Why is Al Horford not considered one of the best players in the NBA by the common fan?

[Pennebaker]

I've heard knowledgeable fans compare him to Horace Grant who was, all in all, a good role player but he didn't make no one's life easier. He just had a define skill-set which is similar to Al's but it completely removes all of what Al can do above which Horace could NEVER do.

Opinions?

You're just wrong about Horace Grant. Didn't you see what happened to the Bulls when they lost Horace in FA to the Orlando Magic? The Bulls lost their rebounding and their best defensive big. Jordan and Pippen were then actually defeated in the playoffs to those Orlando Magic and they wouldn't get back to the championship round until they filled the big hole that Grant left. They filled it with Dennis Rodman, got their rebounding and defense from the PF spot again, and recovered their championship mojo.

And Horace Grant was not just a 10 points 10 rebounds kind of player, but he was also a 4x All-Defensive selection on the Bulls and Magic. Horford will never be an All-Defensive selection.

The only All-League accolade Horford has earned is a single 3rd team All-NBA selection from 2011.

So it's not just the common fan that's lukewarm on Horford but it's All-NBA voters too.

Please explain Horace overall impact sir? Right now, you said I am wrong when mentioning Grant was a role player who had a similar skill-set but that's where the comparison ends. So where am I wrong? Nothing you stated proves otherwise. Being a good role player and losing that said role player has impact especially when that moves Toni (above average) into the starting lineup and Toni's replacement is Will Purdue. Maybe that had a lot to do with it as well...

All-NBA is chosen by sportswriters and journalists.

You didn't read what I wrote.

1) Grant was a 4x All-Defensive selection who could also average 15/10.
2) They don't have a similar skill set because Horford is a poor defender by comparison.

So GMs would probably take prime Grant over prime Horford because Grant was also an elite defender, and they would do it without hesitation.

You know, Grant's 4 rings in 5 finals are not an accident. The 90s Bulls could not have won their first 3 rings without him, and they could not have won their last 3 rings without a defensive big like him.

Yes, All-NBA is selected by journalists and broadcasters (many former coaches and players) and they also don't think that Horford is an All-NBA player. So, like I said, it's not just the common fan who thinks Horford is uninspiring.

[jlokine]

yea top 10 player is a reach..

harden
curry
durant
westbrook
lebron
cousins
davis
giannis
kawhi
chris paul

is all better than him. and even in top 20

klay thompson
draymond
marc gasol
lillard
paul george
butler
towns
john wall
irving
griffin

is arguably better... (especially to the common fan)

like others have said, he's a great systems guy. plays within himself. within a system, in a role. a significant role. but even if you ask common fans in boston in terms of importance, they would say irving, hayward, horford. and before the trade, IT, avery bradley, horford.

[King Ken]

You're just wrong about Horace Grant. Didn't you see what happened to the Bulls when they lost Horace in FA to the Orlando Magic? The Bulls lost their rebounding and their best defensive big. Jordan and Pippen were then actually defeated in the playoffs to those Orlando Magic and they wouldn't get back to the championship round until they filled the big hole that Grant left. They filled it with Dennis Rodman, got their rebounding and defense from the PF spot again, and recovered their championship mojo.

And Horace Grant was not just a 10 points 10 rebounds kind of player, but he was also a 4x All-Defensive selection on the Bulls and Magic. Horford will never be an All-Defensive selection.

The only All-League accolade Horford has earned is a single 3rd team All-NBA selection from 2011.

So it's not just the common fan that's lukewarm on Horford but it's All-NBA voters too.

Please explain Horace overall impact sir? Right now, you said I am wrong when mentioning Grant was a role player who had a similar skill-set but that's where the comparison ends. So where am I wrong? Nothing you stated proves otherwise. Being a good role player and losing that said role player has impact especially when that moves Toni (above average) into the starting lineup and Toni's replacement is Will Purdue. Maybe that had a lot to do with it as well...

