Robert Horry Thinks He Belongs in the Hall of Fame

[GSH]

He'll have an exhibit in the HOF, but you'll only be able to view it in May and June.

[whottt]

And I don't care what he teams he played for...

He never failed to make the second round, none of the teams of the surrounding eras he played for can say that, non of the supertars he played with can say that.

Tim Duncan can no longer say that you see, and ironically, he can't say it in the very first year Horry was retired.

You know, when the Spurs upgraded to the all time great Matt Bonner Kurt Thomas rotation.



He's got 7 rings, no other player on any team he played for has that many, none of the superstars he played with can can say that.




He's got more playoff appearances than any player in history, and you look at that list, and there are only impressive freaking names on it under Horry's name. None of the the other players he played with are on it anywhere near him, nor are any of the other Superstars.


He did at SF(for the Rockets), he did at PF(for the Lakers) and he did it at C(for the Spurs). Multiple times.

If that many championship teams wanted him, to play what was basically a starting role, and put him on the court in the final minutes of the most important games in the playoffs, and often, he bailed those superstars out, even if it was only for minutes at time, he was much more than merely a 7 and 5 player.


Robert Horry is a very special player, stats be damned. If everything says the player had a little something extra, except the stats? Then it's the stats that are misleading, not everything else.

[duncan228]

He'll have an exhibit in the HOF, but you'll only be able to view it in May and June.

Perfect.

[whottt]

Sorry, Rob but you don't belong there. Just because you had the fortune to play with the teammates you did does not mean you belong in the HOF when you were only a role player. You were never the focus of any defense and benefitted from big guys who drew double teams. Yes, you hit some timely shots, but that does not get you into the HOF. Even as shooter, you did not shoot a high percent.

I guess you're ploto...I mean the Lakers only won 3 les, Rockets 2, Spurs 2, they probably could have replaced him with any old scrub and won a le, because those guys won les year in and year out without Horry...

Just imagine if those teams had replaced Horry with guys like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley to play alongside Hakeem and Shaq, imagine how many championships they would have won.

[TheSpursFNRule]

Yes he belongs in the hall of fame. One of the clutchest players in recent history. Big Shot Rob!

[SenorSpur]

Horry was a significant contributor to 7 NBA championship teams. A starter on 2 Houston le teams, role player on 3 Faker championships and 2 Spurs championship teams.

Horry was the type of player who did a lot of things well, and was THE clutch player of his era. Yet there is nothing you can point to and say he was great at.

All that said, I can't see Horry getting in.

[exstatic]

He'll have an exhibit in the HOF, but you'll only be able to view it in May and June.

GSH, FTW

[Sean Cagney]

Horry is the HOF three shooter in the finals... He showed up when needed, which alot of so called stars fail to do. They should have a HOF clutch player memorial, he would be there then lol.


I still love his comments after game 5 in 05 against Detroit, alot of players take the game so seriously and don't have fun, he said it best there. He did not give a shyt hit or miss, he hit most big shots but he really did not fear the big shot or shy away from it.

[IronMexican]

I'd have to say no, not really even close.

[temujin]

I'll go with Whott here.

Basketball is a team sports.

Team A wins.
Team B looses.

Horry was almost exclusively on Team A.

No matter where he played.

And Team A wins because it has the most intelligent players.

Players such Horry.

Statistics are the consolation prize for Teams B.

Life is so simple, here.

[Blackjack]

I'm generally pretty hard on who should be in any kind of Hall of Fame, but a big part of me agrees with Whott.

The Hall of Fame, in any sport, should usually consist of the greatest franchise-players of their respective generations, but there are exceptions to all rules.

Horry, I would argue, is one of those exceptions.

Besides, this is the Basketball Hall of Fame, afterall.

The standards just aren't quite the same.

, could you really tell the history of the NBA without Robert Horry?

[Muser]

If he was never a Spur most of you would be saying no, damn he's probably the most clutch player in the history of the league, but HoF? No. There are way too many players who deserve it more.

[TDMVPDPOY]

we dont want steve kerr to come out and think he belongs in the discussion also....

[JamStone]

Probably the most unique and interesting case for potential induction into the Hall. There are definitely solid argument for both sides. But, the bottom line is does a role player and specialist deserve HOF status because he performed well on the biggest stage and was fortunate enough to be on teams with great players that really carried the teams he was on? I think that's tough to honor him for only showing up for a few plays in a few games instead of consistently excelling throughout his entire career.

