Horry Quietly Winning Another Championship

[duncan228]

Hoopsworld article.
Didn't see it posted.
"Someone has to do the dirty work." :lol

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22297.shtml

Horry Quietly Winning Another Championship

By Bill Ingram
for HOOPSWORLD.com
Jun 12, 2007, 10:43

He doesn't put up flashy numbers, he isn't a double-double threat, and the offense never runs through him, yet most of the time when you're talking about recent championships his name comes up. It's not so much for his stat line as a whole, but rather for the way he chooses his spots. His points come when his team needs them most. His rebounding and shot-blocking rise in response to his team's need. At the end of the day, Robert Horry is the glue that holds everything else together. He did it for the Houston Rockets, he did it for the Los Angeles Lakers, and now he's doing it for the San Antonio Spurs.

"Robert was our star tonight," said Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich after Horry posted a typical line of 9 rebounds, 5 points, 5 blocks, and 4 assists. "I mean, I know that Tony and Manu scored and Tim scored and that sort of thing, and you always you take those kind of guys for granted. But when somebody comes off the bench and does what Robert did at both ends of the floor, it was fantastic. His blocks were just as big as any points he scored, any rebounds he got. Great momentum builders, really gives the team defense a kick in the butt. He was fantastic for us tonight."

When the Rockets drafted Horry they brought him in to be a defensive complement to Hakeem Olajuwon on the low block. That tandem won two championships together before Horry went on to win titles alongside Shaquille O'Neal. Now he's doing the same for the Spurs and Tim Duncan, who joked that Horry is now remembering how to play defense.

"Rob for some reason failed to tell us that he can play defense," said Duncan after Game Two. "It's playoff Rob and he'll show up and do something special and that's what he did tonight."

Horry, who will turn 37 in August, now picks his spots. He isn't the dominant defensive player he was in his younger years. To quote Toby Keith, he aint' as good as he once was, but he's as good once as he ever was. Defensively Horry was as good in Game Two as he has ever been.

"Robert played well for us," said Michael Finley, who is also hoping to add a title to his career at this late stage. "He did all of the things on the defensive end that the coaching staff is asking for, as far as being active, challenging shots, getting blocked shots and just being Robert Horry. When he plays like that on the defensive end, because we know about his offense, but when he plays defense like that, he makes our team a lot better."

The San Antonio Spurs are all about Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli, but it takes a team to win a championship. Someone has to do the dirty work, fight for the key rebound, block the big shot, even his the big three. Throughout his career Robert Horry has been the one willing to do whatever it takes to put his team over the top - and he has the hardware to prove it.

Horry's quest for a second Spurs championship ring resumes tonight at 9PM Eastern on ABC.

[ImpartialObserver]

At what point does a man with six....ok, probably seven rings from three different teams over thirteen years lose the label of "role player" especially when he was crucial to almost all of those championships? Robert Horry is a Hall of Famer, not a role player.

Here (http://www.nba.com/finals2007/sprs_numbers_070606.html) is a list of the players with six or more NBA titles:

Bill Russell Boston 11, Sam Jones Boston 10, Tom Heinsohn Boston 8, K.C. Jones Boston 8, John Havlicek Boston 8, Tom Sanders Boston 8, Frank Ramsey Boston 7, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Milwaukee/L.A. Lakers 6, Bob Cousy Boston 6, Robert Horry Houston/LA Lakers/San Antonio 6, Michael Jordan Chicago 6, Scottie Pippen Chicago 6.

Of all those players, only Tom Sanders and Horry aren't in the HOF.

It will be an absolute travesty if he doesn't get into the Hall of Fame. Yeah, his regular season stats are nothing special, but really, how could a player who has to be considered one of the most clutch players ever, with as many rings, and with the following resume of big time clutch shots NOT get into the Hall of Fame?

Notable Clutch Shots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Horry)

May 22, 1995 | Western Conference Finals Game 1 | Houston Rockets at San Antonio Spurs
Robert Horry hits a jumper with 6.5 seconds left to give Houston a 94–93 win.

June 11, 1995 | NBA Finals Game 3 | Orlando Magic at Houston Rockets
With Houston up 1 point with 14 seconds left and the shot clock winding down, Hakeem Olajuwon kicks out the ball to Horry, who launches a three over Orlando's Horace Grant, propelling the Rockets to a 106–103 victory and a 3–0 series lead on the way to a sweep and back-to-back NBA titles.

May 6, 1997 | Western Conference Semifinals Game 2 | Los Angeles Lakers at Utah Jazz
Horry drains all seven of his three-point shots. However, this proves to be not enough as the Lakers lose Game 2 103–101 and ultimately the series 4–1.

June 10, 2001 | NBA Finals Game 3 | Los Angeles Lakers at Philadelphia 76ers
With the series tied at 1–1, the Sixers were within one point with under a minute to play. Brian Shaw found Horry in the corner and he drilled the three with 47.1 seconds left to give the Lakers a four-point lead.

April 28, 2002 | Western Conference First Round Game 3 | Los Angeles Lakers at Portland Trail Blazers
Down by two with 10.2 seconds left, Kobe Bryant drives on Ruben Patterson and kicked the ball to Horry, who hits a game-winning three.

May 26, 2002 | Western Conference Finals Game 4 | Sacramento Kings at Los Angeles Lakers
The Kings led 99–97 with two seconds left when center Vlade Divac knocked the ball out of the paint after a Shaquille O'Neal missed layup. The ball came to Horry, who launched a three-pointer as time expired to give the Lakers a 100–99 victory.

June 19, 2005 | NBA Finals Game 5 | San Antonio Spurs at Detroit Pistons
Horry hit a three-pointer with 5.9 seconds left in overtime to give the San Antonio Spurs a 96–95 victory and a 3–2 series lead heading into Game 6.

April 30, 2007 | Western Conference First Round Game 4 | San Antonio Spurs at Denver Nuggets
The Spurs led by one with 30 seconds left when Horry hit a game-securing three-point shot.

[bdictjames]

I agree, Horry just has to be in the HOF.

[duncan228]

I never understood why it's a question. He's HOF material in my eyes.
Maybe seven will make it happen.

Oh...and that shot on the Kings remains one of my all time favorite basketball moments. We call it the "Vlade pass" in my house.

[sprrs]

I never understood why it's a question. He's HOF material in my eyes.
Maybe seven will make it happen.

Oh...and that shot on the Kings remains one of my all time favorite basketball moments. We call it the "Vlade pass" in my house.

Looking back it was an amazing shot...definitely one of his best, but how can that be one of your favorite basketball moments? Most Spurs fans were going for the Kings and that completely crushed their hopes.

That's akin to a Spurs fan saying .04 is one of their favorite basketball moments, or Jordan's pushoff is one of the Jazz's favorite basketball moment.

[mavs>spurs2]

Why does riding the coattails of Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe, David Robinson, and Tim Duncan have to do with being in the hall of fame? He's a damn good role player, nothing more, nothing less.

[The_Worlds_finest]

Mav fan dont be mad your teams equal to Robert Horry is Austin Croshire. Horrys shot against the kings is possibly the greatest shot of all time. Hell yeah Horry is a freaking HOF. The man is a legend

[The_Worlds_finest]

Oh and ignorant mav fan Horry never played with DROB putz

[gaKNOW!blee]

Why does riding the coattails of Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe, David Robinson, and Tim Duncan have to do with being in the hall of fame? He's a damn good role player, nothing more, nothing less.


I actually agree, come on guys, the HOF is a very special place. A few big shots, no matter how important or clutch does not get you there.

[duncan228]

Looking back it was an amazing shot...definitely one of his best, but how can that be one of your favorite basketball moments? Most Spurs fans were going for the Kings and that completely crushed their hopes.

That's akin to a Spurs fan saying .04 is one of their favorite basketball moments, or Jordan's pushoff is one of the Jazz's favorite basketball moment.

Sorry. It was an incredible shot.
I'm a Duncan fan, I'm a Spurs fan.
But I'm also a basketball fan.
And that shot stands out as a moment I remember.

I don't root for any team playing the Spurs. I don't like the Fisher shot even though it was an amazing shot. (Actually, I never thought it was that amazing but everyone else did.)

But when I watch two other teams play I watch because I'm a fan of the game. My appreciating Horry's shot had no impact on who the Spurs met. It wasn't in my control.