All-NBA is chosen by sportswriters and journalists.

You didn't read what I wrote.

1) Grant was a 4x All-Defensive selection who could also average 15/10.
2) They don't have a similar skill set because Horford is a poor defender by comparison.

So GMs would probably take prime Grant over prime Horford because Grant was also an elite defender.

You know, Grant's 4 rings in 5 finals are not an accident. The 90s Bulls could not have won their first 3 rings without him, and they could not have won their last 3 rings without a defensive big like him.

I read what you wrote quite clearly and responded to your points. It's clear you don't understand how to explain yourself.

I wrote what Horford does and from watching a lot of tape, I know what Grant does. I asked you what does Grant' ability wise do to make life easier for his teammates? You said, well he left and that hurt. I was like, yes, you lose your elite 6th man who moves to the starting lineup and replaces him with a scrub will do that. Then you say, he was voted all defense. None of this explains anything I asked you. It just a list of accomplishments chosen by NBA sportswriters and journalists.

Sorry but maybe you just shouldn't be in this conversation. I don't see any value in what you are saying sir. To be frank. Saying he was critical in winning is true. Any team who wins titles needs to have all of the right pieces. That includes the Bulls of the 90's.

There is not a GM with any sense who would take Grant over Horford. Not one. But thanks for your response. Good day sir.

[Andy123]

Because he's not.

He's super solid, hard working. Usually shows up in the regular season. Every once in a while he pops for a great game or a great stretch within a game. Then as a fan you think, "Man, this guy's pretty darn good. Why's he not all-NBA?" Then he kinda fades into the background for a while and you remember he's just a high-level roleplayer.

Then the playoffs start and you really get reminded that he's not on that "great" level.

Then Tristan Thompson walks in and Al turns white with fear.

This is not his game. He always impacts the game, especially in the regular season. I remember telling you Hawks fans this for years. Most Hawks fans from my experience just ball watch like most fans do so your idea of all-NBA is Al or anyone from his position dropping 20+ and getting 10+ rebound and some timely steal or block which helped the team win the game. Most Hawks fans from my experience of posting on different message boards don't really understand the game the way I do. This is why I used to get into it all of the time with Kevin Love fans till he joined the Cavs and now he's somewhat underrated.

I remember Hawk fans arguing that Paul Millsap was a better defender than Horford. I remember some trying to bring up stats. I remember exactly explaining why Horford is responsible for 99% of Millsap defense impact and I got a lot of negativity. I was 100% right and of course, you learned it to a short time later. Most fans see the game different. They see Porzee's 37 points and yes his scoring versatility is amazing, but I am looking at his off the ball movement, his screen setting skills, his ability to make the right cut or move off of the ball. I also look at his poor passing vision, ability to take defensive risk from poor angles, his poor ability to help his teammates on when the ball is not near on D and much more. There is too much to the game to really be focus only on what happens on the ball.

You already know the answer folks look at ppg , stats that's it ...
They don't count willingness to pass , intangibles , as much...
And you're probably not changing people's mind either.
But I agree with you sort of ...
Horford is all star level but he is not top ten . Remember Hawks and Celts are in East in West those Hawks team probably don't go pass first round.

[Pennebaker]

Please explain Horace overall impact sir? Right now, you said I am wrong when mentioning Grant was a role player who had a similar skill-set but that's where the comparison ends. So where am I wrong? Nothing you stated proves otherwise. Being a good role player and losing that said role player has impact especially when that moves Toni (above average) into the starting lineup and Toni's replacement is Will Purdue. Maybe that had a lot to do with it as well...

All-NBA is chosen by sportswriters and journalists.

You didn't read what I wrote.

1) Grant was a 4x All-Defensive selection who could also average 15/10.
2) They don't have a similar skill set because Horford is a poor defender by comparison.

So GMs would probably take prime Grant over prime Horford because Grant was also an elite defender.

