Robert Horry, Hall of Famer, is the king.

[ShoogarBear]

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

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

That is, in a long-winded sense, my way of saying that I think any argument suggesting that Robert Horry is a Hall-of-Famer is one that is patently unreasonable. Don't get me wrong -- I respect the 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.

Ditto.

[AFBlue]

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

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

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

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

[dg7md]

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

[Phenomanul]

"Hall of Fame"

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

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

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

Horry would get my vote...

[Mavs<Spurs]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mavs<Spurs]

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

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

With all of your 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.

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

My god, you're dense.

Another insult.

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

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

dense:
The set Q is dense in R means that every open set containing elements of R contains an element of Q.
The set of Rational numbers is dense in the Reals.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

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

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

I understand that they're still building that hall.

[Mavs<Spurs]

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

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

I understand that they're still building that hall.

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

[Mavs<Spurs]

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

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

I understand that they're still building that hall.

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

[MannyIsGod]

dense:
The set Q is dense in R means that every open set containing elements of R contains an element of Q.
The set of Rational numbers is dense in the Reals.

I didn't bring up the number of posts, I brought up the percentage of posts. Com'on math man, you know the difference don't you? That was in an effort to point out that the only real conversation going on within the thread was the one you were having with yourself.

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

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

[whottt]

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

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

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

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