So Bosh deserving of HOF or not?

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I think that part of the problem is that there are not any defined standards for what a Hall of Famer should be. So everyone projects there own values/opinions into the debate.

I'm a "small Hall" kinda guy, so my standards are pretty rigorous.

My minimum standards would be:

1) made an ALL-NBA team in at least 1/3 of seasons played
2) made first team ALL-NBA at least once
3) was in the top ten of the MVP voting in at least 1/2 of seasons played and in the top five in at least 1/3 of seasons played

That would be a minuscule hall.

[sammyjankis]

I remember back on the Beckett message boards in 2003, some young guy from Wisconsin who went by hotsauce or something similar was big on Bosh. Another guy, I think his username was ryanwil0 or similar from Australia, did not like Bosh. He bet hotsauce something like $100k that Bosh would never average 20ppg or be an all star.

Now he’s a contender for HOF... that bet def never paid out lol

[tennelson55]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

Copypasting the list of 5 players on each side of Bosh in the rankings. I assume that by the tougher standards of some here, these others would also be merely in the 'HOVG' (Pierce and of course Howard are not yet eligible):

45. Paul Pierce 0.9974
46. Hal Greer* 0.9974
47. Dwight Howard 0.9973
48. Bill Sharman* 0.9970
49. Robert Parish* 0.9961
50. Chris Bosh 0.9951
Rank Player HoF Prob
51. Rick Barry* 0.9950
52. Walt Frazier* 0.9949
53. Slater Martin* 0.9943
54. Tom Heinsohn* 0.9938
55. Neil Johnston* 0.9926

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by sammyjankis

I remember back on the Beckett message boards in 2003, some young guy from Wisconsin who went by hotsauce or something similar was big on Bosh. Another guy, I think his username was ryanwil0 or similar from Australia, did not like Bosh. He bet hotsauce something like $100k that Bosh would never average 20ppg or be an all star.

Now he’s a contender for HOF... that bet def never paid out lol

Kidsenasian down in Texas had an INSANE Bosh Collection and used to be active on HobbyKings

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I think that part of the problem is that there are not any defined standards for what a Hall of Famer should be. So everyone projects there own values/opinions into the debate.

I'm a "small Hall" kinda guy, so my standards are pretty rigorous.

My minimum standards would be:

1) made an ALL-NBA team in at least 1/3 of seasons played
2) made first team ALL-NBA at least once
3) was in the top ten of the MVP voting in at least 1/2 of seasons played and in the top five in at least 1/3 of seasons played

1 and 3 punish longevity.

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by sethc1020

No, don't need a new book. I watched all of them play their entire careers and all were good players but not Elite all time players. Webber had some good years but was never a top 10 overall player. He was only inside the top 20 in points twice in his career, inside the top 10 in reb twice in his career. That doesn't sound like and Elite player to me. Good player absolutely. The thing about Billups is that the Pistons just had a good all around team and everyone played their roles very well. There was no Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Magic, ect ect on that team. They played gritty Detroit basketball and were very good at it but no one individual stood out from the rest on that team.

Ah man. You have some average takes. Webber will get in. And deserves to.

Webber wasn't a top 10 player according to you, yet he finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 straight seasons and finished as high as 4th.

Points means nothing. Isn't Bradley Beal leading the League this season?

Webber was 100% elite and consistent for so long. Could have won a chip if the refs didn't gamble on the Lakers.

Your Billups take is even worse. Good golly. Billups had no peer. He brought it both ends but just wasn't flashy.

Billups did stand out, because he got the Finals MVP. Hell they beat a Kobe, Shaq, GP and Malone (injured) team. Yes they played great team ball. And he RAN the team. He also made the Nuggets a contender.

Both will go in. If not this season than eventually.

Originally Posted by Siberian13

So how many times did he avg 25? Double up doh

Who cares? You want 1 more point from him? LeBron held him back from doing that. You act like he couldn't do it and points mean so much.

Originally Posted by mc1

Which NBA players, inducted in the past 10-15 years, in your opinion arent deserving?

Everyone keeps saying this without showing any work.