You know, Grant's 4 rings in 5 finals are not an accident. The 90s Bulls could not have won their first 3 rings without him, and they could not have won their last 3 rings without a defensive big like him.

I read what you wrote quite clearly and responded to your points. It's clear you don't understand how to explain yourself.

I wrote what Horford does and from watching a lot of tape, I know what Grant does. I asked you what does Grant' ability wise do to make life easier for his teammates? You said, well he left and that hurt. I was like, yes, you lose your elite 6th man who moves to the starting lineup and replaces him with a scrub will do that. Then you say, he was voted all defense. None of this explains anything I asked you. It just a list of accomplishments chosen by NBA sportswriters and journalists.

Sorry but maybe you just shouldn't be in this conversation. I don't see any value in what you are saying sir. To be frank. Saying he was critical in winning is true. Any team who wins titles needs to have all of the right pieces. That includes the Bulls of the 90's.

There is not a GM with any sense who would take Grant over Horford. Not one. But thanks for your response. Good day sir.

He made their life easier by being a good rebounder, an elite defender, and by doing all the dirty work. How is that hard to understand?

It's not like those are common things that are easy to replace. In the Bulls case they could only replace Grant by adding a hall of fame PF.

You're wrong about GMs and Horford. He's seen as soft by almost everybody. And if you want rings and you're looking at two bigs that can average 15/10, you're going to go with the one that is also an elite defender and in this case that's Horace 4 rings Grant.

[sixerswillrule]

His impact on the game is always beyond numbers and ALWAYS appears on the game tape.

I think Horford is a top 10 player. I don't think it's debatable either.

RPM is a stat which goes way beyond box score numbers.

Robert Covington doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 5th among SFs in RPM last season, 25th overall.

Patrick Beverley doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 11th among PGs in RPM last season, 40th overall.

Al Horford ranked 14th among PFs last season, 60th overall.

I'm not saying Horford is the 60th best player in the league. But you cannot seriously think he is a top 10 player. There is no legitimate argument for saying he is even a top 20 player.

[King Ken]

yea top 10 player is a reach..

harden
curry
durant
westbrook
lebron
cousins
davis
giannis
kawhi
chris paul

is all better than him. and even in top 20

klay thompson
draymond
marc gasol
lillard
paul george
butler
towns
john wall
irving
griffin

is arguably better... (especially to the common fan)

like others have said, he's a great systems guy. plays within himself. within a system, in a role. a significant role. but even if you ask common fans in boston in terms of importance, they would say irving, hayward, horford. and before the trade, IT, avery bradley, horford.

We see the game completely different. It doesn't make you wrong and me right. I am pretty sure, you have a way that you are chosing your guys. For me:

harden (5)
curry (3t)
durant (2)
westbrook(6)
lebron (1)
davis(8t)
giannis (7)
kawhi (3t)
Draymond (8t)
Marc Gasol (10t)
Horford (10t)

[King Ken]

His impact on the game is always beyond numbers and ALWAYS appears on the game tape.

I think Horford is a top 10 player. I don't think it's debatable either.

RPM is a stat which goes way beyond box score numbers.

Robert Covington doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 5th among SFs in RPM last season, 25th overall.

Patrick Beverley doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 11th among PGs in RPM last season, 40th overall.

Al Horford ranked 14th among PFs last season, 60th overall.

I'm not saying Horford is the 60th best player in the league. But you cannot seriously think he is a top 10 player. There is no legitimate argument for saying he is even a top 20 player.

I watch tape. I don't really use or care about RPM. So if that's your thing, let it be you. That's not me.

[og15]

One of the best in what sense? He's not top 5 or top 10 or anything like that, but if you are thinking one of the best in a wider range, well there are a lot of players who also don't get mentioned.

Very nice two way big who can also space the floor, pass and create, that's certainly true.

[King Ken]

Because he's not.

He's super solid, hard working. Usually shows up in the regular season. Every once in a while he pops for a great game or a great stretch within a game. Then as a fan you think, "Man, this guy's pretty darn good. Why's he not all-NBA?" Then he kinda fades into the background for a while and you remember he's just a high-level roleplayer.

