2014 Hall of Fame Nominee: Michael Redd

[Rog]

The 43rd nominee of the NBN Hall of Fame was a lights out shooter, potentially the deadliest of all time. Does Michael Redd have more than just shooting to propel him into the Hall of Fame or will he go down as a really good shooter who just wasn't elite at anything else? 

Career Stats
36.4 MPG, 19.5 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 3.8 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.5 TOPG on 47.1% from the field, 88.3% from the line, and 44.3% from three

Best Season
Hornets(2006) - 27.6 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 4.4 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.6 TOPG on 48% from the field, 92.6% from the line, and 44.9% from three

Career Highs
Points: 53
Rebounds: 15
Assists: 11
Steals: 8
Blocks: 5

Achievements
Championships: 0
Player of the Game: 109
Player of the Week: 1
Player of the Month: 0
Double Doubles: 116
Triple Doubles: 2

Awards
2000 - All-Star Rookie Game Participant
2000 - All-Rookie Second Team
2001 - All-Star Rookie Game Participant
2001 - All-Star Game Participant
2004 - 3-Point Shootout Champion
2004 - All-Star Game Participant
2004 - All-Star Game MVP
2004 - All-League Third Team
2006 - All-Star Game Participant
2006 - All-League Third Team
2008 - 3-Point Shootout Champion
2009 - 3-Point Shootout Champion





Arguments For Induction
- Redd played in three All-Star Games including a season where he won All-Star MVP. During All-Star weekends he also won three 3-Point Shootout contests proving how amazing he was shooting the ball. He was also named to two All-League Third teams, which so far makes him easily the most decorated player of this class. 

- Again, beyond ANYTHING Redd was a lights out shooter. Given his three 3-Point championships and owning a 44.3 percentage from three, its arguable he was the most deadly pure three point shooter in league history. 

- As a scorer all around he was pretty damn good. He scored 19.5 points a game for his career, but that number is dragged down by his last three years, in reality during his prime he was a 23-25 points a game scorer. Thats near elite. His career 47.1/88.3/44.3 slash line is elite. There isn't much to argue that Michael Redd was just a shade worse than elite on the offensive end of the court. 

- Continuing what he did on that end, he was also a fantastic passer for a shooting guard. He averaged 3.8 a game for his career, and for eight years of his career he averaged more than 4, including a year over 5. That is fantastic for a shooting guard. 

- While not elite defensively, consistently carried a A- or better rating defensively and 1.7 steals or better for the vast majority of his career. He probably was elite on ball, but there is no real way to quantify that. 

- As a total package, how can you deny Michael Redd? For nine seasons he gave you 23 points, 6.5 rebounds, 4.5 assists, 1.7 steals, never turned it over and was absolute money when he shot from anywhere on the court. This is a guy who could heat up in an instance and win a game for your team. He also played on some Hornets teams that were stupid good early on, though never got over the title hump. Not Redd's fault. This guy, while probably borderline, screams Hall of Fame to me. 

Arguments Against Induction
- While the most decorated player of the class so far, he just simply doesn't have enough awards to his name to be a Hall of Famer. Two All-League teams? Both being third teams? That is seriously lacking. And sure you can say be played in a stacked shooting guard position, but if he was never top three at his position, how can you say he was elite, and if he wasn't elite he wasn't a Hall of Famer. 

- Weak rebounder, or at least extremely average. His career 5.7 number is below average, and even during his prime where he averaged around 6.5 is at best average for a shooting guard. Didn't hurt you there, but wasn't a help either. 

- You can't use his defense as an argument for induction when he wasn't elite stealing the ball and the league never thought it wise to honor him with an All-Defensive team. 

- As a player, Redd did a lot you could like. There is no denying he is a really good scorer, really good passer, probably really good defender, and really effective shooting the ball. Did you see the word I didn't use? Great. He wasn't great at anything. And since his stats don't show greatness, he doesn't have the titles to push him over the top into the Hall of Fame either. He is missing that one defining thing to push him into greatness, and to me that keeps him from being a Hall of Famer. 