Well said. The process works fine. People bring up Mitch Richmond and that's about it. They act like there's a ton of chumps in there.

For me, if you have a complete career, played for Team USA, All Stars, some Defensive teams or All NBA teams, Playoff success, what more do you want? That's not easy and I'm yet to see someone really truly be undeserving.

Originally Posted by Tallboy

I gotta say: Webber was perceived briefly to be up there with those other players, but he shouldn't have been.

You're talking about a guy who was seen as a bit of a disappointment until he showed up in Sacramento, but when Sacramento became such a huge success with Webber in the big stat role, he started getting talked about as a top tier superstar.

But the Kings were good with and without Webber. Webber's volume scoring wasn't very efficient even back then, and today you wouldn't consider using someone like that as your alpha. Moreover the key to those Kings' success was the inside-out passing to 3-point shooters, and while Webber was a capable passer, Vlade Divac was huge in this capacity as well.

Beyond all that there's the matter that guys like Duncan & KG were DPOY level defenders and Webber was nothing close to that, while Dirk was a drastically more dangerous scoring threat.

Webber's rise in stature with the success of the Kings may well be enough, in conjunction with his place on the Fab 5, for Webber to get in the Hall, but there's little doubt that he got overrated in Sacramento on the assumption that he was "the star" and everyone else around him was far less than him. The Kings' success was much more about team work as opposed to individual brilliance.

What a load of rubbish. Webber had a nice team around him, but so did the other 4s mentioned. He was below those 3 but he was the clear leader for Sactown. They don't do anything without him.

His teams were losing to title contenders.

He also beat Dirk a couple of times in the Playoffs.

KG and TD are always a tier above due to their defense. Dirk at that time was probably not quite as good as Webber. He was a far worse defender.

I'm not sure if you guys just don't like Webber or you don't know basketball very well.

[Chris P]

I'm not calling Ralph Sampson a chump by any means..but if this was stirctly an NBA HOF...i doubt he'd be in. Penny Hardaway has just as many all star appearences along with two 1st team all nbas (and a 3rd team) and nobody thinks Penny's a HOF. Injuries derailed both careers but Sampson was just so dominant in college that its that resume that carried him..which is cool..its not the pro basketball hall of fame..but thats why I wish there was an NBA only HOF

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

I believe you're talking about me, and if so, you should read what I said more carefully.

One thing Re: Basketball & Football watered down. While there are certainly guys getting in the Hall I wouldn't put in, when you put it this way there's an elephant in the room:

You're implying that the Baseball HOF is the one with the most cred. And I'd say the Baseball HOF is the biggest joke there is.

First, the notion of a "first ballot HOFer" comes from baseball and its ridiculous. You literally have voters who think it's their duty to vote "No" the first time through to basically everybody, which means that these voters have the honor of only ever voting "No" on most of the truly great players of recent generations. Literally these type of voters only ever vote "Yes" for lower tier players, and they are doing this in the name of honoring top tier players. WTF?

Second, the steroid situation. I understand standing on principle, but if Barry Bonds & co aren't in the Hall, then the Hall literally stops mattering. Bonds & co defined the last generation of baseball that really mattered, and the Hall is deciding not to tell that story. That makes the story of baseball's HOF something that stopped mattering about 30 years ago.

Finally there's the reliance on stupid stats by baseball analysts. The idea that anyone should care about 3000 hits is silly. The idea that Harold Baines is in the Hall is just bizarre, and the idea that Rafael Palmeiro was a lock for the Hall before his steroid use was revealed is kinda comical. These guys were afterthoughts that we kids growing up following baseball did not care one bit about, but if you stick around long enough of as a mediocrity, this matters to baseball people.

Stick to basketball.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

What a load of rubbish. Webber had a nice team around him, but so did the other 4s mentioned. He was below those 3 but he was the clear leader for Sactown. They don't do anything without him.

His teams were losing to title contenders.

He also beat Dirk a couple of times in the Playoffs.

KG and TD are always a tier above due to their defense. Dirk at that time was probably not quite as good as Webber. He was a far worse defender.

I'm not sure if you guys just don't like Webber or you don't know basketball very well.

