Spencer and Crew

Pictured left to right: "Downtown" Julie Brown, Flavor Flav, Chuck D, Spencer Haywood, and Vernell DeSilva (a long-time friend of Haywood's). Photo was taken in the early 1990s (that Sox logo didn't show up in Chicago until 1991). Reproduced from Haywood's book The Rise, The Fall, The Recovery, written with Scott Ostler.

Spencer Haywood: Keltner List

With the possible induction of Spencer Haywood in the Basketball Hall of Fame, and in deference to the wonderful Basketball-Reference and Bill James, here's a Keltner List for the former Mr. Iman.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in basketball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in basketball? It’s possible. Haywood never finished higher than fifth in MVP voting, although he did receive two first-place votes in 71-72 and four in 72-73. By the loosest definition, some people felt he was the most valuable player in the league, albeit a very small number of people, so, yes, he was considered the best player in basketball. Also of note, Haywood was the MVP of the ABA in his rookie season.

2. Was he the best player on his team? Absolutely. From his first pro season in Denver, his entire career in Seattle, and into his first campaign with the Knicks, Haywood was the best player on his team.

3. Was he the best player in basketball at his position? I think it could be safely argued that Haywood was the premier power forward in the ABA in 69-70 and in the NBA in 71-72 and 72-73. He turned over that crown to Elvin Hayes in 73-74, then, well, the rest was history.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of NBA Finals or Conference Finals? No. Haywood had a chance in 1979-80 with the Lakers, but a debilitating drug addiction proved his undoing. He did, however, lead the Denver Rockets to the ABA Finals in 69-70.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Yes. This is a difficult one to answer, but I think that the fact that even after destroying his career with drugs and spending a year in Italy, Haywood was able to come back to the NBA with Washington for two seasons indicates that his talent was enough to sustain him even after his prime had come and gone.

6. Is he the very best (eligible) basketball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No. According to B-R, Haywood ranks 107^th in Hall of Fame probability, trailing Jamaal Wilkes, Bob Dandridge, Jack Sikma, Chet Walker, Willie Naulls, Mel Hutchins, and others.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? A mixed bag. Again, turning to B-R, Haywood’s similarity score companions are not, for the most part, HOFers. Of the 10 players most similar to Haywood, only two are in the Hall. It should be noted, however, that the player who truly most resembles Haywood, Connie Hawkins, is in the HOF. However, if you look at players with 19 ppg, 9 rpg, and TS% of 52.1, you’re looking at, basically, Hall of Famers.

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? Yes. Haywood is at the bottom of the list due to his lack of games played, but his compatriots are, generally, either in the Hall or will be. However, it’s worth noting that his HOF probability (via B-R) is 51.6%. What does that mean, you ask? Well, Vince Carter’s is more than 85%, so take that into consideration.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his basic statistics? No. As the premier offensive option on his team, Haywood reaped the benefits of having the ball whenever he needed it for the first half of his career. Considering that his primary skill was in scoring and grabbing rebounds, and that those two statistical categories are the most rewarded in NBA history, I think he got his due.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? Ironically, Haywood’s chief competition is another former Sonic, Jack Sikma. It’s a classic case of peak value vs. career value. On the one hand, you’ve got a superstar who grabbed All-NBA honors for a five-year span, but who was useless for the latter half of his career. On the other, you’ve got a crucial member of numerous playoff teams who was an excellent player well into his 30s. If forced to choose, and with no outside considerations factoring in, I think the Hall would opt for Sikma first and Haywood second.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? One MVP in the ABA, none in the NBA. He was in the top five in voting once, but never made the top five in win shares at any point in his NBA career.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame? Haywood played in four NBA All-Star games and one ABA All-Star game. It is relatively certain that had he spent all of 1970-71 on a basketball court rather than a federal one he would have made it to five NBA All-Star games. Even giving credit to Haywood for 1970-71, his fellow five-timers include Brad Daugherty, Marques Johnson, Wayne Embry, Rudy LaRusso, Rudy Tomjanovich, Chris Webber, and Paul Westphal. To make it more extreme, you could give Haywood credit for 1969-70, giving him six appearances, tying him with (wait for it) … Shawn Kemp! Anyways, back to the original question; Haywood played in four All-Star games, tying him with 41 other players, of whom 34 are eligible for the Hall. Of those 34, nine are in the HOF.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win an NBA title? Well, Haywood was the best player on his team for half a decade, and none of those teams made the Conference Finals, let alone the NBA Finals. Does that mean that if he had been drafted by, say, the Knicks rather than the Sonics in the early 1970s he would have been making annual appearances in the NBA Finals? I’d say no. Haywood’s off-court problems seemed to surface no matter where he went, and I think his best situation was as a big fish in a small pond.

14. What impact did the player have on basketball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? Was his college and/or international career especially noteworthy? Well, now. He helped overturn the NBA’s rule against early-entry, so, yeah, he certainly had a major impact in that way. Further, he earned a Gold Medal for the US in the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, and was the leader for that team as well.