Vote carefully, and remember to throw out arguments regardless of which side you're on. This should be a discussion that eventually gets the league to the proper decision on him. Your vote can also be retracted after it's been cast if you feel like switching to the other side based on the arguments that have been made. To be inducted, a player needs 70% and to be considered in a later class they need 50%. Vote carefully!


***BONUS - Don't forget that everyone who votes gets $25 and the person that makes the best argument or contributes to the discussion the best will be awarded an extra $25***

[Rog]

Michael Redd's Player Page

[JCog72]

I'm going to vote yes, lights out shooter that could handle being a top option and not TO the ball...great %s. Also was an ok defender and would give you some steals

He did lack in rebounding as well but I'm going to still vote yes

[Rog]

Aug 15, 2016 20:43:16 GMT JCog72 said:

I'm going to vote yes, lights on shooter that could handle being a top option and not TO the ball...great %s. Also was an ok defender and would give you some steals

He did lack in rebounding as well but I'm going to still vote yes

I think I'm leaning this way, but this is as close to borderline as it gets. Waiting on others, but this thinking here is where I lean right now. 

[carmelo115]

I was on the fence with this one, until I went back to check and see who has been inducted and denied with similar stars, accolades, etc. There's no way a guy like Michael Redd can be inducted when similar players like Peja, Richard Jefferson, and even Ray Allen (who had a much more impressive resume) were denied. As great of a shooter as he was, I don't think he impacted the game enough to be a HOF player. Results speak for themselves and his stats did not result in enough awards and titles (0) to represent the HOF.

[Rog]

Aug 15, 2016 22:33:31 GMT carmelo115 said:

I was on the fence with this one, until I went back to check and see who has been inducted and denied with similar stars, accolades, etc. There's no way a guy like Michael Redd can be inducted when similar players like Peja, Richard Jefferson, and even Ray Allen (who had a much more impressive resume) were denied. As great of a shooter as he was, I don't think he impacted the game enough to be a HOF player. Results speak for themselves and his stats did not result in enough awards and titles (0) to represent the HOF.

I was kind of for voting for Peja myself, though some weren't, and Peja is the best comparison for sure. Jefferson didn't have the %s or the ASW accolades or truly dominant seasons(2) that Redd had. Ray Allen is a solid point. Think they are similar and I was on the fence, leaned no, with Allen but Redd was a better rebounder. Is that enough to push him to a Hall of Famer? Probably not. Still on fence but closer to the middle after looking at Peja and Allen. Hmm

[A. Silver]

I'm going to say no. He was a nice player with a fantastic three year stretch in the middle of his career, but those Hall of Fame type seasons were surrounded by good but not great years and his career had no longevity at all, never going over 20ppg after his season at 30 years old. Not that it matters much, but his career was also kind of overshadowed by his contract - which may be the worst in league history at this point.

[The Dark Ages]

No!

[buckeyeballa10]

Man, as much as i wanna say yes (GO BUCKS!) i just cant. Guy could shoot the shit out of the ball but didnt have the all around game for long enough in his career. A no for me

[rr1582]

Great shooter, but again not enough to crack the HOF.

[vanimmer]

Aug 16, 2016 16:48:58 GMT rr1582 said:

Great shooter, but again not enough to crack the HOF.

hof is only for the best

[yourkers15]

Gonna go with no just because he doesn't have enough awards or any championships

[don1955]

had to think this one over for a couple of days, but i gotta go no, as if i did not vote others in who compare, cant vote redd in

[verysilentone]

Voting no.

It was tough because the last few years, it seemed like he could have done more, but teams that had him were almost pushing him into retirement to get the 28 million contract off the books. His numbers would probably still have been in line with 20 something PPG, which may have pushed him in.

[bigthunder]

I voted no, great all around player but didn't play well enough at the end of his career.