Any serious hoops fan has been in at least one argument over who is in the Hall of Fame, and who is not. Recently, some friends of mine got into an email debate after Dennis Rodman WAS NOT selected to the NBA Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Actually it was a continuation of a debate that has gone on about Rodman for about 3 years, but since last month was Rodman's first year of eligibility, his non-selection raised the eyebrows of all but one friend who from day one questioned whether or not Rodman is a legit HOFer. His argument essentially boiled down to the fact that, Rodman though excellent, was essentially a role player, and the love he gets is only from being on championship teams, and that he was a replaceable piece on those championship teams. Highly subjective stuff, I know.
But once you've been in enough of these arguments, you try to find some objective common ground, so after the last Rodman debate, I enlisted the help of my friend to come up with a reasonably objective criteria to select players for the Hall. Essentially we tried to give more opportunity to get in based on regular season stats/accomplishments but also give significant weight to Finals performances, and playoff performances if a player has been in 50 or more playoff games.
The selection criteria is below.
Regular season
20,000 pts averaging more than 20ppg - 2pts.
10,000 assists averaging more than 10 assists per game - 1pt
10,000 rebounds averaging more than 10 reb per game. 1pt.
League MVP - 2pts
All NBA 1st team 1 pt.
All NBA 2nd team .75 pts
All NBA 3rd team .50 pts.
All NBA defense 1st team .25 pts
All NBA defense 2nd team .125pts
Playoffs (no game minimum)
Finals MVP - 2pts
Leading scorer(must be 20ppg or more) on a championship team .5pts
Leading rebounder(must be 10rpg or more) on a championship team .25pts
Leading assist man(must be 10apg or more) on a championship team .25pts
Playoff performance (min 50 games)
1000 pts averaging 20ppg or more - 2pt
500 assists averaging 10 assists - 1pt
500 rebs averaging 10 rebs - 1 pts.
Essentially to make the Hall you must score a 5 or higher. If you get above a 3, then you can appeal based on taking a deeper look into the player's career to find 2 additional points. Bernard King and Walt Bellamy are two examples of how the appeal process works. Bellamy is in the Hall. King has not been selected yet. Let's look at Bellamy first.
Bellamy gets 3 points immediately based on his career regular season productivity. He scored over 20,000 pts averaged over 20ppg and grabbed over 10,000 rebs and averaged more than 10 rebs per game. But after that there are no more obvious points for him. However 3 gets him to the appeal process. If you look at Bellamy's playoff record, he averaged 18.5 ppg and 14.8rpg in a 46 game stretch. 46 games is close enough to 50 to get him an additional point for rebounding in the playoffs. So now he's at a 4.
But Bellamy had the misfortune to play center at the same time that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were centers, so he was NEVER going to make first team or second team ALL NBA. In those days there were no third team selections, so we can make a reasonable assumption that had there been Bellamy probably would have gotten 3rd team honors in each of his first four seasons( he averaged over 25ppg and 15rpg during that stretch) That gives him an additional 2 more points (4 x .50) and puts him at a 6. So his selection is real.
Bernard King's appeal is a lot easier. He gets 3.25 points for being first team ALL NBA twice, second team once, and 3rd team once. His appeal is simple. For his career he scored 19655pts and averaged 22.5ppg. He didn't eclipse 20,000 and he only played in 28 playoff games, but given the fact that he lost time during injury, it's reasonable to add his regular season points to his playoff points. By adding his 687 playoff points to his 19655 regular season points. He is over 20,000pts while averaging over 20ppg. That gives him an additional 2pts putting him at 5.25 points. So I think he will eventually get into the Hall.
Now let's consider Rodman. Rodman was a 7 time first team all NBA defender so he gets 1.75 pts there. He was once selected as 2nd team all NBA defense for an additional .125 points. So based on his defensive accomplishments, he's at 1.875 points. He was also a 2 time all NBA 3rd team selection, so he's at 2.875 pts. He gets an additional point for grabbing over 10,000 rebs in his career and averaging over 10 rpg. So he goes to 3.875 points. He also had 3 years where he was his team's leading rebounder averaging over 10rpg during the playoffs of a championship run, so that's .75 points. Putting him at 4.625pts. So on first glance he's appeal ready.
At first his other playoff stats don't get him any points. Yes, he grabbed over 500 rebounds in 50 games, but averaged 9.9 rpg (not 10). Yes it's a nitpick, but you have to have a cutoff. However within his 169 playoff games, he does have a 50 game stretch where he grabbed over 500 rebs and averaged over 10rpg. So you can give him another point in appeal. Putting him at 5.625 points. Rodman should make the Hall eventually.
The final example is Bill Walton. Most of my friends don't think Walton played long enough to be a HOFer. Let's see what the system says:
Walton gets 2pts for being a league MVP, 2pts for being a Finals MVP, 1 point for being first team all NBA, and .75 points for being a second team all NBA, and .25 points for being 1st team All Defense. Walton gets 6 points, he's in, without appeal. Surprised the hell out of me, since initially I didn't think he belonged.
