Players with a higher HoF probability than Nash

btmagnetw · #1 07-13-2007, 10:58 AM

Antoine Walker
Stephon Marbury
Steve Francis

somewhere, tuq is slitting one of both of his wrists

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

mason55 · #2 07-13-2007, 11:00 AM

wow Vince Carter > John Stockton was pretty shocking

kyro · #3 07-13-2007, 11:59 AM

Reggie Miller at 4%?

mosdef · #4 07-13-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
wow Vince Carter > John Stockton was pretty shocking

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's because the formula is based on an objective interpretation of numbers, whereas we know subjectively that John Stockton is 100% guaranteed to make the hall of fame because we know the voters will vote for him without doing this calculation first.

Thremp · #5 07-13-2007, 12:00 PM

139 Steve Nash .1168
149 Latrell Sprewell .0920

btmagnetw · #6 07-13-2007, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Reggie Miller at 4%?

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] i was 31 playing basketball through my entire youth cause of him

Ralph Wiggum · #7 07-13-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reggie Miller at 4%?

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] i was 31 playing basketball through my entire youth cause of him

[/ QUOTE ]
During the playoffs which preceded the Pacers making the Finals, I remember hearing the media say that Reggie wasn't a HOFer. When the Pacers won the East Finals, I heard Cheryl say something like, "Now do you still think he's not a HOFer?", since Reggie not being able to carry his team to the Finals was a knock against him.

Also, name someone who was a better SG than Miller (outside MJ) in the 90s.

Ralph Wiggum · #8 07-13-2007, 12:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow Vince Carter > John Stockton was pretty shocking

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's because the formula is based on an objective interpretation of numbers, whereas we know subjectively that John Stockton is 100% guaranteed to make the hall of fame because we know the voters will vote for him without doing this calculation first.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's because the formula isn't perfect. Objectively, subjectively, metaphysically, or subconsciously Stockton was a better player than Vince.

mosdef · #9 07-13-2007, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's because the formula isn't perfect. Objectively, subjectively, metaphysically, or subconsciously Stockton was a better player than Vince.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's pretty much what I meant.

tuq · #10 07-13-2007, 12:43 PM