Phx-Suns.Net

http://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nba/news ... f8sd4r7xey

Who gets in?

I'd say Nash and Kidd for sure. I'm hoping Hill gets in too.

Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

Grant Hill probably has a good shot to get in then.

Split T wrote:Grant Hill probably has a good shot to get in then.

Yeah, 3 championship games, 2 titles should help.

I think Hill gets in, thanks to college, and his being a great dude who has stayed in the NBA family after retiring. He just has built up a ton of friends and good will. Objectively he probably doesn't deserve to be in, but I think the preceding factors will get him in. Maybe not first-ballot, but at some point.

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

For a comparison, consider Bill Walton.
Great college career, great years at Portland cut short by injuries, odd part-time career w/Clippers, great, brief finish w/ Celtics.

LazarusLong wrote:

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

For a comparison, consider Bill Walton.
Great college career, great years at Portland cut short by injuries, odd part-time career w/Clippers, great, brief finish w/ Celtics.

I was wondering who was going to post that, you or Bobster. You win.

LazarusLong wrote:

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

For a comparison, consider Bill Walton.
Great college career, great years at Portland cut short by injuries, odd part-time career w/Clippers, great, brief finish w/ Celtics.

That's an interesting comparison, but I think there are some important differences. Bill Walton won an NBA title and was part of one of the greatest NBA teams of all time. Grant Hill had a long and mediocre (though solid) career after his injuries, and never came anywhere near winning a title.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

LazarusLong wrote:

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

For a comparison, consider Bill Walton.
Great college career, great years at Portland cut short by injuries, odd part-time career w/Clippers, great, brief finish w/ Celtics.

That's an interesting comparison, but I think there are some important differences. Bill Walton won an NBA title and was part of one of the greatest NBA teams of all time. Grant Hill had a long and mediocre (though solid) career after his injuries, and never came anywhere near winning a title.

Walton is an oddity.
Only time he played more than 70 games in a season was with the Celtics in their title run of 85-86, and that was mostly coming off the bench.
Played only 209 games in four seasons with Portland.
Only played 35 games his rookie season (Grant tied Jason Kidd as rookie of the year in his inaugural season).

Hill played 1026 games, Walton only 468.
Hill played 436 games just with Detroit, and carried those undermanned Pistons teams, averaging 21.6 ppg, 8 rpg and 6.3 apg.

Hill had a great career with Detroit, and when his peers talk about his prime, he was the LeBron of his day. Unstoppable. I think he's a first ballot HOFer.

I really think that injuries to Hill and Hardaway robbed the NBA of it's 2 most exciting and complete stars of that era. As it was, Shaq was the best player and there was a huge drop off the the next best. I think a healthy Grant Hill at his best could have lead a good team to a title.

I wonder if Hill and/or Hardaway would have been able to have better careers nowadays with modern medical technology at their disposal.

Cap wrote:

LazarusLong wrote:

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Yes, Nash and Kidd for sure. Hill is interesting. He was easily good enough at his peak to be in, but that peak was cut short by injuries. Then he almost had an entire new career as a role player. Does his college days come into consideration?

College counts. It's the Naismith Basketball HOF, not NBA HOF.

For a comparison, consider Bill Walton.
Great college career, great years at Portland cut short by injuries, odd part-time career w/Clippers, great, brief finish w/ Celtics.

I was wondering who was going to post that, you or Bobster. You win.

An even more extreme case is Maurice Stokes.

Stokes only played 202 NBA games, winning the Rookie of the Year in 1955-56. Stokes played three seasons, suffered his terrible injury and was finished as a player.

Another comparison is Ralph Sampson, who played 456 NBA games, but really only three seasons that were injury free, and once the injuries stared his careen took a nosedive.

"An even more extreme case is Maurice Stokes ..."
Imagine a healthy Stokes, running along with Oscar, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman.
Boston may have had fewer banners.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:This is already mentioned in other threads, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2247 ... -induction

The 2018 finalists for the Naismith Hall of Fame have been announced. They are:

Ray Allen
Maurice Cheeks
Charles "Lefty" Driesell
Hugh Evans
Grant Hill
Jason Kidd
Kim Mulkey
Steve Nash
Katie Smith
Tina Thompson
Rudy Tomjanovich
The 1954-58 Wayland Baptist University women's basketball team
Chris Webber

Some great former Phoenix Suns on that list. Nash is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer, no doubt.

You mean like this one, Mori?

Split T wrote:Grant Hill probably has a good shot to get in then.

TMac is in. Grant Hill should too.

You mean like this one, Mori?

Hey no fair resurrecting a thread from months ago.