Why isn't Robert Horry in the HoF?

[Doctor MJ]

He's not a Hall of Famer. If anything the hall of fame should have some other kinda way to honor these kinda level of players. Either start honoring a group of the core players together, or idk.

How about:

"The Hall of Famous Basketball Players
who People on the Internet Think Deserve to be Celebrated
but Don't Think Deserve to be Celebrated in the Basketball Hall of Fame".

[dhsilv2]

Um. And?

I'm still waiting for your idea of what the criteria for the hall is. The hall seems to want to tell the story of basketball at all levels.

As they should. I am still waiting for you to tell me why they can’t tell a story of basketball that is separate from which players are determined HOF players. They are NOT one and the same. Why do you need to weave these together?

Why can't you explain your stance? The hall's been fairly consistent with choices since the early days of bringing players in. We as fans can predict fairly well who will and won't make it. I have no idea what you're thinking and I'm simply asking you to explain your views. What's the point of a forum if we're not here to have a discussion?

On this very topic I've stated I don't think Horry should be in, but I have also defended that he's a seriously great player. I just don't think he meets the criteria. I've explained both views to people and explained my disagreements with some takes. You're refusing to have a conversation. I can't answer for the hall. you however CAN answer for your perspective.

[Egg Nog]

A top 3 player in the playoffs for 5 title teams...that's slightly-above-average ROTATION, not starter, ROTATION player?

Are starters not rotation players? I just mean he was above average for a guy who played real minutes...but not much more than that. Horry wasn't even close to an all-star.

A starter is a rotation player, but there are generally 8-9 rotation players on a team and even in the playoffs it's 7 with almost always an 8th guy in mix.

But with an 8 man rotation there are 240 rotation players in the nba any given year (216 when Horry started). You can't tell me Horry wasn't a top 50 player in the nba during his prime years. That's FAR from "slightly better"

I disagree that Robert Horry was a top 50 player in his prime. Top 50 is not even picking 2 guys from each team. I wouldn't put him at that level. He certainly elevated his game in the playoffs and had his memorable moments, but most of all he was circumstantially lucky.

There are inevitably going to be Danny Greens and Robert Horrys in any sport...guys that were good pieces but not great and had memorable moments and contributed to championships...but weren't all-stars and never came that close to being one.

The guy's highest individual honour was being on the all-rookie second team. I can't put a guy in the hall of fame just because he won a bunch of titles. If he spent his career on the Clippers and the Vancouver Grizzlies people would barely remember him at this point.

I think Robert Horry himself would laugh at the suggestion that he was a hall-of-fame player.

[dhsilv2]

Are starters not rotation players? I just mean he was above average for a guy who played real minutes...but not much more than that. Horry wasn't even close to an all-star.

A starter is a rotation player, but there are generally 8-9 rotation players on a team and even in the playoffs it's 7 with almost always an 8th guy in mix.

But with an 8 man rotation there are 240 rotation players in the nba any given year (216 when Horry started). You can't tell me Horry wasn't a top 50 player in the nba during his prime years. That's FAR from "slightly better"

I disagree that Robert Horry was a top 50 player in his prime. Top 50 is not even picking 2 guys from each team. I wouldn't put him at that level. He certainly elevated his game in the playoffs and had his memorable moments, but most of all he was circumstantially lucky.

There are inevitably going to be Danny Greens and Robert Horrys in any sport...guys that were good pieces but not great and had memorable moments and contributed to championships...but weren't all-stars and never came that close to being one.

The guy's highest individual honour was being on the all-rookie second team. I can't put a guy in the hall of fame just because he won a bunch of titles. If he spent his career on the Clippers and the Vancouver Grizzlies nobody would even remember him at this point.

I think Robert Horry himself would laugh at the suggestion that he was a hall-of-fame player.

Danny Green and Robert Horry are GREAT nba players. Neither was anywhere close to average and they weren't lucky either. Again without Horry, Dream for sure doesn't win his first title and likely doesn't win his second. Shaq and Kobe get at least 2 less titles. Duncan at least one less as well. People want to harp on Simmons and Embiid but OLD as hell past his prime Danny Green had his team on their way to the conference finals before he got hurt. He was a major loss for the 76ers.

Again I don't think Horry should be in the all, but you can't name 5 players who were top 3 guys on 5 title teams who aren't in the hall. And you know what....being the best guy not in the hall who was that good on 5 title teams makes Horry one of great all time nba players, just not THAT great. Don't lump him in with being just above average. That's simply not supportable based on his stats, results, or his game. There aren't that many awards for guys who aren't top 20 players and the nba is horrible at giving respect to guys who sacrifice scoring to just win.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

I'd give him more credit if he made a higher percentage of his threes in the playoffs. It seems like he made only a lot of clutch ones, and I mean that's obviously at least in part a statistical anomaly. He seemed to be involved in some fluke plays as well. Don't @ me.