[sprrs]

Sorry. It was an incredible shot.
I'm a Duncan fan, I'm a Spurs fan.
But I'm also a basketball fan.
And that shot stands out as a moment I remember.

I don't root for any team playing the Spurs. I don't like the Fisher shot even though it was an amazing shot. (Actually, I never thought it was that amazing but everyone else did.)

But when I watch two other teams play I watch because I'm a fan of the game. My appreciating Horry's shot had no impact on who the Spurs met. It wasn't in my control.

It was an amazing shot, any basketball fan acknowledges that. I called it when I saw that shot go down. That doesn't mean it was one of my favorite moments. But I see your point.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

May 26, 2002 | Western Conference Finals Game 4 | Sacramento Kings at Los Angeles Lakers
The Kings led 99–97 with two seconds left when center Vlade Divac knocked the ball out of the paint after a Shaquille O'Neal missed layup. The ball came to Horry, who launched a three-pointer as time expired to give the Lakers a 100–99 victory.

He said this one is his fave and I agree.

[SenorSpur]

A bit of revisionist history. Recall Horry missed a last-second 3-pointer in Game 5 of the 2003 WCSF Spurs versus Fakers in S.A. Remember the Spurs went on the wrap up that series in Game 6.

With Horry missed that shot, it culimated the end of a terrible shooting slump he had been in throughout the entire series. It further fueled the notion among Fakers fans and brass that Horry had "lost it". Thus paving the way for him to join the Spurs.

If Horry hits that shot, the Fakers would have surely won the game and likely would won the series. Hitting that shot would have continued to swell the already-bulging reputation of "Big Shot" Rob. Perhaps hitting that shot would have induced the Fakers to resign him. Instead, he joined the Spurs the following season.

It'd be tough to lobby for Horry as a HOF because of his role player status. But boy, I can't think of anyone else in league history who has been as much of a consistent clutch contributor as he has been.

Wonder if he will play next season?

[TampaDude]

I think Horry retires after this season if the Spurs win the title. He'll take his 7 rings and sail off into the sunset. He's HOF material for sure.

[FromWayDowntown]

The only stat in which Robert Horry's career is notable is the number of titles he's won. While he's played a big role in those titles, undoubtedly, he's never, ever been the guy that carried his team to a championship. Robert Horry has become one of my favorite players to watch because he's such a smart and savvy player and when he brings it (like he did in the first two games of the Finals) he can be a remarkably versatile player. But IMO he's never exhibited the kind of sustained greatness that is the earmark of a Hall of Fame caliber player.

[aaronstampler]

Sorry, but 9 pts 6 rebs is 9 pts 6 rebs. You're not a Hall of Famer if announcers don't blame you for a loss. Horry is a role player. Whatever he gives you any night is icing, but no coach ever depended on him for anything. Plus he takes entire regular seasons off, and that's not HOF material either.

[The_Worlds_finest]

Sorry the man has what 7 rings pending? He has been personally responsible for atleast one of them (kings shot). Look up the list of HOF(bet you haven't). Horry fits right in there. He may not put the stats up but his rings surely make up for it.
A simple question to ask one self rather a player should be in the HOF; 50 years from now will you be able to "What seperates Robert Horry from the rest of the players?"the responses are countless.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sorry the man has what 7 rings pending? He has been personally responsible for atleast one of them (kings shot). Look up the list of HOF(bet you haven't). Horry fits right in there. He may not put the stats up but his rings surely make up for it.
A simple question to ask one self rather a player should be in the HOF; 50 years from now will you be able to "What seperates Robert Horry from the rest of the players?"the responses are countless.

I could show you a list of the Basketball Hall of Famers who are there because of their NBA accomplishments and demonstrate pretty readily to you that Horry isn't remotely in the class of the handful of NBA'ers who are in the Hall of Fame.

There are 79 members of the Basketball Hall of Fame who are: (1) enshrined as players; and (2) who had significant professional careers in America. Of those members, 42 were named to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players list in 1997. So, to this point, there are only 37 players who are in the Hall of Fame based without having been on the 50 at 50 list.

I don't necessarily think of it as an end-all-and-be-all of Hall of Fame debate tools, but Basketball Reference has devised a Hall of Fame monitor metric that basically considers a players statistics and his accomplishments (including championships won) and comes up with a probability of that player's election to the Hall of Fame.

Of the 37 players who are in but are not among the 50 Greatest Players, 25 have Hall of Fame probability scores that put them among the Top 100 players all-time in that category. A couple, like Maurice Stokes in particular, didn't play long enough in the NBA/ABA/BAA to have a meaningful number and aren't ranked. The only Hall of Famers with probabilities that place them outside of the Top 100 of All-Time are: Joe Dumars (101), Jack Twyman (114), David Thompson (117), Connie Hawkins (140), Tom Gola (145), Dan Issel (167), Calvin Murphy (175), and Bill Bradley (272).

Of those guys, Thompson, Gola, Issel, Murphy, and Bradley had monsterous collegiate careers that played a significant role in reaching the Hall of Fame. Likewise, Hawkins and Issel were stalwarts in the ABA. Jack Twyman is in the Hall because he was an exceptional player (a 6-time all-star) who undertook a number of great humanitarian acts, including his choice to become the guardian of Maurice Stokes after Stokes was paralyzed during an NBA game.

I really do appreciate Robert Horry, but historically, he's nowhere near the rest of the players who've already been enshrined. At this point, Horry's Hall of Fame probability number places him 232nd among all NBA players ever.

If he was inducted, there would only be one player with a lower rank in that category and that's Bill Bradley, who was a 3-time All-American at Princeton (at a time when you could only play 3 years of intercollegiate basketball), a National Collegiate Player of the Year, and the Captain of the 1964 U.S. Olympic Team. Robert Horry's career, while great, hasn't had the same sort of impact on basketball that Bill Bradley's career did.

[ImpartialObserver]

I could show you a list of the Basketball Hall of Famers who are there because of their NBA accomplishments and demonstrate pretty readily to you that Horry isn't remotely in the class of the handful of NBA'ers who are in the Hall of Fame.
Based on what? Stats, sure, but certainly not on championships and clutchness. And if you think about it, those were two of the major qualities that separated a great scorer (Dominique Wilkins) from a great player (Michael Jordan).

You can debate whether or not Horry was instrumental or crucial to his championship teams' success, but you can not debate that Horry is one of the most clutch players to ever play the game. I think one could even make the argument that Horry is the most clutch player to ever play the game. Seriously, if your life was on the line, who is the one player in the game today you would want to take the shot to save your life? The point I'm making is that imo clutchness is just as important if not more so than points scored, rebounds, assists and other stats, especially those accumulated in the regular season forming the foundation on which many a HOFer has been inducted.

Furthermore, here is the mission statement of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame: (http://www.hoophall.com/support/bhof-mission.html)

To honor and celebrate basketball's greatest moments and people via: (rest at link)

Robert Horry has been part of a number of the greatest moments in NBA history by hitting big shots time and time again when it mattered the most. Greatest moments includes the best performances ever, and when you think about that, a large number of the greatest moments in NBA history have included a player hitting a clutch shot to win a game. Again, since that is the case, how can Horry not be inducted?

It should also be noted that there is no statistical criteria a player has to meet to be enshrined in the HOF.


I don't necessarily think of it as an end-all-and-be-all of Hall of Fame debate tools, but Basketball Reference has devised a Hall of Fame monitor metric that basically considers a players statistics and his accomplishments (including championships won) and comes up with a probability of that player's election to the Hall of Fame.
I looked over the predictor variables he uses and find them insufficient. He does not consider steals, blocks, turnovers, plus/minus, FG%, FT%, minutes, etc. nor does he include any ABA stats in his model. I understand his reasoning for not using NBA stats since they didn't keep track of them for a large part of their history, but imo it renders his player results dubious.

For example, Vince Carter's HOF election probability is 50th all time. Would you really make the argument that Vince Carter deserves to be in the HOF over Horry, whose score is 232nd all time? He has great career stats admittedly, but other than that what has he done that is hallworthy? This is one of the reasons why I have a problem with the model being used.

[Spurminator]

Would you really make the argument that Vince Carter deserves to be in the HOF over Horry, whose score is 232nd all time?

If forced to choose between the two... yes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Based on what? Stats, sure, but certainly not on championships and clutchness. And if you think about it, those were two of the major qualities that separated a great scorer (Dominique Wilkins) from a great player (Michael Jordan).

Robert Horry is neither a great scorer nor a great player.


You can debate whether or not Horry was instrumental or crucial to his championship teams' success, but you can not debate that Horry is one of the most clutch players to ever play the game. I think one could even make the argument that Horry is the most clutch player to ever play the game. Seriously, if your life was on the line, who is the one player in the game today you would want to take the shot to save your life? The point I'm making is that imo clutchness is just as important if not more so than points scored, rebounds, assists and other stats, especially those accumulated in the regular season forming the foundation on which many a HOFer has been inducted.

Halls of Fame don't tend to induct role players for isolated (even if occasionally repeated) performances. And what on Earth is "clutchness?" It's a wholly subjective term that has no real bearing on anything. In basketball, apparently, it basically means that a player can hang out all game long and put up mediocre numbers, but if he happens to hit several shots in the closing seconds of games that his team wins, he's suddenly (and very subjectively) elevated from a nice role player to one of the game's All-Time Greats? I'd argue that points scored and rebounds and assists accumulated by other players tend to be far more important than clutchness from role players, because if the other players weren't accumulating those statistics, you're hypothetical clutch player wouldn't be able to have the impact you claim he has. Halls of Fame tend to overly reward playoff performance, undoubtedly; but rarely (if ever) is a player able to post insignificant regular season and playoff numbers, but nevertheless reach the point of induction because he did something remarkable in a handful of playoff games.

By your argument, Steve Kerr should be crossing his fingers that Horry gets in, because Kerr had the same gig before Horry really dove into it.


Furthermore, here is the mission statement of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame: (http://www.hoophall.com/support/bhof-mission.html)

To honor and celebrate basketball's greatest moments and people via: (rest at link)

Robert Horry has been part of a number of the greatest moments in NBA history by hitting big shots time and time again when it mattered the most. Greatest moments includes the best performances ever, and when you think about that, a large number of the greatest moments in NBA history have included a player hitting a clutch shot to win a game. Again, since that is the case, how can Horry not be inducted?

How can Horry be inducted when: (1) he's never made an All-Star team; (2) he's never made an All-NBA team; (3) he's never led the league in any category; (4) he isn't in the Top 100 among NBA players in any statistically significant category (he's in the Top 100 in Games Played, 3pt FG, 3pt FGA, Steals, and Blocks); (5) he hasn't averaged 10 ppg for his career; and (6) he hasn't averaged 5 rpg for his career?

If the Hall of Fame puts up an exhibit honoring the greatest clutch shooters in the history of basketball, Horry should be prominently displayed in that exhibit. But historically, Horry is pretty much a one-trick pony who has played a role on a whole lot of very good basketball teams.


It should also be noted that there is no statistical criteria a player has to meet to be enshrined in the HOF.

Of course not, but there isn't any historical precedent for enshrining a guy who's career numbers are: 7.2 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.0 bpg, on 42.6% from the floor, 34.4% from 3, and who's statistical equals over his best seasons are guys like Derrick McKey, Kurt Rambis, and Pervis Ellison.



I looked over the predictor variables he uses and find them insufficient. He does not consider steals, blocks, turnovers, plus/minus, FG%, FT%, minutes, etc. nor does he include any ABA stats in his model.

Curiously, above you were discounting the value of those very statistics. Now, you find that a predictive system that is built on the qualities that existing Hall of Famers exhibited -- including your fascination with things like championships. Now there's a curious position to stake out!!


For example, Vince Carter's HOF election probability is 50th all time. Would you really make the argument that Vince Carter deserves to be in the HOF over Horry, whose score is 232nd all time? He has great career stats admittedly, but other than that what has he done that is hallworthy? This is one of the reasons why I have a problem with the model being used.

I would argue that the case for Vince Carter's induction is much stronger than the case for Robert Horry's. Putting Carter aside for the moment, though -- his case suggests to me only that the the HOF Probability model likely overrates All-Star appearances in an era where All-Star appearances tend to have little to do with on-court performance -- the point is that there has never been a player who got into the Hall with a record that compels the entirely subjective viewpoint that inducting Horry would require. Again, of all Hall of Famer players who played in the NBA, only Bill Bradley has a worse historical footprint than Horry and Bradley was an exceptional college player. (I suppose Bradley might get some company because it seems plausible to me that Christian Laettner might also find his way into the Hall of Fame based on his career at Duke and notwithstanding his NBA career. Even then, Laettner was undoubtedly one of the best collegiate basketball players ever).

