Could Grant Hill still be a Hall of Famer?

That might sound like a ridiculous question, but I've come across an article on Bill Walton from 1980, and there are definitely similarities between Walton's career and Hill's career, and the injuries they both suffered.

For Bill Walton, An Endless Wait
By Malcolm Moran
The New York Times

To Bill Walton, basketball is a form of improvisational theater—live, unrehearsed, with a unique finish each time the lights are turned on. There is no script, just a schedule. At 7:05 on those nights that the San Diego Clippers are home, the ball is tossed into the air in the center of the Sports Arena and the show begins. Walton loves the moment.

A few years ago, during some difficult times when he was being accused of malingering and when his political beliefs and actions were being attacked, Walton decided that playing the National Basketball Association was something he enjoyed more than anything else.

“I like that excitement,” he said. “I like the uncertainty, that aura of the unknown. It’s thrilling to me as a spectator. It’s twice as thrilling as a player.”

Last Tuesday, at 7:05, as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar of the Los Angeles Lakers stepped into the center circle, Bill Walton of the San Diego Clippers settled into his seat in the stands at the Sports Arena. He was also at midcourt, but he was upstairs, at the rear of Section 1, about halfway between the floor and the roof. He is there for each home game as the Clipper franchise struggles without him, as it will for the foreseeable future.

For now, at least, two days before his 28th birthday, Walton can do little more than watch and hope. A condition that has been diagnosed as a congenital abnormality in the bone structure of his left foot has caused four fractures of the tarsal navicular bone in the last two and a half years, the most recent one in an exhibition game on September 26. He believes he can recover and play again, but he does not talk much about the immediate future. “I really try my best not to think about it,” he said. “It can get pretty frustrating. Mostly, I think about how to get better, rather than what might have been.”

Still, Walton is a spectator in a participant’s paradise, maybe forever. Since the 1977–78 season, when he was the most valuable player in the N.B.A., he has played in 14 regular-season games. It is not unrealistic to think they were his last.

In the legal opinion of the San Diego franchise, as stated in a $12.5 million suit filed Thursday against two British insurance companies in a United States District Court in Los Angeles, “Walton is now permanently and totally disabled and will never again be able to continue his occupation as a professional basketball player.”

In the opinion of Irv Levin, the club owner who signed Walton to a five-year contract in 1979, “With the benefit of hindsight, if I was aware of certain medical histories of Bill’s and what evolved from it, I don’t think we would have gone ahead with the deal. I have heard nothing from any qualified doctors that he could play N.B.A. basketball. It’s one thing to run on the beach or ride a bike, but it’s another thing to play N.B.A. basketball. That’s what we paid for.”

In the opinion of Dr. Anthony Daly, an orthopedic surgeon who has treated Walton since January 1979, the injury “will heal again, but if he goes out to play basketball, it can break down again. Since it has broken down four times, I think he’ll need an operation. It’s going to be a little bit of a gamble. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been done at all with any athlete. He’s somewhat hesitant to have it done, and justifiably so. The major risk might be that he might have pain in normal life. I don’t think there is much of a risk.” Dr. Daly has said that the operation “could require that the small bones in [Walton’s] foot be fused together.”

And in the opinion of Bill Walton, “One thing I do know is that I have to live the rest of my life with this body. You can’t go around changing all the pieces. It’s one thing to have a set plan for a certain injury. You tear a cartilage in your knee, you tear it open, take it out, and 99 percent of the time you get better. They don’t even talk in terms of percentage with me.
“I still see no reason why I can’t return to be a fine player in the N.B.A. I’m basically a very, very optimistic person. There’s no reason why athletes can’t play until they’re 37, 38 years old in professional sports. I feel I’ve got somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years left.”

Until the most recent injury, it seemed his problems had ended. “After I saw him go through training camp,” said Paul Silas, the new coach of the Clippers, “we were all excited. He was playing basketball. He started to block shots, do all the things he once had done. He didn’t have any pain. He was really running and jumping and doing everything everyone else was doing. He didn’t do it for the whole two hours, maybe for an hour. Everything was coming along except his wind, but that didn’t concern me at all.”

