Robert Horry = Greatest Role Player Ever

[Brian in Mesa]

Say what you want, but if I was making up a playoff team - Big Shot Bob would have a spot on it.

At the end of regulation, Duncan couldn't buy a free throw (1-7), and he couldn't even put the ball in the basket when he got a rebound just a few feet from the rim...but Horry was clutch throughout the 4th quarter and in OT.

Detroit would be up in the series if not for Horry's performance in the last part of the game.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

You aren't seriously comparing Horry to Jordan, are you?

Depends.

Are you comparing them as players, or comparing their overall success (as in championships)?

 

[elindholm]

How about this question Eric, what players would you rather have taking the last second shot? I guess we could name a handfull of superstars like Kobe and Tmac to do it.

A bunch of players, but that's just my nature. I don't like to "play hunches" when there's a lot on the line. If you take Steve Kerr, for instance, not only do we remember him for one big shot, but he was a very accurate shooter (when left open) throughout his career. So I'd definitely prefer him.

I do remember this: At some point in the triple-overtime Game 3 win over the Bulls in 1993, Armstrong had a wide-open three to put the game away, and missed it. I remember being "sure" that he would make it, and really feeling like the Suns had gotten away with something when he missed. I'm not sure what the point of that story is, but I just thought I'd relate it.

Among players who are active now, I'd have to look at their playoff history, because certainly some players do have a tendency to choke and I would want to avoid them. I could come up with a list, but that wouldn't prove much.

Let's put it this way. We all remember Stoudemire's banked three against the Spurs in 2003. Does that make him a clutch three-point shooter? I'd say no. And even if he had a couple of other flukes like that, I still wouldn't be all that thrilled about having him out there with the game on the line. Really, the same is true with Marbury. We all remember him staging some amazing comebacks while with the Suns. But when you get right down to it, he just isn't that good a shooter.

Now if you're talking about a specific game, that's different. I do believe that players can get into a short-term rhythm where their accuracy goes way up. I believe this because I've experienced it myself, just shooting on my own. Everything clicks into place for a while, and suddenly shooting is easy. (If only it would last!)

So if Horry is already 4-5 from distance during the game, then sure, give him the ball. But under normal circumstances -- and, call him "clutch" all you want, but Horry has not shot anywhere near .800 from behind the arc for his career, so today's game was definitely not normal -- I'd rather take the player who is historically more accurate than the one who has been fortunate enough to wind up on a couple of highlight videos.

 

[elindholm]

Are you comparing them as players, or comparing their overall success (as in championships)?

Yes, another superb example of why counting championships is an idiotic way to assess a player's qualities.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Are you comparing them as players, or comparing their overall success (as in championships)?

Yes, another superb example of why counting championships is an idiotic way to assess a player's qualities.

It would be different if Horry was riding the bench during each of the title runs, but he was a key part of each title team he was on.

Why is it fans of teams without titles tend to toss titles/rings out of any conversation?

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Horry isn't even the most clutch guy of this year's playoffs. That title firmly belongs to Reggie Miller.

As for the greatest roleplayer of all time...off the top of my head I would have to say Dennis Rodman.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

And yes I thought the shot was going in...because he was wide open.

Remember that crazy shot that Rex Chapman hit falling out of bounds while covered by Payton in Seattle...that is a huge clutch shot. A wide open three? That should be expected.

Still, Horry deserves credit for consistently being in the right place at the right time. He is a smart player who knows how to get open to deliver. That still doesn't make him the greatest of all time.

 

[elindholm]

Why is it fans of teams without titles tend to toss titles/rings out of any conversation?

There's a big difference between tossing it out of the conversation and realizing that it's not very meaningful.

I'm sorry, but any yardstick that says that Robert Horry is better than, say, Karl Malone is just nonsense in my book. Horry's career is more distinguished because of his titles than it would be otherwise, and Malone's is less distinguished because of his lack of them, but Malone was still the far better player. If that's not self-evident to you, I just don't know what to say.

 

[Joe Mama]

Andy, I thought you made your point very well. It would be interesting to see what horry's clutch time numbers in the playoffs look like compared to other players. It would be even better to compare their numbers on three-point shots. It may very well be that his relatively low field-goal percentage in those moments is actually pretty good compared to these other players. I mean the defense is obviously playing tighter and more focused, so it's probably not fair to look at a 39% shooting percentage and say it's disappointing.

