前幾天在 Sports Illustrated 上看到一篇討論未來名人堂人選的文章,
提到的幾個球員正好都是最近版上滿熱門的話題,
大略翻譯一下讓大家參考, 有興趣的請去看原文
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/04/06/future-hall-of-famers-let-the-debating-begin/?eref=sihp
前面鋪場的文章省略, 大意是作者看到今年名人堂入選的名單,
因此想到幾個剛退休不久或是接近生涯末期的球員,
這些人都是作者認為: "聲望看來有機會但數據有點沒把握" 能進入名人堂的球員,
文章還同時附上 basketball-reference 的 "名人堂入圍可能性" 作為參考,
廢話不多說, 請見下文分解:
• Chris Webber (Hall of Fame probability: 72.95 percent)
I was surprised when Scott Howard-Cooper of NBA.com told me that several NBA insiders, including past Hall voters, couldn’t agree on Webber’s candidacy when he spoke to them. A personal aside: For me, as long as a player hits a minimum benchmark of longevity as an elite guy, I prioritize quality over counting stats. Webber’s counting stats aren’t super-impressive; he finished with “only” 17,182 points, just behind Jeff Malone, and he made “only” five All-Star Games. The latter, of course, can be explained in part by how crowded the power forward field has been in the Western Conference for the past 15 years. Health was always an issue, and Webber was nearly done as a star player by the time he turned 30.
There are also holes in C-Webb’s “clutch” résumé in both college and the pros.
But in terms of quality? Webber was one of the game’s truly great all-around players for a half-decade in Sacramento, and he was very good before he arrived there via one of the best trades in recent league history. No big man had quite the same all-around skill set, and none were more pleasing to watch. Toss in the Fab Five cultural relevance, and Webber, to me, belongs — even if he looked terrified of shooting down the stretch of this game.
(Chris Webber, 名人堂入選機率: 72.95%)
我個一個朋友告訴我: 他認識的一些NBA圈內人, 包括票選過名人堂入圍者的人,
對 C-Web 有沒有資格進入名人堂有不同意見, 老實說我很驚訝,
對我來說, 一個球員在顛峰時期散發的光芒強度, 應該比他的生涯總數據更值得名人堂委員參考,
C-Web的生涯數據並不起眼, 17182分, 五次全明星,
但這一方面是因為在過去十五年的NBA西區, 大前鋒這個位置可說是人才濟濟,
另一方面是因為傷病, 讓C-Web基本上在三十歲之後就脫離精英球員的行列了,
當然, 面對關鍵時刻畏縮不前(不論大學或NBA), 也是他的為人詬病的弱點,
但是在C-Web的全盛時期, 他是少數真正全能的大前鋒,
很少大前鋒能像他一樣全能, 更少人像他一樣球風賞心悅目,
再加上他密西根五虎時期的影響, 他應該有資格儕身名人堂.
• Mitch Richmond (HOF probability: 67.01 percent)
And now we turn to the guy at the other end of Sacramento’s Webber heist. If borderline candidates Carter and Reggie Miller (more below) make it to Springfield, Richmond would stand to take over as the highest-scoring player outside the Hall. He ranks 39th all time with 20,497 points, and only four guys scored more points during the 1990s. Richmond made six straight All-Star Games, but he spent most of his career on so-so or poor teams and he was never really a top-level player; his shooting was only decent, his Player Efficiency Rating cracked 20 in just two seasons and the non-scoring parts of his game topped out at league average. He’s going to have a tough time.
(Mitch Richmond, 名人堂入選機率: 67.01%)
另一個國王隊的明星,
如果Richmond最ˊ終沒入選, 那他應該是除了Reggie Miller(見下文), 得分最多卻沒入選名人堂的球員,
他的生涯得分目前名列39, 整個九十年代只有四個人比他更會得分,
但是他的球員生涯幾乎都在二三流球隊度過, 只能說是個很好的"雞首",
他的PER(球員效率指數)不高, 除了得分之外其它表現都只能算一般,
他要進入名人堂會很難
• Reggie Miller (HOF probability: 5.5 percent)
That probability figure is not at typo, and it is quite jarring; Richard Hamilton scores better on Basketball-Reference’s scale. That’s in part because Miller was a one-dimensional player who didn’t accumulate anything other than points, never made a first- or second All-NBA team and was never more than an average defender.
But Miller’s 25,279 points tie him with Rick Barry for 17th all time, and guys who have scored that many points simply don’t get left out of the Hall — at least historically. Miller obviously deserves extra credit for his cold-blooded work in the clutch and perhaps for being one of the first players to make a consistent weapon out of the three-point shot — something the probability metric does not precisely take into account.
I suspect Miller will get in, sooner rather than later, but he’s an interesting case.
(Reggie Miller, 名人堂入選機率: 5.5%)
對, 你沒看錯, 我也沒打錯: 5.5%,
連 Richard Hamilton 進名人堂的機率都比Miller高,
這是因為Miller除了得分之外幾乎沒有另人稱道之處, 而且他從未入選過NBA一隊或二隊,
但是Miller的生涯得分和Rick Barry並列第十七, 歷史上得分位列前茅的球員幾乎篤定入選名人堂,
Miller在關鍵時刻的殺傷力更對他的入選有加成作用, 再加上他應該是第一個把三分暗器變成必殺技的球員,
我估計Miller應該很快就會入選, 但他是個很有趣的個案,
• Alonzo Mourning (HOF probability: 47.2 percent)
He has fewer points (14,311) than Rod Strickland, Allan Houston and Hersey Hawkins! He logged more than 70 games just twice after he turned 26, injuries ended his time as a star by the time he turned 30 and he always ranked below at least a few guys on the league’s center totem pole.
But many forget how good this guy was in his prime. He topped the 20 mark in PER in each of first eight seasons, logging a close-to-normal number of games in each one, and his PER reached the mid-20s in 1998-99 and the following season; he ranked in the league’s top four in that category in both of those seasons. He was a monster on the offensive glass, and if he shot too often, he at least shot pretty well. Mourning won the Defensive Player of the Year award twice and ranks as one of the true greats on that end. Seven All-Star appearances and a notable career at Georgetown will help. He’s going to get a really close look.
(Alonzo Mourning, 名人堂入選機率: 47.2%)
他的總得分不多, 缺賽場次卻不少,
生涯一直面對許多已成NBA經典的曠世中鋒, 讓許多人相對漠視了他全盛時期的表現,
但Mourning在生涯前八年中, PER年年超過20,
他懂得得分, 也擅長防守, 七次明星賽, 兩次入選最佳防守球員,
他在喬治城大學的生涯也讓人印象深刻, 他很有機會入選.
• Dikembe Mutombo (HOF probability: 32.8 percent)
If Dennis Rodman (HOF probability: 45.5 percent) can get in, Mutombo, an immensely popular guy known for his wonderful charity work, is going to have at least a decent case. He ranked among both the league’s top offensive and defensive rebounders, won two rebounding titles and four Defensive Player of the Year awards, and made eight All-Star teams. He was never much of an offensive threat apart from tip-ins, but he knew his role and got to the line a fair amount.
(Dikembe Mutombo, 名人堂入選機率: 32.8%)
如果搞怪王小蟲都入選了, NBA的大好人Mutombo至少也應該入圍,
他的進攻和防守籃板都名列前茅, 兩次籃板王加四次最佳防守球員,
雖然他的進攻實在不怎麼樣, 但作為一個角色球員他讓人印象深刻.
• Tracy McGrady (HOF probability: 66.98 percent)
McGrady has a bit of Gale Sayers thing going on. Injuries ended his time as an All-Star before he turned 28, and he’s clearly never going to approach that level again. But he had a five-year run where he was perhaps the game’s most accomplished scorer/passer (pre-LeBron), peaking in 2002-03, when he became one of the only players ever to crack the 30 barrier in PER. He carried his offense while posting an absurdly low (downright Nowitzkian, actually) turnover rate considering the circumstances. He shot too often, and from too far away, but the guy produced offensively like few others ever have.
His work on the other end never approached such a high level, and McGrady will be remembered just as much for his injuries, his (way overblown) playoff failures and his admittedly shaky work ethic.