Silas said he had been satisfied with the pace of the rehabilitation, which Walton determined. Walton said the situation was different from the one in Portland, which led to his malpractice suit against Dr. Robert Cook, the team physician of the Trail Blazers, and others who treated him from March through July in 1978. The suit, which is expected to come to trial next year, charges the physicians with improper treatment of his injured foot.

It could be a landmark case, not only for Walton but for professional and college teams, whose medical practices, especially in the use of pain-killing drugs, are being questioned as never before. The climate began changing after Walton went public with his charges in the summer of 1978 against the same team he had led to a world championship the year before.

The plan this season was for Walton to be able to play seven to 10 minutes a game in the first month of the season, and increase the time five minutes each month. That changed, abruptly, after Walton’s second attempt to play this fall, when he left an exhibition game in Los Angeles.
Not only did the plan change, but his life did, too. “Obviously,” Walton said. “Large changes.”

Suddenly he finds himself with leisure time during a basketball season. He has started to play the drums, the first opportunity he has had to play an instrument since the beginning of high school. He also has had more time to play chess, and read, and watch television. At a time when many professional athletes are on the road, growing apart from their families, Walton has been with his wife and three sons at home, close enough to the San Diego Zoo to hear the calls of elephants at night.
At times in recent years their visits to the zoo often were short, because Walton’s left foot hurt too much to walk around.

Last week, he sat in the backyard, away from the family and next to the swimming pool, as he talked about the future. “I’d always like to be associated in some way with sports,” the former U.C.L.A. all-American said. “Possibly in coaching, possibly the business aspect. I think sports are good in most situations. I want to make the sports world as good as it could be. It could be great. It could also be terrible.

“Coaching college basketball at U.C.L.A. would certainly be one of my goals. I don’t know at what point I’d like to do that. I’ve got three young boys I’d like to spend all of my time with. From what I understand the life of a college coach is not conducive to family life. But there will be a time when that family is grown and gone. There’s nothing I like better than to see U.C.L.A. win basketball championships.”

He does not exactly fit the coaching image, having been a critic in past years of the sports establishment for not being aggressive enough in eliminating elements of racism, sexism and militarism from the playing fields. But then again, could this generation of athletes provide a morality that this generation of coaches has not?

Walton smiled. “I don’t think any generation has a lock on morality, or any generation has cornered the market on immorality,” he said. “Every generation thinks the previous generation is terrible and the succeeding generation is terrible. I just don’t think that’s the way it is. I used to, for sure. But you learn that life is the people that you’re around.”

It is something that Walton understands more and more, especially now that times have become difficult again and his physical condition is a subject for constant scrutiny by the news media. Except that this time—and with the near-tragic J. R. Richard case still fresh in the sporting world’s mind—there have been fewer charges of malingering from the news media.

“I could sit around and think about it all the time,” Walton said, “or I could pick up a paper and read about it all the time. That’s not my style. It would be extremely easy to just give up. But that’s never been my nature. It’s just too much fun to play basketball. Right now I just want to rest the foot until it gets better. I don’t want to pass up that opportunity for that much fun, that much excitement. I’ve learned to be patient. I’ve learned to accept the realities.”

Part of the reality includes some major contractual changes. He signed for five years at a guarantee of $500,000 a year—even if he does not play another game. The figure could reach $1 million a season, depending on the number of games he plays and the Clippers’ gross revenues.

So he sits, and watches, and files away bits of information on opposing players that he may never have the chance to use. He has sat for so long that his oldest son, Adam, whose fifth birthday was last week, once thought his father signed autographs for a living. For half of his son’s life, Walton has not been healthy enough to play regularly.

He listens to well-meaning questions from fans who say hello, questions that more often than not begin with the word “When” and have no answer. When Walton hears the questions, his eyes widen, he tilts his head, he shrugs his shoulders, and without saying a word his look says, “What can I say?” As he watched the game last Tuesday , a night that might have, under different circumstances, offered a matchup between Walton and Abdul-Jabbar, the Clippers fell behind the Lakers by 28 points by halftime on their way to a 30-point loss.

A fan passed by and said, “We wish you were out there.”

“I wish I was, too,” Walton said, almost too softly to hear.

