilkins
3. James Worthy
4. Carmelo Anthony
5. Alex English
6. Adrian Dantley
7. Bernard King
8. Mark Aguirre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpunkieLakerCat
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 1602

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:41 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
I'm not of the school that thinks just because someone was extremely talented means that they should be in the HOF.

One needs to combine that talent with some meaningful accomplishments.

I mean it's the Hall of FAME. As time moves forward, the only people that will remember TMac are those that remember how good he was. But there is no actual resonance to his career historically.

Not a good choice, but congrats to him all the same.

_________________
"You cannot live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you"

Coach Wooden
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jestersmash
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


Basketball Reference has a good formula where they predict the probability of someone getting in the Hall based on how their career stats, awards and other accomplishments compare to actual Hall of Famers.

According to their formula, McGrady had a 96% chance of getting in and Carmelo has a 98% chance.


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


Yeah B-R has a very good model that historically predicts hall of fame success extremely well.

One glaring deficiency is that B-R over-emphasizes individual stats, underemphasizes team success, and grossly underemphasizes notable international play.

Ginobili is listed as 20% to make the hall of fame but most people who watch the game (except perhaps casual fans who aren't well versed in the NBA overall other than their own favorite team) would consider him to be a no-brainer for the hall of fame, albeit obviously not on the tier of true legends like Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, MJ, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18924

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:03 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

True, but the actual HoF voting over-emphasizes individual stats. As for international players, I don't know how you could build a model to predict that. Yao was a sure thing, but I don't think you could build a model that encompasses the reasons why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hammett
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 6306

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:16 pm    Post subject:

danzag wrote:
It's funny to remember when everybody was so excited to see Kobe vs TMac, Kobe vs Iverson, and so on, as they were considered players of the same caliber and stuff.

Tracy McGrady is 37 years old NOW. Dude's been retired since 2013.
34 year old Kobe was dropping 26/6/5 and playing 38 mpg


Don't forget the Laker Killer Mike Bibby. He completely dropped off the map just a few years after the 7 game series.
_________________
"Keep looking at me like that and I'll turn Suplex City into Mizney World."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:48 pm    Post subject:

jestersmash wrote:
activeverb wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Given the real world standards for the HoF (as opposed to what people think the standards ought to be), TMac was a no-brainer.


Maybe you could outline what those standards are in a concrete fashion that would lead to Tracey McShadey being a "no-brainer"


Basketball Reference has a good formula where they predict the probability of someone getting in the Hall based on how their career stats, awards and other accomplishments compare to actual Hall of Famers.

According to their formula, McGrady had a 96% chance of getting in and Carmelo has a 98% chance.


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


Yeah B-R has a very good model that historically predicts hall of fame success extremely well.

One glaring deficiency is that B-R over-emphasizes individual stats, underemphasizes team success, and grossly underemphasizes notable international play.

Ginobili is listed as 20% to make the hall of fame but most people who watch the game (except perhaps casual fans who aren't well versed in the NBA overall other than their own favorite team) would consider him to be a no-brainer for the hall of fame, albeit obviously not on the tier of true legends like Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, MJ, etc.


Well, their formula simply predicts who will get into the Hall based on their NBA play alone. It doesn't factor in college or international play. So, sure, there are lots of guys who get in for reasons other than NBA play (like Ralph Sampson). However relatively few NBA players get in based on either international or college play. Ginobili is one of the few exceptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24998

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
^^^^

True, but the actual HoF voting over-emphasizes individual stats. As for international players, I don't know how you could build a model to predict that. Yao was a sure thing, but I don't think you could build a model that encompasses the reasons why.


This.

The Hall put in a bunch of guys from the 60s Celtics who didn't deserve it. But other than that, players pretty much get into the Hall based on personal stats and accolades. There are lots of guys with great stats and no team success in the Hall; the opposite is pretty rare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB