Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of those rings were as a 3pt specialist and he missed a crap load of those shots too.
Anybody here remember when he lost the Lakers a championship?
Arguably the worst 3pt shooting performance of the playoffs.
He also took a ton of 3pointers, wide-open and missed a lot of them...then he'd hit one and everyone would be "wow, that was a huge shot."
And now for the icy grip of numbers....here is specifically what I'm talking about. 1999-00 Playoffs where he got a ring with the Lakers.
Horry: Playoffs - 7.6ppg, 29% 3pt. range
Finals - 3/15 from 3 pt. range don't have the time to add up his ppg
etc. from the box scores.
Then the 2002-3 Playoffs where he shot 2/38 from the field and cost the Lakers the championship.
He racked up a lot of rings later in his career hanging around shooting wide-open 3pointers decently because Shaq or Duncan were drawing double and triple teams. Even then he had a lot of failure that people are glossing over.
this is a huge issue i have, stats/numbers are not the only thing that factor into a player or a team. those things that dont show up in a box score IMO count more or at least as much as what does. look at shane battier, while he is not HOF, there is not a single team that he would not make better. you put shane on the spurs today and the spurs would become the favorite (provided they are not now) to win the title. horry was the same type of guy only better. he played very good defense, he could shoot, rebound pass. he was a very good passer. the thing is while he has obviously made some bad plays or had some bad shooting games, but robert horry was not the reason the lakers didnt win the title in 2003, the spurs are.
frank ramsey has 7 rings and was no more a contributer to the 7 titles in boston then horry. his scoring average is slightly higher but he played slightly higher minutes. he played on a stacked team and was nothing more then a role player.
how about Bob Houbregs? he played 5 seasons on 4 different teams and never won anything.
No, it's no lack of effort on this part. Some players are simply born to be more natural at certain things. Dwight will never be Hakeem in the post, no matter how much effort he puts in. Really, he doesn't need to be a truly dominant scorer because he impacts the game so much defensively and on the boards, BUT, if he could improve on the offensive side of the ball sufficiently you'd have to start looking at how he compares historically to past great centers. He has all the tools....
this is a huge issue i have, stats/numbers are not the only thing that factor into a player or a team.
Maybe in your view stats don't matter, but in the sports world when comparing player A to player B, stats are very much a part of the equation. It's not something to be dismissed simply because it doesn't jive with your own standards for what makes a hall of fame player/coach. Those who are in the hall have, for the most part, left an indelible stamp on the game of basketball. Putting a glorified role player in on the basis that he coat-tailed his way to seven rings largely off the backs of 4 of the top 10 players in NBA history ( Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem) and hit a few dramatic shots in the process doesn't make a hall of fame career. Those guys made Robert Horry, not the other way around, so I fail to see why he should be granted entry into the hall. Clutch shots aside, there was nothing remarkable in any way, shape, or form, about Robert Horry.
1st, you have comprehension issues or you just gonna disagree with everything for the simple point of disagreeing.
i never said anything about stats not mattering BUT i did say they are not the only factor out there. case in point, what makes shaq better then duncan or duncan better then shaq? it surely isnt their stats, its all the other things they did. if it was all about stats then whos better, shaq, duncan, hakeem? they all play similar positions/games. personally i put duncan at the top of the list or just under hakeem, depending on my mood.
lebron has better career numbers then kobe and jordan both, is there any argument there who is better? why would jordan be better then say oscar robinson? robinson averaged a triple double twice.
see stats can skew things, you have to look at the big picture.
robert horry didnt "ride coat tails", he was a major contributer on EVERY title team he was on with the exception of maybe his last ring in 2007. he was the starting PF in the 2 titles for houston.
1st, you have comprehension issues or you just gonna disagree with everything for the simple point of disagreeing.
i never said anything about stats not mattering BUT i did say they are not the only factor out there. case in point, what makes shaq better then duncan or duncan better then shaq? it surely isnt their stats, its all the other things they did. if it was all about stats then whos better, shaq, duncan, hakeem? they all play similar positions/games. personally i put duncan at the top of the list or just under hakeem, depending on my mood.
lebron has better career numbers then kobe and jordan both, is there any argument there who is better? why would jordan be better then say oscar robinson? robinson averaged a triple double twice.
see stats can skew things, you have to look at the big picture.
robert horry didnt "ride coat tails", he was a major contributer on EVERY title team he was on with the exception of maybe his last ring in 2007. he was the starting PF in the 2 titles for houston.
There's nothing wrong with my comprehension. I simply disagree with your points on the matter.
Stats are a huge portion of how we determine the value of a player. Of course you can have someone put up big stats on a losing team. However, looking at the list of hall of fame players all their careers are distinguished by being major contributors on championship teams, having great statlines while playing on good/great teams, and/or have individual awards or designations like all-NBA teams. Robert Horry is a ROLE PLAYER, no matter his few clutch shots he is not someone who otherwise was a remarkable player. His career stats are paltry, zero individual awards or ANYTHING to suggest he was among the best players when he was playing. The point that continuously flies over your head is that he won titles alongside FOUR OF THE BEST PLAYERS EVER. Hell, suit me up with Shaq and Kobe, I'd have 4 rings too. Get real if you think The Lakers, Spurs, and Rockets wouldn't have won those titles if Horry wasn't on the team. Horry's rings are BECAUSE of those guys, not the other way around.
Lebron's numbers are comparable to Jordans, he has higher assists and rebounds, lower steals, shooting percentages, and scoring averages. His stats are better than Kobe's. Last time I checked though, Jordan has 5 mvp awards, 6 championships and 6 finals MVP. Kobe has 5 rings, of which he is the undisputed leader of two championship teams, and a strong number 2 on the other 3. Lebron has 2 mvps and stats, so he'll get in on that basis but his overall body of work doesn't compare to either. Then again, he's only halfway through his career. So not sure what your point is there.
Oscar Robinson put up a triple double in an era where the number of possessions and pace of the game made for inflated stats. Wilt averaged 50 that same year. Beyond that, Oscar won a single title paying second fiddle behind Kareem. But, yes he won a ring and yes, he has the stats regardless of the context. Robert Horry has 7 rings, for 3 teams, in which he wasn't close to being anything other than a role player like the other role players on those teams. He hit a few clutch shots, and because of that he's hall of fame worthy? Again, if he played for the Clippers would we be having this discussion? So yeah, take your own advice and look at the bigger picture.
Who cares if Horry started on the Rockets team? He was a role player, just like Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith. Yeah he contributed on the Lakers, newsflash so did Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, etc. Hell, Fisher has 5 rings and a number of clutch shots. You want to put him in too?
If you think I'm being disagreeable for the sake of doing so, then feel free to not respond or ignore me.
1st, you have comprehension issues or you just gonna disagree with everything for the simple point of disagreeing.
i never said anything about stats not mattering BUT i did say they are not the only factor out there. case in point, what makes shaq better then duncan or duncan better then shaq? it surely isnt their stats, its all the other things they did. if it was all about stats then whos better, shaq, duncan, hakeem? they all play similar positions/games. personally i put duncan at the top of the list or just under hakeem, depending on my mood.
lebron has better career numbers then kobe and jordan both, is there any argument there who is better? why would jordan be better then say oscar robinson? robinson averaged a triple double twice.
see stats can skew things, you have to look at the big picture.
robert horry didnt "ride coat tails", he was a major contributer on EVERY title team he was on with the exception of maybe his last ring in 2007. he was the starting PF in the 2 titles for houston.
1) Ok, stop it right there. Jordans numbers are better than Lebrons. Jordans career ppg's including the seasons where he was pushing 40years old is 30.1 and that exceeds Lebrons best season ever . Shooting percentage is higher too as are steals and FT% is 10pts higher for Jordan. Lebron edges him a bit on rebounds and assists. If you want to shave off Jordan's older year or compare peak years it turns into a slaughter.
2) No one is questioning that Horry wasn't at times in his career a good starter or excellent 6th man. But being the 3rd, 4th or 5th best player on a string of championship teams isn't enough to get in the HOF. Otherwise when do we plan on enshrining guys like Derek Fisher too?
um maybe it could be attributed to shaq shooting 60% from FT, he did take 60 fts.
or maybe the fact that kobe to 159 shots but only made 43%.
or maybe the fact that the spurs shot nearly 50%, and held the lakers to 44%. or the fact that that duncan averaged 28-12-4 and 1.5 blocks, canceling shaq out.
bottom line, IMO horry deserves to get in if nothing more then for the fact that he is the ONLY player to win multiple titles with 3 teams. not one on each but 7 total and more then 1 on each.
you guys can take the easy way and stick with paul pierce and kobe, you know they are the popular picks right.
Otherwise when do we plan on enshrining guys like Derek Fisher too?
My point exactly. At this point you devalue what it means to be a hall of fame player. Hmmm let's see John Paxson has 3 rings, with a championship winning shot and a few clutch shots. Steve Kerr has 5 rings with a championship winning shot and some clutch shots. True giants of the game they are..... let's put them next to Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Shooting percentage is higher too as are steals and FT% is 10pts higher for Jordan. Lebron edges him a bit on rebounds and assists. If you want to shave off Jordan's older year or compare peak years it turns into a slaughter. 