You talk as if we didn't see the Kings continue on without Webber. We did. In '03-04 the team played minus Webber, continued to be a team winning well over 50 games, and saw their offense improve, which shouldn't be a surprise given that Webber was taking up a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently.

I'm not literally saying that the Kings were worse when Webber was out there, but this was quite clearly a situation where the offense at its best was based on inside out passing and great outside shooting. While Webber was part of that passing, he wasn't necessary for it because of Divac, and all of that focus of the big man-first offense is something we'd now see as obsolete.

I'm not randomly "hating" on Webber here, I'm going into detail about how Adelman's Sacramento teams actually functioned, and the reality is that Webber got too much credit for it as if he was a lone alpha along the lines of some of the other players you mention when he just wasn't.

To point to a couple of quantitative things:

Do you realize that Webber only led the team in Win Shares in '99-00 & '00-01? The next 3 years after that, it was Stojakovic leading the way by this stat.

If you look at +/- based stats, you don't see Webber as the essential piece of the team. In fact, you might say that no one is because it really is an ensemble, but Divac & Christie literally have arguments as harder to replace than Webber.

One you look beyond PPG/APG/RPG, the notion that Webber was by far the best player on the roster just evaporates.

Re: His team was losing to title contenders. They were a great team. I'm not knocking the Kings, I'm saying the notion that he was head and shoulders above his teammates is wrong.

Re: He beat Dirk in the playoffs. His team beat Dirk's teams in the playoffs.

Re: Dirk not as good as Webber in that time because defense. I understand the logic, but Dirk was literally the most effective regular season offensive player in the league during most of Webber's King run. Webber was nowhere near the same level.

I do understand that what I'm saying doesn't mesh with common thought from the time, but common thought from the time was confused about what Webber was actually giving his team, and also still very confused in general about the value of big men.

General rule: If you're not an elite defender, and you're not capable from the perimeter, you're generally not that valuable as a big men. There have a been a couple guys so dominant as scorers that they could be exceptions to that rule (Kareem, Shaq), but for everyone else, it would be wiser to use such players as either pass-first guys or role players. I'd put Webber as a guy who should have been pass-first, because he was more effective at passing than scoring, but really wasn't used that way. Instead he was used more like an inside-out helio, and his scoring threat just wasn't what you'd hope for if you're using a guy that way - at least with modern understanding of optimal strategy.

Re: Not sure if I don't like Webber or just don't know basketball very well. I think you'd be wise not to assume that you can dismiss me based on a lack of knowledge (or the internet's favorite "you're just a hater" blowoff). I'm still not going that deep at this point but I've brought up a variety of season difference, statistical perspectives, and touched upon the coaching strategy. If that stuff is basic to you, as your statement about a lack of knowledge would seem to imply, then rebut it point by point.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

Who cares? You want 1 more point from him? LeBron held him back from doing that. You act like he couldn't do it and points mean so much.

Apparently you care. I was just stating the obvious facts.

Also, Bosh held himself back by joining a super team to get a ring. He knew what he was getting into. Stop blaming Lebron for all your problems.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

Finally there's the reliance on stupid stats by baseball analysts. The idea that anyone should care about 3000 hits is silly. The idea that Harold Baines is in the Hall is just bizarre, and the idea that Rafael Palmeiro was a lock for the Hall before his steroid use was revealed is kinda comical.

3K hits as such is an overrated guidepost for HOF-worthiness. A better measure is total bases from base hits (officially called Total Bases) plus walks plus steals, and 6K of those is pretty much HOF-worthy in my book. (The number of bases over and above singles are called secondary bases and figure into Secondary Average.)

Baines was inducted by the Veterans Committee, which is pretty much by definition as marginal as it gets with HOF inductions. Almost like an asterisk.

The steroids/PED issue raises a different set of questions. I'm fine with voters/writers exercising their discretion about excluding players known to have used, but with players merely suspected or believed without final proof to have used (and this applies to Bonds and Clemens), I'm not sure how that standard is supposed to sit well given our best sense of justice. I argued this point in over in the Baseball BO forum.