It's fine to disagree about this, but I think too many people who argue in favor of Horry's enshrinement: (1) haven't studied just how difficult it is for players to gain enshrinement into the Basketball Hall of Fame; and (2) don't consider how statistically irrelevant Robert Horry will appear to be in the future.

The numbers aren't some insignificant historical footnote in this discussion -- numbers tend to make Hall of Famers. Robert Horry doesn't have the numbers. For me, that's the end of the analysis.

[ImpartialObserver]

Robert Horry is neither a great scorer nor a great player.
You know how I feel about this.


And what on Earth is "clutchness?" It's a wholly subjective term that has no real bearing on anything. In basketball, apparently, it basically means that a player can hang out all game long and put up mediocre numbers, but if he happens to hit several shots in the closing seconds of games that his team wins, he's suddenly (and very subjectively) elevated from a nice role player to one of the game's All-Time Greats?
It's fine that you don't think clutchness can or should be valued when determining whether or not a player is hallworthy, but come on, you know exactly what clutchness is.


I'd argue that points scored and rebounds and assists accumulated by other players tend to be far more important than clutchness from role players, because if the other players weren't accumulating those statistics, you're hypothetical clutch player wouldn't be able to have the impact you claim he has.
Horry's role has never been one to rack up stats just as Shaq's role has never been to be the man to take the last shot or even really have the ball in his hands at the end of a close game. Players like Shaq get you there.........players like Horry take you over the top.


By your argument, Steve Kerr should be crossing his fingers that Horry gets in, because Kerr had the same gig before Horry really dove into it.
Horry was hitting huge shots in the playoffs before Steve Kerr, and actually was hitting huge shots after Kerr retired, which is one of the points about why his clutchness is so remarkable and hallworthy because he has been consistent with it literally over his entire career.


How can Horry be inducted when: (1) he's never made an All-Star team; (2) he's never made an All-NBA team; (3) he's never led the league in any category; (4) he isn't in the Top 100 among NBA players in any statistically significant category (he's in the Top 100 in Games Played, 3pt FG, 3pt FGA, Steals, and Blocks); (5) he hasn't averaged 10 ppg for his career; and (6) he hasn't averaged 5 rpg for his career?
There's no doubt his induction would be a special case because he doesn't have the stats that others in the hall have. However, imo he has two qualities that most other players in the Hall don't have, and his induction would be in sync with the Hall's mission statement.


Of course not, but there isn't any historical precedent for enshrining a guy who's career numbers are: 7.2 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.0 bpg, on 42.6% from the floor, 34.4% from 3, and who's statistical equals over his best seasons are guys like Derrick McKey, Kurt Rambis, and Pervis Ellison.
I agree that his case would be unprecedented.


Curiously, above you were discounting the value of those very statistics. Now, you find that a predictive system that is built on the qualities that existing Hall of Famers exhibited -- including your fascination with things like championships. Now there's a curious position to stake out!!
There's nothing curious about it. I have a problem with his methodology in his model because it is primarily based on stats, yet he doesn't include a number of stats, which imo skews his results.


I would argue that the case for Vince Carter's induction is much stronger than the case for Robert Horry's. Putting Carter aside for the moment, though -- his case suggests to me only that the the HOF Probability model likely overrates All-Star appearances in an era where All-Star appearances tend to have little to do with on-court performance -- the point is that there has never been a player who got into the Hall with a record that compels the entirely subjective viewpoint that inducting Horry would require. Again, of all Hall of Famer players who played in the NBA, only Bill Bradley has a worse historical footprint than Horry and Bradley was an exceptional college player. (I suppose Bradley might get some company because it seems plausible to me that Christian Laettner might also find his way into the Hall of Fame based on his career at Duke and notwithstanding his NBA career. Even then, Laettner was undoubtedly one of the best collegiate basketball players ever).
Drazen Petrovic, inducted as a player in 2002, has the worst historical footprint of all the former NBA players in the Hall.