© The New York Times
(c)1994 NBA Properties, Inc. and/or Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Obviously it's not exactly the same, but it sounds familiar, doesn't it? I'll post the first part of it again, adding some emphasis to the parts that jumped out at me.

Last Tuesday, at 7:05, as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar of the Los Angeles Lakers stepped into the center circle, Bill Walton of the San Diego Clippers settled into his seat in the stands at the Sports Arena. He was also at midcourt, but he was upstairs, at the rear of Section 1, about halfway between the floor and the roof. He is there for each home game as the Clipper franchise struggles without him, as it will for the foreseeable future.

For now, at least, two days before his 28th birthday, Walton can do little more than watch and hope. A condition that has been diagnosed as a congenital abnormality in the bone structure of his left foot has caused four fractures of the tarsal navicular bone in the last two and a half years, the most recent one in an exhibition game on September 26. He believes he can recover and play again, but he does not talk much about the immediate future. “I really try my best not to think about it,” he said. “It can get pretty frustrating. Mostly, I think about how to get better, rather than what might have been.”

Still, Walton is a spectator in a participant’s paradise, maybe forever. Since the 1977–78 season, when he was the most valuable player in the N.B.A., he has played in 14 regular-season games. It is not unrealistic to think they were his last.

In the legal opinion of the San Diego franchise, as stated in a $12.5 million suit filed Thursday against two British insurance companies in a United States District Court in Los Angeles, “Walton is now permanently and totally disabled and will never again be able to continue his occupation as a professional basketball player.”

In the opinion of Irv Levin, the club owner who signed Walton to a five-year contract in 1979, “With the benefit of hindsight, if I was aware of certain medical histories of Bill’s and what evolved from it, I don’t think we would have gone ahead with the deal. I have heard nothing from any qualified doctors that he could play N.B.A. basketball. It’s one thing to run on the beach or ride a bike, but it’s another thing to play N.B.A. basketball. That’s what we paid for.”

In the opinion of Dr. Anthony Daly, an orthopedic surgeon who has treated Walton since January 1979, the injury “will heal again, but if he goes out to play basketball, it can break down again. Since it has broken down four times, I think he’ll need an operation. It’s going to be a little bit of a gamble. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been done at all with any athlete. He’s somewhat hesitant to have it done, and justifiably so. The major risk might be that he might have pain in normal life. I don’t think there is much of a risk.” Dr. Daly has said that the operation “could require that the small bones in [Walton’s] foot be fused together.”

Hill's injury isn't quite the same, the numbers are a little different, and he's a little older. But it's all too familiar - a player who had an impressive college career who was successful in his first few years in the league, before medical complications limited him to spectator status.

As most people already know, Bill Walton did play again and became a sixth man for the Boston Celtics, helping them win a championship in 1986. But he was never the same. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1993, and these days is an NBA analyst for ESPN after calling games for NBC during the 90s. He's also responsible for unintentionally humourous quotes that we won't get into here.

So is it out of the question to suggest Grant Hill might also be worthy of being elected to the Hall once he is eligible? If he can return and be a sidekick, a third option or maybe even a sixth man who is an important part of a winning team, for at least a couple of years...is he worthy of the Hall?

Like Walton, he spent a few seasons (six to be exact) as an All-Star calibre player, one of the best in the game. Last season he put up decent numbers when he was able to play. He had a fine college career. He hasn't won two championships as Walton did, but he might be able to pick those up if he's able to return.

So, with this in mind and assuming he'll be back in a smaller but still significant role, does Grant Hill still have a chance of being a Hall of Famer?

I'll post my opinion after a few responses.

do voters for the nba hall of fame take into account a player's college career??

as of right now, i don't think he's worthy of the hall of fame. he hasn't had much success in the postseason before injuries hit his career (has his team ever advanced past the 1st round?), unlike walton.

but i guess if this 'what if' scenario happens, it would give him a better case. i'd like to see this happen first before i give my opinion

do voters for the nba hall of fame take into account a player's college career??

It's the Basketball Hall of Fame, so individuals can be elected for their contributions to college basketball. A player's college career probably isn't taken into account in most cases, though I heard Walton's college career had some bearing on his election to the Hall. That could have just been a rumour though.

