more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers?

[dhsilv2]

This is more false than Horry deserving a spot in the HOF. He was a decent teammate but just doesn't belong among the best of the best.

if you care about points per game and not impact on the basketball court, to be honest I don't think you're one I want to discuss basketball with.

As for Horry, i think the best question about the hall should be a simple one. Can you tell the story of the NBA without this player, and to be honest Horry absolutely is a story that should be remembered. I can name a LOT of players from his era or around it who are in, who frankly that isn't the case. The hall isn't the hall of great players nor is it the hall of points per game. hell it isn't even the nba hall of fame.

There is no one or the other because points per game is just as important in making an impact on the court as everything else that the individual players contribute for their teams chances of winning every single game they play in. However not every player that the coach puts on the floor has to focus on putting up large numbers in that category which is fine.

This is why each player is assigned roles to primarily focus on in order to make that impact in each games final outcome. With that being said, everything you have about Robert Horry here pretty much sums up why I look at him as a memorable role player. He did his part for the team on both ends of the floor well (otherwise he wouldn't have made it into the league at all) but so has everyone else that gets consistent minutes for the teams they play for. This is all well and good but it doesn't mean they all deserve spots in the Basketball Hall of Famer.

Well I get that you see role player as a weird catch all for everyone from an actual role player to superstar impact guys, so I'm not sure how to really discuss that term as you're using is to include 99% of the league. But with that said we can discuss what Horry was.

Horry was a top 20 defender for about a decade straight.

He was revolutionary in his ability to be a stretch 4 before that was a thing.

He increased his production consistently in the playoffs every single year.

Horry spent the majority of his career as a guy who was a top 20-30 player in the league and simply never got credit for how good he really was.

That said top 20-30 undervalues how important he was to his teams. Guys who can increase production when needed, fill in slots, and defend 3 positions (in his era) are vastly more valuable than most allstars would have been in his place on those teams. horry defines scalable skills. This is why his impact was star level over his career and why he was able to reshape the entire nba and how the game is played. The rockets don't win with say a one time allstar in Charles Oakley in Horry's place. The lakers aren't winning with say Antonio Davis instead of Horry. And we can come up with a similar comp on the spurs.

Now if the hall were limited to actual super stars then perhaps we should change it. But I'll put Horry in the Hall before say Mitch Richmond everyday of the week. Horry was just more scalable, adaptable, and more useful on far more teams.

[70sFan]

Well, quality of basketball HoF isn't that high, so it's possible that at some point Horry will make it. He was very good player that was very useful on good teams. That doesn't make him star or anything but sometimes this kind of player is better than 20 ppg scorer.

BTW, Horry is definitely as much of a HoF-level player as Tommy Heinsohn, Tom Sanders or KC Jones. He just played later and that's the difference between them.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Horry 7 rings with 3 teams
Satch Sanders 8 rings with Russell
Both guys were role players more valued for denfense than offense.
Big shot Bob did hit some big shots.

I am sometimes critical of the level of defense in the 1960s. Watching the inability of guys to stick with Oscar on his hard stop pull up jumper made defenders look bad. Oscar's hard stop pull up jumper was rare in the 1960s but became normal later. But in the games I watched Satch Sanders defense did impress me. Russell wasn't providing interior defense by himself, Sanders helped. Help defense was less common in the 1960s particularly from non-centers.

But Sanders officially got in the Hall for contributions to the game. He started the rookie transition program. He was the first black coach in the Ivy League. He was a star on good NYU teams and anything done in New York counts for double or triple. He was an unsung hero on the Celtics in an unglamorous way and it's to see the unselfish guys get some recognition. And he was very likable.

How many rings did Horry need to get in the Hall? 7 rings on 3 teams is sort of more impressive than 8 rings as Russell's sidekick. Maybe Horry just needed one more ring or maybe it's impossible for role players to get into the Hall of fame Now.

[The_Hater]

Any team that wins a title without any HOF players either did so because they got lucky with opponent injuries and timing or it was a weak year without any great teams for the league. There is a reason that teams without superstars rarely win the Larry OB, it’s basically a fluke.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Any team that wins a title without any HOF players either did so because they got lucky with opponent injuries and timing or it was a weak year without any great teams for the league. There is a reason that teams without superstars rarely win the Larry OB, it’s basically a fluke.

Assuming Ben Wallace, Curry, Dunkin, Dirk and LeBron get in the Hall of Fame, are there any champions that will be without Hall of Famers?

Having only one Hall of Famer on a champion isn't that common.

