Robert Horry, Hall of Famer, is the king.

[Mavs<Spurs]

The future Hall of Famer just showed up in the fourth quarter yet again when we needed him.

The saying legends are born in the playoffs should have his picture beside it and a collection of Robert Horry's greatest hits (from 3). I lost track: how many teams has he sent packing in the playoffs?



:ihit :ihit :ihit

[aaronstampler]

Yeah, him and Mark Lemke. Gimme a break.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Yeah, him and Mark Lemke. Gimme a break.
Did Mark Lemke hit a 3 on the road in game 5 of the finals?

Ask Sacramento about Horry.

He's hit more big shots from 3 in the final minutes of big games than almost anybody you can think of.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Yeah, him and Mark Lemke. Gimme a break.

wrong sport.

:nope

[Mavs<Spurs]

Horry went on to be a key member of the Rockets' title teams and began to lay the foundations for his "Big Shot Bob" reputation with a game-winning jumper in the final seconds of Game 1 of the Rockets 1995 Western Conference Finals series vs. the San Antonio Spurs.

Horry was a member of the Lakers when they won three consecutive NBA championships (2000, 2001, and 2002), and he earned a reputation for coming up with clutch playoff baskets when the Lakers needed them most.

Over the Lakers' three-year run, Horry made a game-clinching three-pointer in at least one game in four straight playoff series (starting with the 2001 NBA Finals), but perhaps none more important than in game 4 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals against the Sacramento Kings. Trailing two games to one in the series, and facing game 5 at Sacramento, the Lakers looked bad early, and were down by as many as 24 points in the first half. The Lakers fought hard and got back in the game, but were still down 99-97 with 11 seconds to play. On the final possession, Horry's teammates Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal missed consecutive layups, apparently dooming the Lakers. The ball bounced off the rim to Horry, behind the three point line, who hit a three-pointer as time expired for a 100-99 Lakers' victory. The shot probably saved the Lakers' season, as they would otherwise have been down 3-1 in the series against a very tough Sacramento team, with 2 of the remaining 3 games to be played at Sacramento. The Lakers would go on to win the series in 7 games, and would sweep the New Jersey Nets 4-0 in the NBA Finals.

2002-03 season, Horry became a free agent. Citing concerns over family, all of whom live in Houston, Horry signed as a free agent with the defending champion San Antonio Spurs. In game 5 of the 2005 NBA Finals against the Detroit Pistons, Horry came alive in the fourth quarter to boost San Antonio to a win and 3-2 series lead over Detroit. After not scoring at all until a last-second three in the third quarter, he capped a stunning 21-point performance in the fourth and overtime by making another amazing clutch shot. Horry got the ball with nine seconds remaining in overtime and promptly drained his fifth three-pointer of the night for a Spurs' one-point victory. Horry shot 13-27 from behind the arc for the series' first 6 games, and sank 7 of 12 shots, including 5-6 from behind the arc, in game 5. He scored 21 of San Antonio's final 35 points in that classic contest. The Spurs would go on to win the series in 7 games, winning their third NBA Championship in 7 seasons, and giving Horry his sixth ring.

He is second on the all-time list of three-pointers made in the playoffs, behind only Reggie Miller. He also holds the record for three pointers all-time in the NBA Finals, passing Michael Jordan's previous record of 42, and finished 2005 with 53 career Finals 3-pointers.

many believe that he deserves to become a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame due to his clutch shooting in the playoffs; this debate is still ongoing and will likely not be decided until after he has retired.

Horry collected his sixth championship as a member of the Spurs in 2005. That year he joined John Salley as the only players to win NBA rings with three different teams. He has also won two titles with the Rockets and three with the Lakers.

:nope :nope :nope

[Mavs<Spurs]

Yeah, him and Mark Lemke. Gimme a break.

Mark Alan Lemke (born August 13, 1965) is a former Major League Baseball player. Nicknamed "The Lemmer", he was a popular second baseman for the Atlanta Braves from 1988 to 1997.

A native of Utica, New York, Lemke was drafted in the 27th round of the 1983 amateur draft by the Atlanta Braves. Lemke decided against attending Purdue University and spent the next four years in the minor league system before making his debut in September 1988 when the Braves called him up from AAA Richmond when the roster expanded to 40 players. Lemke would split time between the minor and major leagues until 1990.

Not known for his bat, Lemke was an excellent defensive 2nd baseman and was a key component to the winning formula of the Atlanta Braves in the 1990s, a team that often relied on pitching and defense. He did become one of the stars with his hitting during the 1991 World Series when the Braves faced the Minnesota Twins. Lemke tied Billy Johnson's 1947 record for triples in a World Series. The bat that Lemke hit his third triple with was sent to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York for display.

Leaving the Braves after the 1997 season, Lemke suffered an injury while playing for the Boston Red Sox and retired after the 1998 season.

Mark Lemke is remembered fondly by Braves fans for his solid defensive performances at second base for teams that won four National League titles and one World Series championship.

Currently, Lemke hosts the Braves pregame listener call-in show on the Braves radio network with co-host Chip Caray and the postgame show on 96 Rock FM and 640 AM in Atlanta with co-host Stu Klitenic.

He is credited as the accidental namesake of the popular Homestar Runner cartoon, when a friend of creators Mike and Matt Chapman unfamiliar with baseball terminology incorrectly referred to Lemke as the "home star runner" for the Braves.

Wrong Sport and lacked the clutch performance that Horry has given.

:nope :nope :nope

[itzsoweezee]

many believe that he deserves to become a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame due to his clutch shooting in the playoffs; this debate is still ongoing and will likely not be decided until after he has retired.





amazing. so players in the basketball hall of fame aren't inducted until they're retired? wow, will the wisdom coming from you ever stop?

you should probably lay the crack pipe down. and the other five of you in the known universe who also believe horry is a hall of famer should lay off as well.

[Mavs<Spurs]

amazing. so players in the basketball hall of fame aren't inducted until they're retired? wow, will the wisdom coming from you ever stop?

you should probably lay the crack pipe down. and the other five of you in the known universe who also believe horry is a hall of famer should lay off as well.

reread the post.

The post did not say that nobody is elected to the basketball hall of fame until after they are retired.

The post said that the debate about Horry being a hall of famer won't be resolved until after he retires, probably.


Literacy is an important skill. Do other people have to fill out your job applications?

[Mavs<Spurs]

amazing. so players in the basketball hall of fame aren't inducted until they're retired? wow, will the wisdom coming from you ever stop?

you should probably lay the crack pipe down. and the other five of you in the known universe who also believe horry is a hall of famer should lay off as well.


He is probably the only person reading this that does not realize that I posted this from another source, Wikipedia.



:bang :bang :bang

[Mavs<Spurs]

He is probably the only person reading this that does not realize that I posted this from another source, Wikipedia.



:bang :bang :bang
:owned

[Marklar MM]

Doesn't deserve it. Based on that assumption, Steve Kerr should also be in the HOF. :)

Scroll down to the bottom and look at the HOF monitor.
http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HORRYRO01

[Mavs<Spurs]

The fact that this argument can be made shows that MannyisGod's thread was way off base.

That was the reason I started this thread in the first place.

And it appears to have made the point clear.

:elephant :elephant :elephant

[Mavs<Spurs]

Doesn't deserve it. Based on that assumption, Steve Kerr should also be in the HOF. :)

Scroll down to the bottom and look at the HOF monitor.
http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HORRYRO01


And if somebody agrees with you that Steve Kerr should be in the HOF, then what?

How now?

[Marklar MM]

You honestly believe Kerr should be in the HOF?

[Mavs<Spurs]

And if somebody agrees with you that Steve Kerr should be in the HOF, then what?

How now?


If you want to use a proof by contradiction, you must show the contradiction.

:nope

[Mavs<Spurs]

You honestly believe Kerr should be in the HOF?


I didn't say that.

read my last post please.

[itzsoweezee]

reread the post.

The post did not say that nobody is elected to the basketball hall of fame until after they are retired.

The post said that the debate about Horry being a hall of famer won't be resolved until after he retires, probably.


Literacy is an important skill. Do other people have to fill out your job applications?

wow, that distinction you made is . . . hilarious. assuming there even was a debate (there isn't, he's not a HOFer), the debate could not be resolved before he retired since a resolution would require either (1) a consensus that horry is not a HOFer or (2) a consensus that horry is an HOFer. You already stated that (1) is not what you were saying. and (2) cannot be decided until after horry retires.

[Mavs<Spurs]

wow, that distinction you made is . . . hilarious. assuming there even was a debate (there isn't, he's not a HOFer), the debate could not be resolved before he retired since a resolution would require either (1) a consensus that horry is not a HOFer or (2) a consensus that horry is an HOFer. You already stated that (1) is not what you were saying. and (2) cannot be decided until after horry retires.


Quite apparently there is. I just demonstrated that a plausible argument could be made for Horry being in the HOF. In fact, the author of the Wikipedia article wrote that a plausible argument could be made. Rich Kamla of NBAtv also said the same thing.

The fact that it is even possible to construct a plausible argument for this should show that MannyisGod's thread that Horry=Nazr is completely off base.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Assertion is not proof.


He asserts that Horry is not a Hall of Famer. Therefore, he isn't.

He asserts that there is no debate. Therefore, there isn't.
Yet some people assert that there is a plausible argument that can be made.


Is he the pope? Is this by divine fiat or am I supposed to just take your word for it?


No debate exists? Do you want me to post a definition of debate. A debate need not include more than one person on either side.

So, it appears that you are in all probability wrong since there exists at least one person (probably) who does believe that Robert Horry belongs in the HOF.

[itzsoweezee]

Assertion is not proof.

He asserts that Horry is not a Hall of Famer. Therefore, he isn't.

Is he the pope? Is this by divine fiat or am I supposed to just take your word for it?


The lack of ability to construct logical arguments does not speak well of your reasoning ability.


i guess that makes you a hypocrite lacking reasoning ability.

[Mavs<Spurs]

i guess that makes you a hypocrite, lacking reasoning ability.


I felt that a comma would help.
proving math theorems requires the use of logic and reasoning.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Definitions of debate on the Web:

* argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
* consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
* argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
* discuss the pros and cons of an issue

[Mavs<Spurs]

Definitions of debate on the Web:

* argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
* consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
* argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
* discuss the pros and cons of an issue


Notice that there is no requirement that the number of people supporting each side must be greater than one.

