Originally Posted by powerfulpanda
but by including over/underachieving in your decision making it turns it into an individual standard instead of a general one. you can't just say because someone didn't play to his full potential then he's not HOF worthy. what if him underachieving still makes him a top tier player?
was the 37th player to 20,000 points. thats at least gotta mean something right? be objective
Look at the bulk of the other players that hit 20,000. It's embarrassing to even compare him to them. The HOF is very achievement oriented - that is the standard. Everyone in the HOF has championships or stands out in regard to consistently winning at a high rate while gaining AS selections, selections to all-nba teams, MVPs and other awards.
I mentioned overachieving with respect to the teams Mullins played for. I'm not saying for sure that meant anything to those that made this decision, but it means something to me. I think that he brought those teams farther than they would have otherwise gone, as good as they were. He was that kind of smart player that knew how to lead and make the timely play. Watching a guy like Mullins gave many people a sense of what the essence of the game, as a team sport, is all about.