Reply With Quote
Very good player, underrated 3pt shooter & of course one of the best dunkers of all time. He hasn't had any major achievements in his career yet, but I think based on his career now he should be one of the possibilities. Not a 1st ballot tho
He was a good player. and a great one when motivated, but RealGM has a thread on his HOF potential, and 75% of the people on there think he deserves a spot since he's one of the all time greatest dunkers.
Maybe my view of him is forever ruined because of how badly he quit in Toronto, but you can't seriously tell me this guy deserves to be in the HOF.
Thoughts?
Very good player, underrated 3pt shooter & of course one of the best dunkers of all time. He hasn't had any major achievements in his career yet, but I think based on his career now he should be one of the possibilities. Not a 1st ballot tho
He's not a guranteed spot in there like some other players. But I wouldn't be mad if he got in. He's been REALLY bad ever since New Jersey but in his day when he was kinda motivated he was great. Also as stated he had some of the greatest dunks in the dunk contest ever. I personally wouldn't put a player with no heart for basketball in the HoF in but his track record is fairly good.
I agree
Damn I remember the Sixers-Raptors series in 2001
VC and Iverson were on fire
One of the best series ever IMO
He had as complete of a skill-set as any player in NBA history has had. His at ude held him back in a lot of ways, but in terms of his abilities, and the stats/accolades he accrued, he most definitely is worthy of at least being considered for the HOF.
I agree that he was a VERY good basketball player and still has the potential for moments of "greatness" - but he is not worthy of the Hall of Fame when glancing over his accomplishments (or lack thereof) IMHO.
Very underrated passing abilities too. He would dish some truly amazing passes, even to this day.
His desicion making on WHEN to pass... well that's a different story now
Yes. He may be an admitted quitter but his scoring and overall O as well as the hype his monstrous athleticism fostered will get him in.
What about Tracy McGrady?
They are basically identical players
Probably doesn't deserve it, but if you go based only on statistics, he has a strong argument. If he retired today, he'd have a better statistical argument (based on the formulas they use for HOF probability) than over 30 players who are already in the HOF.
Wildly talented and he put up big numbers, accrued multiple all star selections, and had arguably the best dunk contest performance in the history of NBA dunk contests. Not that it should be a consideration, but it will be something that is remembered and rebroadcasted for decades just like the Jordan/Nique match-up. I think maybe sometimes something like that can bolster a perception.
I think fans who have watched his entire career may have a skewed perception of him because he seemed to be an under-achiever and capable of so much more, and he came along in the wake of Michael Jordan when everyone was searching for the next Michael. Trying to live up to that comparison does a player no favors.
I think statistically, a lot of people would be surprised at how Vince's numbers stack up against other HOF players and HOF candidates. He's currently ranked 66th all time in HOF probability based on the formulaic ranking in the link below, again ahead of about 3 dozen players who are already HOFers. Every single player ahead of him in the rankings is in the HOF or is pretty much a shoe-in to be in the HOF when they are eligible. Vince is probably the highest ranked questionable player.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ob_career.html
I agree. The back in forth scoring duel between AI and VC was pretty awesome to watch.
That's probably my problem.
T-Mac is more talented actually, IMO.
But had non-stop injury problems, while VC was generally more reliable.
MUCH more reliable. In one less season, VC has 28 more regular season games played and over 200 more starts. Additionally, he's played in 18 more playoff games, approximately two seasons worth.
T-Mac has a much weaker case for the HOF, which tends to reward consistency and rings.
I would not put him in the HoF. He had good numbers, but not great numbers. He never really competed for a le. The furthest he got as the number one option was the aforementioned semifinal series against the 76ers in 2001. Personally, I believe the Hall should be reserved for great players and legends. A guy who was a superstar for a couple of years is not worthy in my book. I realize there are lesser players in the HoF now, but I would not have voted them in either.
Doesn't change the fact that they are in there, and VC is fully deserving, going by the criteria of how the majority of players got in there.