To the hardcore fans out there, take a look. Play with it. See what you find.
Reverse the Charges
The Definitive NBA Hall of Fame selection criteria
Comments (0) ... Leave a comment ... Permalink
Imani Files #19...Imani joins the black woman sisterhood
A few days ago, Taneshia and I were getting Imani and Naima ready for school. As the readying took place, I overheard Taneshia and Imani going through some meaningless banter. It began when Imani said her name was “Imani Fasarah Laird” and that her middle name was Fasarah. She then asked Taneshia what is her middle name. Taneshia responded in a lovingly motherly tone, “I don’t really have a middle name, so I use my maiden name, Nash, as my middle name”.
Of course this prompted Imani to ask the obvious “what’s a maiden name” question, which she did and to which Taneshia told her “a maiden name is your name before you get married”. Imani said she wanted a maiden name, and Taneshia told her, “you’ll have one when you get married.”
All was cool in the Laird household, then minutes later I heard Imani crying loudly. When I ran to see what was up and my heart jumped when I saw her laying on the steps motionless with the exception of the crying. “Imani, are you ok, did you fall on the steps”?, I asked.
“No”, Imani said, still sobbing, “I want to get married”!!!
Black women, see what a toll the pressure you put on yourselves to get married is taking! Save the babies!!!
What’s next? Imani complaining about the paucity of eligible black male toddlers.
DISCLAIMER: I hope this doesn’t offend any of the single ladies out there. It just cracked me up.
Did She Just Say That?
In the June 30 Washington Post, Kathleen Parker called President Obama our first "female President". Well, as my sistas say, "oh no she didn't".
Seriously, Parker thought she was being clever by using an approach similar to the one Toni Morrison took when she called Bill Clinton "the first black President". Morrison made sense, Parker is showing just how deep racism in this country cuts. Now I don't mean racism of the "I hate black people" variety, but racism in the sense that white people are still ignorant to the depth of the Black experience.
Parker compares Obama's measured, passive approach to the feminine way of doing things. She obviously has no clue as to how a black man can rise through the ranks the way Obama did. For we black man to rise to the highest levels we can't shoot from the lip. We have to be calculating, or as the great James Brown put it so succinctly, "every trip, you gotta be hipper than hip".
Obama represents a style of black male leadership that lies in stark contrast to the white male leadership this country has become so accustomed to. It's a leadership that doesn't allow for mistakes that come from silly wild-ass guesses or overly emotional decisions. It's a leadership that knows that everyday you're behind the proverbial cross hairs and people are shooting to kill. A black man in a position of high authority simply doesn't have the luxuries that a white man does, yet rather than deal with that reality and speak to the strategies black male leaders like Kenneth Chenault or Barack Obama use to rise to the top, Parker goes out of her way to avoid talking about race and instead comes close to calling President Obama a woman, and tries to make it sound complimentary.
Years ago, a black man that looked like Obama could never have become President and was regularly called "boy" by white men. Today, a black man is the President, yet has to suffer being called "girl" by some white lady simply because he doesn't act like a jackass white man? That's some BS right there.
Seriously, Parker thought she was being clever by using an approach similar to the one Toni Morrison took when she called Bill Clinton "the first black President". Morrison made sense, Parker is showing just how deep racism in this country cuts. Now I don't mean racism of the "I hate black people" variety, but racism in the sense that white people are still ignorant to the depth of the Black experience.
Parker compares Obama's measured, passive approach to the feminine way of doing things. She obviously has no clue as to how a black man can rise through the ranks the way Obama did. For we black man to rise to the highest levels we can't shoot from the lip. We have to be calculating, or as the great James Brown put it so succinctly, "every trip, you gotta be hipper than hip".
Obama represents a style of black male leadership that lies in stark contrast to the white male leadership this country has become so accustomed to. It's a leadership that doesn't allow for mistakes that come from silly wild-ass guesses or overly emotional decisions. It's a leadership that knows that everyday you're behind the proverbial cross hairs and people are shooting to kill. A black man in a position of high authority simply doesn't have the luxuries that a white man does, yet rather than deal with that reality and speak to the strategies black male leaders like Kenneth Chenault or Barack Obama use to rise to the top, Parker goes out of her way to avoid talking about race and instead comes close to calling President Obama a woman, and tries to make it sound complimentary.
Years ago, a black man that looked like Obama could never have become President and was regularly called "boy" by white men. Today, a black man is the President, yet has to suffer being called "girl" by some white lady simply because he doesn't act like a jackass white man? That's some BS right there.
Now I know how white folks in Nebraska feel
I wanted the Lakers to win last night and they did, but with the exception of two Queens homeboys in Ron Artest and Lamar Odom, why would I, a certified pro black sports fan root for a team rocking a white guy from Spain, another from the Eastern bloc and Bill Walton's son.