Eh, you can @ me.

If you must.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Danny Green I'm not sure is super valuable in the playoffs if he isn't hitting any shots. Possibly why the lakers gave up on him.

[Wolveswin]

No, it literally can't. These are two different purposes, and there's absolutely no reason to think you can optimize for both simultaneously.

This isn't me saying "So Horry should be in the Hall" because I voted no, but the HOF is not a GOAT list, it's a physical museum that charges for admission and does things like advertising that it's a great place for student trips and children's birthday parties.

And you literally think they can’t have simultaneously their physical hall of tourist attraction AND have their hall of basketball fame? Please.

Players being voted in should be elite (and this has nothing to do with Horry). Generational talent, the most rarefied air of which a player can be voted into. Watering it down (not the tourist attraction) does no one a good service.

There's so much you're assuming in the words you're using. Look at the way you just separated "hall of tourist attraction" and "hall of basketball fame" with the clear implication that you think a "hall of basketball fame" is synonymous with an elite GOAT list. It isn't.

Hall of Fames were not invented for sports or competitions - they are museums - and note that "fame" doesn't mean "competitive greatness".

Let's also note that it is called the basketball HOF, not the NBA. The NBA is just the modern cherry-on-top of the ice cream sundae that is the phenomenon of basketball, and quite a lot of the stuff they focus on is about how the game rose to become what it has...which for the most part really isn't about individual players. The individual players are focused on because they help communicate the story of basketball, not because it was deemed of vital importance to create a super-elite list of basketball players.

So it's not a matter of whether they can achieve your notion of a GOAT list and sell tickets at the same time, it's a matter that there is no actual reason for them to be focusing on your GOAT list approach at all as if it is a goal, and thus the players they select are bound to disagree with your notions of elite purity.

Now, as I say all that: It's not just you that's thinking like this, and some who think similar to you probably have HOF votes. I don't mean to deny that there's been actual drift in people's understanding of what the priority of the HOF is, because if that hadn't occurred, you wouldn't be advocating for what you are.

What I object to though is the umbrage that people take at the idea that it's effectively ruining the HOF to include players below a certain threshold of greatness that basically looks to avoid exposing people to knowledge that's most in danger of being forgotten. I've said it before and I've said it again:

If you don't know tons about basketball history to the point that you can have a knowledgeable opinion about the vast majority of the people in the Hall, then you shouldn't be putting yourself out there as the judge of what deserves to pass through these gates, you should be looking to learn.

That's what the Hall is there for, and that's why I'm telling you you've missed the point.

You keep interweaving things that don’t have to be. Why?

Can a museum as you state not have a tourist attraction, tell the story about basketball, sell tickets and be separate than the vote of HOF players? Yes. They do not need to be the same thing and are not the same thing.

The HOF player vote has been watered down. The arbitrary voting line and qualifications to get in has lowered — hence HOF losses luster with every player they allow into that signification.

Why? Probably because it does sell more tickets to their tourist attraction. They sold out the rarified air of the HOF for their hall of tourist.

[Ayatollahmugsy]

Horry was a solid role player, not a Hall of Famer.

[ratul]

Horry should be a hall-of-famer. The Hall should recognize excellence towards winning, not individual play.

[ratul]

Listen to Al Michaels - literally he knew that leaving Horry open was one of the most moronic things ever. There was probably no one more terrifying in a clutch situation than an wide-open Robert Horry. You could argue he got his shots because they were double teaming Kobe/Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem but not many people can make that shot consistently and in a such an important spot.

Watch on YouTube

[OdomFan]

He's not a Hall of Famer. If anything the hall of fame should have some other kinda way to honor these kinda level of players. Either start honoring a group of the core players together, or idk.

How about:

"The Hall of Famous Basketball Players
who People on the Internet Think Deserve to be Celebrated
but Don't Think Deserve to be Celebrated in the Basketball Hall of Fame".

Maybe they could honor one of the greatest role players of all time by naming a gold or platinum medal after him, and then start giving a few of those out every year at the ceremony. Robert Horry could be that Honoree.

[D.Brasco]

The original stretch 4 should certainly be in the Hall of Fame

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

Yeah but what does that have to do with Robert Horry?