Horry was great at hitting timely shots deep in the playoffs for championship runs. In some of those games where he hit big clutch shots, he hadn't even been playing well. He wasn't more than a solid player in the regular season. He wasn't even a great three point shooter in his career. He didn't excel at any one thing, scoring, rebounding, blocking shots. He didn't command a double team. What he was great at was hitting shots under pressure when the ball was swung or kicked out his way. Those shots happened to be memorable shots because of when he hit them.

I would agree that there should probably be some sort of shrine for his clutch shots. But, as a player, I don't think he deserves induction. As some have mentioned already, Steve Kerr would have to get some consideration as well then. And, if the Lakers win it this year, Derek Fisher would have to get consideration as well. And for the record, KC Jones should not be in the HOF as a player. Dennis Rodman still isn't in the HOF. Horry shouldn't be either.

[wildbill2u]

He was an underachiever throughout his career so based on his sheer stats and contribution to his teams he does not belong in the HOF.

However there is a back door to the HOF. Bob Lanier's basketball shoes were so large as to be curiosities and they are in the HOF. Horry should donate his rings or perhaps any ball that won a Final game with a clutch shot in the waning seconds.

[urunobili]

No brainer... he is a lock to get in...

[Da Spurs]

He should be a shoo-in. I don't think basketball HOF is as geared to statistics as baseball. Big Shot Rob will make it.

[adidas11]

Bob is one of my favorite players of all time. But no way in does he belong in the Hall of Fame.

[barbacoataco]

I don't understand how Dennis Rodman isn't in the HOF.

Horry is an interesting question and there is no "right" answer. The baseball HOF has lower standards than the basketball HOF. What you choose to value is a matter of opinion. Do you reward consistent year in, year out, results? Or do you give more weight to hitting the "big shot" and rising to a level of greatness in clutch championship situations?

In general I think they should let Horry in. The reason would be that he did a lot of things to help his team win, and he did it so many times in the playoffs with different teams, that you can't dismiss it as a fluke. He was kind of lazy and unmotivated in the regular season and that is why his career stats don't look better. He was a great defensive player as well.

[Indazone]

He should be in the Hall of Fame if nothing else but for being the luckiest SOB to ever get traded to championship teams.

[ShoogarBear]

If you took away about 5-10 plays in his career, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Does anybody else's Hall of Fame credentials depend on just 5-10 plays?

[whottt]

If you took away about 5-10 plays in his career, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Does anybody else's Hall of Fame credentials depend on just 5-10 plays?

#1. How many other players can you take those 5-10 plays away from.

2. Yes to an extent. Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and to a lesser extent Tim Duncan would have vastly different looking careers without Duncan.


Because near as I can tell those 5-10 plays end up being worth about 7 Finals MVP's and 7 rings.

Not just your typical plays.


And just one of those plays may be what keeps Chris Webber out of the HOF.


It's not the Hall of Stats, and Horry doesn't get measured by the typical standard, because he is not a typical player.

There are no other role players that have those 5-10 plays, that's exactly the point. And there aren't many Superstars that have them either.


There are two types of people in this world, those that look at Horry and see a guy that put up 7 and 5...and those that look at Horry and see championship swings on his plays.


The type that look at Horry as a 7 5 player are the ones that sign on to dumping and replacing him with Matt Bonner and Kurt Thomas and then watch their team get bounced in the first round for the first time in 10 years.



You can also say this, with every team change Horry made, he was either replacing, or replaced by, a HOF'er...

The championship team on which he replaced the HOF'er went on to win 2 more les with basically the same core.


The championship teams on which he was replaced by HOF'ers...went on to win nothing with that same core.


He's simply not a typical player and it is a huge mistake to analyze him as such...


Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan played with a lot of other bigmen in their careers, and the result was seldom as successful as it was with Horry, whether they were a HOF'er or not.

Lots of bigmen played with guys that put up 7 and 5 alongside them, the ones that did it with Horry are the ones rings, and you can clearly see the 5-10 plays that were the difference.

Furthermore, he's got more rings without the bigmen he played with, than they do without him, every single one of them.

Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem combined have a total of 3 rings without him. He's got at least 3 more rings than any of them have by themselves without him, and that's saying sometuing when you are talking about guys that have 4 rings like Duncan and Shaq.



And finally, you take 5-10 plays away from Michael Jordan, and he's no longer the GOAT.



Most importantly, no other player ever up for enshrinement opens up the same type of debate Horry does.


It's the Hall of Fame, and big shots are every bit as important to the game, if not moreseo, than MVP's and scoring les. The big shots are what become famous, those are what people remember.. MVP awards and scoring les aren't memorable, they do not represent fame...memorable shots do.

