Say a rookie comes into the league, and has averages of 35ppg, 13.4 rpg, 6.0 apg on 55 fg % while winning MVP / ROY and leading his team to the championship as finals MVP. However a tragic accident occurs and he can never play again after his rookie year. Is he HOF worthy??
If said player dies in a plane crash on a humanitarian mission to a country in Africa one week after the Finals, he gets in.
The voting for the HOF is subjective. It's left up to the voters to decide how valuable longevity is versus peak ability. I can't think of a case as extreme as yours where someone dominated for a tiny amount of time, so I don't really have a historical example to fall back on, but I would say yes. No NBA MVP has ever not been inducted into the HOF (except for those yet to become eligible).
well, you could take the case of Drazen Petrovic as an example. he was playing great basketball with the Nets (22.3 pts, 52% FG and 45% in three-points percentage.) he also was the european player of the league in 6 times, and one time (1986) was the FIBA World Championship MVP. but in 1993 he had a car accident and died, the nets retired his jersey and in 2002 he was inducted into the Basketball HOF, and in 2007, he was enshrined in the FIBA Hall of Fame. He didnt win a playoff series, but he had great potential, so who knows what would've happened.
sorry for the double post, but that wasnt his rookie year, those numbers were from his best year (and last). It was his 4th year.
With this being said, I would think the hypothetical player needs to show he can ball at that level again, for the next few years or so. So I agree with this poster; longevity, to a degree, should be the deciding factor.
Yup, he'd be in. A full season at the rookie level would prove that this player would've continued to dominate at that level.
He would probably be in. Unless the tragic accident happened while he was snorting blow off of a hooker. That might complicate the voting.
IIRC, regular season MVP alone basically makes a player a lock for MVP. So, in your example, you'd have - reg season MVP + best rookie season of all time + ring + Finals MVP + tragic story about career cut short + a whole internet full of people fantasizing about what could've been I'd say that's a lock, if there ever was one.
The basketball hall of fame is also based on college careers too. Thats how Bill Walton is in the hall of fame.
Wilt Chamberlain-type of statline would've been more impressive for a single season, like say if this freakish player comes along and averages: 53.0 ppg, 30.0 rebs, 10.5 ast, over 60 FG%, 6.0 blks, over 55% from the 3 point line, over 90% from the FT line, and etc. Wins Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, MVP, NBA Finals MVP. Suddenly drops dead before his 2nd season. Record breaking player cannot be denied, especially basketball. Football and baseball tend to be tougher on grading such careers, since records are broken all of the time. Though in the writers in all three can be picky at times, but if a player in the modern era (for baseball) goes onto what could be considered the greatest season ever: .500 BA, 120 HRs, 277 RBIs, .880 OBP, 192 SB, and this person is also his team's closer and he lead the National/American league with 70 saves. Player wins MVP, batting title, Cy Young award, Golden Glove, Silver Slugger (easily), and World Series MVP, while he puts up the greatest postseason and World Series stats of all time. The most statistically dominant player ever (only for one season) is left out of the Hall of Fame. On my on personal behalf, such a player would be too culturally significant to leave out of the Hall of Fame, if they break almost every important record in the league's history.