How does a player like Drazen Dalipagic, who never set foot in the NBA or played in college, get inducted without major subjectivity since his competition was far weaker then literally every other player in the Hall? If the Hall can subjectively induct both Drazens, then how come they can't do the same for Horry?


It's fine to disagree about this, but I think too many people who argue in favor of Horry's enshrinement: (1) haven't studied just how difficult it is for players to gain enshrinement into the Basketball Hall of Fame; and (2) don't consider how statistically irrelevant Robert Horry will appear to be in the future.
They'll be showing highlights of Horry longer than they will of his peers like Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, and several others from his generation that will be in the HOF.


The numbers aren't some insignificant historical footnote in this discussion -- numbers tend to make Hall of Famers. Robert Horry doesn't have the numbers. For me, that's the end of the analysis.
Robert Horry doesn't have the numbers, rather he has the rings and something I believe is actually more important then most stats, clutchness. Numbers do tend to make Hall of Famers, however, there is no statistical criteria one must meet to enter the HOF unlike the women's golf Hall of Fame.

Anyhow, great debate.

[whottt]

They don't call it the Hall of Stats.

It's the Hall of Fame and Horry is as associated with winning championships as any player in the modern era.

It's funny because I see so many people argue individual greatness of Superstars based on championships...and disdain that line of arguing for roleplayers and supporting characters. To me that logic is backwards.

To me it's a matter of, a certain level of production is what tends to define a players star caliber...but no one can win without a good supporting cast, and the best way to judge those supporting castmembers, is by what they did when they were supporting a superstar. More often than not...they were the ones that were the difference between Hakeem putting up 27 13 and 3 a game and missing the playoffs, and putting up 27, 13 and 3 and winning a championship.

You could easily make an argument that none of Horry's teams, his superstars win titles in those years without his supporting contributions...his little extras.

He's been replaced by Karl Malone and Charles Barkley...and every time they've come up ringless.

They were old? Well so was he, when LA let him go(supposedly)....and even old, they put up better pure statistical production than Horry did in his prime. But Horry shouldn't be judged by his stats...he should be judged by his rings, he's played with championship caliber players, and he's ensured that they live up to that status.

Malone got hurt? Hey...Horry doesn't get hurt when rings are at stake...what can you say. Sucks to be Malone. I'd say that part of the greatness...if Kareem had been injured all the time, he wouldn't be the NBAs all time leading scorer.

The stars got old? One year removed?

Shaq wasn't too old to win a title with Dwayne Wade...how come he was too old to win one with Kobe and Malone?


Horry is a role player, and he is a HOF caliber one at that. The rings, the shots, the moments, and the memories are his ticket...and his pack more punch than 90% of the people in the Hall. Big moments, big shots, big memories.


Side note: Horry will be the first guy to say that, #1. He is a roleplayer and #2. He doesn't belong in the HOF. However, his teamates and those that know him , tend to have differing opinions.


Robert Horry aint your average role player, he's a special player...and he's a better role player than most Superstars are superstars.

He also holds a surprising amount of playoff and finals records...and at least one NBA record.

[exstatic]

I love having Robert Horry and his "clutchness" on our team, but unless the sun comes up in the West tommorrow, he has zero chance at the HOF. The criteria for the HOF monitor seem weird and arbitrary for an NBA-only career, but there are damn few players above 135 out of the Hall, and damn few under that mark in the Hall.

Manu, on the other hand, has an excellent chance with his combined Euroleague/FIBA/NBA career. Drazen Petrovic was posthumously inducted with a very similar resume.

Things Drazen has that Manu doesn't: 3rd team All NBA, WC Gold
Things Manu has that Drazen doesn't: Euroleague Champ, 2.75 NBA rings, Olympic gold

Their NBA stats are comparable.
Drazen 290 games 4461 pts 15.4 ppg
Manu 360 games 4919 pts 13.7 ppg

Drazen has a regular season edge, but Manu gains separation in the post season.
Manu 89 games 1380 pts 15.5 ppg
Drazen 29 games 297 pts 10.2 ppg

Drazen was the better shooter, Manu had almost every other edge: boards, assists, steals.