Verdict? At his peak, Spencer Haywood was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. However, that peak was sadly cut short by injuries and drugs. The argument, essentially, comes down to this: Does his involvement in ending the early-entry rule push his candidacy from borderline to certainty? To many, the answer is yes, and considering how cavalierly the Hall hands out membership, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to suggest that he “deserves” enshrinement. Personally, I would vote no, simply because his on-court career was lacking, and that he – rather than outside forces – was responsible for that. But, hey, if the Hall can induct the entire roster of the 1960s Boston Celtics, then, yes, I suppose there’s room for Mr. Haywood.

Spencer Haywood and the Hall of Fame

Have you ever had the feeling that you missed out on something? That everyone knows about a story except for you, and you sit there like a fool, completely oblivious?

That's what is happening to me with Spencer Haywood and the Hall of Fame. In July, you might recall, we noticed that Haywood wrote in an online chat at the Seattle Times he was entering the Naismith Hall of Fame in 2012.

I was, to say the least, surprised to hear this. While it had been established that Haywood was among the nominees for the 2012 class, nothing had been confirmed yet, and no media outlet, to my knowledge, had published that story. Further, Haywood has been a nominee in the past, so he's fully aware that being a nominee doesn't necessarily guarantee enshrinement. Former Seattle Sonic Dennis Johnson waited more than a dozen years before he got the call to the Hall, and Haywood has, obviously, waited even longer.

And, yet, Haywood is at it again. In an article posted today at the Huffington Post, Haywood not only states he is going into the Hall in 2012, he even contemplates what he's going to say in his induction speech.

Again, I'll throw it out there: Is Spencer Haywood in the Hall of Fame? Is he being presumptuous, or is he merely just scooping the nomination committee's official statement later this year?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Spencer Haywood & The Hall of Fame

The mangled story of former Sonic Spencer Haywood’s life is cluttered with equal parts anger, disappointment, and persecution.

There is, in that same story, little in the way of recognition.

Frank Hughes now of Sports Illustrated, formerly of the News Tribune, took up the torch on behalf of Haywood in a February 24 column on SI.com. After 1,500 words describing Haywood’s belated and brief notice from the NBA at the just-completed All-Star Game, Hughes writes:

… it's not too late for the game to honor him properly -- with an induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.


Because the Hall is not the Pro Basketball Hall of Fame, all of his contributions to basketball would be recognized somewhere inside those hallowed walls. A sort of lifetime achievement award.

Hughes argues that Haywood’s role in the elimination of the NBA’s antique four years of college rule, the auspicious start to his career, and his status as an Olympic champion and NCAA star combine to elevate him to the Hall of Fame.

As much as I would love to see another former Sonic enshrined in the Hall, and as much respect I have for what Haywood accomplished, I think this argument is debatable at best and ridiculous at worst.

It’s interesting to hear Haywood’s supporters when they detail his career. Actually, “detail” is the wrong word, as they often leave out the juiciest bits of information.

For example, Hughes mentions that Haywood, as a Laker reserve, was suspended for cocaine use during the 1980 NBA Finals, and attempts to elicit sympathy for his subject by way of explaining Haywood was only looking for help, an orphaned kitten merely desiring cup of milk and receiving instead a swift kick onto the sidewalk.

What Hughes neglects to mention is that Haywood reacted to the suspension by planning to murder Coach Paul Westhead (he opted for the messed up brake lining, even going so far as to talk to a “gangster friend” of his (Spencer’s words) to plan it). It was only when Haywood’s mother talked him out of it that the plan was scuttled.

Haywood’s supporters point to his marvelous performance at the 1968 Summer Olympics as an attribute, but leave unsaid the fact that the only reason he was playing was because a number of black athletes were boycotting the Olympics due to racial injustice in the US. Haywood, then, was being rewarded for not caring about some of the same issues that he would point out as immoral less than five years later.

And so it goes. It is undeniable that Haywood was royally screwed by the NBA when he attempted to join it in the early 1970s, just as it is undeniably true that he became the highest paid player in the league in 1975 ($500,000 a year), and then promptly screwed it up by (take your pick) A) playing on a busted knee suffered because of an incident on a wet arena floor while playing for the Sonics or B) doing a crapload of cocaine.

Of course, as Spencer is so quick to claim, “everyone was doing drugs.” Which, of course, makes it okay. And, besides, if it hadn’t been for his supermodel wife, Iman, he never would have taken drugs in the first place. And he wouldn’t have married her if she hadn’t tricked him into impregnating her. And that was only because she wanted a green card when she was on the verge of being kicked out of the US. And after he knocked her up, Haywood had to marry her, because, you know, he’s a gentleman and all.

You see, it’s never Spencer’s fault, none of it.

First he got screwed by the major universities who failed to scout him, then by Adolph Rupp when he kept Spencer out of the University of Tennessee, then the NBA who wouldn’t let him play, then by Seattle because they forced him to play on a wet floor and wouldn’t give him enough cash, then by New York and its crazy nightlife, then by Iman and her seductiveness, then by the Lakers for not appreciating his situation, and then, and then …

Ironically, I’ve spent the past little while wading through Doc: The Rise and Rise of Julius Erving, by Vincent Malozzi (Quick review: This is one lousy book. Long review: Ever read a magazine article and think it would make a great book? It wouldn’t.), and a more disparate comparison between two men could scarcely be made.

