Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re; Hall of Fame

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    the fact that anyone would even consider james worthy for the hall of fame is beyond me.... looking strictly at his pro stats there is nothing overly
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment


      the fact that anyone would even consider james worthy for the hall of fame is beyond me....

      looking strictly at his pro stats there is nothing overly impressive about his numbers, other than to say he was a good solid player. case in point - as his yearly minutes/game increased over time (calling for him to shoulder more of the offense), his FG% dropped when asked to play major minutes (39 min/g in his 9th and 10th seasons in the league) and his scoring per game did not substantially increase.
      other than that his FG% earlier in his career was really good but his scoring was never more than 20-21 pts/g, like many other players....

      he was never all-pro, plus never even 2nd team all-pro during his career, while players like dantley, english, barkley, t.cumming, sampson, mchale, and wilkins were...

      he played on three title teams, yet that team had won 2 titles just before his arrival and those team's core players were still there (magic/jabbar)....

      he was never the best player on his team, and one could argue not even the 2nd best...

      was he a good player? yes....was he a really good player? again i'd say yes...was he a great player? no, not in my opinion....and not "worthy" of the hall of fame.....

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...


    • harlanzo
      ... of fame is ... impressive about ... point - as ... shoulder more ... (39 min/g ... game did not ... his scoring ... career, ... mchale, and ... When you
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
        >
        >
        > the fact that anyone would even consider james worthy for the hall
        of fame is
        > beyond me....
        >
        > looking strictly at his pro stats there is nothing overly
        impressive about
        > his numbers, other than to say he was a good solid player. case in
        point - as
        > his yearly minutes/game increased over time (calling for him to
        shoulder more
        > of the offense), his FG% dropped when asked to play major minutes
        (39 min/g
        > in his 9th and 10th seasons in the league) and his scoring per
        game did not
        > substantially increase.
        > other than that his FG% earlier in his career was really good but
        his scoring
        > was never more than 20-21 pts/g, like many other players....
        >
        > he was never all-pro, plus never even 2nd team all-pro during his
        career,
        > while players like dantley, english, barkley, t.cumming, sampson,
        mchale, and
        > wilkins were...

        When you think back to Worthy's draft the consensus top 3 were
        Nique, Terry Cummings, and Worthy and the question was which would
        go number one. I know Worthy has a great rep but it is arguable
        that he was the worst of three. I don't know if nique would've
        meshed as well with the passing happy lakers but it's worth
        mentioning.
      • aaronkoo
        ... of fame is ... impressive about ... point - as ... shoulder more ... (39 min/g ... did not ... his scoring ... Sounds like Hornacek a little. People use
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
          >
          >
          > the fact that anyone would even consider james worthy for the hall
          of fame is
          > beyond me....
          >
          > looking strictly at his pro stats there is nothing overly
          impressive about
          > his numbers, other than to say he was a good solid player. case in
          point - as
          > his yearly minutes/game increased over time (calling for him to
          shoulder more
          > of the offense), his FG% dropped when asked to play major minutes
          (39 min/g
          > in his 9th and 10th seasons in the league) and his scoring per game
          did not
          > substantially increase.
          > other than that his FG% earlier in his career was really good but
          his scoring
          > was never more than 20-21 pts/g, like many other players....
          >

          Sounds like Hornacek a little. People use arguments like this:

          "Given the temperment of each player and I am a supportive fan of
          both, I woudl select Jeff over Reggie to win the ring."