In any event, their situations remain fairly similar.

i really like grant hill, but as of right now, i'd say no. you have to remember what some may say as the most important factor in determining good stars from great stars -- championships. walton has 2, hill none. im not saying that any player on a championship team is more worthy of being a hall of famer than a non-championship team player, but that a star of a championship team is more worthy than a star of a non-championship team -- which walton was on a '77 portland team wherein he was named playoff mvp. he was also nba mvp the following year and when he came back to win his second championship in 86 he won the 6th man award.

grant hill's nba accolades dont come close to waltons, if he can somehow come back and play to the level he once did i'd say he's a hall of fame lock.

Guess I might as well post my opinion now.

As my first post probably hinted, I believe Hill could still be a Hall of Famer, but it hinges upon him being a sidekick or third option on a couple of championship teams. He would have to be a significant player on at least two championship teams to be really worthy of consideration. He's already had some great individual seasons, mixed with limited team success. Unless there's no way he'll ever be back, I think there's still a chance he could make it to the Hall.

According to this he's not there yet.

http://www.basketballreference.com/play ... d=HILLGR01

Absolutely. If he never plays again, he shouldn't be given serious consideration for the Hall. But based on that system, he's not that far off still having a shot...if he can return.

hill has a very good chance of getting in, even if his playing days are over. his situation right now is actually more like david thompson's than walton's, since walton has a few rings, and thompson is in. and there are some similarities to thompson in terms of what each accomplished in college and their early pro years, and also the hype and respect that they each achieved. hill drew alot of talk at one time of possibly being the best player in the league at his peak, and was considered by some as the most well rounded, so i don't think how his career ends will hurt his chances, if anything it will be the perception that he may no longer be the difference maker that he once was, or that he will not be THE franchise player for orlando or any other team. but again thompson getting in leaves him as a probability.

as far as his role with orlando, it may not be unlikely to see hill actually playing the point for them. From his days in detroit he showed that he can initiate the offense and still get his shots in the flow of it, and his all around skills would likely fit better at the point given the magic's current roster, than trying to work his game into a coexistence on the perimeter with mcgrady, and his post skills would create matchup problems for most teams trying to defend him with a guard and could open things up more for t-mac.

whether his athleticism can get close to what it was will sort of dictate what type of player he'll be if he gets back, but if he can just stay healthy and on the court even if he's not what he once was, he can still be a major factor for them as opposed to a compliment to mcgrady, he just won't be the focal point.

and from the link posted by redbulls, the only players on the similar players list that are even considered on hill's level overall are thompson, who's in, and kobe, who will be. grant will probably make it.

Excellent points jwin, especially regarding David Thompson. I had forgotten all about him. I still think the chances of him making the Hall are more likely if he can return and play a few more productive seasons, but the precedent that Thompson set might indeed allow him to be elected regardless. Great points, great post.

thanks, i hope he is able to come back and play as he did before, though he probably won't log as many minutes. he's good for the game and with all the ego conflicts hill back in the top tier would be a breath of fresh air.

i went through what he's had to but i can't understand what could have gone wrong to put him through more surgery. they may have had him rest too long initially before working on movements of the ankle, and had it begin to heal too quickly while immobile, forcing more stress on it while trying to regain the range of motion and strength.

after reconstruction i was riding a stationary bike two weeks after the screw removal, walking a month after that without crutches, and running full speed three months later from basically stretching it, riding the stationary and working on the motion range while it was healing.

I'm guessing the rushed return after the second and third surgeries might have contributed to the problems of the last couple of years. Electing not to attempt a comeback this season was definitely the right idea.

in my view the principal difference between walton and hill's respective careers is that walton LEAD his team to a championship. a player that can do that (even once) is hall of fame worthy. hill was a remarkable talent but i doubt we'll see him on the court again, and if we do, i would be surprised if he could be as effective as we remember him. i feel bad for grant hill but he's not a hall of famer.

if terrell davis didn't have the two super bowl wins, he wouldn't even be brought up as a possible NFL hall of famer. hill has no titles so for me it's a no-brainer.