Then the playoffs start and you really get reminded that he's not on that "great" level.

Then Tristan Thompson walks in and Al turns white with fear.

This is not his game. He always impacts the game, especially in the regular season. I remember telling you Hawks fans this for years. Most Hawks fans from my experience just ball watch like most fans do so your idea of all-NBA is Al or anyone from his position dropping 20+ and getting 10+ rebound and some timely steal or block which helped the team win the game. Most Hawks fans from my experience of posting on different message boards don't really understand the game the way I do. This is why I used to get into it all of the time with Kevin Love fans till he joined the Cavs and now he's somewhat underrated.

I remember Hawk fans arguing that Paul Millsap was a better defender than Horford. I remember some trying to bring up stats. I remember exactly explaining why Horford is responsible for 99% of Millsap defense impact and I got a lot of negativity. I was 100% right and of course, you learned it to a short time later. Most fans see the game different. They see Porzee's 37 points and yes his scoring versatility is amazing, but I am looking at his off the ball movement, his screen setting skills, his ability to make the right cut or move off of the ball. I also look at his poor passing vision, ability to take defensive risk from poor angles, his poor ability to help his teammates on when the ball is not near on D and much more. There is too much to the game to really be focus only on what happens on the ball.

You already know the answer folks look at ppg , stats that's it ...
They don't count willingness to pass , intangibles , as much...
And you're probably not changing people's mind either.
But I agree with you sort of ...
Horford is all star level but he is not top ten . Remember Hawks and Celts are in East in West those Hawks team probably don't go pass first round.

That's fine with me. Look, I understand most aren't going to put him in the top 10 and that's fine with me nor will he get the respect. On another note, I never for one min thought my Hawks with Horford was a threat in the playoffs. Personally, we have never been a threat since St. Louis. Not one time.

I can understand you and I agree. Most folks don't see it. Even watching Brooklyn this year. Due to losing Lin, they will lose a lot of games because their bench is their strong suit and Lin took it over the top but this team with Lin would have been fighting for the playoffs because of the quality of Basketball they can execute possession after possession. They aren't the biggest or most talented but this game is a game of quality possessions and the team with the best tend to win more times than not. So if you know that, you really have to look at the big picture. Most don't. Reggie Jackson's 20/5/5 is not equal to Paul George's if you know what I mean. There is more to the game.

[DowJones]

Because he isn't. I have seen him in the playoffs enough to know what type of player he is. He is very solid but he isn't a guy you worry about. In an ideal world he is your team's 4th best player---a guy who is solid at many things but excellent at none.

[Wolfgang630]

He's definitely an All Star, but saying he's top 10 is pushing it a little too far.

[Pennebaker]

His impact on the game is always beyond numbers and ALWAYS appears on the game tape.

I think Horford is a top 10 player. I don't think it's debatable either.

RPM is a stat which goes way beyond box score numbers.

Robert Covington doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 5th among SFs in RPM last season, 25th overall.

Patrick Beverley doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 11th among PGs in RPM last season, 40th overall.

Al Horford ranked 14th among PFs last season, 60th overall.

I'm not saying Horford is the 60th best player in the league. But you cannot seriously think he is a top 10 player. There is no legitimate argument for saying he is even a top 20 player.

I watch tape. I don't really use or care about RPM. So if that's your thing, let it be you. That's not me.

You don't appear to know what you're looking at when you watch tape, though. And, besides, you'd improve yourself if you watched tape and also understood what RPM is. The more you know, as they say.

[King Ken]

One of the best in what sense? He's not top 5 or top 10 or anything like that, but if you are thinking one of the best in a wider range, well there are a lot of players who also don't get mentioned.

Very nice two way big who can also space the floor, pass and create, that's certainly true.

Not to Al's level. You have underrated guys like Avery Bradley but none to Horford's degree.

