Author Topic: Vince Carter & Dwight Howard waaay ahead of Parker & Ginobili in HOF probability  (Read 3508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trickybilly

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Tommy Points: 617
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html

Something ain't right over at bbal reference....
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 09:36:19 AM by Redz »
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Offline ederson

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2896
  • Tommy Points: 279
Melo 98% HOF prob ?????????????

why ???

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Carter and Howard have far more awards and honors, which is generally what drives making the HOF.  It is too hard to statistically count international accolades and what not so they aren't really factored in which is where Parker and Manu have an edge.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
not much of a surprise.  Carter and Howard were/are big name players that dominated their positions and put up remarkable numbers when they were in their primes.  Parker and Manu are seen as very good complimentary pieces to Duncan.

while Parker and Manu have a lovely set of rings to show off, a case could be made that if they hadn't played with Duncan would they have those rings or even be in a discussion for the HOF. 

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
not much of a surprise.  Carter and Howard were/are big name players that dominated their positions and put up remarkable numbers when they were in their primes.  Parker and Manu are seen as very good complimentary pieces to Duncan.

while Parker and Manu have a lovely set of rings to show off, a case could be made that if they hadn't played with Duncan would they have those rings or even be in a discussion for the HOF.

If they only counted NBA play for the basketball hall of fame then, yes, not playing+winning with Duncan would have given them no chance at the hall of fame.  But at the very least, Manu's Euroleague and Olympic success (along with his individual European/NBA awards) would have put him into the Hall of Fame even with no NBA rings.  Tony Parker wouldn't be a sure-fire hall-of-famer without his rings, but he did win a finals MVP and had a great FIBA career (he's the all time leader in points for Eurobasket), so he'd at least be in the discussion.  With the rings, he's a lock.
I'm bitter.

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
I'm sure their algorithm is based on statistics alone, not playoff appearances or titles since those are hard to quantify. Both Parker and Ginobili sacrificed statistics for team goals and I'm sure voters will recognize that. Manu's numbers especially were hurt by starting his NBA career later than normal and willingly taking a sixth man role even though he was always on the court during crunch time.

Looking at the numbers it seems like Parker has the stats but Manu doesn't. I would let him in because he was just as, if not more important than Parker to the Spurs. HOF voting also considers European and International play so that will help him as he won gold and bronze Olympic medals and has various FIBA and Italian league awards (it's not technically the NBA HOF, it's the "Basketball HOF").

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Yeah, remember it is not the basketball-reference staff sitting around deciding how likely each player is. Rather, they look at the players who are in and the players who are not in and try to regress a statistical correlation to determine who has the profile that typically gets in.

They describe it here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html


Quote
Keep in mind that this exercise aims to predict who is likely to be inducted, as a Player, and based solely on NBA accomplishments and statistical output. There are coaches and contributors at all levels of the game, as well as foreign players and WNBA stars that are also worthy of induction.

I was surprised to see that All-NBA, MVP awards/voting and Finals MVPs were not included; I wish they included a discussion as to why. Perhaps there was too much noise to have that be a reliable statistical correlation.

But, based on finals MVPs and/or international importance, I would not be surprised if all four made the HoF.

It does bring to mind the "tier" approach to HoF's though! Parker/Carter/Howard/Ginobili probably shouldn't be in the same wing of the hall as Duncan/Wilt/Russell/Jordan/Bird/Magic.


Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
In the long run, I don't think it'll really matter.   All 3 are almost certainly getting in.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
How does Chris Bosh have a 99.51% chance of getting into the HOF? He put up good numbers on bad Toronto teams. Then he was part of a collusion to be a part of the Miami Heat, where he was the third wheel. And Manu Ginobili only has a 20.05% chance? I honestly would have thought the percentages should have been the other way around.

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
not much of a surprise.  Carter and Howard were/are big name players that dominated their positions and put up remarkable numbers when they were in their primes.  Parker and Manu are seen as very good complimentary pieces to Duncan.

while Parker and Manu have a lovely set of rings to show off, a case could be made that if they hadn't played with Duncan would they have those rings or even be in a discussion for the HOF.

If they only counted NBA play for the basketball hall of fame then, yes, not playing+winning with Duncan would have given them no chance at the hall of fame.  But at the very least, Manu's Euroleague and Olympic success (along with his individual European/NBA awards) would have put him into the Hall of Fame even with no NBA rings.  Tony Parker wouldn't be a sure-fire hall-of-famer without his rings, but he did win a finals MVP and had a great FIBA career (he's the all time leader in points for Eurobasket), so he'd at least be in the discussion.  With the rings, he's a lock.
oh I'm not the one making the case.  just saying this would be the case some would make if they'd vote against them. 

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
How does Chris Bosh have a 99.51% chance of getting into the HOF? He put up good numbers on bad Toronto teams. Then he was part of a collusion to be a part of the Miami Heat, where he was the third wheel. And Manu Ginobili only has a 20.05% chance? I honestly would have thought the percentages should have been the other way around.

I think it's because it's comparing the profiles of non-hall of famers to the profiles of hall of famers trying to use objective criteria. Bosh has 2 NBA titles, 11 All-stars, and is Top-100 all time in PPG, total points, rebounds, blocks. Historically, that kind of player has made the HoF. 

Offline trickybilly

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Tommy Points: 617
I would like to rule on this issue.

There is ZERO way I put Dwight in the HOF. As a pre-condition you either need to have provided some special contribution to the game of basketball, or have been a significant contributor on a title winning team.

Iverson can sneak in under the special contribution, as he really invigorated the league during the lull of the very late 90's early 00's.

But Dwight? No way.

Ben Wallace, on the other hand, belongs in the HoF.

I think Vince gets in for his sheer longevity, and for being an icon not dissimilar to Iverson
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I would like to rule on this issue.

There is ZERO way I put Dwight in the HOF. As a pre-condition you either need to have provided some special contribution to the game of basketball, or have been a significant contributor on a title winning team.

Iverson can sneak in under the special contribution, as he really invigorated the league during the lull of the very late 90's early 00's.

But Dwight? No way.

Ben Wallace, on the other hand, belongs in the HoF.

I think Vince gets in for his sheer longevity, and for being an icon not dissimilar to Iverson

Maybe so on Dwight, but he is at over a 99% probability. He may not be the most likable player, but he certainly dominated his position over several years, led a mostly successful team, and won DPOY three years in a row.

On a slightly unrelated note - I realize they have the rest of their careers to [greatly] improve their resumes, but Kawhi at a 6% chance and Giannis at a 1% just feels wrong.

Offline Androslav

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2983
  • Tommy Points: 528
If you are not American you lose -50% probability automatically.
Read the HOF criteria.
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
I would like to rule on this issue.

There is ZERO way I put Dwight in the HOF. As a pre-condition you either need to have provided some special contribution to the game of basketball, or have been a significant contributor on a title winning team.

Iverson can sneak in under the special contribution, as he really invigorated the league during the lull of the very late 90's early 00's.

But Dwight? No way.

Ben Wallace, on the other hand, belongs in the HoF.

I think Vince gets in for his sheer longevity, and for being an icon not dissimilar to Iverson

8 Time All Star
5x TRB Champ
2x BLK Champ
8x All-NBA
5x All-Defensive
2004-05 All-Rookie
3x Def. POY


Those are not HoF-like contributions? Sure, maybe he wasn't the greatest player/likeable athlete, but Orlando Howard was simply dominant...
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different