As I said in my previous post, it's not just the big shots that make Robert Horry a big-time playoff player. It's also all of the hustle plays he makes. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time.

Joe

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I'm sorry, but any yardstick that says that Robert Horry is better than, say, Karl Malone is just nonsense in my book. Horry's career is more distinguished because of his titles than it would be otherwise, and Malone's is less distinguished because of his lack of them, but Malone was still the far better player. If that's not self-evident to you, I just don't know what to say.

Success in most team sports is determined by championships, not individual achievements. Horry has had a more successful career than Malone had.

Was he a better player? No. No one is saying that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

As for the greatest roleplayer of all time...off the top of my head I would have to say Dennis Rodman.

I guess we have a different opinion of what a role-player is. After he left the Pistons, the guy was a superstar in the league - Ben Wallace before Ben Wallace was Ben Wallace. As the second best player on SA title contenders and the 3rd best Player on the Bull Title teams, not sure that I would call the leading rebounder for years on end a "role player".

Choosing Steve Kerr to hit a big shot (when he made ONE his entire career) and never made a big shot with his team down doesn't make sense to me all that much, Kerr was a classic front runner - save one fourth quarter against Dallas. If you had a hand in his face, his shot was never going in.

 

[elindholm]

Success in most team sports is determined by championships, not individual achievements.

You're changing the topic in a subtle but important way.

Your post that led to this was about the "overall success" of a player's career. Now you've modified that to "success in team sports," which isn't quite the same. "Overall" success, to me, would include both team and individual accomplishments. Why else would you say "overall," if you didn't mean to include everything?

While you're on any team, sure, your goal is to try to help that team win a championship, and your own numbers don't matter. If you use the code phrase "success in team sports," then you're pretty much talking about being on a winning team, by definition.

But players can't choose what teams they play for, and most end up playing for several throughout their careers. So how do we assess "overall success"? Through things players can control -- for instance, how well they perform -- or through things they basically can't control -- for example, like which superstar teammates they wind up playing with?

I'm sure almost everyone here plays pickup basketball (or at least used to). Sometimes I'm a "role player" on a good team that runs the table for a couple of hours, my contributions amounting to a few offensive rebounds or decent defensive stands. Other times, my teams don't do as well, but I personally have a better day. Am I more of an "overall success" in the first case? I certainly don't feel that way, but maybe I just don't fit your definition of "team player."

It's worth noting that this conceit about championships is unique to the NBA. No one was saying that Walter Payton or Ray Borque weren't fantastic players before they finally got their titles at the ends of their careers. In fact, the focus was more on the bad luck they'd had, playing on a lot of teams that were very good but not quite good enough. Similarly, no one is saying now that Barry Bonds isn't a terrific player (unless of course they are disqualifying him for steroids, but that's a diffrerent issue).

And similarly, no one gets themselves worked up over "role players" who have a few Super Bowl or World Series rings to their credit, through being in the right place at the right time. Every time this topic comes up, I ask whether Yogi Berra should be considered the greatest baseball player of all time. No one ever responds.

The argument that is often advanced for why the NBA should be considered differently, with championships being essential for greatness, is that it allows for more individual dominance than the other major sports. That's true, to some extent, and it's particularly tempting to apply it when talking about superstars from the same era, the most common example being Russell versus Chamberlain.

But a role player? Come on. Even if the NBA does allow stars to dominate more, that argument doesn't apply to the guy who averages only a few shots attempts per game.

The main reason to focus on championships is to allow fans of championship teams to assert their automatic superiority over fans of teams that have not won titles. If you'd be honest with yourself for a moment, you would see that that is exactly your motivation. By aligning yourself with the Lakers, you have earned that right, and clearly the Suns and their fans will never catch up in anyone's lifetime.

It is your perogative to continue lording that over us, and I'm sure you will. You haven't let up in the several years I've been on this board, and I don't expect it to stop. But please don't add insult to injury by insulting our intelligence with ridiculous claims about what a great player Robert Horry is. Anyone not blinded by the glare of "his" past championships can see Horry for what he is -- a good player who performs well under pressure and has had a remarkable knack for getting onto the same squad with the league's best players.

 

[Chaplin]

Post of the Day, Eric.

 

[JPlay]

Horry is only good if he's playing on a good team. If he's on a bad or mediocre team he's pretty much worthless. Ala Houston before he was traded, and the Suns before he was traded.

 

[elindholm]

Post of the Day, Eric.

Well, for length, if nothing else!

But thank you.