[MannyIsGod]

Definitions of idiot on the Web:

*Mavs<Spurs

[Mavs<Spurs]

Notice that there is no requirement that the number of people supporting each side must be greater than one.


So, then, it seems fairly clear that there does exist a debate over whether or not Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Definitions of idiot on the Web:

*Mavs<Spurs

Yup, you are clearly brilliant and much, much smarter than me.

I guess not everybody can be as intellectually gifted as you.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Definitions of idiot on the Web:

*Mavs<Spurs


Notice, I pointed out my opinion that his thread about Horry was offbase.

He decided that failing any meaningful, relevant response, he would simply insult me.

[MannyIsGod]

You can't get your master's in math without being able to reason fairly well with yourself.


Yup, you are clearly brilliant and much, much smarter than me.Fixed it for you. 90% of the posts in your thread should not come from yourself. The entire point of a message board is communication with others, not just a long windbag of a post seperated into many posts because you can't concentrate long enough to put all of your (lame) thoughts into one entry.

[itzsoweezee]

So, then, it seems fairly clear that there does exist a debate over whether or not Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer.


i could go out and find dozens of loonies that think the US govt. blew up the WTC. that doesn't mean that there is a debate over it. just like the fact that a loonie such as yourself thinks horry is a HOFer doesn't mean there's a debate as to whether horry is a HOFer.

[Mavs<Spurs]

i could go out and find dozens of loonies that think the US govt. blew up the WTC. that doesn't mean that there is a debate over it. just like the fact that a loonie such as yourself thinks horry is a HOFer doesn't mean there's a debate as to whether horry is a HOFer.


I didn't say that you couldn't.

However, I was pointing out that in some sense there does exist this debate and if you want to maintain that there is no debate you must carefully define your term. For example, you could say that based upon a survey, 85% of basketball fans don't believe that Robert Horry deserves to be HOF and since only 15 % or less of basketball fans feel he should, there is not a meaningful substantial debate within the world of basketball fans in the sense that the proposition is not both defended and attacked by a relatively equal amount of people.

I appreciate the need you felt to shift your argument (as the first argument made clearly seems to fail and you need to rescue it from the list of lost causes), but I feel that this lack of statistical support (from a survey) regarding your modified claim undermines the strength of the new argument.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Fixed it for you. 90% of the posts in your thread should not come from yourself. The entire point of a message board is communication with others, not just a long windbag of a post seperated (sic) [separated] into many posts because you can't concentrate long enough to put all of your (lame) thoughts into one entry.

The first part you attempted to fix is not fixed. I did fix the spelling of separated for you.

To prove a math theorem, you must show that the consequent of the theorem logically follows from the antecedent.

Either logical flaws exist in the argument or they don't. This can be proven.

Moreover, as this can be objectively verified (the logical argument of a proof), then one's ability to reason must be more than with oneself. Others must agree that the argument is valid and sound.


In regard to the second part, you have a good point. I am just trying to catch up to your 20,000 posts. How many years have you been here? The per diem (sp?) might be interesting.

However, in this case, I did this because I was making a case that your thread that Horry = Nazr is unfair, in my opinion.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Fixed it for you. 90% of the posts in your thread should not come from yourself. The entire point of a message board is communication with others, not just a long windbag of a post seperated into many posts because you can't concentrate long enough to put all of your (lame) thoughts into one entry.

This coming from a man who is averaging better than a post an hour over the last 24 hours. Of course, you don't get 20,000 posts easily.

:rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

It's good to see this thread devolving into the long-since-overdue primer on things like mathematical logic and grammar. This forum has really needed those things in the guise of posts about the Hall of Fame.

For what it's worth, there may, in some purely logical sense, be a proveable debate about Robert Horry's worthiness as a Hall of Fame inductee. I'm not sure, however, that the existence of such a debate is, standing alone, evidence that any of the arguments for his induction have any merit whatsoever. I suspect that if I were so inclined, I could probably dig up a Hall-of-Fame argument on the net for some player less accomplished than either Robert Horry or Steve Kerr. I suppose that by the logic applied in this thread, I could say that there was some debate about whether that person should be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame and use that thread to counter another poster's sentiment that my player is not a Hall-of-Famer. Of course, that proof would lack any reference to objective reasonableness and would rely entirely on the degree to which I (or any of my readers) consider the argument in my favor to be reasonable at all.

That is, in a long-winded sense, my way of saying that I think any argument suggesting that Robert Horry is a Hall-of-Famer is one that is patently unreasonable. Don't get me wrong -- I respect the hell out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of title teams. To that end, Robert Horry is a wonderful basketball player and certainly one of the more significant figures of the last 15-20 years of NBA play. But, other than his longevity and his propensity to end up with the transcendant players of his era, I'm not sure that there is much to recommend a guy as a Hall-of-Famer when he has never been All-NBA, has never made an All-Star team, has never led his league in any meaningful statistical category, and has career averages that are all, well, about average.

The Lemke example isn't perfect, but it's at least in the ballpark. I'd thnk that Horry's career is a bit more like that of, say, Scott Brosius -- a guy who was a piece to a team that won multiple titles and a guy who came up with big hits in playoff situations, but not a guy who anyone would ever consider for the Hall-of-Fame.