BTW, Drazen was inducted for his COMPLETE body of work. If you look VERY carefully, you will notice that it is NOT the NBA Hall of Fame, it's the Basketball HOF. There are even girls in it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Drazen Petrovic, inducted as a player in 2002, has the worst historical footprint of all the former NBA players in the Hall.

Petrovic isn't in the Hall of Fame for what he did in the NBA -- he's enshrined because he was one of the greatest international players of his generation. Comparing his statistical record as an NBA player with any other NBA player's record is pretty much pointless.

I'd agree that the threshold for internationals is probably lower than it is for some NBA guys, and I'd be sympathetic to an argument that the differing thresholds should be re-thought -- though I think the influx of internationals into the NBA is going to naturally change that.

With that said, Petrovic was undoubtedly considered one of the dominant internationals in a time when internationals were only very slowly being brought into the NBA. Horry has never dominated.


How does a player like Drazen Dalipagic, who never set foot in the NBA or played in college, get inducted without major subjectivity since his competition was far weaker then literally every other player in the Hall? If the Hall can subjectively induct both Drazens, then how come they can't do the same for Horry?

Because the Hall doesn't necessarily consider the absolute greatness of players -- at least not with respect to internationals. The Hall considers the relative excellence of those players. If they dominated the competition against which they played, in a time when they either weren't permitted to play in the NBA or weren't considered by NBA teams, that determines whether they were Hall-worthy. Again, show me where Horry has ever been a dominant type player against any competition. I'm convinced you can't do that. So, essentially, you're basing his induction on a handful of big shots and not on a career of sustained excellence.,


They'll be showing highlights of Horry longer than they will of his peers like Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, and several others from his generation that will be in the HOF.

I don't dispute that Horry is a memorable player. But they'll probably also be showing highlights of Robert Horry longer than they will of his peers like Tim Duncan. I certainly don't think that suggests that Horry is more Hall-worthy than a guy like Duncan.


Robert Horry doesn't have the numbers, rather he has the rings and something I believe is actually more important then most stats, clutchness. Numbers do tend to make Hall of Famers, however, there is no statistical criteria one must meet to enter the HOF unlike the women's golf Hall of Fame.

But, for example, the Hall of Fame Monitor on Basketball Reference considers his many championships. It considers those and says that even with those, he's not even close to induction in the Hall of Fame. Unless the Hall's standards change dramatically or its voters decide that some totally undefinable quality that can't truly be measured against other players (who might not have ever had the sorts of opportunities that Horry has had, perhaps by virtue of having not had such great teammates), Horry's argument is based on just a handful of occurrences and not upon a resume of consistently stellar play.

I agree with you -- it's a great debate for a forum like this one.

[ImpartialObserver]

BTW, Drazen was inducted for his COMPLETE body of work. If you look VERY carefully, you will notice that it is NOT the NBA Hall of Fame, it's the Basketball HOF. There are even girls in it.
I brought up Petrovic because he is the first NBA player inducted that didn't have any NBA stats or NBA accomplishments that were hall worthy imo. He was eligible for the Hall in 1998, yet wasn't elected until 2002. There were obviously reservations about him being elected because he wasn't elected right away, so somebody had to make a strong argument in his favor. The point I'm making is that his election was unprecedented at the time, much like Horry's would be if he were to get enshrined.

[FromWayDowntown]

I brought up Petrovic because he is the first NBA player inducted that didn't have any NBA stats or NBA accomplishments that were hall worthy imo. He was eligible for the Hall in 1998, yet wasn't elected until 2002. There were obviously reservations about him being elected because he wasn't elected right away, so somebody had to make a strong argument in his favor. The point I'm making is that his election was unprecedented at the time, much like Horry's would be if he were to get enshrined.

But it wasn't unprecedented. He followed players like Sergei Belov and Krešimir Ćosić as internationals who were enshrined based mostly on their accomplishments in international play. Unlike those two, Petrovic had the opportunity to play in the NBA, but his enshrinement has nothing to do (or very little to do) with his accomplishments as a professional in America.

[duncan228]

The conversation going on in this thread is the reason I like SpursTalk so much.

I learn things, I learn to see things differently.

And it's being done in an adult manner. No name calling, no swearing at each other. Just different views being expressed.

Thanks guys. :toast It's a wonderful thing.