Is Joe Dumars really a HOF player?

1662 Views 32 Replies 13 Participants Last post by kflo, Apr 4, 2006

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · Apr 2, 2006

Thoughts? I'm not sure Im convinced Joe D who I liked is really a HOF player

His highest PER is 18 and his overall career PER is only 15.3 (just slight above average)

In his favor he made 6 All-Star teams and he was an outstanding defender (4 1st team all-defense, 2 2nd, 3 3rd).

For I watched Joe D throughout his career and he was good but even on defense I never thought wow this guy is a HOF player. I think is a situation where he is greatly benefiting from the fact that he was on a two time champion team.

To be frank, I think Byron Scott was as good of player. Scott actually has a higher PER but doesn't have the indiviudal recognition being the 4th best known player on the Lakers. He also got the tough defensive assignment so Magic wouldn't be exposed.

Other contemparies of Joe D include guys Rolando Blackman who I also thought was a better player: the more I think about it the more I don't feel kosher with this selection

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

Minstrel

· #2 · Apr 2, 2006

I definitely don't consider Dumars a Hall of Fame player. He was a very good player, on a team of very good players...but the only players I consider Hall of Famers from that team are Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman.

I agree with your contention that Scott was a similar caliber player. Dennis Johnson and Derek Harper strike me as similar players (without carefully checking the stats) both in caliber and in terms of excellent defense and solid offense. I wouldn't put any of them in the Hall.

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · #3 · Apr 2, 2006

Minstrel said:
I definitely don't consider Dumars a Hall of Fame player. He was a very good player, on a team of very good players...but the only players I consider Hall of Famers from that team are Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman.

I agree with your contention that Scott was a similar caliber player. Dennis Johnson and Derek Harper strike me as similar players (without carefully checking the stats) both in caliber and in terms of excellent defense and solid offense. I wouldn't put any of them in the Hall.

Lol; was going to put Dennis Johnson in my post and forgot: very comparable to Joe Dumars in terms of PER and defense.

Kind of eeriee actually: DJ 5 all-star appearance, one finals mvp, and 7 1st team all-defense with 4 second team ones.

Very odd that Dumars would get in before Dennis Johnson if the same criteria are being used

Harper was a better player then both (for sure on offense and was a good defender) but again because of the teams he was on didn't get the individual recognitions (all star games)

Brian.

· #4 · Apr 2, 2006

Is it possible that his work as a GM helped him get in?

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · #5 · Apr 2, 2006

Brian said:
Is it possible that his work as a GM helped him get in?

It's a separate vote I believe: for example Lenny wilkens got elected twice (once as a player and once as a coach)

ralaw

· #6 · Apr 2, 2006

The NBA needs it's own HOF and they need to make it harder to get into like football and baseball's HOF. It really bothers me that there is only one basketball HOF that encompasses every form of basktball around the world. It also bothers me that they let coaches in while they are still coaching. If the NBA had it's own HOF and made it more of an accomplishment to get voted in, it would add a lot of respectability to it's NBA affiliated members.

Brian.

· #7 · Apr 2, 2006

Pioneer10 said:
It's a separate vote I believe: for example Lenny wilkens got elected twice (once as a player and once as a coach)

Okay I wasn't sure. I am little suprised myself that he got in I figured that people must be factoring in his work as a GM. Joe always got the ultimate praise though Jordan has said the toughest guy he ever had to go against was Dumars.

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · #8 · Apr 2, 2006

Brian said:
Okay I wasn't sure. I am little suprised myself that he got in I figured that people must be factoring in his work as a GM. Joe always got the ultimate praise though Jordan has said the toughest guy he ever had to go against was Dumars.

Part of it might be the likeability factor: Dumars was always one of the best liked players in the league which was in stark contrast to the rest of the Bad Boys

kflo

· #9 · Apr 2, 2006

dumars, imo, was better at everything than byron scott. no slight on byron either. actually, scott was more athletic, so he was a good fit on la. and as shooters, they were comparable. dumars was a better defender, better ballhandler and distributer, better at creating his own shot. his playmaking and defense separate him from blackman overall also, imo.

he's one of those guys, to me, that just fits in just about any backcourt, with anyone. he can play on ball or off, can defend either position, and can spread the floor with his shot.

in short, yeah, i can see him as a hof'er. dj certainly has an argument as well.

kflo

· #10 · Apr 2, 2006

ralaw said:
The NBA needs it's own HOF and they need to make it harder to get into like football and baseball's HOF. It really bothers me that there is only one basketball HOF that encompasses every form of basktball around the world. It also bothers me that they let coaches in while they are still coaching. If the NBA had it's own HOF and made it more of an accomplishment to get voted in, it would add a lot of respectability to it's NBA affiliated members.

it's not easy to make it as a player though.

knicksfan89

· #11 · Apr 2, 2006

no he doesn't only 105 says basketball reference, but he IS a 6 time all star and 2 time nba champion in 89 and 90 whereas barkley and wilkins who also are in the hall of fame are not an nba champion so that counts for something, plus his defence as well on jordan lets not forget that

kflo

· #12 · Apr 2, 2006

he didn't have that long of a prime though (7 yrs). he's definitely a bubble guy, imo. but bernard king and dantley (still out thanks in part to isiah getting him dumped from det
) should be in.