THROW IT DOWN BIG MAN!!!

grant hill's career averages are still 21 ppgs, 6apgs, and around 8 rpgs during 6 generally healthy seasons -- i think if he comes back the only part of his game that will suffer will be his point production.... he has shown he can still rebound, and could at least still dish out 4 dimes a game probably more if he gets into his groove if able to play a string of games again. so like everyone else said, if he comes back he should be a hall-of-famer, if he doesnt theres still a chance i think.

on a related note do you guys think alonzo mourning should be a hall-of-famer? he's had 9 healthy seasons, and some playoff success and defined the face of miami for a long time. based on his numbers i think most of you will probably say yes like me, but im not sure

Last edited by magius on Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

magius i don't think there will be any question with zo getting in. he is looked at as the 2nd most dominant big man of this era by many, at least till duncan's done, and was considered to be better overall than karl malone, even though malone has produced more. like pippen who will always be linked to jordan in his success, malone will always be linked to stockton in his. but zo, like jordan and hill also, is seen more as a dominant player all by himself and that seems to weigh as much as titles for nba hall of famers.

That's a tough one, but I'll have to say yes. Consider Charles Barkley who should be elected as soon as he's eligible. Leading a team to a title may be a ticket into the Hall, but it isn't a requirement. Using jwin's example of David Thompson again, Mourning is a legitimate candidate for the Hall.

As well as titles, individual honours and statistics, significance is a determining factor in Hall of Fame inductions. That is, being a significant player during an era which is what jwin was referring to in his last post. Zo was one of the most prominent players of the 90s, top five at his position and twice heralded as the best defender in the league.

A lack of titles and some first round exits may hurt his case the same as they might hamper Grant Hill's chances of being inducted. But I say there's a strong enough case for both of those players to receive at least 18 of the 24 votes, which would see them immortalised in Springfield.

maybe i didn't make myself clear in my post but i don't think it's a requirement to lead your team to a title.

however, when you look at the injury-riddled careers of walton and hill, that's what stands out in my mind as the principal difference between the two.

IMO, hill didn't do enough during his 6 years to distinguish himself as a HOFer. if i remember correctly he never won a playoff series, and i don't think his numbers were strong enough to make up for his short career. just my opinion though, i understand why some of you guys think he should be in.

I know that's not what you said, I was just reiterating my point of view on titles being a requirement for induction into the Hall.

The Basketball HOF is based on a player's ENTIRE career, college and pro. While Bill Walton won a couple of NBA titles, he was injured most of his pro career. He's in the HOF mostly on what he did at UCLA, which was tremendous. One of the greatest college players of all time.


I didn't follow Hill's career at Duke. What were his numbers? Did he impact the college game like Kareem or Walton?

well hill led duke to 2 ncaa championships, i dont think his college career wasnt quite as dominant as waltons, but it was still up there. i think unless youre legendary in college that how good you were in college doesnt have too much of an effect. i really dont know though. i found a formula somewhere on the net (post on bottom), i know its not right on all cases, but i'll just post it anyway. according to the formula walton is hof material and hill and mourning arent.

do you guys think divac and sabonis are eligible for hof on an international basis? how about guys like shawn kemp?

About the Hall of Fame Monitor

First, a few words about the Basketball Hall of Fame. When we think of hall of fames we usually think of them as being associated with one particular institution, such as the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB or the Football Hall of Fame and the NFL, but basketball is different for a number of reasons. Basketball is a more global sport than most other professional American sports. It is not only played in many different countries and regions, but also played very well. It is also a cross gender sport, making the Basketball Hall of Fame open to many more women than the other hall of fames. And lastly, until the mid 1950's there were a variety of major pro basketball leagues throughout the country. Because of all of this, the basketball hall of fame has a wider variety and more diverse selection of players, coaches and contributors. The formula used for the HOF Monitor is really only valid for players who have played their entire careers in the NBA, ABA or a combination of both. For example, Arvydas Sabonis may make the hall of fame, but it will have more to do with his performance on the Russian National Team than for his play in the NBA.

For more information on the selection process for the Basketball Hall of Fame, visit their web site at http://www.hoophall.com.

The Hall of Fame Monitor is a formula with six components. It is meant to be used as a guide and not as a hard and fast rule. There are some players who do very well according to the formula and are not in the hall of fame, but for the most part this formula is a good scale.