[The_Hater]

Any team that wins a title without any HOF players either did so because they got lucky with opponent injuries and timing or it was a weak year without any great teams for the league. There is a reason that teams without superstars rarely win the Larry OB, it’s basically a fluke.

Assuming Ben Wallace, Curry, Dunkin, Dirk and LeBron get in the Hall of Fame, are there any champions that will be without Hall of Famers?

Having only one Hall of Famer on a champion isn't that common.

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Any team that wins a title without any HOF players either did so because they got lucky with opponent injuries and timing or it was a weak year without any great teams for the league. There is a reason that teams without superstars rarely win the Larry OB, it’s basically a fluke.

Assuming Ben Wallace, Curry, Dunkin, Dirk and LeBron get in the Hall of Fame, are there any champions that will be without Hall of Famers?

Having only one Hall of Famer on a champion isn't that common.

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

[The_Hater]

Assuming Ben Wallace, Curry, Dunkin, Dirk and LeBron get in the Hall of Fame, are there any champions that will be without Hall of Famers?

Having only one Hall of Famer on a champion isn't that common.

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

Pretty sure Dray and Klay are HOF locks. 2nd and 3rd best players on a 73 win team. 3 crowns and counting. Multi time all stars. Dray was DPOY. Key parts of a dynasty. They are the James Worthy, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson type guys who get in and both are recognized as great players. The HOF voters like to reward winning players.

Parker and Gino are both virtual locks too, Ignorng the championships and allstar appearances plus Parker’s FMVP, good international players always get in. Vlade Divac is in. Heck Dino Radja is in the HOF after failing as an NBA player.

[post]

Moses's stats should be adjusted. Subtract 1 or 2 missed shots per game from his stats and subtract 1 or 2 offensive rebounds. He was effectively passing to himself off the rim.

not buying that logic. you miss you miss

I don’t have any preoccupation with Moses Malone’s statistics at all, but the logic is actually impeccable, the effect on the result of the game was identical on such occasions whichever of the 2 given alternatives for allotting the statistics was followed.

if you miss a shot it gives the other team an opportunity to get a defensive rebound. it's better to put the ball in the basket the first time. you'd also have to watch every single game every single player ever played to come up with a statistic that applies the same standard to everyone, not just moses. also, is it 1 or 2? makes a big difference as to what someone's field goal percentage would look like. this is a perfect example of over complicating statistics to the point of borderline absurdity

[post]

if you care about points per game and not impact on the basketball court, to be honest I don't think you're one I want to discuss basketball with.

As for Horry, i think the best question about the hall should be a simple one. Can you tell the story of the NBA without this player, and to be honest Horry absolutely is a story that should be remembered. I can name a LOT of players from his era or around it who are in, who frankly that isn't the case. The hall isn't the hall of great players nor is it the hall of points per game. hell it isn't even the nba hall of fame.

There is no one or the other because points per game is just as important in making an impact on the court as everything else that the individual players contribute for their teams chances of winning every single game they play in. However not every player that the coach puts on the floor has to focus on putting up large numbers in that category which is fine.

This is why each player is assigned roles to primarily focus on in order to make that impact in each games final outcome. With that being said, everything you have about Robert Horry here pretty much sums up why I look at him as a memorable role player. He did his part for the team on both ends of the floor well (otherwise he wouldn't have made it into the league at all) but so has everyone else that gets consistent minutes for the teams they play for. This is all well and good but it doesn't mean they all deserve spots in the Basketball Hall of Famer.

Well I get that you see role player as a weird catch all for everyone from an actual role player to superstar impact guys, so I'm not sure how to really discuss that term as you're using is to include 99% of the league. But with that said we can discuss what Horry was.

Horry was a top 20 defender for about a decade straight.

He was revolutionary in his ability to be a stretch 4 before that was a thing.

He increased his production consistently in the playoffs every single year.

Horry spent the majority of his career as a guy who was a top 20-30 player in the league and simply never got credit for how good he really was.

That said top 20-30 undervalues how important he was to his teams. Guys who can increase production when needed, fill in slots, and defend 3 positions (in his era) are vastly more valuable than most allstars would have been in his place on those teams. horry defines scalable skills. This is why his impact was star level over his career and why he was able to reshape the entire nba and how the game is played. The rockets don't win with say a one time allstar in Charles Oakley in Horry's place. The lakers aren't winning with say Antonio Davis instead of Horry. And we can come up with a similar comp on the spurs.

Now if the hall were limited to actual super stars then perhaps we should change it. But I'll put Horry in the Hall before say Mitch Richmond everyday of the week. Horry was just more scalable, adaptable, and more useful on far more teams.

horry is a 3 and d specialist with decent passing ability. mitch richmond peaked at 26 ppg and had 10 straight years 22 ppg or more. horry peaked at 12 ppg. richmond was also clearly a better shooter and probably an equal passer. guys like richmond are harder to find than a guy that is moderately good at a couple of things

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

if you miss a shot it gives the other team an opportunity to get a defensive rebound. it's better to put the ball in the basket the first time. you'd also have to watch every single game every single player ever played to come up with a statistic that applies the same standard to everyone, not just moses. also, is it 1 or 2? makes a big difference as to what someone's field goal percentage would look like. this is a perfect example of over complicating statistics to the point of borderline absurdity

I am not seriously suggesting changing the stats but Malone (and perhaps Drummond) sometimes are not concerned with the accuracy of their first shot because they know they are getting the rebound. Throwing up a shot can give a player the opportunity to repost deeper against a less set defense. But the player has to know that they have the strength to push the defenders out of the way on the rebound.

It was also good for foul drawing.

In a situation where Moses knows he has an 75% chance of getting the rebound and 75% percent chance of either scoring on the follow up shot or getting fouled, then putting up a FG 32% first shot is fine. Put up 100 shots like that, 32 go in, of the 68 that miss he gets 51 rebounds. On those rebounds between made shots free throws and and ones he hits the equivalent 34 more shots for a equivalent TS% of TS 66% and he gets the defenders in foul trouble and the opposing team into the penalty. But on paper he is racking up rebounds while shooting TS%39 on those shots that are semi-intentional misses.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

In 1958, every team in the NBA had a Hall of Famer. All but 2 teams had at least 2 Hall of Famers. If you include the Celtics Hall of Famers (includuding Risen who was almost finished playing) the League was averaging just under 3 Hall of Famers per team.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I am not a Rings guy, but if Horry had 9 rings on 4 teams instead of 7 rings on 3 teams I might support him for the Hall despite him not being an elite player.

[michaelm]

not buying that logic. you miss you miss

I don’t have any preoccupation with Moses Malone’s statistics at all, but the logic is actually impeccable, the effect on the result of the game was identical on such occasions whichever of the 2 given alternatives for allotting the statistics was followed.

if you miss a shot it gives the other team an opportunity to get a defensive rebound. it's better to put the ball in the basket the first time. you'd also have to watch every single game every single player ever played to come up with a statistic that applies the same standard to everyone, not just moses. also, is it 1 or 2? makes a big difference as to what someone's field goal percentage would look like. this is a perfect example of over complicating statistics to the point of borderline absurdity

You are a serious young insect.

Oddly I am aware of that. I think the poster was as well, but was using poetic license/joking. If Moses managed to grab the offensive rebound every time then the net (so to speak) effect would be the same, but yes he would sometimes fail to do so if it was his constant tactic. (EDIT The poster concerned makes a good argument which I hadn't seen why it was good as a deliberate tactic).

I will have to confess to making something of a jibe at your obsession with individual player statistics, which for you give every appearance of valuing over player contribution to team success.

[post]

Assuming Ben Wallace, Curry, Dunkin, Dirk and LeBron get in the Hall of Fame, are there any champions that will be without Hall of Famers?

Having only one Hall of Famer on a champion isn't that common.

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

gus williams was seattle's leading scorer in the 79 playoffs chip run averaging 26.7 ppg, 6 more than johnson and 12 more than sikma. i'd call that more than "having a moment"

whether or not klay and/or draymond make the hall cleveland was severely injury depleted in the finals. no team hakeem beat in 94 was injury depleted at all. klay is on a similar level as mitch richmond who is in the hall. draymond's ability to play d and pass at a high level, not just a decent level, give him a much stronger case than horry

i didn't just start thinking russell is overrated and i didn't just find out about these 2 rare cases. i came to these conclusions independently of each other years ago. there's a good chance both manu and parker get in

[michaelm]

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

gus williams was seattle's leading scorer in the 79 playoffs chip run averaging 26.7 ppg, 6 more than johnson and 12 more than sikma. i'd call that more than "having a moment"

whether or not klay and/or draymond make the hall cleveland was severely injury depleted in the finals. no team hakeem beat in 94 was injury depleted at all. klay is on a similar level as mitch richmond who is in the hall. draymond's ability to play d and pass at a high level, not just a decent level, give him a much stronger case than horry

i didn't just start thinking russell is overrated and i didn't just find out about these 2 rare cases. i came to these conclusions independently of each other years ago. there's a good chance both manu and parker get in

Russell can't be over-rated, you can't do better than win every year of 13 except 2 when you were absent or injured.

No-one is disputing that a great player like Hakeem in a different era in which it is simply impossible to win 11 titles might be better than him as an individual player, but you can have that opinion and make a case for it without detracting from another player completely non-contemporaneous with him, and in particular without awarding the other player's achievements to Hakeem.

It is not an argument I would make, Hakeem beat everyone he faced for his titles and Jordan's second 3peat team was re-jigged after his absence for 2 years following the first 3peat team and the first team might well have not been as good in 4th or 5th years, but I believe the implication was that Jordan was gone; absent is absent whether or not due to injury.

[The_Hater]

Very true. 1979 Seattle had Dennis Johnson, but he wasn’t a superstar. Moreso solid. I would compare that team to the 2004 Pistons in that they were a sum of the parts team void of a top player.

Wallace and/or Billups probably get in eventually though, you’re right. But compare that to some of those Celtic and Laker teams that had 4-5 HOFers. The 2017 and 18 Warriors will have at least 4 and maybe even 5 with Iggy (longshot).

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

gus williams was seattle's leading scorer in the 79 playoffs chip run averaging 26.7 ppg, 6 more than johnson and 12 more than sikma. i'd call that more than "having a moment"

But Isn’t that the exact description of ‘having a moment?’ He had it on the big stage when it was most important.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

"Moments" was a bad choice of words. Gus Williams had stats suggesting he may have been the best of the bunch.

I did not watch the Sonics championships. I was only watching hockey playoffs back then and had just started watching a bad Celtics team on which Cedric Maxwell was the best player.

I started watching regularly the next year I and by 1982 I thought Gus Williams was more valuable than DJ (on the Suns) and Sikma.
I was not as big a Sikma fan as some people were. I loved Gus Williams's quickness.

[post]

if you miss a shot it gives the other team an opportunity to get a defensive rebound. it's better to put the ball in the basket the first time. you'd also have to watch every single game every single player ever played to come up with a statistic that applies the same standard to everyone, not just moses. also, is it 1 or 2? makes a big difference as to what someone's field goal percentage would look like. this is a perfect example of over complicating statistics to the point of borderline absurdity

I am not seriously suggesting changing the stats but Malone (and perhaps Drummond) sometimes are not concerned with the accuracy of their first shot because they know they are getting the rebound. Throwing up a shot can give a player the opportunity to repost deeper against a less set defense. But the player has to know that they have the strength to push the defenders out of the way on the rebound.

It was also good for foul drawing.

In a situation where Moses knows he has an 75% chance of getting the rebound and 75% percent chance of either scoring on the follow up shot or getting fouled, then putting up a FG 32% first shot is fine. Put up 100 shots like that, 32 go in, of the 68 that miss he gets 51 rebounds. On those rebounds between made shots free throws and and ones he hits the equivalent 34 more shots for a equivalent TS% of TS 66% and he gets the defenders in foul trouble and the opposing team into the penalty. But on paper he is racking up rebounds while shooting TS%39 on those shots that are semi-intentional misses.

that's nice. hakeem had a 66 ts% in the 87 playoffs and averaged per 100 possessions 5.5 more points, 1.3 more assists, and 3.2 more blocks than moses in 83 during his chip run. hakeem then came back next year in the playoffs and had a 64 ts% and averaged per 100 possessions 14.7 more points, 1.4 more rebounds, .3 more assists, 1.0 more steals, and 1.0 more blocks than moses in his 83 chip run. the year after moses's chip run he averaged 8 less points per 100 possessions and his ts% was 3.6 lower with the sixers. the next year with the sixers moses averaged 9 less points per 100 possessions than hakeem in the 86 playoffs and his ts% was 5.7 points lower. long story short, hakeem's 3 year playoff peak gives those sixers a better chance of winning multiple titles

[post]

In 1958, every team in the NBA had a Hall of Famer. All but 2 teams had at least 2 Hall of Famers. If you include the Celtics Hall of Famers (includuding Risen who was almost finished playing) the League was averaging just under 3 Hall of Famers per team.

you're forgetting to mention the celtics had 7 hofers that year. how convenient

I am not a Rings guy, but if Horry had 9 rings on 4 teams instead of 7 rings on 3 teams I might support him for the Hall despite him not being an elite player.

horry was extremely fortunate to play on hakeem's rockets, shaq's lakers, and duncan's spurs. it's that simple