[Moneychrome20]

Go look up all star appearances and find me at least three guys who aren’t deserving with at least ten

Bosh has 11

He is in

[JWBlue]

Surprised a lot of peeps believe Webber had a HOF career. Seemed to have good but not great numbers and no championships.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

3K hits as such is an overrated guidepost for HOF-worthiness. A better measure is total bases from base hits (officially called Total Bases) plus walks plus steals, and 6K of those is pretty much HOF-worthy in my book. (The number of bases over and above singles are called secondary bases and figure into Secondary Average.)

Baines was inducted by the Veterans Committee, which is pretty much by definition as marginal as it gets with HOF inductions. Almost like an asterisk.

The steroids/PED issue raises a different set of questions. I'm fine with voters/writers exercising their discretion about excluding players known to have used, but with players merely suspected or believed without final proof to have used (and this applies to Bonds and Clemens), I'm not sure how that standard is supposed to sit well given our best sense of justice. I argued this point in over in the Baseball BO forum.

That's the thing no one ever wants to mention with Baines. It's always, "Well, Baines got in.." No one ever mentions that it was via the Veteran's Committee. That's an important distinction.

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

You talk as if we didn't see the Kings continue on without Webber. We did. In '03-04 the team played minus Webber, continued to be a team winning well over 50 games, and saw their offense improve, which shouldn't be a surprise given that Webber was taking up a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently.

I'm not literally saying that the Kings were worse when Webber was out there, but this was quite clearly a situation where the offense at its best was based on inside out passing and great outside shooting. While Webber was part of that passing, he wasn't necessary for it because of Divac, and all of that focus of the big man-first offense is something we'd now see as obsolete.

I'm not randomly "hating" on Webber here, I'm going into detail about how Adelman's Sacramento teams actually functioned, and the reality is that Webber got too much credit for it as if he was a lone alpha along the lines of some of the other players you mention when he just wasn't.

To point to a couple of quantitative things:

Do you realize that Webber only led the team in Win Shares in '99-00 & '00-01? The next 3 years after that, it was Stojakovic leading the way by this stat.

If you look at +/- based stats, you don't see Webber as the essential piece of the team. In fact, you might say that no one is because it really is an ensemble, but Divac & Christie literally have arguments as harder to replace than Webber.

One you look beyond PPG/APG/RPG, the notion that Webber was by far the best player on the roster just evaporates.

Re: His team was losing to title contenders. They were a great team. I'm not knocking the Kings, I'm saying the notion that he was head and shoulders above his teammates is wrong.

Re: He beat Dirk in the playoffs. His team beat Dirk's teams in the playoffs.

Re: Dirk not as good as Webber in that time because defense. I understand the logic, but Dirk was literally the most effective regular season offensive player in the league during most of Webber's King run. Webber was nowhere near the same level.

I do understand that what I'm saying doesn't mesh with common thought from the time, but common thought from the time was confused about what Webber was actually giving his team, and also still very confused in general about the value of big men.

General rule: If you're not an elite defender, and you're not capable from the perimeter, you're generally not that valuable as a big men. There have a been a couple guys so dominant as scorers that they could be exceptions to that rule (Kareem, Shaq), but for everyone else, it would be wiser to use such players as either pass-first guys or role players. I'd put Webber as a guy who should have been pass-first, because he was more effective at passing than scoring, but really wasn't used that way. Instead he was used more like an inside-out helio, and his scoring threat just wasn't what you'd hope for if you're using a guy that way - at least with modern understanding of optimal strategy.

Re: Not sure if I don't like Webber or just don't know basketball very well. I think you'd be wise not to assume that you can dismiss me based on a lack of knowledge (or the internet's favorite "you're just a hater" blowoff). I'm still not going that deep at this point but I've brought up a variety of season difference, statistical perspectives, and touched upon the coaching strategy. If that stuff is basic to you, as your statement about a lack of knowledge would seem to imply, then rebut it point by point.

Lol.

Sorry I couldn't get past your 1st line. Webber was there for the first 23 games and they were 17 and 6. Which equals a 74% win record. They were 64% that season without him. They were a contending team that was well coached. Why would they fall off a cliff?