[bdictjames]

If he captures another ring this year, would he be considered as a HoF?

[Mavs<Spurs]

It's good to see this thread devolving into the long-since-overdue primer on things like mathematical logic and grammar. This forum has really needed those things in the guise of posts about the Hall of Fame.

For what it's worth, there may, in some purely logical sense, be a proveable debate about Robert Horry's worthiness as a Hall of Fame inductee. I'm not sure, however, that the existence of such a debate is, standing alone, evidence that any of the arguments for his induction have any merit whatsoever. I suspect that if I were so inclined, I could probably dig up a Hall-of-Fame argument on the net for some player less accomplished than either Robert Horry or Steve Kerr. I suppose that by the logic applied in this thread, I could say that there was some debate about whether that person should be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame and use that thread to counter another poster's sentiment that my player is not a Hall-of-Famer. Of course, that proof would lack any reference to objective reasonableness and would rely entirely on the degree to which I (or any of my readers) consider the argument in my favor to be reasonable at all.

That is, in a long-winded sense, my way of saying that I think any argument suggesting that Robert Horry is a Hall-of-Famer is one that is patently unreasonable. Don't get me wrong -- I respect the hell out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of title teams. To that end, Robert Horry is a wonderful basketball player and certainly one of the more significant figures of the last 15-20 years of NBA play. But, other than his longevity and his propensity to end up with the transcendant players of his era, I'm not sure that there is much to recommend a guy as a Hall-of-Famer when he has never been All-NBA, has never made an All-Star team, has never led his league in any meaningful statistical category, and has career averages that are all, well, about average.

The Lemke example isn't perfect, but it's at least in the ballpark. I'd thnk that Horry's career is a bit more like that of, say, Scott Brosius -- a guy who was a piece to a team that won multiple titles and a guy who came up with big hits in playoff situations, but not a guy who anyone would ever consider for the Hall-of-Fame.

No, I agree with you. It is much better to use ad hominem arguments than arguments that involve logic and reason. Had someone not decided to throw Horry under the bus, this thread would not have been started. The point made in this thread is that Horry = the next Nazr is unfair, imo. Arguments ought to be reasonable imo. Apparently, you disagree.

Clearly, this thread is not an attempt to prove by exhaustion (examining all cases) something that in the final analysis will depend upon one's subjective opinion. However, in my view, the fact that people such as Rich Kamla say that "a plausible argument" can be made suggests that Horry=new Nazr formula is not fair in the eyes of a number of basketball fans.

To my knowledge, no respected basketball commentator has ever suggested that there exists a plausible argument that Nazr Mohammed deserves entrance into the Hall of Fame.

This distinction between the two certainly seems to suggest that Horry is not the new Nazr.

If you can't see that, then there is nothing that I can say to change your mind.

You can attempt to buttress the argument that Horry is the new Nazr. I can continue to point out logical flaws in arguments that say such a thing.
Again, obviously, ultimately, this seems to depend upon people's opinions.

[FromWayDowntown]

If he captures another ring this year, would he be considered as a HoF?

I don't think so, because the Hall of Fame is about a body of work, not a few great performances. Robert Horry's body of work is above average in the sense that he's played a long career and been a contributor on good/great teams throughout. He's hit a number of big shots, too. But, in the end, his body of work -- his regular season numbers, his postseason numbers, along with those great performances -- doesn't strike me as remotely strong enough to be considered a Hall-of-Famer.

He'll certainly not be soon forgotten as a player, but he's not among the elite of the elite who've ever played the game, which is a baseline standard for Hall-of-Fame induction, it seems to me.

[Mavs<Spurs]

It's good to see this thread devolving into the long-since-overdue primer on things like mathematical logic and grammar. This forum has really needed those things in the guise of posts about the Hall of Fame.
Either you are using logic to critique this post or you aren't. If you are critiquing it on the basis of your understanding of logic, then you can't very well criticize another for having done so in the past. Otherwise, you are engaging in hypocrisy. (that doesn't mean that you are a hypocrite; it means that in this one example, you would be condemning someone else for doing what you yourself are doing right now.


For what it's worth, there may, in some purely logical sense, be a proveable debate about Robert Horry's worthiness as a Hall of Fame inductee. I'm not sure, however, that the existence of such a debate is, standing alone, evidence that any of the arguments for his induction have any merit whatsoever. I suspect that if I were so inclined, I could probably dig up a Hall-of-Fame argument on the net for some player less accomplished than either Robert Horry or Steve Kerr. I suppose that by the logic applied in this thread, I could say that there was some debate about whether that person should be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame and use that thread to counter another poster's sentiment that my player is not a Hall-of-Famer. Of course, that proof would lack any reference to objective reasonableness and would rely entirely on the degree to which I (or any of my readers) consider the argument in my favor to be reasonable at all.

The title of the post that I am disagreeing with says that Horry=newNazr. If the title of that thread had been Horry is not a Hall of Famer, this thread would not have been started. Please read the other posts leading up to this. Otherwise, you look foolish.



