2017 Revote Nominee: Scott Pollard

[Rog]

Couple things here to consider, 
1) A revote should be reevaluated based on other precedents set in the last 7 years since he was voted on before. 
2) Also, it should be more favorable for Pollard to make it. He got 57% of the vote last time and this is his second time through. More scrutiny is advised but also a softer lense as well, given we're not talking first ballot Hall of Famer anymore. 



Here is his the thread with his case and the arguments stated by other GMs:
Scott Pollard's First Writeup


All the other criteria and what not apply here, just vote what you think. 


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]

Scott Pollard's Player Page

[Rog]

Voted yes the first time, voted yes again.

[The Slough]

Good at defense, but not worth HOF. If he had higher average of rpg and lower turnovers per game, then that would swing my vote, but Stocks alone doesn't do it for me.

[JCog72]

Voted yes, I feel like he is a prototypical C for a championship level team

[rr1582]

While Pollard may be exactly what you're looking for throughout the league in a Center & was a very prominent defender...I just don't see where his numbers are worthy of making the HOF, you still have to provide some legitimate ability to score the ball on the offensive end when you are obtaining additional possessions with offensive rebounds. Between his just as frequently having some of the extra possessions result in him either turning the ball over or having his put back blocked or missed far too frequently(of course I can only base this off of how I interpreted his numbers & case from what I remember...without scrubbing through every single game log of his).

[A. Silver]

Well I voted yes the first time around, but I'm changing my vote to 'No' now after looking at his stats. He was a very good rebounder but not elite, atrocious at scoring, turned the ball over too much. He was an elite shot blocker and even got a ton of steals for a big man, but without being an elite rebounder I can't vote to put him in the HOF.

[vanimmer]

Dec 19, 2016 3:41:33 GMT The Slough said:

Good at defense, but not worth HOF. If he had higher average of rpg and lower turnovers per game, then that would swing my vote, but Stocks alone doesn't do it for me.

this for me swell

[bigthunder]

No for me, just not good enough all around.

[The Dark Ages]

Yes!

[verysilentone]

I just can't. 7 PPG on 41% shooting is really awful.

There are bigs coming off the bench averaging more points in less minutes. If he were at 10 PPG, it'd probably be a yes.

[lynchcats]

My vote was no the first time around, and it will remain no the second time around. In the infamous words of the US Supreme Court, I know a Hall of Famer when I see one. And I don't see one here.

[carmelo115]

Not a HOF player in my eyes

[buckeyeballa10]

Lakers said it best, 7 ppg on 41% shooting for a big is pretty bad. Yeah sure 3.5 bpg is good, but it takes more than that to become a HOFer in the beloved NBN.

No for me

[yourkers15]

Went yes last time and will do the same here.