Webber gete zero credit, obviously, or definitely not enough.

Christie was the guy that couldn't make a shot in game 7 vs the Lakers. Big games are for big game players. I'd say he could have been replaced by almost anyone.

Peja was no joke. I haven't once put down his team. You're putting down Webber and saying he's not a HOFer.

Dirk at that time in the early 00s was not tough at all. Webber was better until about 2004 when Dirk started to mature.

Webber was a better defender at that time. Dirk was soft. Obviously Dirk came good and joined that next tier (not defensively) with TD and KG as 1st ballot.

At the end of the day, he's gonna be in the Hall, so is Billups and so is Wallace.

Webber to me is properly rated once he gets in the Hall.

Billups and Ben Wallace are way underrated.

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

Apparently you care. I was just stating the obvious facts.

Also, Bosh held himself back by joining a super team to get a ring. He knew what he was getting into. Stop blaming Lebron for all your problems.

But but but you care. 25 pts! What a milestone. Makes Chris Bosh garbage amirite.

I seriously doubt Bosh knew what he was getting himself in to.

K. Love on the other hand knew, he talked about being in the Bosh role.

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by JWBlue

Surprised a lot of peeps believe Webber had a HOF career. Seemed to have good but not great numbers and no championships.

20+ and 10 for a decade isn't good now? On Playoff and contending teams.

Add in the Fab 5 stuff.

Only guys above him were TD, KG and Dirk.

Man.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

20+ and 10 for a decade isn't good now? On Playoff and contending teams.

Add in the Fab 5 stuff.

Only guys above him were TD, KG and Dirk.

Man.

I think a lot of that is the feeling that he didn't live up to his potential. But his resume is pretty damn good.

[jw8]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

When will it translate to his TC rc?

I recently sold a TC Refractor psa 10 for $3500... bought that raw 8 months ago for $125. I'd say he's already trending way up.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

But but but you care. 25 pts! What a milestone. Makes Chris Bosh garbage amirite.

I seriously doubt Bosh knew what he was getting himself in to.

K. Love on the other hand knew, he talked about being in the Bosh role.

Man you really are hung up on this. Pretty funny. Don’t think I said Bosh wasn’t any good. I like Bosh and know he’s getting into the HOF. He went to GT which is my college team. Bosh knew he wasn’t going to be the alpha on that team with Bron and Wade. Maybe everyone realized it except you?

[jw8]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

Man you really are hung up on this. Pretty funny. Don’t think I said Bosh wasn’t any good. I like Bosh and know he’s getting into the HOF. He went to GT which is my college team. Bosh knew he wasn’t going to be the alpha on that team with Bron and Wade. Maybe everyone realized it except you?

I think his adjustment to that role and willingness to do whatever it took to win is a testament to his character. I always saw him as a no nonsense humble kind of guy, he wasn't flashy (at least I don't remember that) he knew he was the glue on that big 3 team.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

Man you really are hung up on this. Pretty funny. Don’t think I said Bosh wasn’t any good. I like Bosh and know he’s getting into the HOF. He went to GT which is my college team. Bosh knew he wasn’t going to be the alpha on that team with Bron and Wade. Maybe everyone realized it except you?

I think Bosh didn't realize just how 3rd wheel he'd be. The dude didn't even get invited on the banana boat.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

I think Bosh didn't realize just how 3rd wheel he'd be. The dude didn't even get invited on the banana boat.

Then he isn’t very bright if that was his thinking. Everyone else knew

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by jw8

I think his adjustment to that role and willingness to do whatever it took to win is a testament to his character. I always saw him as a no nonsense humble kind of guy, he wasn't flashy (at least I don't remember that) he knew he was the glue on that big 3 team.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yeah I agree with that.

[drobfan8]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

Then he isn’t very bright if that was his thinking. Everyone else knew

Are you that dense?

Everyone knew he was gonna be the 3rd wheel. Even Bosh.

But the dude was really overlooked at times. When he was actually a massive part of their runs.

Anyone who thinks he isn't a HOFer or could average 25 points is clueless about the game of basketball.