[King Ken]

RPM is a stat which goes way beyond box score numbers.

Robert Covington doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 5th among SFs in RPM last season, 25th overall.

Patrick Beverley doesn't put up big numbers. He ranked 11th among PGs in RPM last season, 40th overall.

Al Horford ranked 14th among PFs last season, 60th overall.

I'm not saying Horford is the 60th best player in the league. But you cannot seriously think he is a top 10 player. There is no legitimate argument for saying he is even a top 20 player.

I watch tape. I don't really use or care about RPM. So if that's your thing, let it be you. That's not me.

You don't appear to know what you're looking at when you watch tape, though. And, besides, you'd improve yourself if you watched tape and also understood what RPM is. The more you know, as they say.

Sir, have a good day.

[og15]

One of the best in what sense? He's not top 5 or top 10 or anything like that, but if you are thinking one of the best in a wider range, well there are a lot of players who also don't get mentioned.

Very nice two way big who can also space the floor, pass and create, that's certainly true.

Not to Al's level. You have underrated guys like Avery Bradley but none to Horford's degree.

Well, what can you do? It happens

[Pennebaker]

I watch tape. I don't really use or care about RPM. So if that's your thing, let it be you. That's not me.

You don't appear to know what you're looking at when you watch tape, though. And, besides, you'd improve yourself if you watched tape and also understood what RPM is. The more you know, as they say.

Sir, have a good day.

I'm having a great day right now. You're easily flustered.

[smartyz456]

I've heard knowledgeable fans compare him to Horace Grant who was, all in all, a good role player but he didn't make no one's life easier. He just had a define skill-set which is similar to Al's but it completely removes all of what Al can do above which Horace could NEVER do.

Opinions?

You're just wrong about Horace Grant. Didn't you see what happened to the Bulls when they lost Horace in FA to the Orlando Magic? The Bulls lost their rebounding and their best defensive big. Jordan and Pippen were then actually defeated in the playoffs by those Orlando Magic. Grant went back to the NBA Finals with a new pair of super star teammates (Shaq and Penny) while averaging 13/10 and making an All-Defensive team again (the same winning stuff he brought to the Bulls).

Jordan and Pippen wouldn't get back to the championship round until they filled the big hole that Grant left. They filled it with Dennis Rodman, got their rebounding and defense from the PF spot again, and recovered their championship mojo.

And Horace Grant was not just a 10 points 10 rebounds kind of player, but, like I said, he was also a 4x All-Defensive selection on the Bulls and Magic. His defense is what made him important. Horford will never be an All-Defensive selection.

The only All-League accolade Horford has earned is a single 3rd team All-NBA selection from 2011.

So it's not just the common fan that's lukewarm on Horford but it's All-NBA voters too.

horace grant gets mad underrated in realgm

dude was the glue guy in the first 90s bulls 3peat. he was an all-star caliber player and one of the top defenders in that bulls squad

if it werent for him anchoring their interior defense, the bulls would have a different fate compared to what happened

id say i would take him over most of the power forwards in the 90s except for malone and barkley due to his sheer willingness to be one of the best glue guys on championship teams

[King Ken]

One of the best in what sense? He's not top 5 or top 10 or anything like that, but if you are thinking one of the best in a wider range, well there are a lot of players who also don't get mentioned.

Very nice two way big who can also space the floor, pass and create, that's certainly true.

Not to Al's level. You have underrated guys like Avery Bradley but none to Horford's degree.

Well, what can you do? It happens

But at some point fans/writers/journalists have to acknowledge it. If Players/GM/scouts do, why can't they?

[ATLTimekeeper]

When teams play him to pass he loses a lot of his offense because he's not much of a threat to score or take over a game outside of hitting a few jumpers in a row. He's good at taking advantage of space/weak points, but he's not someone that can overwhelm a focussed defense with his talent. Sorry, intangibles and the non boxscore stuff is easier to replicate, which makes his ranking a little muddier.