The following big men are not yet in the HOF. Which are locks, which are marginal, and which have no shot? (or rather, which should be, based on people from their era that made it so far -- comps have to be era based, no KC Jones)
C
Mel Daniels
Patrick Ewing
Artis Gilmore
Hakeem Olujawon
David Robinson
Jack Sikma
PF
Terry Cummings
Tom Chambers
Spencer Haywood
Shawn Kemp
George McGinnis
Dennis Rodman
Buck Williams
__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk
Patrick Ewing
Artis Gilmore (he SHOULD be in already)
Hakeem Olujawon
David Robinson
Dennis Rodman (he should get in and probably will - but voters will make him wait and wait)
Borderline
Mel Daniels (largely forgotten since his stardom really occurred within the ABA, but a very good big man on both ends of the floor)
George McGinnis (mega-talented, a bit of a brat to play with)
Spencer Haywood (was a star in the NBA, a superstar in the ABA)
No chance
Jack Sikma (great player who helped revolutionize the pivot game, but not really HoF caliber peak or career)
Terry Cummings (no way)
Tom Chambers (forget it)
Shawn Kemp (a thousand times, no)
Buck Williams (one of the best rebounders of his era, a very good defender and a very classy guy - but he's not Hall-worthy)
It's worth adding a couple of names that have incited heated debate in the NBA Forum - Mutombo and Mourning.
Several posters are making cases that one or the other of them should be inducted. They're borderline cases at best in my opinion, but then there are some HoFers that I don't think should be there so I just may be a crotchety purist.
C
Mel Daniels- no
Patrick Ewing - borderline
Artis Gilmore - yes
Hakeem Olujawon - yes 4 sure
David Robinson - yes
Jack Sikma - maybe prolly not thou
PF
Terry Cummings - no
Tom Chambers - no
Spencer Haywood - no
Shawn Kemp - no
George McGinnis - maybe
Dennis Rodman - yes one of the greatest rebounders ever
Buck Williams - no
HOF voters have historically and unfairly ignored ABA accomplishments in voting, so that doesn't bode well for guys like Daniels and McGinnis. Artis, of course, should be in and isn't.
I'm fans of both Mutombo and Mourning and would push for them (if only for Bill Simmons' "grandkids test"). Subjectively speaking, both were (outside of a small class of ultra-superstars) among the most recognizable, well-known, and best players in the league for a good while. I'm biased--these are two of my favorite players of all time, after all--but I think both subjective and statistical cases can be made for them.
Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ewing (ugh) are all locks. Rodman should be in, I think. 5 titles, 2 time DPoY, greatest rebounder of all time.
Haywood has historical precedent for his straight from HS jump; not sure if he has enough as a player alone. Sikma I'm not sure about; lean towards "no" but would listen to counterarguments. Buck is "solid" in the same way, usually "solid" is not enough for the HOF unless you have some other distinguishing characteristics.
Kemp probably doesn't have much of a chance but he'd be first ballot in the Hall of Players Diophantos Loved growing up.
And for a final point, I'll say it again: The NBA needs its own hall. The whole system needs a shakeup, IMO.
__________________ A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
The following big men are not yet in the HOF. Which are locks, which are marginal, and which have no shot? (or rather, which should be, based on people from their era that made it so far -- comps have to be era based, no KC Jones)
C
Mel Daniels
Patrick Ewing
Artis Gilmore
Hakeem Olujawon
David Robinson
Jack Sikma
PF
Terry Cummings
Tom Chambers
Spencer Haywood
Shawn Kemp
George McGinnis
Dennis Rodman
Buck Williams
What people need to understand that it's called a "hall of fame" for a reason -- namely, it's more than just performance that makes a player qualify. A lot of other subjective factors (reputation and perception among peers, the media and the public in general) fairly or unfairly come into the picture. Even from a performance standpoint, if you performed at an elite level in one or more areas it may not be enough for induction.
Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson are locks to be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. These three are generally considered among the best players ever in both college and in the NBA.
Dennis Rodman is arguably the best rebounder in NBA history and certainly one of its best defenders, but his I'm-above-the-team-antics in Detroit, San Antonio and Chicago and his well-publicized, fairly raunchy public persona likely may keep him from induction.
Artis Gilmore should have been inducted quite some time ago, but like with Adrian Dantley there is not enough push from others or a groundswell movement to get him inducted (I wish NBA commissioner David Stern would pressure the powers-that-be to get Gilmore and Dantley inducted).
Everyone else I cannot see as inductees for a variety of reasons. Tom Chambers, Terry Cummings, Jack Sikma and Buck Williams were good players, not dominant players in their era. Spencer Haywood and Shawn Kemp have too strong negative stigmas to get serious consideration, despite several years of strong to dominant years (without the stigmas, they would be borderline choices). Mel Daniels was a good ABA player who only played 11 NBA games. George McGinnis had a few strong NBA seasons, but he peaked too early IMO and his career was virtually over at 30.
__________________ "(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"
TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.
That's a pretty fair, nuanced analysis, Najee. I have a hard time considering Kemp dominant, though. He was an extremely impressive player, but I wouldn't say dominant. He never averaged 20-10 for a season, never came close to leading the league in anything, was a good but not great rebounder and defender, could finish and post up but was far from unstoppable...my memories of Kemp have more to do with his potential than his accomplishments.
That's a pretty fair, nuanced analysis, Najee. I have a hard time considering Kemp dominant, though. He was an extremely impressive player, but I wouldn't say dominant. He never averaged 20-10 for a season, never came close to leading the league in anything, was a good but not great rebounder and defender, could finish and post up but was far from unstoppable...my memories of Kemp have more to do with his potential than his accomplishments.
I didn't mean to imply that Shawn Kemp was year-in and year-out dominant but it's fair to saw Shawn Kemp was a dominant enough player, particularly in Seattle. He never averaged 20 points per game in a season there (he typically got 18 per game from 1992-93 through 1996-97) because he played with two players (Gary Payton and Detlef Schrempf) who generally put up similar numbers.
Kemp also had five straight years where he placed in the top 10 in offensive rebounds and three years in the top 10 in total rebounds. He was an exceptional shot-blocker for a power forward. He had seven years where he roughly averaged at least 18 points and 9 rebounds per game (including the much-ridiculed fat years in Cleveland).
Kemp generally was the third-best power forward in the NBA during that span, trailing only Charles Barkley and Karl Malone. I'm not making a case for Kemp to be in the hall of fame, but outside of the three hall of fame locks (Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson) and the two should-bes (Artis Gilmore and Dennis Rodman) his resume is as good as any other player left on the board.
__________________ "(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"
TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.
Hall of Fame
