Comments on: Who Are the “Inner-Circle” Hall of Famers? (Part I – Intro to Method)

By: kit

kit — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:17:26 +0000

The Baseball HOF isn't that bad if you throw out all the Veterans Committee choices which are seriously inferior to the BWAA voting choices. The Basketball HOF is another story with odd era differentials and the exclusion of Artis Gilmore -- then there are the Euro, Womens, etc. -- a strange mix indeed. I understand your thinking here but do think it's a much more interesting exercise if you pick top 10 from each era or expand HOF choices with expansion of the league. For what you did, no real disagreement -- Cousy's exclusion will shock some but since I agree with it, no argument here.

By: Hank

Hank — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:27:44 +0000

I guess somewhere along the line the criterion was changed from at least one championship to being the best player on a team that reached the finals.... That makes more sense, and allows Malone and Barkley to be included. Looks like it only really excludes Steve Nash and maybe John Stockton as elite players who don't qualify for the inner circle.

Stockton is arguably better at point guard than the Mailman was a power forward (not enough rebounds), and it's hard to exclude a two-time MVP, but Nash might raise some doubts due to his less than impressive defense.

By: Hank

Hank — Sat, 29 May 2010 04:55:52 +0000

Others have already said, but I feel like I have to join them anyway: if the "inner circle" is for guys who are "no doubters", the championship qualification is ridiculous. No one doubts for one second that Karl Malone was one of the best players who ever lived. Any hall or "inner circle" that arbitrarily leaves out some of the "no doubters" is just as laughable as a hall that includes borderline players. I don't have an issue with using advanced stats, but using PER and Win Shares together is redundant. It might be better to just have one offensive stat (Win Shares or PER) and one defensive stat (adjusted +/-).

By: Jeff James

Jeff James — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:10:20 +0000

Jeremy said "Walton's is fairly clear-cut, his feet were ravaged with injuries and he was never completely healthy. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was the best player alive in 1977 and 1978, led his team to a championship, then started the next season 50-10 before he got hurt. I'm not going to get into the "what if he had never gotten hurt" argument, because I feel that his body was predisposed to breaking down in the first place, but instead I'll propose this question: Would you rather have Bill Walton for 3 years or Bob Lanier for 10 years? For me, it's no question. I'd rather have a healthy Bill Walton for 3 years. Why? Because I'm pretty much guaranteed to win a title in those 3 healthy Walton years." The year Walton won the *MVP* his team didn't even win the title

By: Joe Krupnick

Joe Krupnick — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:23:07 +0000

While I agree that the championship standard is not realistic as a requirement, it should be a very important HOF criterion. Some folks mentioned earlier that guys like Karl Malone shouldn't be penalized for '97 and '98, and some others suggested changing the requirement to something like playoff wins or individual post-season performance. It should be rather obvious to anyone that both these ideas are completely idiotic. Karl Malone choked in both the '97 and the '98 Finals--in the former, by embarrassing himself, his team, and David Stern for presenting him with the MVP over Jordan. I don't think Stockton should be similarly penalized for those seasons, but Karl Malone is just one player among many who have proven themselves as losers during the times when it all matters. Others afflicted with the "Karl Malone syndrome", with varying levels of intensity, include guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, David Robinson, Kevin Johnson, Clyde Drexler, and Patrick Ewing. In certain cases like Chamberlain's and Baylor's, the affliction wasn't egregious enough to knock them out of the HOF inner circle, but I'd argue that it's much more questionable when it comes to Malone and Robinson. Here we have potentially top-15 guys whose uncanny knack for self-destructing during winning time probably pushes them out of the top 20. If Malone hadn't choked against Jordan and co., he'd probably be in the top 10. The NBA Finals is the round when superstars elevate their games. Some guys have it in them, some don't, and in sports--as in life--in the end, it makes all the difference.

By: gebwel

gebwel — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:44:32 +0000

i think people need to calm down a little bit. just because payton or glenn robinson won a championship, doesn't necessarily mean they automatically belong to the inner circle group. they still have to pass other requirements too. i agree that this has to be a very exclusive group that leaves no doubt to 99% of the human population. however, i'd like to play a little bit of "what if" game here (like some readers did with walton). what if malone hadn't suffered a crushing injury during his stint with the lakers? what if he decided to play another season or two? it's not far fetched to say that he'd become the NBA's all time leading scorer. after all, he's only about 1,400 pts shy from kareem's mark. it's even possible that he could reach the 40K mark had he stay with the jazz and still be the #1 option on offense until the end of his career. but since malone never won a ring, he'd be excluded from this elite group anyway. can you imagine the most successful player in putting balls in the basket (which, in essence, is THE purpose of the game itself) not included in the group? it's the equivalent refusing to recognize wayne gretzky or pele as one of the elites in their respective sports.

By: ernie banks

ernie banks — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:09:11 +0000

Neil, this is great- very thought-provoking article. I've always hated when HOFs elect "iffy" or borderline members. Baseball is notorius for this. What kind of elite club lets in a guy in that has a career .323 on-base %? And don't get me started on the Veterans Committee that lets guys (read: in their era- when baseball was so much better...) sneak in the back door to the HOF. Gimme a break- talk about losing all credibility. Regarding the basketball "inner-circle" of greatness- I am with the camp of against omitting a player who doesn't have a championship ring. I don't want to continue to beat that dead horse. I also would eliminate All-Star selections in your formula. Do you really want "Billy-the-fan-of-HIS-favorite-player/team" to impact your "inner-circle" elite HOF? When fans vote it skews everything. Just look at this year's NBA All-Star voting. There were a couple of guys (Iverson and TMac) who weren't even playing for a team and/or didn't even have a contract with an NBA team yet they were at one time second in voting for guards in their respective conferences! What a joke but that's for another column...

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:09:06 +0000

To me the championship argument is easy to boil down:

If LeBron never wins a title, is he in, or is he out?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:41:18 +0000

The championship requirement is absurd.

Gary Payton won a title with the Heat at age 37 (PER: 10.7). So he's in.
Karl Malone, arguably the greatest power forward ever - nope.

Some consensus.

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:15:59 +0000

I know what you're saying, but I think part of what makes those guys look like no-doubters is because they are so far above the current "borderline." But if you actually start trying to identify which are the no-doubters, suddenly some doubts are going to arise. Like with the Karl Malone example -- he doesn't have the ring, so is he in that group or not? Anyway, it's sort of semantics. This is an interesting exercise regardless.