Post by Rog on Mar 8, 2017 2:21:03 GMT
The 66th nominee for the NBN Hall of Fame was a top 5 pick who had a fantastic first TC prompting some hype. He didn't quite live up to that hype but was a solid scoring small forward who could do a number of things well. Was he still a Hall of Famer or someone who doesn't quite live up to that title? Lets take a look.
Career Stats
31.2 MPG, 19.1 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 2.7 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 1.7 TOPG on 47.6% from the field, 88% from the line, and 44.6% from three
Best Season
Spurs(2005) - 26.4 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 3.3 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 2.4 TOPG on 47% from the field, 84.5% from the line, 43.5% from three
Career Highs
Points: 55
Rebounds: 20
Assists: 12
Steals: 6
Blocks: 4
Awards
2004 - All-Star Rookie Game Participant
2004 - All-Rookie Team
2005 - All-League Third Team
2010 - All-Star Game Participant
2013 - All-Star Game Participant
Arguments For Induction
- Was named to one All-League Third Team and two All-Star Games in his career, proving at least at times he was a top 3 or 4 player at his position for a time.
- Danny Granger was a good scorer for his career and a great one at times. He averaged 19.1 points a game for his career, but was pretty consistently over 20 points a game when he was getting starting level minutes. He also did over 25 a few times, all of this he did while just not turning it over at a high clip. At most he did 2.4 turnovers a game and that is incredibly manageable. He also was incredibly efficient. He shot over 48% from the field 7 times in career, shot over 89% from the line six times, shooting over 45% nine times. Those are really, really good numbers.
- Granger was also a decent passer, though not great. He averaged over 3 assists eight times in his career, while just 2 turnovers in those seasons for a decent-for-a-small forward ratio.
- He was also a decent defender, averaging 1.5 stocks a game for his career and prime, which is not great, but not a hindrance. Also carried a B+ rating for his entire career, getting to A- here and there, with not stupid high stocks, you have to assume his under the hood on ball ratings were pretty solid.
- Overall, his scoring consistency when he was given starting numbers, which teams didn't seem to realize what they had at times and brought him off the bench, Granger was a damn good player who deserves your consideration.
Arguments Against Induction
- Let's get this started with an easy one: Three relevant awards is not enough.
- Was a good, but no where near great scorer. Too many times he was just above average instead of good as well. His biggest argument just wasn't big enough for him to put it over the top when the rest of his game was average as hell.
- Not much to say here in all honesty, hes not a Hall of Famer, period. Does no have a lot to hang his hat on besides his scoring and he averaged under 20 points a game. Sure he was efficient, sure he did a number of things "well" but he did nothing great, and the bar minimum to me for a Hall of Famer is greatness, and Granger just didn't obtain that.
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***
*