          There is a lot of bias in the HOF for players that created a ton of
          shots even if they didn't win. Hell, Isaiah Rider gets a lot of HOF
          points based on some algorithms out there just because he shot A
          LOT. In evaluating players, I absolutely do not look at them for HOF
          potential. I look at how they contributed to their team success. It
          means that players like Hornacek and Worthy end up looking valuable
          to their team's success, which they were. This is in contrast to
          players like Jerry Stackhouse, Allen Iverson, and other
          pure "scorers", who have greater HOF potential. AI actually has had
          some very good years (and some mediocre ones), but Stack almost
          continually is mediocre. He drags his teams toward 0.500, but not
          really above it. Is that what you want? Can Stack be part of a
          championship team? Not without changing his game a lot, as Ron
          Harper did when he joined the Bulls. On the other hand, could
          Hornacek and Worthy have dragged bad teams up to 0.500 as well as
          Stack? I'd have to do the analysis, but I think they'd get close in
          many situations, but not in a few.

          The traditional standards of the HOF are vague but definitely put
          Worthy as questionable. The HOF doesn't necessarily have anything to
          do with winning (see Pete Maravich). It's eclectic that way.
          Flamboyance, stats, and scoring over winning. Worthy's inclusion
          would be a vote for winning over stats (in contrast to Maravich).

          Again, my standards are pretty high, so I'd keep the new guys all
          out, I think. But I don't think it's unreasonable that they be
          considered.

          DeanO

          > he was never all-pro, plus never even 2nd team all-pro during his
          career,
          > while players like dantley, english, barkley, t.cumming, sampson,
          mchale, and
          > wilkins were...
          >
          > he played on three title teams, yet that team had won 2 titles just
          before
          > his arrival and those team's core players were still there
          (magic/jabbar)....
          >
          > he was never the best player on his team, and one could argue not
          even the
          > 2nd best...
          >
          > was he a good player? yes....was he a really good player? again i'd
          say
          > yes...was he a great player? no, not in my opinion....and
          not "worthy" of the
          > hall of fame.....
          >
          > bob chaikin
          > bchaikin@b...
        • John Hollinger
          ... out, I think. But I don t think it s unreasonable that they be considered. Interesting you say that, because that s one big argument for/against Worthy
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            >>>Again, my standards are pretty high, so I'd keep the new guys all
            out, I think. But I don't think it's unreasonable that they be
            considered.


            Interesting you say that, because that's one big argument for/against
            Worthy depending on how you look at it: The Hall is absolutely,
            positively grossly overloaded with role players from championship
            teams. Slater Martin, Jim Pollard, Cliff Hagan, Ed Macauley, Earl
            Monroe, Bailey Howell, KC Jones, Clyde Lovellette, Vern Mikkelsen,
            etc. -- do any of these guys get in if they had played their entire
            career in Cincinnati or Syracuse?

            On the other hand, the Hall is overpacked in general. There's 12
            REFEREES, for crying out loud, and at least seven college coaches who
            got in without winning a title -- and 63 coaches total. By contrast,
            there are just 17 managers in baseball's hall, despite a much longer
            history.
          • Mike G
            ... I ve got an algorithm, if you will, and it says James Worthy s career ranks #75 all-time, if you count playoff games equal in importance to regular-season
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
              <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
              > ... one big argument for/against
              > Worthy depending on how you look at it: The Hall is absolutely,
              > positively grossly overloaded with role players from championship
              > teams...

              I've got an algorithm, if you will, and it says James Worthy's career
              ranks #75 all-time, if you count playoff games equal in importance to
              regular-season games.

              Worthy's playoff career alone ranks #23 alltime.

              When I add the square roots of these 'equivalent totals', he comes
              out at #45.

              I don't attempt to rank college careers, but Worthy is certainly
              better than most HOFers in pro career.

              Worthy didn't just get to the Finals several times and win a few
              times. He absolutely excelled in pressure situations. He became the
              go-to guy on the Lakers, even when Kareem was still capable, and
              Magic was in his prime.

              Why Worthy's game left him after only 10 years, is a mystery. He
              tried passing more; he shot a few more 3s. But he was a scorer, and
              he faded with the Laker dynasty.