[JamStone]

#1. How many other players can you take those 5-10 plays away from.

2. Yes to an extent. Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and to a lesser extent Tim Duncan would have vastly different looking careers without Duncan.


Because near as I can tell those 5-10 plays end up being worth about 7 Finals MVP's and 7 rings.

Not just your typical plays.

You can take away 5-10 plays from Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan at any point in their respective careers, even during the playoffs, even during the NBA Finals, and all three would still be HOFers. There are HOFers that didn't win championships. On the merits of the rest of their careers, they'd still be HOFers. They wouldn't be viewed as highly as they are now, but they'd still be HOFers.

There are no other role players that have those 5-10 plays, that's exactly the point. And there aren't many Superstars that have them either.

If they build a Hall of Fame for "role players," Horry would be one of the first players selected. The fact you realize and acknowledge Robert Horry was a role player gives a strong argument as to why he shouldn't be in the HOF.

And finally, you take 5-10 plays away from Michael Jordan, and he's no longer the GOAT.

But he'd still be in the HOF.

Most importantly, no other player ever up for enshrinement opens up the same type of debate Horry does.

Not exactly the same, but Dennis Rodman has a similar debate, although he actually has more individual credentials, with his accomplishments as a defensive player.

It's the Hall of Fame, and big shots are every bit as important to the game, if not moreseo, than MVP's and scoring les. The big shots are what become famous, those are what people remember.. MVP awards and scoring les aren't memorable, they do not represent fame...memorable shots do.

Big shots are important to the game. Horry's big shots should be in the HOF. As a player, he should not be.

[whottt]

You can take away 5-10 plays from Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan at any point in their respective careers, even during the playoffs, even during the NBA Finals, and all three would still be HOFers. There are HOFers that didn't win championships. On the merits of the rest of their careers, they'd still be HOFers. They wouldn't be viewed as highly as they are now, but they'd still be HOFers.

And there are a load of players not in the HOF that if you added those 5-10 plays to their careers would no brain HOF'ers.

If they build a Hall of Fame for "role players," Horry would be one of the first players selected. The fact you realize and acknowledge Robert Horry was a role player gives a strong argument as to why he shouldn't be in the HOF.

You show me where it says Role Players aren't eligible for the HOF...it says it nowhere on the HOF charter. Just like there is no statistical benchmark.


There is no role player Hall of Fame, there is only the basketball hall of fame, and please notice, it's not called the basketball Superstar Hall of Fame, it's called the Basketball Hall of Fame.

And that means role players, announcers, superstars, coaches, execs, or anyone that had anything to do with basketball goes in there if there is a notable reason for them to be there.





The entire purpose of the game is to win championships, not MVP awards, scoring les etc.

Not exactly the same, but Dennis Rodman has a similar debate, although he actually has more individual credentials, with his accomplishments as a defensive player.

Allow me to put this debate to bed real quick, Dennis Rodman belongs in the HOF.

Big shots are important to the game.

Big shots are the game. No one dreams of winning scoring les, everyone dreams of knocking down the big shot. It is the ultimate play you can make on a basketball court.

Horry's big shots should be in the HOF. As a player, he should not be.

Sorry but sticking players in there for reaching statistical benchmarks is boring, does nothing to enhance the HOF, attract people to it, or make them remember it...big shots do. And the entire purpose of the HOF is honor those that did make those contributions, and that is exactly what Horry did, for his entire career.


And there are plenty of guys in the HOF that have nowhere near the post season totals in numbers Robert Horry has.



Sorry, but Robert Horry is not just another guy that put up 7 and 5, and there is nothing stated anywhere in the HOF charter to back up your justification for keeping him out, and plenty to back up my justification for putting him in.


It's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistical benchmarks met, or the Hall of most awards.

You guys are using the guidelines for a typical player, and Robert Horry is not a typical player. He will never be a typical player, no matter how much you or ignore or overlook to attempt to gloss him as one.

Typical players don't have 7 rings, finals records, post season records, replace or be replaced by HOF'ers on championship teams, play the final minutes of finals games etc.

Those are not the things typical players do.


Typical players also don't hold all time NBA records as Horry does.

[ShoogarBear]

Does anybody else's Hall of Fame credentials depend on just 5-10 plays?

All the verbiage doesn't hide this simple fact:

No

If Horry didn't have those 5-10 plays, even you wouldn't be saying he belonged in the Hall of Fame.

Based on your criteria, Derek Fisher only needs about 2-3 more plays.