When Horry goes to the Hall of Fame...

[aaronstampler]

you shoulda bet I guess.

[aaronstampler]

4 points, 4 rebounds, 41% shooting. Let's just make out his HOF bust now...

[Bear Grylls]

4 points, 4 rebounds, 41% shooting. Let's just make out his HOF bust now...

No need to, Whottt already has.

[whottt]

Still waiting for a link to the requirements for induction into the Hall of Statistical Benchmarks.....I mean fame.

[mathbzh]

Who give a about the HOF???

[Kermit]

Still waiting for a link to the requirements for induction into the Hall of Statistical Benchmarks.....I mean fame.

No need. I'm sure that he'll be inducted on the strength of those consecutive three pointers. That sealed the argument for me.

[Bear Grylls]

No need. I'm sure that he'll be inducted on the strength of those consecutive three pointers. That sealed the argument for me.

His NBA Finals single game record for steals sealed it for me.

[whottt]

And a still waiting...hopefully you too will either become funnier, or at least more offensive....because we could be here a while.

[Bear Grylls]

Since Horry is getting in, might as well put Steve Kerr in.


Some of Steve Kerr's "records"


Second player in NBA history to win two championships with two different teams in consecutive seasons

holds the NBA mark for the highest single-season 3-PT FG percentage, hitting .524 (89-170) during the 1994-95 season

Won the 1997 Long Distance Shootout

And he does have 5 rings

[Kermit]

Still waiting for what? Confirmation from me that he belongs? You have a better chance sexing Mutombo. I would get on with the rest of my day.

[Clutch20]

Sentiment around the league seems to be that Horry's ID is too specialized to merit consideration in the conventional sense. So they say. Horry's modus operandi needs a special category for them to feel comfortable about any nominations taking place for him.

Duncan's stats and game will have scripters scatching their heads as to how to accurately headline and describe his body of work.

Tony Parker ditto, due to his effectiveness in the paint considering his height and weight.

Manu Ginobili also, Argentinian intangibles devil may care slashing, on and on...............




__________________________________________________

“They do a great job of their system and staying true to form,
making big plays in big moments,” Suns coach Mike D'Antoni
told reporters in Phoenix on Thursday. “That's what we're
trying to get. Mental toughness, being lucky, I don't know
what it is.”

The Spurs, D”Antoni added, just seem to “believe a little bit
more.”
“All the time,” he said.

[SAGambler]

Something to consider... If Robert Horry makes the Hall of Fame, that waters down the historical significance of what Tim Duncan is doing right now.

I'm not saying that's a reason to root against Horry or any of the other Spurs making the Hall, but in 30 years people need to understand just how dominant Tim Duncan was, and how he carried this team to 4 Championships (hopefully more). I think that will be underappreciated if the history books show that the 2005 and 2007 Spurs had four Hall of Famers.

Horry's been a great role player and has hit some great shots, but he's not in a position to do those things without the legendary big men he's played with, and he would tell you that himself.

Remember Game 5 in Detroit in '05?

If not for the clutch shot made by one Rober Horry, Spurs very well may not have won that finals.

If we come back here donw 3 - 2 and Game 6 plays out the same way it did, Detroit wins the O Brian.

[BigBeezie]

I think Horry belongs in the HOF. The guy is right up there with anyone for clutch plays made, and he has 7 (count 'em) championship rings. If he doesn't belong then nobody does.

You could argue that John Salley has 6. Well, did Salley actually contribute in LA? Nope!

[FromWayDowntown]

In response to whottt, I posted this elsewhere, but I'll put it up again for the sake of continuing this discussion:

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 without having been on the 50 at 50 list. (if you take TNT's Next 10 as canon, there are only 34 players inducted who aren't in the Top 60 of All-Time).

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, Thompson, 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 185th 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.

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?

I guess because he hit some big shots and, as whottt is so fond of reminding us, holds a couple of fairly meaningless single game records or because he's going to eclipse Kareem's record for playoff games. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I just don't find that to be the historical footprint of a Hall of Famer.

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.

The notion that there's some quantum of "clutchness" that can elevate a player to Hall of Fame status is laughable to me. Halls of Fame don't tend to induct role players for isolated (even if occasionally repeated) performances. I don't think that a player demonstrates a sort of immortal greatness by hanging out all game long, putting up mediocre numbers, and then happening, on a handful of occasions, to hit shots in the closing seconds of games that his team wins. Doing that makes him memorable, but I don't think it elevates him from being nice role player to suddenly being considered one of the game's All-Time Greats. I'd argue that points scored and rebounds and assists ac ulated by other players tend to be far more important than whatever subjective "clutchness." If those other players (Hakeem, Shaq, Timmy in particular) weren't ac ulating 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.

I'd be interested to see if any of the Horry supporters can come up with 10 clutch shots (out of more than 200 playoff games) that Horry's made. While I don't dispute that his shots have decided games and that winning those games have propelled his teams to series wins (particularly the 2002 WCF against SAC and the 2005 Finals against DET) I don't recall that too many of his shots have truly been the sort of momentum-changing daggars that they're remembered to be. His shot against SAC only tied the series at 2; SAC won the next game. His shot against Detroit probably gave the Spurs that series, but Detroit was able to reclaim momentum by winning the very next game on the road.

[Marcus Bryant]

You would think that the Hall would have a way to recognize players who had a significant impact on the game yet were not franchise players. Horry's had a direct part in multiple championships over the course of 13 seasons.

[ClingingMars]

Just because the hall of fame made a mistake with KC Jones, it doesn't mean they should make it twice by adding Horry. The baseball hall of fame has like 20, 40 guys that don't belong as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You can't put a guy in the hall of fame if nobody will ever blame him for playing poorly in a playoff game. Whatever Horry gives you is icing, always has been, always will be. Nobody game plans for Horry and nobody ever says, "Man if only Horry showed up tonight we woulda won."

They know who to triple team in the wanning seconds of a game, no matter how bad he's been playing.

-Mars

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

You would think that the Hall would have a way to recognize players who had a significant impact on the game yet were not franchise players. Horry's had a direct part in multiple championships over the course of 13 seasons.

That's my thought on the subject as well. He's been an impact player without the impact statistics. Not only has he been on 7 championship teams but he's been an influential part of practically all of those teams.

I'd like to see him recognized, although I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

[Kermit]

In response to whottt, I posted this elsewhere, but I'll put it up again for the sake of continuing this discussion:

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 without having been on the 50 at 50 list. (if you take TNT's Next 10 as canon, there are only 34 players inducted who aren't in the Top 60 of All-Time).

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, Thompson, 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 185th 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.

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?

I guess because he hit some big shots and, as whottt is so fond of reminding us, holds a couple of fairly meaningless single game records or because he's going to eclipse Kareem's record for playoff games. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I just don't find that to be the historical footprint of a Hall of Famer.

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.

The notion that there's some quantum of "clutchness" that can elevate a player to Hall of Fame status is laughable to me. Halls of Fame don't tend to induct role players for isolated (even if occasionally repeated) performances. I don't think that a player demonstrates a sort of immortal greatness by hanging out all game long, putting up mediocre numbers, and then happening, on a handful of occasions, to hit shots in the closing seconds of games that his team wins. Doing that makes him memorable, but I don't think it elevates him from being nice role player to suddenly being considered one of the game's All-Time Greats. I'd argue that points scored and rebounds and assists ac ulated by other players tend to be far more important than whatever subjective "clutchness." If those other players (Hakeem, Shaq, Timmy in particular) weren't ac ulating 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.

I'd be interested to see if any of the Horry supporters can come up with 10 clutch shots (out of more than 200 playoff games) that Horry's made. While I don't dispute that his shots have decided games and that winning those games have propelled his teams to series wins (particularly the 2002 WCF against SAC and the 2005 Finals against DET) I don't recall that too many of his shots have truly been the sort of momentum-changing daggars that they're remembered to be. His shot against SAC only tied the series at 2; SAC won the next game. His shot against Detroit probably gave the Spurs that series, but Detroit was able to reclaim momentum by winning the very next game on the road.

[Borosai]

Yes.

[whottt]

Horry posseses the one thing that everyone that ever dreamed of being an NBA player craves...

The Shot...and he posesses it abundance, in as much abundance as the absolute cream of the crop to ever play this game.

When players dream of playing in the NBA, when the dream is visualized...they don't visualize averaging 20ppg on 50% shooting...

They visualize hitting, "the shot", as time expires.

Horry is as good as any player to ever play the game of basketball in that aspect, and he is envied by just about every single player because he posseses it.

And the fact that he has that shot is a huge reason he has seven rings, no matter how hard people try to minimize his contributions into that of being a mere role player. Which he isn't...in any way, shape or form.


Mere role players aren't the all time leader in finals threes, the single game finals holder in steals, the playoff record for conseuctive threes, the career record for playoff games, they don't win absolute must win games in hostile environments when Duncan is choking the game away at the FT line by scoring 21 points in a little over a quarter...


And they also don't get replaced by Karl Malone and Charles Barkley and have their teams be the lesser for it.



That's not the resume of a role player...the fans of Horry's teams have shouted cheers for his on court heroics the likes of only which the all time elite to ever play the game have recieved...

And role players aren't absolutely villified for all time in the home towns of a half a dozen team for the heartbreaking damage they have done.


Horry is a HOF'er...there is no set requirment for what it takes to be admitted into the HOF, only trends. Horry is unlike any other player in NBA history...so there is no trend to judge him by...

And you can name all the boring and non-descript statistical bechmarks and nba teams you want, but it is called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of statistical efficiency...and only the absolute greats have broken as many hearts and been as great a hero at the same time..as Big Shot Rob.


...I am here because the mere suggestion of signing Horry pissed of one SPurfan of not so bad that he deleted the thread mentioning it....due to the pain caused by Horry..

Do you see people deleting threads at the idea of signing Jacque Vaughn? Will he ever matter that much?




I know he doesn't have great stats...the fact that his opponents keep bringing that up as if it is some kind of hard gleaned information...is as tedious as comparing Horry to the 15th man on the Celtics 40 years ago.


Do a popularity contest...see who wins it, then realize it's called the Hall of Fame. In terms of post season heroics(and that is really what it's all about for most people)...Horry is one of the elite to ever play the game.

[mavs>spurs2]

Robert Horry will never be in the hall of fame. Good role players don't make the hall of fame. The guy has career averages of like 10 ppg. Michael Finley has a better chance.

[whottt]

Fans of teams without HOF'ers shouldn't be thinking they know what is HOF worthy.

[ClingingMars]

Robert Horry will never be in the hall of fame. Good role players don't make the hall of fame. The guy has career averages of like 10 ppg. Michael Finley has a better chance.

You're right, he will never be in the Hall of Stats. Neither will Finley.

-Mars

[Borosai]

I bet the bottom half of my left nut that Horry will be in the HOF.

[bdictjames]

It will be a disgrace to not put the best clutch shooter the world has ever seen in the HOF.