I think he should be the Hall of Famer and not just because he built a bridge for China and US but as a player, he's a hell of a player....totally dominating when healthy. That's why it's sad to see him leaving because he was AT THE PEAK of his career before the foot injury. His lasting impression was the Playoffs series against the Blazers when he was at his dominant form. After that, we didn't really truly see him again...well, he came back but it was short-life. But his last great GREAT impression was the Blazers series.
All star appearances shouldn't be a basis for the HOF, dude was getting voted in despite having a broken foot. He should be voted in for being the first Asian superstar, and for opening the doors to China. Hall of fame isn't just for pure basketball accomplishments, its also for the NBA players who were unique and special, that's why you have guys like AI becoming HOF despite being a crap b-ball player.
It is called the Hall of FAME Yao Ming's Fame got a whole country to care about Basketball. In my book that is a level of fame that should be in a Hall that showcases fame
I don't think any of us are competent to understand, in 2011, what his impact and overall legacy will be. So I don't think he should be in this conversation until many years have passed. Is anyone claiming that people didn't know about the NBA in China until Yao? Meanwhile, let me know when Rik Smits gets inducted to the basketball hall of fame. I called it when Yao entered the league, and he actually undershot the career of Rik Smits, the flying Dutchman. (Yes, Rik was from northern europe and opened doors for basketball there.) Seriously, look at their per-36-minute stats and it's pretty striking. Yao is like 5-10% better in averages, but Rik sustained an entire career and was a part of some very good Pacer teams.
Don't quit your day job on the extra-curricular forums, Donny. This here is a basketball related discussion, and all you have to offer is your ignorance on the subject.
I think we can see the impact of Yao today. Exhibition games, promotions, and recognition of Chinese talent were a result of Yao. The NBA developed a great relationship with China that aided the exposure of basketball in Asia. Some the Chinese may have known about the NBA, but Yao's presence undoubtedly increased the exposure of the game in the World. 36-min stats are more useful when predicting future star potential. You can't predict how a player will react with more playing time. Tyrus Thomas and Ryan Anderson both have great 36-min numbers, but will they ever be stars? Usually a player's efficiency will decrease with more playing time, and who's to say that Smits wouldn't break down given more minutes? Smits never played more than 31 minutes a game, and regardless of his 36-min stats, he never had the impact on the game that Yao had.
If you want to compare their rate statistics, Yao's career PER exceeds Smits' by a huge margin (23 PER vs 18 PER). That would be 28% better. In fact, not counting this past season when Yao hardly played, Yao never had a PER in a season less than Smits's career best. That includes his rookie year. Basketball-reference.com says there are 160 centers who played at least 10,000 career minutes. Among them, Yao ranks 7th in PER (each one ahead of him is a HOFer) while Smits ranks 31st. And that doesn't do justice to how much better Yao was, because he had a much bigger impact defensively.
To everybody getting in a huff over this: The OP asked "should", not "will" Yao get into the hall of fame. You can't tell someone else what their personal standards should be for HOF induction. Will he get in? Based on the other players that are already included, probably. Should he get in? According to my personal standard, no. Saying "but Bill Walton/Drazen Petrovic/etc got in!" doesn't affect this argument. If anything, it creates a case against that particular player's induction, rather than supporting an argument to include Yao.
Yao was a better player but he did not have a better or more accomplished career than Rik Smits, in my most humble opinion. Rik played in over 100 playoff games, and some of them were monster performances. He was a key part of some great teams and never had overseas internet voting to influence his all-star chances (he made one all-star appearance.) True the Pacers (smartly) limited his minutes, as a huge guy, and maybe that should tell us all something. Anyway, no question that Yao is a better basketball player, and much more dominant. I just think that's different that evaluating an entire career. If we want to talk about impact in China, that's fine with me. I don't know how to measure that in any real way beyond impressions and anecdotes though. He certainly did bring a lot of Chinese fans to US-based NBA websites. Of that we can be sure. If Drazen is in the hall of fame, for these non-career factors, there's no way to exclude Yao.