That is, in a long-winded sense, my way of saying that I think any argument suggesting that Robert Horry is a Hall-of-Famer is one that is patently unreasonable. Don't get me wrong -- I respect the hell out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of title teams. To that end, Robert Horry is a wonderful basketball player and certainly one of the more significant figures of the last 15-20 years of NBA play. But, other than his longevity and his propensity to end up with the transcendant players of his era, I'm not sure that there is much to recommend a guy as a Hall-of-Famer when he has never been All-NBA, has never made an All-Star team, has never led his league in any meaningful statistical category, and has career averages that are all, well, about average.

The Lemke example isn't perfect, but it's at least in the ballpark. I'd thnk that Horry's career is a bit more like that of, say, Scott Brosius -- a guy who was a piece to a team that won multiple titles and a guy who came up with big hits in playoff situations, but not a guy who anyone would ever consider for the Hall-of-Fame.

You missed the main point of the entire thread. Another poster started a thread and wrote that Horry=new Nazr. In my opinion, that thread is incorrect. The main point of this thread is that Horry does not equal the new Nazr. The point is that, in my opinion, Horry in his career has shown himself to be a better player than Nazr has in his career.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, I agree with you. It is much better to use ad hominem arguments, then arguments that involve logic and reason. Had someone not decided to throw Horry under the bus, this thread would not have been started. The point made in this thread is that Horry = the next Nazr is unfair, imo. Arguments ought to reasonable imo. Apparently, you disagree.

I'm all about arguments being reasonable. I don't think the "Horry is a Hall of Famer" argument is a reasonable one. Not remotely. I can, however, see the reasonableness in comparing his recent play (at times) to the play that the Spurs got out of Nazr Mohammed at times during 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Is it your suggestion that a player's recent efforts cannot ever be compared to those of another player with an inferior track record? I can't remotely see the reasonableness in that assertion. It seems to me that relying on a player's history as a basis to dispel criticism of his current play is a bit like saying that the 16 titles the Celtics have won precludes criticism of the current state of that franchise -- or like saying that the Spurs' 3 titles make them a team that is superior to the Dalllas Mavericks. The current state of affairs sometimes bears little similarity with what came before.


Clearly, this thread is not an attempt to prove by exhaustion (examining all cases) something that in the final analysis will depend upon one's subjective opinion. However, in my view, the fact that people such as Rich Kamla say that "a plausible argument" can be made suggests that Horry=new Nazr formula is not fair in the eyes of a number of basketball fans.

To my knowledge, no respected basketball commentator has ever suggested that there exists a plausible argument that Nazr Mohammed deserves entrance into the Hall of Fame.

Again -- so your point then is that Robert Horry's play cannot ever be equated to Nazr Mohammed's because you think there's a "plausible argument" for Horry' induction into the Hall of Fame and no such argument for Mohammed? It seems that there's a logical step missing in that analysis, unless your conclusion is that a guy who has a plausible argument for inclusion in the Hall of Fame can never play at the same level as a guy for whom no such argument exists. But, again, that conclusion strikes me as utterly unreasonable.


This distinction between the two certainly seems to suggest that Horry is not the new Nazr.

I disagree. I'm not entirely sure that I'd call Horry the new Mohammed; but I'm also entirely sure that if Horry's play was similar to Mohammed's, he could certainly be compared directly to Nazr. His career accomplishments have nothing whatsoever to do with how he's playing right now. Some are willing to overlook a player's current ineffectiveness because of past accomplishments; some aren't so willing. Frankly, I think the latter is the more reasonable position, for the reasons described above.


If you can't see that, then there is nothing that I can say to change your mind.

You can attempt to buttress the argument that Horry is the new Nazr. I can continue to point out logical flaws in arguments that say such a thing.
Again, obviously, ultimately, this ultimately seems to depend upon people's opinions.[/B]

Now wait a second -- if there are logical flaws in the argument (as you've suggested) then there's nothing that should depend on anyone's opinion, as a matter of pure logic. Obviously, if you think there is room for differences of opinion to inform the views of this situation, then you either think one of the existing opinions is inherently illogical (which is not at all what you've said) or you're admitting that your position is one that cannot be proven conclusively by use of logic. I'd be inclined to the latter view, since player evaluation and comparison is never, ever a matter of pure logic. And, for the reasons I've cited, it's preposterous to me to say that a player's history somehow negates any perceived aspersions on his current play by favorable comparison to mediocre players. So which is it?

[Mavs<Spurs]

Thus, FromWayDowntown and MannyisGod notwithstanding, Horry over his career has indeed shown himself to be better than Nazr Mohammed, in my opinion.


Obviously, FromWayDowntown, feel free to post that Horry=newNazr. However, it must not involve logic since you, as the pope of the forum, have ruled that out of bounds. That does allow the ad hominem type of argument which you didn't find objectionable.




The members of this forum will have to decide if they agree with you that Horry over his career has not shown himself to be better than Nazr Mohammed has over his career.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thus, FromWayDowntown and MannyisGod notwithstanding, Horry over his career has indeed shown himself to be better than Nazr Mohammed, in my opinion.


Obviously, FromWayDowntown, feel free to post that Horry=newNazr. However, it must not involve logic since you, as the pope of the forum, have ruled that out of bounds. That does allow the ad hominem type of argument which you didn't find objectionable.




