I’ll be the first to admit that it is often necessary to use “the eye test” and other more subjective criteria when ultimately deciding who was better than who and how certain players fit into the history of the NBA. I stand by my previous rankings that don’t necessarily coincide precisely with this one (though they are pretty close) as this list is more of way of expanding the number of players and being able to put current players in context at different stages in their careers. One thing that jumped out at me, however, and got the basketball nerd inside me excited, was how this list does a good job of distinguishing between who should and should not be in the Hall of Fame. Everyone in the top 30 is a no brainer, players from 31-50 should be in, players 51-60 are borderline and could go either way, and everybody past 60 is probably on the outside looking in.
The two players in the top 30 who warrant some discussion are Dwight Howard and Kawhi Leonard. Dwight Howard is an interesting case as I am sure that I’m not alone in remembering him more as a team killer than the best center in the league over a five-year stretch. But his accomplishments and elite peak performance are undeniable as he almost won the 2011 MVP award and dragged an unremarkable Magic squad past Lebron and into 2009 finals, so it is my opinion that he will get in rather easily. Kawhi Leonard is interesting in that his accomplishments at a relatively young age have him firmly on the path to the Hall, but his career still has a long way to go before it is over, so how history will remember him is yet to be determined. But I think it is pretty safe to say that, barring any unforeseen disastrous events, the Hall of Fame will come calling Mr. Leonard once his eligibility comes up.
The 31-50 range is filled with guys who either are in, will be in, or, in my opinion, should be in. There are a few cases in this range where people might not think of that player as a Hall of Famer, but when compared to other players that are already in, their case becomes much more compelling. For example, let’s take a look at Chauncey Billups’ case. When thinking of all-time greats, he may not come immediately to mind, but when you look at what he accomplished in his career, the Hall of Fame should be a forgone conclusion. Look at him compared to Reggie Miller for instance. They have the same Win Shares per 48 minutes, the same amount of All-NBA selections, and Reggie appeared in just one more All-Star game. Reggie has the edge in total Win Shares due to his longevity, but Billups has 4 times the MVP Shares and a title and Finals MVP to top it off. Both players were known for being clutch when it mattered most, but when Reggie came up for consideration for the Hall, there was never any question whether or not he would get in. I think the same should be said for Chauncey.
Billups’ teammate with the Pistons, Ben Wallace, has a similarly strong case but has not yet been inducted. He was never an offensive powerhouse, but he was one of the greatest defenders and rebounders in league history. His resume actually reminds me quite a bit of Dikembe Mutombo’s, who happened to get elected to the Hall without a second thought. Both players have 4 defensive player of the year awards, and while Mutombo has an 8 to 4 edge in All-Star appearances, Wallace has a 5 to 3 edge in All-NBA selections. Wallace was also a key member of that Pistons title team while Mutombo only ever made one Finals appearance as a member of Iverson’s Sixers. I am definitely not saying that Mutombo does not deserve to be in, I’m just saying that Wallace does too.
Another case that jumps out to me is that of Amare Stoudemire. It seems that people are letting his failing to live up to his huge contract with the Knicks overshadow how dominate he was in the years he was filling the lane with Steve Nash and the Suns. His resume reads pretty similar to another recent Hall of Fame inductee, Grant Hill, but I have a feeling that Stoudemire will not get in quite so quickly. Both Hill and Stoudemire were named to the All-NBA 1st team once and the 2nd team four times. Hill has one more All-Star appearance and the edge in total Win Shares while Stoudemire has the edge in Win Shares per 48. I think that Hill kept his positive impression in the minds of NBA fans by being a willing and capable role player for many years after his prime days and long injury struggles were over. Stoudemire did not have that long tail end to his career as he seemed to disappear quite suddenly and without much ado. I do agree that his lack of longevity should be taken into account, but it should not extinguish the fact that he was one of the top players in the league for close to a decade.
The last two players I want to look at are current players who were recently selected to their sixth and seventh All-Star games: Blake Griffin and Lamarcus Aldridge. Their scores come out remarkably close despite them being extremely different players, with Blake being known for his above the rim prowess and Aldridge being known for his barely-getting-off-the-floor turn around jumpers. They both have, however, put together a period of prolonged excellence that I’m not sure I would have predicted just a few years ago, and when added up is beginning to put together strong Hall of Fame cases. They will be interesting players to monitor over the next several years to see how their careers progress.
The other fascinating thing to watch will be where some of the current stars of the league will end up on this list when it’s all said and done. Can Curry approach the top 10? Can Harden? What is Kawhi’s ceiling? Is Anthony Davis stuck in the Carmelo range or will a change a scenery push him higher? Can Damian Lillard and Paul George get into the sure-fire Hall of Fame category? Are Giannis and Embiid prime to make meteoric rises? Only time will tell, but I for one am excited to see how it all plays out.
The Jello's Jiggling 