              Worthy was overrated in one sense: he got named to too many Allstar
              teams. I recall Larry Nance being passed over a few times, in favor
              of Worthy.
            • Mike G
              ... None of these guys were bad, so worst may not be applicable. Wilkins was the best scorer, Cummings the best rebounder, Worthy the best at assists,
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 17, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...>
                wrote:
                > When you think back to Worthy's draft the consensus top 3 were
                > Nique, Terry Cummings, and Worthy and the question was which would
                > go number one. I know Worthy has a great rep but it is arguable
                > that he was the worst of three.

                None of these guys were bad, so 'worst' may not be applicable.

                Wilkins was the best scorer, Cummings the best rebounder, Worthy the
                best at assists, shooting pct, and turnovers.

                I've got all 3 ranked between #40 and #46 alltime.

                Nique was a playoff flop. Cummings was pretty good in playoffs.
              • aaronkoo
                ... all ... for/against ... That is a key question I pose with all players, often replacing Cincinnati or Syracuse with the Clippers or the Grizzlies. That s
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                  <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                  > >>>Again, my standards are pretty high, so I'd keep the new guys
                  all
                  > out, I think. But I don't think it's unreasonable that they be
                  > considered.
                  >
                  >
                  > Interesting you say that, because that's one big argument
                  for/against
                  > Worthy depending on how you look at it: The Hall is absolutely,
                  > positively grossly overloaded with role players from championship
                  > teams. Slater Martin, Jim Pollard, Cliff Hagan, Ed Macauley, Earl
                  > Monroe, Bailey Howell, KC Jones, Clyde Lovellette, Vern Mikkelsen,
                  > etc. -- do any of these guys get in if they had played their entire
                  > career in Cincinnati or Syracuse?
                  >

                  That is a key question I pose with all players, often replacing
                  Cincinnati or Syracuse with the Clippers or the Grizzlies. That's
                  the point of things like skill curves, too. It is definitely easier
                  to be a positive contributor on a winning team than on a poor team.
                  The wide spread in basketball winning percentages is, I think, due to
                  the complimentarity that really exists among players. Put 2 good
                  players together and it's more likely that a third becomes "good".
                  Put 3 together and it's even more likely that a 4th becomes "good".

                  There is research out there that says exactly the opposite but it
                  looks at things like tendex. Even my research says this when looking
                  at value on the margin. This means that, from game to game, players
                  do compensate for each other (or that the defense can often take one
                  or two options away but leaves the others available to do better). A
                  good game by Kobe doesn't mean a good game by Shaq. But the presence
                  of Shaq on Kobe's team does help Kobe's game and that's what I'm
                  talking about.

                  So should players be evaluated by how well they'd perform if on an
                  average team, on a 0.250 team, or on a 0.650 team? Worthy was
                  clearly important on a 0.650 team. How well would he do if the rest
                  of his team were a 0.250 version? Not as well as Jordan, Magic,
                  Russell, Chamberlain, etc. That seems to be the high standard.

                  DeanO


                  > On the other hand, the Hall is overpacked in general. There's 12
                  > REFEREES, for crying out loud, and at least seven college coaches
                  who
                  > got in without winning a title -- and 63 coaches total. By
                  contrast,
                  > there are just 17 managers in baseball's hall, despite a much
                  longer
                  > history.
                • Mike G
                  ... team. This assertion is only partly true, at best. Unless we are thinking of different definitions of contribute . Tony Campbell was a nobody for the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 18, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
                    > ... It is definitely easier
                    > to be a positive contributor on a winning team than on a poor
                    team.

                    This assertion is only partly true, at best. Unless we are thinking
                    of different definitions of 'contribute'.

                    Tony Campbell was a nobody for the Pistons and Lakers, then scored
                    20+ for the expansion Wolves, a team that desperately needed just
                    such a player.

                    If you claim that Campbell 'created losses' for the Wolves, I think
                    that is just wack. If their average score with him was 90-100, it
                    might have been 80-100 without him.


                    > The wide spread in basketball winning percentages is, I think, due
                    to
                    > the complimentarity that really exists among players. Put 2 good
                    > players together and it's more likely that a third becomes "good".
                    > Put 3 together and it's even more likely that a 4th becomes "good".