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · #13 · Apr 2, 2006

kflo said:
dumars, imo, was better at everything than byron scott. no slight on byron either. actually, scott was more athletic, so he was a good fit on la. and as shooters, they were comparable. dumars was a better defender, better ballhandler and distributer, better at creating his own shot. his playmaking and defense separate him from blackman overall also, imo.

he's one of those guys, to me, that just fits in just about any backcourt, with anyone. he can play on ball or off, can defend either position, and can spread the floor with his shot.

in short, yeah, i can see him as a hof'er. dj certainly has an argument as well.

I just don't see how a player who is slightly better then Byron Scott is a HOF player.

Dumars was a better passer and defender but Scott was a better finisher and pure shooter. In fact both there PER and scoring efficiency are nearly identical. Dumars has the edge because of his defense but he wasn't that much better. Dumars has a pretty weak case IMO: a good player for his generation but not an All-Time great

kflo

· #14 · Apr 2, 2006

scott's scoring efficiency, imo, was inflated a fair amount playing on the lakers. dumars, arguably, had his stats deflated due to his team. i think the difference between the 2 was bigger than slight.

shookem

· #15 · Apr 2, 2006

Pioneer10 said:
Part of it might be the likeability factor: Dumars was always one of the best liked players in the league which was in stark contrast to the rest of the Bad Boys

He did win the leagues first ever Sportsmanship award.

Hakeem

· #16 · Apr 2, 2006

kflo said:
dumars, imo, was better at everything than byron scott. no slight on byron either. actually, scott was more athletic, so he was a good fit on la. and as shooters, they were comparable. dumars was a better defender, better ballhandler and distributer, better at creating his own shot. his playmaking and defense separate him from blackman overall also, imo.

he's one of those guys, to me, that just fits in just about any backcourt, with anyone. he can play on ball or off, can defend either position, and can spread the floor with his shot.

I agree with all of that. I don't know about HoF -- I'm not sure what the criteria are -- but, yeah, he's definitely better than Byron Scott, IMO. I think he was a considerably better defender and playmaker, and I don't think the difference in their shooting ability (if there was indeed any difference at all -- Dumars took 5 threes a game one season and hit 39% of them) is nearly enough to offset that. He was the more complete player. It's his versatility that really impresses. Like kflo said, you got the feeling that you could throw him in with just about anyone and be confident that he'd succeed.

Hakeem

· #17 · Apr 2, 2006

kflo said:
scott's scoring efficiency, imo, was inflated a fair amount playing on the lakers.

He had one of his better statistical seasons in '92. But his numbers did decline as the Lakers slowed things down even with Magic there.

Pioneer10

Discussion Starter · #18 · Apr 2, 2006

How was Dumars deflated yet Scots inflated: I don't buy that argument.

Scott despite his age produced some good years after he left the Lakers despite playing limited minutes and it's not like in Detroit didn't use Dumars effectively. Scott also in 92 with greater responsibility was having a terrific season till the hamstring injury got him. Also I don't see that big of dropoff in Detroit if they replaced Dumars with Scott: they still would have won those two titles IMO

Put it another frame: If anything the defensive achievement of Dumars are clearly helped by being on a team with great defenders (Thomas, Rodman, Salley, Laimbeer, Mahorn) and a coaching philosophy that pushed defense.

His stats clearly show that Dumars wasn't an exceptional offensive player in his generation and I had the same thoughts when I saw him play. His HOF selection is my mind then has to be placed on his defense which was clearly helped by playing with the Pistons. In regards to the HOF: was Dumars as any way as valuable as the two Pistons who deserve to be in the HOF IMO (Thomas and Rodman) no.

See less See more

Hakeem

· #19 · Apr 2, 2006

Dumars was one of the reasons why those were great defensive teams. Rodman and Mahorn definitely, but I'd hardly call Isiah and Laimbeer and the rest great defenders.

kflo

· #20 · Apr 2, 2006

dumars was unquestionably more valuable to the champion pistons than rodman.

scott got alot of open looks and fast break points in la. far more than dumars did. and la played a faster pace. that's why i say scott's stats were relatively inflated, particularly his efficiency.

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.