The members of this forum will have to decide if they agree with you that Horry over his career has not shown himself to be better than Nazr Mohammed has over his career.



but if the point is whether Horry right now = Nazr from last year, what difference does Horry's career make, logically? Really. I'm trying to figure out how Horry's career makes the criticism of his current play unreasonable.

My posts certainly don't suggest that I think that Horry over his career = Nazr over his career; I'd have be absolutely unreasonable to make such an argument. But, again, what does a career have to do with right now?

[FromWayDowntown]

Obviously, FromWayDowntown, feel free to post that Horry=newNazr. However, it must not involve logic since you, as the pope of the forum, have ruled that out of bounds. That does allow the ad hominem type of argument which you didn't find objectionable.

One other thing -- I'm not sure that anything that I've argued here could be considered ad hominem. I'm certainly not attacking you, except to the extent that I disagree with your logic. That, though, is not an ad hominem response.

Since you're so fond of wikipedia -- ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

[Mavs<Spurs]

I'm all about arguments being reasonable. I don't think the "Horry is a Hall of Famer" argument is a reasonable one. Not remotely. On the other hand, others do. That is their opinion.

I can, however, see the reasonableness in comparing his recent play (at times) to the play that the Spurs got out of Nazr Mohammed at times during 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Is it your suggestion that a player's recent efforts cannot ever be compared to those of another player with an inferior track record? I can't remotely see the reasonableness in that assertion. It seems to me that relying on a player's history as a basis to dispel criticism of his current play is a bit like saying that the 16 titles the Celtics have won precludes criticism of the current state of that franchise -- or like saying that the Spurs' 3 titles make them a team that is superior to the Dalllas Mavericks. The current state of affairs sometimes bears little similarity with what came before.



Again -- so your point then is that Robert Horry's play cannot ever be equated to Nazr Mohammed's because you think there's a "plausible argument" for Horry' induction into the Hall of Fame and no such argument for Mohammed?


So, after each bad game of any player, let's write that player = the new Nazr. Just remember to do it after every game.

It seems that there's a logical step missing in that analysis, unless your conclusion is that a guy who has a plausible argument for inclusion in the Hall of Fame can never play at the same level as a guy for whom no such argument exists. But, again, that conclusion strikes me as utterly unreasonable.

So, based upon one game, Tim's game was like somebody mediocre. Therefore, he looks like the new....
Seems to be a serious problem with your argument.
The choice of the number of games is arbitrary, among other things.



I disagree. I'm not entirely sure that I'd call Horry the new Mohammed; but I'm also entirely sure that if Horry's play was similar to Mohammed's, he could certainly be compared directly to Nazr. His career accomplishments have nothing whatsoever to do with how he's playing right now. Some are willing to overlook a player's current ineffectiveness because of past accomplishments; some aren't so willing. Frankly, I think the latter is the more reasonable position, for the reasons described above.



Now wait a second -- if there are logical flaws in the argument (as you've suggested) then there's nothing that should depend on anyone's opinion, as a matter of pure logic.

This is incorrect. You can make a logically flawed argument involving opinion.
MJ is better than Scottie.
Scottie is very good.
Therefore, ought of logical necessity MJ is the best player of all time.

The consequent is not logically required by the antecedent.

Obviously, if you think there is room for differences of opinion to inform the views of this situation, then you either think one of the existing opinions is inherently illogical (which is not at all what you've said) or you're admitting that your position is one that cannot be proven conclusively by use of logic.

false dichotomy.

I am pointing out that the arguments made are illogical. That does not necessitate that I even take a position on the truthfulness of a proposition.



I'd be inclined to the latter view, since player evaluation and comparison is never, ever a matter of pure logic.

And, for the reasons I've cited, it's preposterous to me to say that a player's history somehow negates any perceived aspersions on his current play by favorable comparison to mediocre players.

I didn't say that Horry is not subject to current critiques, so long as it is born in mind that over his career, Horry has shown himself to be a better player.

It appears that the argument that you are making is not being consistently applied. How many games must have been played in your view badly? What mitigates against criticism of that player? So, then you are not being consistent with your own rule.



So which is it?





:nope

[Mavs<Spurs]

One other thing -- I'm not sure that anything that I've argued here could be considered ad hominem. I'm certainly not attacking you, except to the extent that I disagree with your logic. That, though, is not an ad hominem response.

Since you're so fond of wikipedia -- ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)


Again, literacy skills are important.

You criticized the use of logic in posting. You did not say anything about the ad hominem argument made by the other poster. So, it appears that one bothered you more than the other.

:nope :nope :nope

[Mavs<Spurs]

but if the point is whether Horry right now = Nazr from last year, what difference does Horry's career make, logically? Really. I'm trying to figure out how Horry's career makes the criticism of his current play unreasonable.

My posts certainly don't suggest that I think that Horry over his career = Nazr over his career; I'd have be absolutely unreasonable to make such an argument. But, again, what does a career have to do with right now?


Equality is not something that changes over time.

I don't know what else to tell you about that one.

If a=b now, then a=b in ten minutes as well.

I can try to help you some with the math, but you're going to have to do better than this kind of fundamental mistake.

[Mavs<Spurs]

hat does allow the ad hominem type of argument which you didn't find objectionable.