                    This speaks to 'team chemistry'. I've tried to correlate my
                    own 'productivity' ratings with team winning % and point
                    differential. Ultimately, I think it won't happen quite that
                    neatly. It's just a fact that some teams are less than the sum of
                    their parts; and others are complementary.
                    >

                    > ... So should players be evaluated by how well they'd perform if on
                    an
                    > average team, on a 0.250 team, or on a 0.650 team? Worthy was
                    > clearly important on a 0.650 team. How well would he do if the
                    rest
                    > of his team were a 0.250 version? Not as well as Jordan, Magic,
                    > Russell, Chamberlain, etc. That seems to be the high standard.

                    Well, Worthy was no MJ on any team, so what actually are you saying?
                    Magic never got the opportunity to play for a scrub team, but Jordan
                    did; and he was equally impressive, IMO.

                    And, Dean: can you tell us who/what is aaronkoo?
                  • Michael Tamada
                    ... From: aaronkoo [mailto:deano@rawbw.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:27 AM So should players be evaluated by how well they d perform if on an average
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 18, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: aaronkoo [mailto:deano@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:27 AM
                      So should players be evaluated by how well they'd perform if on an
                      average team, on a 0.250 team, or on a 0.650 team? Worthy was
                      clearly important on a 0.650 team. How well would he do if the rest
                      of his team were a 0.250 version? Not as well as Jordan, Magic,
                      Russell, Chamberlain, etc. That seems to be the high standard.


                      ***
                      A tie-breaking criterion that I use makes use of essentially
                      that information -- but perhaps in the reverse way from what
                      DeanO is describing.

                      If players are really close and I'm trying to decide which one
                      was "better" or more deserving of the Hall of Fame or whatever,
                      one way of breaking the tie is to consider what sorts of team they
                      would be most valuable for. And I put more weight on what they
                      contributed, or likely would have contributed, to a .750 or
                      championship level team, rather than estimating what they'd
                      contribute to a .250 team or to an average team,

                      E.g. if one had a team of mediocre stiffs, what one player in NBA
                      history would you want to add to your team to improve it the most?
                      I'd say most likely Wilt Chamberlain, Mr. One Man Team. If the
                      team was truly execrable, without even competent guards to get
                      Wilt the ball, then maybe Jordan would be best, since you could
                      give him the ball 40 feet from the basket and he'd be able to do
                      something with it.

                      But if you've already got a really good team, one that can benefit
                      from another superstar but which doesn't really need a guy to be
                      the center of the offense, that's where players like Magic Johnson
                      and Bill Russell become relatively more valuable. Maybe even
                      more valuable than the Jordans and Wilts (one big point in Russ's
                      favor at the very highest level: if you want to win 11 championships
                      in 13 years, your superstar better be a player who won't demand trades,
                      retire to play minor league baseball, or get HIV).

                      Which is the "best" context to use in evaluating players? There is
                      no one single answer, but if I have to choose, I put more weight
                      on how they perform in a high quality or championship context, because
                      those are the teams that draw a disproportionate amount of our attention,
                      unless we're Clipper fans.

                      To look at the trio that's been discussed -- Worthy, Wilkins, and Cummings:
                      a bad team would probably prefer Dominique Wilkins, who could go out and
                      get his 27 points while shooting 46% pretty much night in and night out.
                      A good team would probably prefer Worthy with his 21 points but 55%
                      shooting. Cummings I put in between, probably second best to Wilkins
                      for lousy teams and second best to Worthy on good teams.


                      --MKT
                    • aaronkoo
                      ... thinking ... We are. ... He did create losses for them. He also created wins. The difference betwee 90-100 vs 80-100 is the difference between Tony
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 18, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
                        > > ... It is definitely easier
                        > > to be a positive contributor on a winning team than on a poor
                        > team.
                        >
                        > This assertion is only partly true, at best. Unless we are
                        thinking
                        > of different definitions of 'contribute'.
                        >

                        We are.

