Nellie and Mullie: No Hall of Game This Year

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 5, 2009 10:59 AM PDT in History Comment 19 comments

Unfortunately for Warriors fans there will be no Basketball Hall of Fame inductions to provide a much needed silver lining to this very frustrating 2008-2009 Dubs campaign. As GSoM friend MT reports neither Don Nelson nor Chris Mullin will be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame tomorrow.

Use your Hall of Fame quality hops for some thoughts.

The Don

I think Nellie will deservedly make it once he reaches the all-time coaching win total. If he coached guys like Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, or Tim Duncan, he'd have a few rings. There's a reason why he's a 3 time NBA Coach of the Year.

Instead he's coached some deeply flawed rosters (Exhibit A: 2008-2009 Golden State Warriors). The one time where Nellie had a roster that was on the path towards finals contention, he, Chris Cohan, and Chris Webber screwed it up- big time. All it left us was one of the greatest NBA Live rosters of all time (Tim Hardaway, Latrell Sprewell, Chris Mullin, Billy Owens, and Chris Webber) and a 12 year playoff drought. I'll spare you the details.

Those Mavs team earlier this decade were just fun 'n gun. You simply cannot win a championship with 2 non-defenders like Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash leading the way, despite their prolific offense. The season after they ditched Nash they made it to the NBA Finals. (Trust me, it wasn't because of the way they used Erik Dampier.) Nellie really hasn't had coached that many championship-caliber (arguably none) rosters.

Decades after Nellie retires he will be remembered for Nellieball and the Point Forward role. Clips like this will only strengthen that retrospection:

Even the Nellie haters must admit his contributions to the game as a coach will be ingrained in our collective hoops memory forever. He belongs in the Hall of Game as a coach- no question.

More about Nellie

Buzzcut Mullie

Mullin's Hall of Fame induction? I'm not so sure. I don't know if Mullin really made that long lasting impact on the NBA world. Mullin was a great player, a fun player, but does he stand alongside the all-time greats? Here's the very best of Mullin by the numbers:

1987-88: 21.5 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 5.1apg
1988-89: 25.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.8 apg
1989-90: 24.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg
1990-91: 22.9 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.6 apg
1991-92: 22.3 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.1 apg
1992-93: 22.5 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 3.1 apg

Obviously very impressive, but is that dominant? Remember this is the Magic Johnson - Larry Bird - Isiah Thomas - Michael Jordan era. There were some great, great players in the league at that time.

But was he a "winner"? Here's the win totals for those teams respectively:

1987-88: 20-62- No Playoffs
1988-89: 43-39- Swept the Utah Jazz in the 1st round of the playoffs (3-0) and lost in the Semifinals to the Phoenix Suns (1-4)
1989-90: 37-45- No Playoffs
1990-91: 44-38- Beat the San Antonio Spurs (3-1) in the 1st round and lost to the LA Lakers in the 2nd (1-4)
1991-92: 55-27- Lost in the 1st round to the Seattle Supersonics (1-3)
1992-93: 34-48- No Playoffs

It's not like Mullin's best seasons were part of some serious winning-ness or dominance. Makes you wonder. The point isn't that Mullin was a bad player, but to be a Hall of Famer I'd like to see a player that puts up big numbers and like Al Davis would say "Just win, baby."

If he gets in his college credentials and Dream Team selection are probably what's going to give him that extra push.

More about Mullie

Who gets your vote? Make sure to Ba-rock the vote and post your thoughts

Poll

Who should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame?

Don Nelson (Coach)

169 votes

Chris Mullin (Player)

126 votes

Both Nelson and Mullin

349 votes

Neither

80 votes

724 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

(holding nose & pulling lever)

Agree with your analysis AB1, Don’s going in eventually while Mullin’s not likely to … my perceptions of the two have shifted however.

Whereas most of the Dubs successes in the past couple years can be credited in great part to Nelson’s return, and Mullin made several poor decisions over the years, since Baron’s departure there’s been a reversal: Mullin has made some shrewd moves while Nelson has hurt us more than helped us both on the court and behind the scenes:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_11929555?source=rss

Very sad state the franchise is in, and if even half of what Poole wrote is true we’re not likely to get much respect for our business practices around the league from players’ agents – yet optimism that we could stand pat or are only one-or-two moves away from being a force in the west continues here …

by hardcore on Apr 5, 2009 11:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nelson

will get in once he surpasses Wilkens. Then he’ll be in the hall for being the winningest coach.

I don’t know about Mullin though..

by saintdee on Apr 5, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

SIgh

Again we see AB1 pumping up Nellie and dissing Mullin. It’s the standard MO.

But rarely is the hypocrisy of his double standard so evident.

I mean, look at it:

You take Mullin to task for not being enough of a winner. But you excuse Nelson’s key failure by saying, “If he had better players, he would have won a championship.”

Double standard, much? Couldn’t you just as easily said, “If Mullin had better teammates, he would have won multiple championships,” while saying, of Nelson, that his failure to win a championship is a major blow against him?

Funny how Nelson gets credit for creating the “point foward” position, but Mullin doesn’t get credit for being the player who actually put it into practice?

Couple other points:

First, the change in Dallas wasn’t just getting rid of Steve Nash. It was that, under Avery Johnson, they put a much greater emphasis on defense. Nelson has never cared that much about defense. He’s often been enough of an offensive genius to get away with it, but his failures as a coach have as much to do with his refusal to emphasize defense as they do wit his talent.

Second, when it comes to talent, we can’t ignore the role Don Nelson has played in shaping his rosters. The Webber situation is only the most glaring, but there are plenty of other examples. eg: Why does this team have a glut of shooting guards? Because Nelson alienated Harrington and had to dump him for what he could get. This has been a pattern throughout his career. And while Nelson has been an incredibly astute evaluator of guard talent, he’s been a very mediocre evaluator of big-man talent: Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens was a horrible trade.

Nelson’s legacy will be that he was one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game. Unfortunately, offense is only half the game.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 5, 2009 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

double sigh

You’d think by now I’d get used to reading AB1’s love for Nellie oooozing out of his every word, but it’s still as nauseating as ever. I doubt even if Nellie achieves the winningest coach in the NBA status that it will be enough for him to get into the Hall of Fame. After 30 years of coaching, one would think there would be a certain amount of wins in the wins column. Yea, his 1,280 wins looks great, but then add in the 954 losses and you come up with a overall percentage of .573. Not exactly “stellar”.

Compare that to Jerry Sloan who is the 4th winningest coach and who was just inducted into the Hall of Fame: 1,089 wins / 717 losses / .603.

Lenny Wilkens, the current winningest coach, has a lower percentage than Nellie (.536), but he also has a playoff championship, along with nine 50+ win seasons, two divisional championships and two appearances in the NBA Finals. Nellie has never won a championship let alone has made a trip to the NBA Finals as a coach.

I am disappointed the Chris Mullin didn’t make it in though. Not necessarily because I believe he deserves to be over the people who were selected, I just think it would have been the ultimate of Karmatic justice if Mullin made it in while Nelson didn’t.

by centerre on Apr 5, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Math fail

You realize that .603 is a whopping 3% better than .573, right? Over an 82 game season, that translates to about 2.5 more wins (46.98 vs 49.45). And Jerry Sloan isn’t in the Hall of Fame, as far as I know.

If you’re going to compare, do it honestly:
Lenny Wilkens – 12 missed playoffs, 9 1st round losses, 7 conference semis, 2 conference finals, 2 finals appearances (1 championship); 2 division championships; 1332-1155 (regular season), 80-98 (playoffs)

Don Nelson – 8 missed playoffs, 3 1st round losses, 11 conference semis, 4 conference finals, 0 finals appearances; 8 division championships; 1299-955, 75-91

Jerry Sloan – 4 missed playoffs, 8 1st round losses, 4 conference semis, 4 conference finals, 2 finals appearances (0 championships); 6 division championships; 1115-736, 93-94

by genesic on Apr 5, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

nelson definitely had more of an impact on the game. he’ll be the winningest coach ever and helped mediocre teams play way above their heads all while innovating and changing the way the nba was coached. hall of famer. easy call.

mullin’s a more interesting debate. hall of fame players usually have enough on their own to get past the second round at least at one point in their career. the hall should be reserved for guys who were superstars. can we really make that call about mullin? i know the team success doesn’t tell the whole story, but one superstar can make a big enough impact on your team to have a bit more success than mullin did. he was a great player, but is he a hall of famer? that’s not exactly an open and shut case. if he does get in, it will be (as atma said) on the strength of his dream team and st. john’s performances to push him over the top. what’s so objectionable about that?