One other thing -- I'm not sure that anything that I've argued here could be considered ad hominem. I'm certainly not attacking you, except to the extent that I disagree with your logic. That, though, is not an ad hominem response.

Since you're so fond of wikipedia -- ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)


Did you object to the ad hominem comment made by another which called me an idiot?

If you didn't, then you didn't find it objectionable. That's exactly what I posted.
Therefore, what I posted was correct and in this case, this particular post of yours is not really relevant, is it?


:nope :nope :nope

[FromWayDowntown]

Equality is not something that changes over time.

I don't know what else to tell you about that one.

If a=b now, then a=b in ten minutes as well.

I can try to help you some with the math, but you're going to have to do better than this kind of fundamental mistake.

If that's true, then Robert Horry, in the very first second he ever stepped onto an NBA hardwood, was (in your estimation at least) immediately comparable to a Hall of Famer, right? Since, after all, equality is not something that changes over time.

[Mavs<Spurs]

If that's true, then Robert Horry, in the very first second he ever stepped onto an NBA hardwood, was (in your estimation at least) immediately comparable to a Hall of Famer, right? Since, after all, equality is not something that changes over time.


I already made it clear why I started this thread. The point that I am making in this thread is that in my opinion, Horry over his career is greater than Nazr over his career, so far at least.

[Mavs<Spurs]

If that's true, then Robert Horry, in the very first second he ever stepped onto an NBA hardwood, was (in your estimation at least) immediately comparable to a Hall of Famer, right? Since, after all, equality is not something that changes over time.


Look, this is ridiculous.

I started this thread to simply say that in my opinion, Horry over his career has shown himself to be a better player than Nazr has over his career, thus far.

You even admit that you agree with this statement.

And I admit with you that prior to last game, he had not been particularly effective, imo.


That was the main point here and we both already agree.

Each person will have to decide when it is fair and meaningful to say some player is not the Nazr during the present moment. How many bad games must they play? When do they find it reasonable to make such a statement. Each person must also decide if the player's achievements compel them to show a little more respect before equating them with the next Nazr.

Horry is probably in the last year of his career. In my view, Horry's achievements make me less willing to speak badly about him this year, even if he doesn't do that great.

Others apparently feel differently.

[nkdlunch]

Horry has always been the perfect and most clutch role player in the history of the NBA. If not for him, Rockets, lakers and Spurs would have at least 1 ring less each. But I'm not sure if that qualifies for HOF

[MannyIsGod]

This coming from a man who is averaging better than a post an hour over the last 24 hours. Of course, you don't get 20,000 posts easily.

:rolleyes:lol

And how many have you averaged over the past 24 hours based on your posts in this thread alone? My god your arguments get weaker and weaker as they go along.

With all of your bullshit posting where you're trying to make faux logical sense with FWDT, you forget to realized that perhaps I was comparing Horry to Nazr in one aspect of their games that wasn't nessecarily based on statistical or career accomplishments. You're so stuck in your math and logic world that you fail to acknowledge more subtle comparisons.

My god, you're dense.

And for the record, if you want to dispute something someone starts a thread over, you can do so WITHIN the thread. You see, thats how message boards work!

[ShoogarBear]

It's good to see this thread devolving into the long-since-overdue primer on things like mathematical logic and grammar. This forum has really needed those things in the guise of posts about the Hall of Fame.

For what it's worth, there may, in some purely logical sense, be a proveable debate about Robert Horry's worthiness as a Hall of Fame inductee. I'm not sure, however, that the existence of such a debate is, standing alone, evidence that any of the arguments for his induction have any merit whatsoever. I suspect that if I were so inclined, I could probably dig up a Hall-of-Fame argument on the net for some player less accomplished than either Robert Horry or Steve Kerr. I suppose that by the logic applied in this thread, I could say that there was some debate about whether that person should be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame and use that thread to counter another poster's sentiment that my player is not a Hall-of-Famer. Of course, that proof would lack any reference to objective reasonableness and would rely entirely on the degree to which I (or any of my readers) consider the argument in my favor to be reasonable at all.

That is, in a long-winded sense, my way of saying that I think any argument suggesting that Robert Horry is a Hall-of-Famer is one that is patently unreasonable. Don't get me wrong -- I respect the hell out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of title teams. To that end, Robert Horry is a wonderful basketball player and certainly one of the more significant figures of the last 15-20 years of NBA play. But, other than his longevity and his propensity to end up with the transcendant players of his era, I'm not sure that there is much to recommend a guy as a Hall-of-Famer when he has never been All-NBA, has never made an All-Star team, has never led his league in any meaningful statistical category, and has career averages that are all, well, about average.

The Lemke example isn't perfect, but it's at least in the ballpark. I'd thnk that Horry's career is a bit more like that of, say, Scott Brosius -- a guy who was a piece to a team that won multiple titles and a guy who came up with big hits in playoff situations, but not a guy who anyone would ever consider for the Hall-of-Fame.Ditto.

[AFBlue]

I already made it clear why I started this thread. The point that I am making in this thread is that in my opinion, Horry over his career is greater than Nazr over his career, so far at least.


