MGoHall of Fame: Basketball Nominees

Probably should’ve posted this under the HoF structure thread last week but I missed it.  If we wanted to go scientific (why expect anything less from UM alums) and put in a little more effort, I have access to Decision Lens – decision making software that many pro teams use to value  players toward determining their draft lists. 

Steps:

1.       Identify alternatives (done, see above).

2.       Identify and define criteria upon which to rate the alternatives.  These could include (from Brian’s criteria list):

a.       Overall greatness

b.      Mistiness on senior day

c.       Time served

3.       Brian compares the criteria to each other to determine a weighted criteria priority scale like this:

a.       Overall greatness – 50%

b.      Mistiness on senior day – 20%

c.       Time served – 30%

4.       Have MGoBlog fans judge each candidate on how he rates with regard to each criterion using linear or non-linear scaling such as 1 -5 where 5 is given extra value and 1-2 extra deduction.

5.       The software’s matrix algorithms automatically provide the racked and stacked value for each player, the top 1 or 2 of which is thus voted into the HoF or as Brian sees fit.

Otherwise, my vote is Novak.

I agree.  Novak was the only one I saw and immediately said 100% he's gotta be in the Hall.  The other guys I could take or leave, and I feel like they're all pretty even so if one of them got in it would be hard to justify not including the other ones.  They were the best players on their respective teams, yes, but those teams weren't very good for the most part.  Novak wasn't the best player on his team, but you could still make the argument that he was the most important player on his team, which speaks volumes and sets him apart.

Novak in. None of the others. Can't believe you left Stu off, who's the only other guy so far deserving a vote during this time period. Burke might after next year; definitely would if he'd stay more.

I love Novak, but without the NBA guys that came through this team doesn't come close to doing what it did.

I guess I never bought into the argument that Novak and Douglass "willed" the team back - they played hard and were good leaders, but Beilein plus some talented players flourishing is what got this team back.  To dismiss Harris, Morris, Burke, Simms, etc. because they were "stars" and thus you expected them to be that good is a disservice to what they did on the court.  I love the scrappy guys, but Morris was the one who was a top-5 passer in the NCAA, and it was Harris and Simms who took that first team on their backs and willed them into the tourney.  Novak played well at times, and his defense was solid against stiff competition, but I feel like we sometimes fall in love with the gritty kids because we don't expect as much from them, while minimizing the accomplishments of the greater players because they are supposed to be that good.

Also was one highest rated recruits he got early, and from Cali, which seemed to open up preception of other top players coming.

I don't disagree that Morris is extremely important and that his commitment as a 4-star out of CA was Beilein's first big stepping stone, but to say that he is the most important player of the last 15 years is ludicrous. Also, yes, he showed that a true PG could flourish in Beilein's system, but don't forget that Burke was already committed before DMo decided to go pro. It's not like that was that big of a deal for the program.

The bloody picture alone should be sufficient for Novak to place.

I agree. I'm going to be that obnoxious hall voter who doesn't vote for anyone.

Thinking about criteria, I'm thinking I'm going to vote along the lines of "best player on good to very good teams (it seems making the tournament is an acceptable "good" line) across a multi-year time span." That for me eliminates Morris (1 year), Horton (no "good" teams. Unfortunate, but there's also the domestic violence thing).

That leaves...

Novack: if there was a Hall of the Very Important, he'd be in for sure. Played basically everywhere from 2-4 for 4 years, 3 teams made tournament, 3 year captain. Can make the case that he, more than anyone, was at the center of the program's transformation. Great glue guy, as well, making Seth Davis's "All-Glue Team" twice.... Still, never averaged double figures scoring, never in top 2 scorers on team, only in top 2 in rebounds or assists once (rebounds junior year). Not that this should be determinative, but had terrible last game (though the role in the MSU wins outweighs this). Not quite enough production to merit inclusion, IMO. Probably the closest of any of those listed though.

Harris: Certainly the best player on a good team (by the standards set above) in sophomore year. Led team in scoring all 3 seasons. 2nd in rebounding from the guard spot. Probably most responsible for ending tournament drought. Still... that 3rd year was such a disappointment, kind of the polar opposite to Novack when it comes to team play. I don't want to rely too much on intangibles but I don't want to dismiss them entirely, with the epitome being "benched in overtime in near must-win game."

Peedi: Second best player for his last three years. Leading rebounder. Reliable second option when Harris was sharing the ball. Still... that senior year collapse. Like Brian said, wasn't really able to transcend the limitations of his height to impact the game against very good teams. 

It's the MGoHallofFame, so people can vote for anything they want, but I don't think any qualify as "Fame-worthy".  The fact that they're candidates is more a sign of how bad the program has been. I knew the basketball one was going to be problematic.  Because Novak is the only one close to being deserving. And almost all his pros are intangibles. Not on court contributions (which were there, but not really HoF worthy). I have no doubt he gets in, and if this is strictly going to be a "guys who won't get acclaim anywhere else, but deserve some dap", then he deserves to be a lock.  But he's going to stand out when you look at the guys who get in as football and hockey players.  None of the rest even deserve a future ballot entry (nice guys and decent players they may have been).

A graduation requirement would eliminate guys like Charles Woodson of he were under consideration, and makes even less sense in basketball, a sport with ever-more-rapid turnover. The best players never stay four years, and you don't win without the best players.

I strongly suspect that a Syracuse blog doing the same thing we are would vote Carmelo Anthony into its "Hall" with little dissent. Why not? He was great and he led them to a national title.

The consequence of leaving early is much more basic in this paradigm; players who leave early don't accomplish as much. You don't need to add any extra restriction to your evaluation of Darius Morris--he just didn't accomplish as much at Michigan as he could have. If that one season is enough to get recognition, fine; but it probably isn't. His legacy is materially damaged by its short length.

This whole hall of fame thing was started to honor Novak (Hunwick too). He's a no brainier. The only other person on this list that has the be necessary attitude and skill is Horton. The others were not, or not yet lovable players. Sims was nice, but so was Pettway. Manny left a bad taste in my mouth and Morris left to soon, then was eclipsed by his replacement. The Horton vote should be interesting.