The Formula:


75 points for each NBA MVP award
15 points for each All NBA First Team selection
1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value
2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency
3.5 points for each NBA Championship
-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards
Formula Explanations

NBA MVP
Being an NBA MVP has been the best way to get into the hall. Every NBA MVP who is eligible for the Hall of Fame is in the Hall of Fame. When a player wins an MVP award, its almost as good as getting enshrined.

All NBA First Team
Being elected NBA First Team carries some weight with the hall. 80% of players who were All NBA First Team two or more times and are eligible for the hall of fame, are in the hall of fame. The percentage jumps to 96% for players with three or more NBA First Team selections. Being selected to an All NBA First team should be slightly easier for a forward or guard than a center because two forwards and guards are selected as opposed to one center.

Approximate Value (AV)
Approximate Value is a statistical calculation that provides an idea of how much a player contributed to his team over the course of a season. The career AV will provide an idea of how much a player contributed to his teams over the course of his entire career. This component gives players credit for long, solid careers. ABA AV is not given as much credit as NBA AV. The AV is also slightly biased towards centers and forwards.

Efficiency (EFF)
Efficiency is a measure of a players impact per game. Since it is a per game average, it helps players who had short, but spectacular careers. It is also the only component that can decrease over time. So a player who has a career EFF of 20.1 after five seasons, may fall off and only have a career EFF of 17.3 after 10 seasons. This means that the HOF Monitor score can actually fall for some players over time. EFF is slightly biased towards centers and forwards.

NBA Championship
Winning an NBA Championship is a good thing in the eyes of the Hall of Fame voters. It also gives that player some publicity and possibly enhances the perception that he is a great player. Players who play on multiple championship teams have a slightly increased chance of making the Hall of Fame.

C and F Penalty
The slight bias towards centers and forwards that AV and EFF have needs to be acounted for with a penalty. Centers are penalized 20 points and forwards are penalized 15 points. Each player in our system has been assigned one single position. This is not ideal, but in most cases works out fine. Players who play multiple positions were given the position that they played most over the course of their career.

This formula provides a handy guide for rating a players HOF chances. It is not meant to be a way to compare players of different eras. 85% of all players with a HOF Monitor score of 135 or more and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. 99% of players with a score of 160 or greater and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. One thing you will notice is that good players tend to jump out to a quick pace. This is because of the player's career EFF score. Keep in mind that the career EFF score will probably not move very much for a player and in most cases will actually drop off as the player becomes older and his skills diminish.

The Basketball HOF is based on a player's ENTIRE career, college and pro. While Bill Walton won a couple of NBA titles, he was injured most of his pro career. He's in the HOF mostly on what he did at UCLA, which was tremendous. One of the greatest college players of all time.

I thought so, but I wasn't sure if I'd been misinformed. Thanks for the confirmation Jeffx; you really should post more often.

Shawn Kemp might have been eligible if he'd been able to remain an All-Star up until the last couple of years. Had he stayed in Seattle with Payton and the Sonics remained perennial title contenders while he continued to put up great numbers, he would be a worthy candidate, the same as Barkley and Ewing are bound for the Hall despite lacking a title on their NBA resume.

I'm not sure about Sabonis and Divac. How many years has Divac played in European leagues? Sabonis played a bulk of his professional career in Europe and from what I understand was an exceptional player before his knees started to give and he gained a little weight, which would probably be enough to earn him honoured as an international player. I suppose Divac could also be considered, but from what I know about his pro career, I don't think he has as strong a case as Sabonis for being inducted as an international player.

Remember Andrew, Ewing was a dominant player in college. He led those great Hoya teams to three Final Fours, winning one. He helped to make the Big East a big-time conference.

college career has nothing to do with being inducted into NBA hall of fame. it is NBA HOF, after all, not college. besides, if college career actually does have some input into HOF induction, then Christian Laettner may be a future candidate for HOF. the dude was a top 10 collegiate player of all time.

It's not called the NBA Hall of Fame, but the BASKETBALL Hall of Fame. It preserves the history of basketball at ALL levels. Go to the official website for more information.

http://hoophall.com

Remember Andrew, Ewing was a dominant player in college. He led those great Hoya teams to three Final Fours, winning one. He helped to make the Big East a big-time conference.

True, though I believe he's a future Hall of Famer based on his NBA career alone.