[dhsilv2]

Danny Green I'm not sure is super valuable in the playoffs if he isn't hitting any shots. Possibly why the lakers gave up on him.

Green's offensive value is from the space he creates from the routes he runs. If teams started leaving him open to shoot 3's then yeah he'd be kinda worthless, but that doesn't happen.

2019 on off was +5.4 (8.4 was offense) in the playoffs playing 59% of minutes.
2020 on off was 16.2 (11.3 was offense) in the playoffs playing 52% of the minutes.

[dhsilv2]

You keep interweaving things that don’t have to be. Why?

Can a museum as you state not have a tourist attraction, tell the story about basketball, sell tickets and be separate than the vote of HOF players? Yes. They do not need to be the same thing and are not the same thing.

The HOF player vote has been watered down. The arbitrary voting line and qualifications to get in has lowered — hence HOF losses luster with every player they allow into that signification.

Why? Probably because it does sell more tickets to their tourist attraction. They sold out the rarified air of the HOF for their hall of tourist.

When do you feel the inductions got watered down? Most seem to believe the contrary that the voters are raising their standards and that getting in has increasingly gotten harder.

[JonFromVA]

I'm fine with considering other factors for the HOF like clutch shots and especially defense (KC Jones was reportedly a very impactful defender) and of course the hall considers all basketball accomplishments not just NBA, but even in terms of the standard factors, Horry isn't even close to Jones.

BBR has Horry's HOF probability at 3.4% and KC Jones at 28.7%

[LAL1947]

The original stretch 4 should certainly be in the Hall of Fame

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

Yeah but what does that have to do with Robert Horry?

Under-rated post.

[DoItALL9]

This thread put some good on Robert Horry's name and game.

...Some others missed the forest for the trees.

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[beantownski]

KC Jones won 8 rings as a player, 2 rings in college, and 2 rings as a coach. Horry's resume doesn't touch KC Jones, and many feel he doesn't belong in the HOF.

kc jones, russell, cousy, etc., and their 15 titles are all recipients/benficiary of the peach basket era: limited teams, limited players league, limited medical, limited skills. throw horry or kyrie in that era and watch them bedazzle them old goons. bedazzle

yeah, it's amazing how evolution works!! let's not judge players on how they performed against their era's real life competition. let's talk hypotheticals, and completely ignore the advancement in medicine and training!! horry's resume doesn't touch KC Jones.

[johanliebert]

Is this a serious question?

Take away the rings that are team accomplishments and make a decision.

[johanliebert]

A starter is a rotation player, but there are generally 8-9 rotation players on a team and even in the playoffs it's 7 with almost always an 8th guy in mix.

But with an 8 man rotation there are 240 rotation players in the nba any given year (216 when Horry started). You can't tell me Horry wasn't a top 50 player in the nba during his prime years. That's FAR from "slightly better"

I disagree that Robert Horry was a top 50 player in his prime. Top 50 is not even picking 2 guys from each team. I wouldn't put him at that level. He certainly elevated his game in the playoffs and had his memorable moments, but most of all he was circumstantially lucky.

There are inevitably going to be Danny Greens and Robert Horrys in any sport...guys that were good pieces but not great and had memorable moments and contributed to championships...but weren't all-stars and never came that close to being one.

The guy's highest individual honour was being on the all-rookie second team. I can't put a guy in the hall of fame just because he won a bunch of titles. If he spent his career on the Clippers and the Vancouver Grizzlies nobody would even remember him at this point.

I think Robert Horry himself would laugh at the suggestion that he was a hall-of-fame player.

Danny Green and Robert Horry are GREAT nba players. Neither was anywhere close to average and they weren't lucky either. Again without Horry, Dream for sure doesn't win his first title and likely doesn't win his second. Shaq and Kobe get at least 2 less titles. Duncan at least one less as well. People want to harp on Simmons and Embiid but OLD as hell past his prime Danny Green had his team on their way to the conference finals before he got hurt. He was a major loss for the 76ers.

Again I don't think Horry should be in the all, but you can't name 5 players who were top 3 guys on 5 title teams who aren't in the hall. And you know what....being the best guy not in the hall who was that good on 5 title teams makes Horry one of great all time nba players, just not THAT great. Don't lump him in with being just above average. That's simply not supportable based on his stats, results, or his game. There aren't that many awards for guys who aren't top 20 players and the nba is horrible at giving respect to guys who sacrifice scoring to just win.

Great nba players lol. There’s nothing wrong with being a role player you don’t have to exaggerate their contributions. I saw that fake +/- stat you posted as well Danny plays with starters, it’s easy to use advanced metrics to support a narrative.