                        > Tony Campbell was a nobody for the Pistons and Lakers, then scored
                        > 20+ for the expansion Wolves, a team that desperately needed just
                        > such a player.
                        >
                        > If you claim that Campbell 'created losses' for the Wolves, I think
                        > that is just wack. If their average score with him was 90-100, it
                        > might have been 80-100 without him.

                        He did create losses for them. He also created wins. The difference
                        betwee 90-100 vs 80-100 is the difference between Tony Campbell and
                        some hypothetical bad player. My numbers, for instance, would show
                        Campbell creating 6 wins and 8 losses. But the group of players
                        replacing him may be at 1 win and 13 losses.

                        Now back to the question. With the Lakers, Campbell may actually
                        create 1.5 wins and 1.3 losses. His effective winning percentage is
                        higher, but he doesn't contribute as many wins (or as many losses).
                        See what I mean? His offense should be more _efficient_ when his
                        teammates are good enough draw the defense away from him.

                        >
                        >
                        > > The wide spread in basketball winning percentages is, I think,
                        due
                        > to
                        > > the complimentarity that really exists among players. Put 2 good
                        > > players together and it's more likely that a third
                        becomes "good".
                        > > Put 3 together and it's even more likely that a 4th
                        becomes "good".
                        >
                        > This speaks to 'team chemistry'. I've tried to correlate my
                        > own 'productivity' ratings with team winning % and point
                        > differential. Ultimately, I think it won't happen quite that
                        > neatly. It's just a fact that some teams are less than the sum of
                        > their parts; and others are complementary.
                        > >

                        I do get my individual win-loss records to sum pretty close to team
                        wins and losses (it's not built-in to be guaranteed). Chemistry is
                        what is left over from some sum of parts vs whole analogy. I've done
                        it a few ways. Not completely happy with any of them.

                        >
                        > > ... So should players be evaluated by how well they'd perform if
                        on
                        > an
                        > > average team, on a 0.250 team, or on a 0.650 team? Worthy was
                        > > clearly important on a 0.650 team. How well would he do if the
                        > rest
                        > > of his team were a 0.250 version? Not as well as Jordan, Magic,
                        > > Russell, Chamberlain, etc. That seems to be the high standard.
                        >
                        > Well, Worthy was no MJ on any team, so what actually are you
                        saying?
                        > Magic never got the opportunity to play for a scrub team, but
                        Jordan
                        > did; and he was equally impressive, IMO.

                        MJ was almost as impressive on scrub teams as he was on great teams.
                        The problem is that there is a correlation between his youth and how
                        good his teams were. But my numbers show him at his most efficient
                        when he had good players around him. And MJ was exceptional. No one
                        was like him. What I was saying refers back to those curves I sent
                        out before. MJ's curve was truly incredible. His efficiency stayed
                        very high almost regardless of how often he tried to shoot. Worthy's
                        was not so good. His was a good curve, but if he had to be the
                        dominant scoring force on a team, he would become less efficient.
                        Jordan's didn't decline like that. Magic's declined fairly slowly.

                        >
                        > And, Dean: can you tell us who/what is aaronkoo?

                        Stupid Yahoo. When Yahoo first started giving away logins many years
                        ago, I wasn't sure about security, putting my name out there. I
                        registered with AaronKoo because it is a fake name a friend used when
                        he didn't necessarily want someone (usually a woman) to be able to
                        stalk him (he was a good looking guy). The fake name he used was
                        Aaron (which was close to his real name) and his nickname among
                        friends was Koo.

                        At Yahoo, I've had that as my username since, but they allow multiple
                        identities and I had no need to use AaronKoo, so I set up HoopStudies
                        and kept my old accounts. They used to use that as the ID that gets
                        shown but keep switching. Ugh.

                        DeanO
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.