Robert Horry, Hall of Famer, is the king.

[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.

[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 out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of le 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 les 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 out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of le 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 les 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 le of the post that I am disagreeing with says that Horry=newNazr. If the le 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 out of Robert Horry and find his resume to be impressive. He's certainly made a difference on a series of le 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 les 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 les the Celtics have won precludes criticism of the current state of that franchise -- or like saying that the Spurs' 3 les 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

[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 les the Celtics have won precludes criticism of the current state of that franchise -- or like saying that the Spurs' 3 les 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?

[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

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.

[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

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?

[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.

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 bull 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!