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 5, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Compare Mullin and Garnett

Not because I’m saying Mullin is as good as Garnett at his peak, but I think Garnett basically blows the “if he’s that good he should have done more, despite his teammates” argument out of the water.

Did Garnett suddenly become a better player when he was traded to Boston? Did he suddenly become more clutch? No. Did he suddenly become more intense? No.

Garnett was one of the top five players in the league for years, and I believe some of the more advanced statistical metrics have him as the BEST player in the league in one year or another. And stats don’t tell the whole story with him because he’s arguably the best defender in the league and one of the most intense players, who clearly goads his teammates into doing their best.

And despite being that good, when saddled with medicore teammates, he managed to get out of the first round of the playoffs only once. Then he got traded to a team with good teammates, and promptly won a championship.

If the – arguably – best player in the league can only put up postseason futility when hampered by poor teammates, how can you hold the same against Mullin.

Of course, if you want to argue that Mullin was simply never good enough to be in the hall, I understand that argument. No one would ever make an argument for him as the best player in the league, at any point in his tenure. And that might be a solid argument against him. I think it really comes down to what you definition of a HOF player is. If you want to reserve it for players on the level of Jordan, Magic, Hakeem, etc, then Mullin doesn’t belong. But if ’Nique and John Stockton and Patrick Ewing, belong, then Mullin belongs, too.

But the success of the team? Again – look at Garnett’s futility.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 5, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

'Nique, Stockton, Ewing vs Mullin

There’s no comparison. ’Nique, Stockton, and Ewing had far superior careers than Mullin. They also maintained an elite level of play for more than 6 seasons.

Mullin ain’t no KG. Let’s not even go there even for the great player on a bad team sake.

Again, I’d love to see Mullin make it. I just don’t see how unless it’s the St. Johns and Dream Team boost.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 5, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

garnett

led a team consisting of spree, cassell, odds and ends to the conference finals. that’s farther than mullin ever got.

and as you said, he was possibly THE best player during his peak. there’s not an iffy situation there. if mullin was that good and saddled with as bad of teams as garnett, then you could make the comparision, but for the most part mullin had the better supporting cast and was clearly an inferior player to kg. kg’s years of futility were when his supporting cast was no spree, no cassell and the same odds and ends. that’s absolutely brutal. there were some really bad warriors teams, but mullin had it better than kg in terms of teammates for the whole of his career. if anything, the kg point should just be used to declare kevin mchale as a historically bad gm. shame on him for squandering kg’s prime and giving him only one even remotely respectable team.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 5, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Atma...

I think your title has a typo. I’m guessing you meant to say no hall of fame this year?

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 5, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not an E-40 fan I take it.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 5, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

Yep, that one went right over my head.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 5, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

both deserve it

by AJC3317 on Apr 5, 2009 1:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

jeff van gundy and Mark jackson just said nelson AND mullin should be in

but they put emphasis on Mullin…..INTERESTING

by 123707THIZZ on Apr 5, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Mullin deserves it

It’s Basketball hall of fame, not NBA. Atma, get your bias opinion out of everything u write. Mullin was a star at St. John’s and Golden State. His numbers speak for themselves.

by illmaticwarrior on Apr 5, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nellie in the hall?

Can they put him in with an asterisk ? To signify that he had to work considerably past normal retirement age to get enough wins ?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 5, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Nellie has to be in

He will have the most wins of all time. I don’t care about lack of rings, I don’t care how old he is, that’s a feat that deserves acknowledgment. He also basically invented small ball. He has had a very strong impact.

by bradyk2 on Apr 5, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t care how old he is, that’s a feat that deserves acknowledgment. He also basically invented small ball.

Haha, You could take the worst coach in the league and if he lived long enough he’d eventually win more games than nellie but would that mean much? nellie should probably get in cause someone has to be in there and there’s worse than him (I guess?) BTW. he din’t “invent” smallball, everyone knew about it but just knew it don’t win NBA rings.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 5, 2009 9:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that...

…you can make a case for either, with about an equivalent level of success. The voters don’t seem interested in Nelson, though. I could easily imagine Nelson getting in after he’s retired, or even after he’s left the world of the living if that’s the required perspective, but it just doesn’t seem like there’s much verve to put him in, maybe because of his long tenure, no title, and the fact that the HOF incorporates international ball as well increase the pool of options each year.

by Zack Vank on Apr 8, 2009 12:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs