Better career Brook Lopez or Robert Horry

[hege53190]

Brook has the stats, earnings, and talent.

Horry has the moments and rings.

Horry has played next to 4 top 20 players in their Prime (Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan) and 3 more top 100 players in their prime (Drexler, Parker, Manu)

Horry took full advantage of his opportunities. Opportunities that Brook has not had up to this point. Brook may be able to turn this thing around but it would take a hell of an Giannis Heater and Brook playing well in big games.

[Lalouie]

Robin's mascot fights

[OdomFan]

Better career? that's obvious. Horry may not be as talented as Brook was, but he had the better career by helping multiple teams win championships. He doesn't have huge numbers on his stat sheet but anyone who watched him play knows he did a lot on the defensive end that helped get the ball back in his teams hands for the more primary scorers to do their job on the other end. Very solid roleplayer.

Lopez was a guy I saw a lot of potential in, but if you ask me he didn't get put in the right situations until later in his career. If he played for a team like San Antonio sooner I think he'd have a better career.

[big-shot-ROB]

Please. I bet you to find a RealGM user with the nickname big-shot-Brook

[FreeThrowLine]

I dont really get the "better career" thing. Robert Horry wasn't as good as Brook Lopez, and Horry wasn't a good player on some of the teams he won a title on, even if he made a shot people remember.

Does being remembered more and having rings mean you had a better career? If we are going that route then no...most people judge careers by money made and Lopez made more money than Horry (I assume, given his era and he was an all-star). That's why I don't really get the career thing. Professional basketball is about making money not getting ugly looking rings.

I'm not saying it's not debatable between who the better player is, but saying Horry is better because of rings is really silly.

I hope you're joking with this post

[Forte IV]

At the end of the day rings matter, and Horrys got 7 of em. Brooks the better player but Horrys the bigger baller.

[MrPerfect1]

At the end of the day rings matter, and Horrys got 7 of em. Brooks the better player but Horrys the bigger baller.

I think Horry is the better player. He provides more spacing, superior defense, and an untouchable playoff resume.

Even beyond his clutch shots, his impact was huge. He even won SA a title by hip checking Nash and getting some of their most players suspended for critical games

[druggas]

I dont really get the "better career" thing. Robert Horry wasn't as good as Brook Lopez, and Horry wasn't a good player on some of the teams he won a title on, even if he made a shot people remember.

Does being remembered more and having rings mean you had a better career? If we are going that route then no...most people judge careers by money made and Lopez made more money than Horry (I assume, given his era and he was an all-star). That's why I don't really get the career thing. Professional basketball is about making money not getting ugly looking rings.

I'm not saying it's not debatable between who the better player is, but saying Horry is better because of rings is really silly.

I hope you're joking with this post

It's a joke of a post.

[HeartBreakKid]

I dont really get the "better career" thing. Robert Horry wasn't as good as Brook Lopez, and Horry wasn't a good player on some of the teams he won a title on, even if he made a shot people remember.

Does being remembered more and having rings mean you had a better career? If we are going that route then no...most people judge careers by money made and Lopez made more money than Horry (I assume, given his era and he was an all-star). That's why I don't really get the career thing. Professional basketball is about making money not getting ugly looking rings.

I'm not saying it's not debatable between who the better player is, but saying Horry is better because of rings is really silly.

I hope you're joking with this post

It's a joke of a post.

I mean that's literally what a career is. Most people who play basketball play it for money...you guys sound like marks lol. What exactly is your career?

Arguing what a better career is for marks basically, a guy who made a 100 mill but won more doesn't have a 'better career' than someone who made 300 mil - that makes no sense. Professional basketball is played for money, the other aspects are just supplements to the entertainment.

That's why I don't get why people bring up materialistic things in career comparisons, just compare who the better player is. More fame doesn't equate to better career. It's a team sport so bringing up rings doesn't even make sense, Robert Hory wasn't even the third best player on most of his championship teams.

Brook Lopez was probably a better player than Robert Horry, he was just on bad teams. If the counter argument to that is Horry made better career choices by picking championship teams, you could just as easily say Brook Lopez doesn't care that much about championships (which I believe was true at one point), and he probably made more money than Robert...so how is one career "better" than the other? The question isn't who is respected by their peers more or who is romanticized more - in which case you could argue Robert Horry had a better career than HOFers like Chet Walker (I'll give you guys some time to wiki who that is).

[druggas]

I hope you're joking with this post

It's a joke of a post.

I mean that's literally what a career is. Most people who play basketball play it for money...you guys sound like marks lol. What exactly is your career?

Arguing what a better career is for marks basically, a guy who made a 100 mill but won more doesn't have a 'better career' than someone who made 300 mil - that makes no sense. Professional basketball is played for money, the other aspects are just supplements to the entertainment.

That's why I don't get why people bring up materialistic things in career comparisons, just compare who the better player is. More fame doesn't equate to better career. It's a team sport so bringing up rings doesn't even make sense, Robert Hory wasn't even the third best player on most of his championship teams.

Brook Lopez was probably a better player than Robert Horry, he was just on bad teams. If the counter argument to that is Horry made better career choices by picking championship teams, you could just as easily say Brook Lopez doesn't care that much about championships (which I believe was true at one point), and he probably made more money than Robert...so how is one career "better" than the other? The question isn't who is respected by their peers more or who is romanticized more - in which case you could argue Robert Horry had a better career than HOFers like Chet Walker (I'll give you guys some time to wiki who that is).

I'm old enough to have watched Chet play so no more condenscending remarks.

[NYPiston]

This one is easy.
Lopez the better player, Horry (Big Shot Bob for a reason) the bigger legacy.
Horry will always be remembered for his big shot making as, I, a Pistons fan can unfortunately attest to (WTF were you doing Sheed?), Lopez will be largely forgotten over time.

[ATRAIN53]

Horry may have the titles and the glory of an NBA Finals winning shot

but Brook is laughing all the way to the bank here if you ask me.

Horry-
Career (may be incomplete) $53,745,000

Lopez
Career (may be incomplete) $121,086,487

I think Horry would happily trade careers

[NY 567]

Horry will always have the greater legend, but no **** he was going to win titles playing with four top 10 players of all time in Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan. If he played on the Bullets and the Supersonics for his career, he'd just be seen as another mediocre role player. He was capable of hitting big shots for sure, but his general play was fairly mediocre, a stretch 4 in an era with very few of them, and even then he was only a 34% shooter from 3, not really much of a scorer or rebounder either. Brook Lopez is a former all star and has had multiple 20+ ppg seasons. He's 10 times the player Robert Horry ever was.

[druggas]

Horry may have the titles and the glory of an NBA Finals winning shot

but Brook is laughing all the way to the bank here if you ask me.

Horry-
Career (may be incomplete) $53,745,000

Lopez
Career (may be incomplete) $121,086,487

I think Horry would happily trade careers

You can't compare money from different generations.

[bisme37]

I definitely think the guy with no rings has had a better career than the guy with 7 rings.

[snaquille oatmeal]

I may be biased but I only know Lopes because he has a twin brother in the NBA and because he sucked on the Lakers.

[elchengue20]

If the question is who had the better CARREER, ill take the guy with 7 rings and inmortal clutch shots in the Playoffs. I rather have that carreer instead of being an 20 ppg scorer on mediocre teams.

If the question is who overall was the better player, i guess you have to pick Brook Lopez.

[red96]

How rare is it that a player is beloved universally in three different cities? It has to be "Big Shot Bob"?

[FreeThrowLine]

I mean that's literally what a career is. Most people who play basketball play it for money...you guys sound like marks lol. What exactly is your career?

Arguing what a better career is for marks basically, a guy who made a 100 mill but won more doesn't have a 'better career' than someone who made 300 mil - that makes no sense. Professional basketball is played for money, the other aspects are just supplements to the entertainment.

That's why I don't get why people bring up materialistic things in career comparisons, just compare who the better player is. More fame doesn't equate to better career. It's a team sport so bringing up rings doesn't even make sense, Robert Hory wasn't even the third best player on most of his championship teams.

Brook Lopez was probably a better player than Robert Horry, he was just on bad teams. If the counter argument to that is Horry made better career choices by picking championship teams, you could just as easily say Brook Lopez doesn't care that much about championships (which I believe was true at one point), and he probably made more money than Robert...so how is one career "better" than the other? The question isn't who is respected by their peers more or who is romanticized more - in which case you could argue Robert Horry had a better career than HOFers like Chet Walker (I'll give you guys some time to wiki who that is).

Are you trying to insult me? Why are you asking what my career is? How is that relevant to this discussion? Who is mark and why are you so obsessed with him?

You replied to a post asking who had a better career and your main argument is about which player made more money without even considering they played in different eras with very different average player wages. By your standards I guess Lopez had a better career than Russell too

[kamaze]

I dont really get the "better career" thing. Robert Horry wasn't as good as Brook Lopez, and Horry wasn't a good player on some of the teams he won a title on, even if he made a shot people remember.

Does being remembered more and having rings mean you had a better career? If we are going that route then no...most people judge careers by money made and Lopez made more money than Horry (I assume, given his era and he was an all-star). That's why I don't really get the career thing. Professional basketball is about making money not getting ugly looking rings.

I'm not saying it's not debatable between who the better player is, but saying Horry is better because of rings is really silly.

People really don't care about championships these days. Robert Horry was a part of more than one great team. The Rockets with Olajuwon, Shaq and Kobe's era the Spurs.

Brooklyn Brook is also one of my favorite players.