But old habits are hard to break, and I remember the Lakers (and to a lesser degree Georgetown) being my only saving grace in the Reagan era. Led by Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, the Lakers stomped out those purveyors of white hegemony, Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics on the regular. Sure the Celtics had a black coach in KC Jones and some black players, but it was more like saying Stymie, Buckwheat and Farina were the major players in the Little Rascals. We weren't going for it, and when Magic and the boys vanquished Boston in Boston we had hope, that things would change for us--and they did.
In fact they changed so much the Celtics today are more like the Lakers of the 80s, while the Lakers are more like the Celtics of that era. I should have been able to root for the Celtics, but my own shortcomings prevented it.
I wonder if that's how some white folks in places like Nebraska felt about President Obama? "He seems cool, he stands for what I stand for, but dammit, it's messing with my mind too much to support him".
Fortunately a lot of white folks that were able to overcome their hangups.
Maybe next year, I can learn from my open-minded white sisters and brothers and root for the Celtics. Then again, maybe I'll wait to 2012 to see if President Obama is re-elected!
But old habits are hard to break, and I remember the Lakers (and to a lesser degree Georgetown) being my only saving grace in the Reagan era. Led by Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, the Lakers stomped out those purveyors of white hegemony, Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics on the regular. Sure the Celtics had a black coach in KC Jones and some black players, but it was more like saying Stymie, Buckwheat and Farina were the major players in the Little Rascals. We weren't going for it, and when Magic and the boys vanquished Boston in Boston we had hope, that things would change for us--and they did.
In fact they changed so much the Celtics today are more like the Lakers of the 80s, while the Lakers are more like the Celtics of that era. I should have been able to root for the Celtics, but my own shortcomings prevented it.
I wonder if that's how some white folks in places like Nebraska felt about President Obama? "He seems cool, he stands for what I stand for, but dammit, it's messing with my mind too much to support him".
Fortunately a lot of white folks that were able to overcome their hangups.
Maybe next year, I can learn from my open-minded white sisters and brothers and root for the Celtics. Then again, maybe I'll wait to 2012 to see if President Obama is re-elected!
Trenton and Water
Man, I can't believe I haven't made a blog entry in 3 months! As everybody knows, my campaign for North Ward City Council ended in defeat, but I felt good about my effort. However, I doubt I ever run for political office again.
That said, I enjoyed it, and I know that the campaign has made me a better person and citizen.
During the campaign one of the issues that came up was whether or not Trenton should sell components of its water system infrastructure. After serious contemplation, I think I'm going to vote yes on the deal. But I'm not trying to convince people to vote yes. I just want people to vote what they think is right. That's how it works.
What is really bothering me is the way the remaining candidates are handling. As I said, the water deal is now going to be voted on by the citizens of Trenton. This is a good thing, unfortunately many of the candidates are hung up on what they think the vote should be. Now, I don't deny them their right to voice their opinion, but these people are preparing to lead our city for the next four years, they should be preparing themselves to deal with whatever outcome the vote determines.
Instead of telling us about not selling assets and mismanagement, tell us what you think the impact will be if a yes vote is passed, and tell us what you think the impact will be if a no vote is passed. Tell us how you plan to handle the issue of property taxes once the county orders Trenton to do a reassessment. Using the water deal as a jumping off point, tell us your plans to bring revenue to the city to lessen the tax levy. This is what prepared leadership is all about--being able to deal no matter what the outcome of a given event.
One of James Brown's great phrases was "every trip, you gotta be hipper than hip". Right now our candidates are giving us a little too much lip, and not enough hip.
That said, I enjoyed it, and I know that the campaign has made me a better person and citizen.
During the campaign one of the issues that came up was whether or not Trenton should sell components of its water system infrastructure. After serious contemplation, I think I'm going to vote yes on the deal. But I'm not trying to convince people to vote yes. I just want people to vote what they think is right. That's how it works.
What is really bothering me is the way the remaining candidates are handling. As I said, the water deal is now going to be voted on by the citizens of Trenton. This is a good thing, unfortunately many of the candidates are hung up on what they think the vote should be. Now, I don't deny them their right to voice their opinion, but these people are preparing to lead our city for the next four years, they should be preparing themselves to deal with whatever outcome the vote determines.
Instead of telling us about not selling assets and mismanagement, tell us what you think the impact will be if a yes vote is passed, and tell us what you think the impact will be if a no vote is passed. Tell us how you plan to handle the issue of property taxes once the county orders Trenton to do a reassessment. Using the water deal as a jumping off point, tell us your plans to bring revenue to the city to lessen the tax levy. This is what prepared leadership is all about--being able to deal no matter what the outcome of a given event.
One of James Brown's great phrases was "every trip, you gotta be hipper than hip". Right now our candidates are giving us a little too much lip, and not enough hip.
