12/26/24
December 05, 2003
Does Zo Belong in the hall?: It's been what, 2 weeks and the guys at CNN/SI are debating over whether Zo should get in the hall already. What do you think? Should Zo get in? Do you have a nominee?
More inside...
posted by lilnemo to basketball at 03:13 PM - 10 comments
I think someone should give Zo a kidney.
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:06 PM on December 05, 2003
Oh, there's plenty of people willing to give Zo a kidney....
For a price.
posted by lilnemo at 04:15 PM on December 05, 2003
I know, thing is, Zo isn't the first one in line. Lotsa people on the waiting list already won't be getting one. It's sad.
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:30 PM on December 05, 2003
Viz Walton, it should be noted that it's the Basketball Hall of Fame, not the NBA Hall of Fame. Walton's superlative collegiate career was probably a big part of his admission.
posted by Revisited at 05:10 PM on December 05, 2003
Zo's college career wasn't too shabby either.
posted by lilnemo at 05:12 PM on December 05, 2003
Oh, and welcome to SpoFi Revisited.
posted by lilnemo at 07:13 PM on December 05, 2003
This HOF thing is a pet peeve of mine. Since pro athletes became multimillionaire media moguls, their publicity machines tout any and every star as "HOF" players. (In baseball see Glavine, Tom and Schilling, Curt.) Call me old-fashioned, but I pine for the days when HOF meant you were one of the truly outstanding performers in the history of your sport. So no to Zo. Good comment, Revisited, about Bill Walton. The bball HOF applies not only to the NBA but to high school, college, and international play. Explains why a player like David Thompson, who had a drug abuse-shortened NBA career, is in the HOF. He may have been the greatest college bball player of all-time.
posted by cg1001a at 08:39 AM on December 06, 2003
I have to agree with cg1001a. The HOF in baseball anyway has become too watered down with some marginal candidates. It's sad that the injury robbed Mourning of what could have been incredibly productive years (with his conditioning, it could have been 10 more productive years!) but them's the breaks. No Hall for Zo, I say.
posted by vito90 at 06:25 PM on December 06, 2003
My first instinct is to say "no" because he only played 634 games in his career, so although he played 11 seasons, he played in the equivalent of eight full seasons because of all the games he missed. I know his kidney problems are not his fault, but you don't put somebody in the Hall of Fame because you feel sorry for them. I think a worthwhile comparison is Patrick Ewing because neither of them won a title and neither of them were the dominant center of their eras. Patrick and Alonzo had similar career averages (Ewing: 21 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 2.5 BPG; Mourning: 20 PPG, 9.7 RPG, 3 BPG) but Patrick played in almost twice as many games (1,183 to 634). So it seems to me that Patrick's career was twice as impressive. That's enough to convince me that 'Zo doesn't quite make the cut.
posted by Scott Carefoot at 09:40 AM on December 08, 2003
McCallum argues that Zo shouldn't get in based on his 9 years at the top of his game. And that we shouldn't let players into the hall who have injuries. Bull. There is no question that 'Zo's kidney disease is all that stands between him and the HOF. But one thing you don't want is for a Hall of Fame to become a Hall of Asterisks. Bull. Countless others players in other sports would be Hall of Famers if not for injuries and, in rare cases such as Mourning's, illness. Bull. Explain Bill Walton then Jack. Bill played for 10 seasons, but due to injuries he only played 468 games or roughly 5.7 actual seasons. They were good seasons, and Bill had the luxury on playing on some talent-packed Blazer, and Celtic squads that won the Championship. I think Zo was every bit as dominant as Walton was, just in different aspects of the game. But then you say, if you let Zo in, why not Bernard King? And I reply, why not Bernard King! He's a scoring legend. Injuries robbed him of a few seasons but he has the numbers. What do you think?