MBE is correct. I remember Harlem brought this up a while back and at the time I voted no. I didnt think he was deserving. Even if you dont give him extra points for being a great dunker, if you look at the numbers (im not a huge stat guy) especially points he has a good maybe not "strong" (relative) case. I think if helps Dallas get to at least the WCF with some key performances here and there ...doesnt have to be a 30 point game but maybe a game winner or a 4th quarter with 10 or 12 points I would consider him more of a sure thing.
Look at UNC i was a huge fan of his in the ACC and even in his first couple years I thought he was at least on the same class if not level as Pierce, Kobe, TMAC and A.I. But the only person who has a strong (or better) case than is his cousin. But, I dont think he is as far away (career wise) from Pierce. He will be fairly high on career points when he is done. and since he was a very good (not great) college player and a Olympian I think he may squeak in ...I agree though his heart is in question, maybe he proves his detractors wrong this year.
He's borderline, and I'm admittedly biased, as he's one of my favorite players of all-time..
His "quitting" is severely overplayed, while the horrible Raptors front office and ownership continues to be absolved for their role in Vince's departure..he's the only reason the Raptors were relevant, yet they did not consult him in any of their moves, at a key time for the franchise, going forward..his cries ended up being justified, as Rob Bab was one of the worst hires in recent NBA history..
Vince never won anything of note, but he never had a contending supporting cast, either..the Raptors peaked, and the Nets were constantly hurt and had one of the worst frontcourts in the NBA..
There's no question that VC should have done more with his talent, the questions concerning his work ethic are valid and understandable..based on his performance, however, he would be borderline..there are players that are less deserving..
His ability as a dunker is irrelevant, but his popularity, at his peak, should be considered IMO..
His popularity at his peak was related to his dunking.
Whatever the perception is, his world class athleticism and how it translated on the basketball court, especially with dunks, is part of who he was as a basketball player and how he was identified by basketball fans and at least in part will be remembered in NBA history. It's a part of who he is. And if his popularity should be considered for his HOF chances, dunking is part of that.
the old school players all deserve to be HOF'ers tbh since there ain't that many good players coming up these days. kids are all more or less spoiled these days and they ain't training that hard as the older n!ggas did, mean we aint getting no kobe ing bryant, or KG or anyone that caliber out of the younger n!ggas drafted in the 2000s
I agree with this. Everything but his at ude was nothing short of great, I'd vote him in
He in his prime was more than a dunker and has a career average of 22.0 points a game and 23.4 in the playoffs with a FG% of almost 45%.
Career:
Named to the All-NBA Second Team in 2000-01 and to the All-NBA Third Team in 2001-02…Eight-time NBA All-Star (2000-07), voted a starter seven times and was the league’s leading vote-getter four times…Helped the USA capture the Gold Medal at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia…Appeared in 852 career NBA regular season games with Toronto, New Jersey and Orlando, averaging 22.9 ppg., 5.3 rpg., 4.2 apg. and 1.20 stlpg. in 37.1 minpg….Also played in 56 postseason outings, averaging 23.3 ppg., 6.2 rpg., 4.5 apg. and 1.34 stlpg. in 40.3 minpg….
About the only deficiencies on his record is lack of les and multiple first team NBA but he was up against some pretty stout compe ion most of his career at SG. He would get my vote as there are lessor players in the HOF.http://www.nba.com/playerfile/vince_carter/bio.html
After thinking about this further, I definitely do not think he belongs in the Hall of Fame now. Comparing him to lesser players that are in the Hall is not really fair. Those guys were the best of their generation. Players in general are better now because they have better training and the mistakes of the past to learn from.
You have to compare him to his peers. Out of his generation of players he simply does not stand out. The most damning statistic to me is he was never even on the All NBA first team. Carter's best attribute was scoring, and he never lead the league in scoring. Couple that with the fact that he was not a big winner or clutch player and I just don't see his case.
2 really good points. I also think that if you have to think this hard about it in MOST cases, that player is a No. To me you have your no doubt about it guys the MJ, Magic, Bird, duncan, KG, Kobe. But even guys like Pierce or Dirk who area a notch below still have stronger cases...where we would not even debate it. I would probably say Yes but there is something about his case despite me being a fan of his game that gives me pause. I hope this year he erases that doubt ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