That's all fine with me, and I know it. (If we really want to talk basketball, I'd like to see what Yao's PER would have been playing alongside amazingly underrated power forwards like Antonio Davis and Dale Davis in their primes, but I digress.) I'll post it again: Yao is the better basketball player. To take this to an extreme, though, Len Bias was a much better player than Smits, and I don't even need PER stats to prove that. Smits had a better, more accomplished career though. It's shocking and sad that Yao totaled fewer points and rebounds in his career than Rik Smits, but there it is. People (usually?) talk about career totals in this hall of fame stuff. He just wouldn't get my vote, love him though I do. There's just no sustained body of work, with less than 500 games. Luckily I won't get a vote! I do think it's logical to put him in if we're being consistent with the Drazen decision and things like that. Walton isn't as good a comparison because he was on championship teams and was pretty phenomenal in college as well.
If Yao was the more dominant player, then what does playoff success matter? Success is a function of the team, and I don't think it's fair to use that to measure individual impact. I never understood that argument. Was Horry a better player than Webber? Although I don't see how anyone can doubt that overseas voting affected Yao's allstar nominations, he clearly was the best center in the west for several of those appearances. To say that Smits earned the honor and Yao was voted in strictly by the Chinese votes is wrong.
More accomplished in that he had a longer career, was on better teams, and had deeper playoff runs. I'm sure Yao would have preferred Smits's career as well. Which one was "better" is subjective, I suppose. In terms of individual accolades, its heavily in Yao's favor despite his abbreviated career. Regarding HOF, I think there is room for players who went above and beyond in their global impact off the court. I wouldn't put Yao in the top 50 if I was ranking greatest players in NBA history. But the HOF is about more than that.
I didn't say that, or anything even close to it, but you can exaggerate my posts if that makes them better argument material. As for playoff success, that is always brought up when evaluating a career. I didn't invent that -- LOL. The best rebuttal of my mentioning Rik Smits is this: <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mAXHnuA84jI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
How is that not insinuating that Smits earned his appearances more than Yao? I can see your point. Strictly as a player, I'm not sure I would vote him in either, but as a player/contributor... definitely. Not really directed towards you. The OP's question was "Should Yao be elected to the NBA Hall of Fame?" and I don't think playoff success should be considered. I just don't agree with how some of these people vote, but they can't help it. We're all human.
How convenient, redefining the HOF at a moment when it best suits you. This thread is talking about the NBA Hall of Fame and all that it characterizes, with informed minds using empirical evidence and historical data for comparison. With informed minds knowing it's not solely based on statistical parameters. You came into the thread without any prior knowledge of this and using the few names that came to your head when you immediately think 'Hall of Fame' - Abdul Jabbar, Chamberlain, Jordan - assumed Yao didn't fit and trumpeted out your comment. In my circles, this is known as prematurely shooting your wad. Aka, buffoonery. It's the equivalent of people saying Asian men can't win the Oscar because their faces don't show enough emotion. It's ignorant of what exactly the Oscar stands for. If you want to start a separate thread questioning the legitimacy of the HOF, go ahead, but this thread sticks to the rules and stipulations that allowed previous inductees to enter the Hall.
Of course he deserves to get in, only on CF is this even a debate lmao. Top 5 Rocket and one of the best big men of all time, as said by Shaq.
You seem to have something against Yao. It's insulting to compare Yao to Smits. Smits can ONLY hope he's at Yao's level when healthy. Seriously, Yao's game totally make Smits look like a joke when if in fact they go one on one. Saying Yao is not the top 50...what are you watching?? Do you even know how dominate his game is?? He totally make Howard look silly and like a little boy when they play each other. Howard can't even shoot over him. Teams that play the Rockets can not even penetrate inside because of his presence and so they had to rely on shooting all game long. Yao impacts the game entirely defensively and offensively. I don't EVER see a player of that caliber that can do that on both end. The ONLY thing WEAK about Yao is Yao being an injure-proned player...there is NO QUESTION he is the TOP 10 players...hell EVEN the TOP 5 players in this league.