(Tracy McGrady, 名人堂入選機率: 66.98%)
T-Mac 的傷病讓他在28歲之後便開始走下坡, 而且永遠不會回到巔峰時期的狀態,
但在他巔鋒的五年中, 他可能是史上最佳既能得分又能助攻的球員(當時LeBron還沒出現),
他也是史上唯一一個單季 PER 超過三十的球員, 而且失誤比低的變態,
他有時出手太多而且太遠, 但以攻擊而言, 極少人能與T-Mac比肩而立,
當然, 防守不突出, 練習不專注, 以及過度為人渲染的季後賽失利,
這些都將成為他的軟肋
• Grant Hill (HOF probability: 41.5 percent)
Hill was basically a LeBron-lite all-around star before severe ankle problems put his career on hold and eventually transformed him into a nice complementary player. But he has lasted in that role, and he could pass or approach Magic Johnson, Webber and Chris Mullin in total points if he stays healthy and plays another season or two. He’s become one of the league’s most versatile defenders, and even if that versatility was borne from necessity in defense-challenged Phoenix, Hill has pulled the role off well. He’s well-liked, threw the most famous successful inbounds pass ever in the greatest game of any kind I’ve ever watched and stands as an all-time great college player. Another interesting case.
(Grant Hill, 名人堂入選機率: 41.5%)
基本上, Hill曾經是一個輕量級的LeBron,
可是在他受傷之後, 他就只是一個很好的綠葉球員,
但他角色轉換的很成功, 而且很有機會在得分上超越魔術,C-Web,上帝左手這些傳奇,
他是目前聯盟中最好的多位置防守球員, 雖然我不知道這有多少應該歸功於太陽隊的"防守策略",
他的人緣很好, 他在NCAA總決賽長傳給Lattner反敗為勝的那球永遠讓人津津樂道,
他將來能不能進名人堂會是另一個很有趣的案例.
• Manu Ginobili (HOF probability: 13.5 percent)
Manu’s almost 34 and he hasn’t yet reached the 10,000-point level, so he’s just not going to have the NBA résumé to make a realistic case. But he’s worth at least a mention, given his international record with Argentina, his crucial role on three championship teams and the fact that he has consistently been one of the league’s best two-way players when healthy. He just hasn’t been healthy enough, and that can torpedo your Hall chances when you don’t enter the league until your mid-20s.
(Manu Ginobilli, 名人堂入選機率: 13.5%)
Manu已經34歲了但總得分還沒破萬, 他的NBA生涯成績注定不可能符合名人堂的標準,
但他值得一提, 因為他在國際籃球賽場的成就, 以及他對馬刺的三個冠軍杯的貢獻,
基本上, 一個二十來歲才加入NBA, 缺席場數又多的球員,
進名人堂機會緲茫
• Steve Nash (HOF probability: 39.6 percent)
He’s absolutely going to get in, given his two MVP awards, his status as perhaps the greatest shooter ever and the fact that if you have a healthy Steve Nash on your team, your offense will be guaranteed to rank among the league’s best. But it’s interesting that his score on the Basketball-Reference scale is so low, isn’t it? He suffers a bit from never having won a title, and for never having been even an average defender for his position – a position, it should be noted, that has been nearly impossible to defend individually since the league banned hand-checking. Still: Nash would tell you his defense has never been very good, and at its worst, it has been a giant handicap in Phoenix, as the Suns constantly scramble to find places Nash can hide.
(Steve Nash, 名人堂入選機率: 39.6%)
就憑兩次連任MVP, Nash一定會進名人堂,
他也是個非常好的射手, 和比非常好更好的控衛,
只要有Nash在, 你不用操心球隊的進攻,
但為什麼他在 Basketball-Reference 上的名人堂機率這麼低?
缺乏冠軍戒是一個原因, 防守不突出是另一個原因,
但我想提醒大家, Nash守的都是後衛,
自從聯盟裁定手部推擠(Hand-Check)犯規之後, 任何人想一對一守住頂級後衛都是不可能的任務,
但不管怎麼說, Nash的防守都稱不上高明, 而且有時候讓他成為對方進攻的弱點