 

[Chaplin]

Post of the Day, Eric.

Well, for length, if nothing else!

But thank you.

Well, I figured I rarely compliment you, so you were due.

 

[Goldfield]

As for the greatest roleplayer of all time...off the top of my head I would have to say Dennis Rodman.

you stole the words right out of my mouth... Rodman go get the ball for Jordan & drive Malone crazy...

But I would call Horry one of the best big game, clutch players ever. But I still hate him.

 

[haverford]

What we have here, elindholm, is a failure to appreciate. A few claims were made about Horry's value as a role player/clutch player, modest within the range of absolute claims one can make about an athlete (e.g. greatest defender, greatest scorer, greatest playmaker, etc.). Now, an appreciative response would be along the lines of, "certainly, he can be considered among them," or even "certainly, he can be considered among them, but I prefer Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird or Michael Cooper." But your response was actually kind of stingy and rude. As if you were insulted by the very claim or by the mere opinions of others in this trivial and subjective pursuit of "greatest X". And then you resort to misconstruing the original claim as somehow being about best or greatest players. Perhaps I don't understand the bile, but your position doesn't seem all that strong, in argumentation or evidence.

So: Robert Horry in my memory has had the uncanny ability to hit clutch shots in limited roles with the Rockets, Lakers, and now Spurs. Therefore, I believe him to be one of the great clutch players in NBA history. You may disagree......

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

By aligning yourself with the Lakers, you have earned that right, and clearly the Suns and their fans will never catch up in anyone's lifetime.

Never know, the Suns could rattle off 14 straight titles with Amare

 

[elindholm]

What we have here, elindholm, is a failure to appreciate.

Heh, good one.

Now, an appreciative response would be along the lines of, "certainly, he can be considered among them,"

I don't understand why I should be compelled to offer an appreciative response.

As if you were insulted by the very claim or by the mere opinions of others in this trivial and subjective pursuit of "greatest X".

You are correct; I was insulted by the very claim, and I continue to be. However, I am not insulted by the opinions of others -- unless, of course, those opinions specifically insult me, such as the charge that I am being "stingy and rude."

Perhaps I don't understand the bile, but your position doesn't seem all that strong, in argumentation or evidence.

You don't have to understand the "bile" to see the argument. Whether you agree with my position is up to you, but it's pretty clearly laid out.

Robert Horry in my memory has had the uncanny ability to hit clutch shots in limited roles with the Rockets, Lakers, and now Spurs. Therefore, I believe him to be one of the great clutch players in NBA history.

Okay, let's look at this in a slightly different way.

The beauty of being a role player is that no one expects things of you on a regular basis. Horry had a great game last night and everyone is very excited. But remember, you're talking about someone who has played almost two hundred postseason games in his career. Two hundred! That's two and a half full seasons worth of playoff games!

In those two hundred games, how many times has he been "clutch"? Five? Eight? Maybe ten? Ten at the absolute most, right? So you're talking about a player who, in 200 playoff games, has made a "memorable" contribution in maybe ten of them.

How is that clutch?

In six games against Seattle -- which was a tough series for the Spurs -- he broke double figures twice, scoring 2, 6, 2 and 4 points in the other four games. His numbers were better against the Suns, but since the Suns don't guard big men, that's not really a fair comparison. And even then, the "clutch" player came up empty in the close-out game, shooting only 3-11.

Before last night's explosion against Detroit, he had cracked double figures only once in the Finals, in spite of averaging nearly 30 minutes a game, and was shooting barely 30% overall. How is that clutch? You're telling me that his other playoff games this year, including the other Finals games, weren't really big situations?

The reason why people remember Horry's big games is because they always catch us by surprise. If he played well on a regular basis, it wouldn't be big news if he caught fire and scored 20 points with some key three-pointers. But, in fact, he's usually pretty mediocre, even in big games, even when his team needs him, even when the pressure's on. The numbers just don't lie.

In my opinion, you can't be considered a great clutch player if you've had 10 great playoff games out of 200. Not even close. If you find that rude or stingy or dismissive, that's your business, but my stance is that the celebration of Robert Horry is absurd and I will continue to express that view for as long as I am able.