If you're assertion is that Horry>Nazr, then why not title the thread "Horry>Nazr" to directly contradict the assertion made Manny? Why take it as far as to say he's a Hall of Famer if that ultimately isn't the reason you posted?

Because I'm confused, do you or do you not think Horry is a Hall of Famer?

I personally do not think he is, but I'll bet he has more noteriety in 25 years than some of those future Hall of Famers because of his clutch role on those 6 (+?) rings.

[dg7md]

Horry probably does deserve it for all of the rings he got, especially if he plays a big part in a ring this year for us.

[Phenomanul]

"Hall of Fame"

Horry has been by far the clutchest playoff performer ever to lace a pair.... Horry simply wasn't 'on' teams that won championships... they won because he hit the necessary big shots when his number was called on (either by drawn up plays or fate itself). Lately, he has been showing his age, but that should by no means diminish the worth of his accomplishments.

Has Horry not built a reputation for hitting big, momentum changing, series defining, series clinching shots?... is that rep not sufficient for being remembered as someone who delivered when it mattered most?

Knowing your role is important, being the best at that role is defining, but delivering on numerous occasions when called upon is worth being remembered among "the greats" even if yes, you were only a role player. Emphasis on 'numerous'.

Horry would get my vote...

[Mavs<Spurs]

If you're assertion is that Horry>Nazr, then why not title the thread "Horry>Nazr" to directly contradict the assertion made Manny? Why take it as far as to say he's a Hall of Famer if that ultimately isn't the reason you posted?

Because I'm confused, do you or do you not think Horry is a Hall of Famer?

I personally do not think he is, but I'll bet he has more noteriety in 25 years than some of those future Hall of Famers because of his clutch role on those 6 (+?) rings.


I don't want to completely commit myself to that position, but I do think that it is possible to construct a plausible argument for it. The arguments made above by some of the previous posters, for me, carry a lot of weight. There is no secret ballot and I would get a lot of grief.

Horry>Nazr is the point I was trying to make. Calling it the Horry>Nazr thread would have been more direct. I attempted to construct a plausible argument for Horry being in the HOF. In that way, I attempted to show that the thread saying Nazr > or = Horry was incorrect.

[Mavs<Spurs]

:lol

And how many have you averaged over the past 24 hours based on your posts in this thread alone? My god your arguments get weaker and weaker as they go along.

Just saying that you were the first to bring up the number of posts. I didn't bring that up first, you did. The point seems pretty clear.

With all of your bullshit posting where you're trying to make faux logical sense with FWDT, you forget to realized that perhaps I was comparing Horry to Nazr in one aspect of their games that wasn't nessecarily based on statistical or career accomplishments. You're so stuck in your math and logic world that you fail to acknowledge more subtle comparisons.

But you will acknowledge that we don't a need a new Nazr of the day based upon who has performed badly recently.

My god, you're dense.

Another insult.

So, to summarize, your argument is simply that I am a dense idiot. For the record, I don't think you are dense or an idiot. I disagree with what I perceive as the general tenor of your previous thread.

And for the record, if you want to dispute something someone starts a thread over, you can do so WITHIN the thread. You see, thats how message boards work!
dense:
The set Q is dense in R means that every open set containing elements of R contains an element of Q.
The set of Rational numbers is dense in the Reals.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

If they made an NBA Finals Hall of Fame, then Robert would be a shoe-in.

He'd definitely get my vote for the "Extremely Valuable Component of a Championship Caliber Team Hall of Fame".

I understand that they're still building that hall.

[Mavs<Spurs]

If they made an NBA Finals Hall of Fame, then Robert would be a shoe-in.

He'd definitely get my vote for the "Extremely Valuable Component of a Championship Caliber Team Hall of Fame".

I understand that they're still building that hall.


You are a good consensus builder.
We should all be able to agree with that.


:tu

[Mavs<Spurs]

If they made an NBA Finals Hall of Fame, then Robert would be a shoe-in.

He'd definitely get my vote for the "Extremely Valuable Component of a Championship Caliber Team Hall of Fame".

I understand that they're still building that hall.


Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.

[MannyIsGod]

dense:
The set Q is dense in R means that every open set containing elements of R contains an element of Q.
The set of Rational numbers is dense in the Reals.I didn't bring up the number of posts, I brought up the percentage of posts. Com'on math man, you know the difference don't you? That was in an effort to point out that the only real conversation going on within the thread was the one you were having with yourself.

I said you were dense because - as I had to do above - I have to break down everything within my posts for you.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by not naming a new Nazr each game, but the point that Horry has underperformed and has taken away minutes from other players stands. Regardless of the number of rings Horry has he is not playing well so far. It remains to be seen whether or not last nights game is a turning point for Horry, but as of right now he's tossing up horrible bricks and not providing anything that Elson can't provide.

[whottt]

If some baseball player had 7 or 8, 9th innning 2 outs game winning hits in the playoffs, for world series winning teams, they'd be in the Hall of Fame.

Especially if Horry gets another ring...you find any Celtics or Yankees players wearing that many rings and they are likley in the HOF for their sports.

Horry belongs there IMO, and if he gets another ring playing a similar crucial role, he's a no-brainer to be in the Hall.

Horry's had a lot more big game winning shots than Kerr...he's had more than any guy not named Jordan IMO.