Haywood and Erving were born 14 months apart half a century ago. Like Haywood, Erving was not highly recruited out of high school, although his status had more to do with his (lack of) height than anything else.

Like Haywood, Erving wanted to leave school early to earn money for his family. Like Haywood, Erving had to play in the ABA because the NBA wouldn’t let someone with fewer than four years of college in the door.

Unlike Haywood, though, Erving stayed in the ABA – although, to be honest, he tried his best to get into the NBA. But here’s the thing: what people tend to forget about the whole incident is that the NBA was perfectly willing to take on Erving, Haywood, or any other undergrad-turned-pro, so long as they had been four years removed from the start of their college careers.

In other words, if Haywood had waited another year or two, he could have entered the NBA just like Erving did, without any of the legal nonsense. And, that, of course, is how Julius Erving wound up getting a monster (well, 1970s monster, anyways) contract from the New York Nets, because the ABA knew that if they lost Dr. J, they might as well give up, sweet-lookin’ ball and all.

But Spencer Haywood wasn’t interested in all of that – he wanted his money right now, not two years from now. Never mind that he was getting a fair bit of change already, he wanted in the NBA, and he wanted the big, BIG contracts they had to offer.

What portion of Spencer Haywood’s decision to take on the NBA was due to a sense of duty and what portion was due to grabbing some cash is anyone’s guess. I don’t know the answer, and, quite frankly, neither does anyone else, Spencer Haywood included. I’m sure that if you asked him now, he’d tell you it was because of his sense of justice, but I’m guessing if you asked him that question 35 years ago, he’d tell you something completely different. Most likely, considering how desperate he must have been to provide for his family back home, the lure of the NBA’s solid financial footing had to have played a larger role than we hear about.

But, honestly, does it make any difference? Great, he “broke down barriers” for people like Darryl Dawkins and Kwame Brown. Wonderful. Does that make him a Hall of Famer?

Well, is Curt Flood in the Hall? Flood’s decision to essentially give up his career so that baseball players were no longer indentured servants is one hell of a lot less self-serving and more noble than what Haywood did, and Flood has to pay to get into Cooperstown like everyone else.

And, yes, Spencer Haywood has a gold medal. Wonderful. So does Vern Fleming. So does Jon Koncak. So does Tom LaGarde. So does Phil Ford. Are any of them in the Hall? Shawn Kemp won a World Championship, is he knocking on the door at the Hall of Famer? Not exactly.

Kemp’s comparison is perhaps the most apt in this case. In fact, take a quick look at the career NBA numbers of the two (per 36 minutes):

Kemp: 18.9 pts, 10.9 reb, 48.8 FG%,
Haywood: 20.5 pts, 9.9 reb, 46.5 FG%

and their advanced stats:

Kemp: 19.1 PER, 49 eFG%, 17.8 TRB%, 89.5 win shares
Haywood: 17.7 PER, 46.5 eFG%, 13.8 TRB%, 61.4 win shares

Kemp was on the second team of the All-NBA team three times. Haywood was on the first team three times (well, once in the ABA and twice in the NBA) and the second team twice. Kemp made six all-star teams; Haywood made five. Both plummeted from the heights of fame to irrelevancy by their 30th birthdays.

Was Haywood better than Kemp? Arguably. And that’s precisely the point. No one will ever argue that Shawn Kemp deserves to be in the Hall of Fame (well, except for Raf, but that’s another story), but for some reason we’re supposed to come up with outrage over Spencer Haywood’s exclusion, to believe it’s part of some vast conspiracy to thwart him?

Sorry, I’m not buying it. Spencer Haywood had every opportunity to get into the Hall of Fame during his playing career, but whether because of drugs, injuries, or personal reasons it didn’t happen. But those reasons are all his own, and no one else’s. I can't imagine the difficulties he faced as a black man in the 1960s, or growing up in abject poverty, or anything else he dealt with. But as cold as it may sound, the Hall of Fame should not reward people for their hardships, it should reward them for their accomplishments.

In the end, Julius Erving faced many if not all of the same challenges as Haywood, and he managed to overcome them. The fact Haywood couldn’t is not a condemnation of him, but rather a confirmation of Julius’ greatness.

A Cut Above

From the "What The ?" Files (courtesy of Hoopsvibe's 50 Fun NBA Facts):

12. Spencer Haywood, whose Supreme Court battled paved the way for early-entry NBA players, circumcised himself as a teenager.

In that context, I suppose, challenging a professional sports league all the way to the Supreme Court doesn't seem all that incredible of a feat, now does it?

Kind of reminds me of the scene in JAWS where Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw exchange stories about their scars (this isn't the whole scene, but it's the best part). I'm guessing if Spencer Haywood had been on that boat, Quint and Hooper would have just shut up and drank some more whiskey.

Bottom line: Xavier McDaniel has now been surpassed as the toughest man in Sonic history.