 

[Cheesebeef]

E - how many other role players or hell, even superstars do you know that have had 10 great impactful games or even 10 memorable moments that were crucial parts of championships? Karl Malone? Shrinkage to the Max. Scottie Pippen? Of migraine headaches, phantom back injuries and sitting out the end of playoff games? Charles Barkley? One fantasic postseason in his entire career. Kevin Garnett? Yeah, right. Chris Webber? I don't think so. And these are Superstars who can't even come close to putting up a list of ten HUGE games. Everything's relative. Most guys haven't made 10 great plays when the chips were down in their entire career. It's not a coincidence that Horry is going to have 6 rings.

In the panacea of role players, let's look at other key guys on title contending teams to see if they even come close to those "ten games" (even though in his second Finals alone, the guy averaged 18 points per game). Steve Kerr - two memorable games - the bucket on the pass from MJ with the score tied and the 3 point display against Dallas in Game 6 of the WCF. 2 games. Derek Fisher - His red-hot shooting against the Spurs was pretty sick, I'll give him three games there and throw on his Game 5 stunner last year - so that's 4 games. But who else besides those guys who are the level of player that Horry is have made even half as many big plays or played as well in big games as he has? It's all relative.

EDIT: I also find it funny that you point out Horry's 3-11 shooting in the closeout game against us as evidence of his lack of worth, yet fail to mention that off the bench, he also had 11 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals and 1 block. There's more to being clutch than shooting.

 

[Chaplin]

E - how many other role players or hell, even superstars do you know that have had 10 great impactful games or even 10 memorable moments that were crucial parts of championships? Karl Malone? Shrinkage to the Max. Scottie Pippen? Of migraine headaches, phantom back injuries and sitting out the end of playoff games? Charles Barkley? One fantasic postseason in his entire career. Kevin Garnett? Yeah, right. Chris Webber? I don't think so. And these are Superstars who can't even come close to putting up a list of ten HUGE games. Everything's relative. Most guys haven't made 10 great plays when the chips were down in their entire career. It's not a coincidence that Horry is going to have 6 rings.

In the panacea of role players, let's look at other key guys on title contending teams to see if they even come close to those "ten games" (even though in his second Finals alone, the guy averaged 18 points per game). Steve Kerr - two memorable games - the bucket on the pass from MJ with the score tied and the 3 point display against Dallas in Game 6 of the WCF. 2 games. Derek Fisher - His red-hot shooting against the Spurs was pretty sick, I'll give him three games there and throw on his Game 5 stunner last year - so that's 4 games. But who else besides those guys who are the level of player that Horry is have made even half as many big plays or played as well in big games as he has? It's all relative.

EDIT: I also find it funny that you point out Horry's 3-11 shooting in the closeout game against us as evidence of his lack of worth, yet fail to mention that off the bench, he also had 11 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals and 1 block. There's more to being clutch than shooting.

Todd Day? LOL (Just kidding, I know he only had 1 meaningful playoff game.)

Then again, if you think about it, Todd Day had one impactful playoff game out of 9. That's better odds than Horry's 10 out of 200!!

 

[haverford]

Now, an appreciative response would be along the lines of, "certainly, he can be considered among them,"

I don't understand why I should be compelled to offer an appreciative response.

I suppose you are not compelled. But you might want to consider it in the future. In the absence of others' disrespect towards you, you might be a little more generous toward others.

As if you were insulted by the very claim or by the mere opinions of others in this trivial and subjective pursuit of "greatest X".

You are correct; I was insulted by the very claim, and I continue to be. However, I am not insulted by the opinions of others -- unless, of course, those opinions specifically insult me, such as the charge that I am being "stingy and rude."

Yes, harsh perhaps, but that is how I read your comments. On the whole, you are not "stingy and rude." You have posted over 6,000 times, and I would be surprised if anyone could avoid a little stinginess and rudeness in that volume. So, if you are insulted here, know that I am not saying you are, elindholm, stingy and rude in general. OK?

Perhaps I don't understand the bile, but your position doesn't seem all that strong, in argumentation or evidence.

You don't have to understand the "bile" to see the argument. Whether you agree with my position is up to you, but it's pretty clearly laid out.

Had trouble seeing it. Clearly, there was "bile" involved (perhaps justified, I don't know) as your post addressing BrianinMesa makes clear. What you post below makes the case much more clearly. Thanks for that. I still disagree, thinking your position below is as obtuse, "absurd" and missing the point as ever. But, believe it or not, I respect it.

 

[elindholm]

In the absence of others' disrespect towards you, you might be a little more generous toward others.

I appreciate that, but keep in mind that there are some long histories here. I don't imagine disrespect toward me, but I do notice it, even when it's subtle.

 

[haverford]

I appreciate that.