Robert Horry = Greatest Role Player Ever

[Cheesebeef]

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!!

That was a sick performance.

I was just looking at what Horry's done so far just during THIS postseason and already came up with 6 pretty great games - especially for a role player:

1) Game 3 versus the Nuggets, Series tied at 1-1 - Spurs down going into the fourth, Duncan sucked - Horry makes two HUGE 3's en route to 13 points.

2) Closeout game versus Denver - Game 5 - Spurs up going into 4th - Horry hits more big shots, statline shows 17, 5 and 2.

3) Game 6 versus Seattle - 14 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists - pretty solid game from on the road in hostile territory.

4) Game 1 against us - 12 points, big threes in the fourth

5) Game 2 against us - 10 points, including go ahead 3 just as Nash gave us the lead with 2;00 minutes left. Spurs never trailed again.

6) Last night.

That's six - six playoff games just THIS season where Horry came up big for the Spurs. Does he do it every game? No - he's not a superstar - he's a role player, but a damn good one at that. I would be willing to bet that absent last year and the previous year's performance int he playoffs, Horry had at least 3 of those type of games every year he was in the playoffs.

 

[elindholm]

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?

But this gets back to the whole championship conceit. Let me ask you this:

If someone has a great game, helping his team to victory "when it really counts," but ultimately that team doesn't win the title, does it wipe out the great game?

I think it's a legitimate question. For me, the answer is no, it doesn't wipe out the great game, because we never know what's going to happen next.

For instance, let's take Stoudemire's block on Duncan in Game 4. That was a great play. If, by some miracle, the Suns had gone on to win that series, that block would undoubtedly be seen as the critical shift in momentum, the instant at which the Suns asserted themselves and slowly but surely took control of the series. It would become one of the most famous plays in NBA history.

As we know, that didn't happen. The Suns won that game but lost the battle. Does that mean the block isn't a great play anymore? Does that mean that Stoudemire, in that instance, didn't come up big "when it really counted"? To me, the play is still absolutely legitimate.

But some people might genuinely feel differently. They might say, "If your team doesn't win the championship, then nothing else that happened in the previous 100+ games matters. It all gets wiped away into nothingness." If you adopt that position, then you're right, there aren't too many players who can compete with Horry. After all, six titles is a lot, and if championship seasons are the only ones that count, he has a lot more to work with than almost anyone else.

But if other "big" games do count, then the list of players with more than 10 great ones goes on and on for pages. Of course Malone would count. No, he never won a title, but he went to the Finals twice and to the conference finals at least a couple of other times (I think, can't actually remember). Weren't those big games? If he put up 25 and 15 in a crucial conference finals game -- and I'm sure he did, many times -- isn't that a clutch performance? Or does it all get erased from the record a couple of weeks later when his team is eliminated?

I don't believe in rewriting history. Any team pursuing a championship is going to have critical games and critical moments come up along the way. There are a lot of opportunities for players to step up big when those moments arise. When the moment is upon them, no one knows that ultimately it "won't matter" because the team is going to lose later on. If it's a big moment at the time, it's a big moment forever.

 

[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?

But this gets back to the whole championship conceit. Let me ask you this:

If someone has a great game, helping his team to victory "when it really counts," but ultimately that team doesn't win the title, does it wipe out the great game?

I think it's a legitimate question. For me, the answer is no, it doesn't wipe out the great game, because we never know what's going to happen next.

For instance, let's take Stoudemire's block on Duncan in Game 4. That was a great play. If, by some miracle, the Suns had gone on to win that series, that block would undoubtedly be seen as the critical shift in momentum, the instant at which the Suns asserted themselves and slowly but surely took control of the series. It would become one of the most famous plays in NBA history.

As we know, that didn't happen. The Suns won that game but lost the battle. Does that mean the block isn't a great play anymore? Does that mean that Stoudemire, in that instance, didn't come up big "when it really counted"? To me, the play is still absolutely legitimate.

But some people might genuinely feel differently. They might say, "If your team doesn't win the championship, then nothing else that happened in the previous 100+ games matters. It all gets wiped away into nothingness." If you adopt that position, then you're right, there aren't too many players who can compete with Horry. After all, six titles is a lot, and if championship seasons are the only ones that count, he has a lot more to work with than almost anyone else.

But if other "big" games do count, then the list of players with more than 10 great ones goes on and on for pages. Of course Malone would count. No, he never won a title, but he went to the Finals twice and to the conference finals at least a couple of other times (I think, can't actually remember). Weren't those big games? If he put up 25 and 15 in a crucial conference finals game -- and I'm sure he did, many times -- isn't that a clutch performance? Or does it all get erased from the record a couple of weeks later when his team is eliminated?

I don't believe in rewriting history. Any team pursuing a championship is going to have critical games and critical moments come up along the way. There are a lot of opportunities for players to step up big when those moments arise. When the moment is upon them, no one knows that ultimately it "won't matter" because the team is going to lose later on. If it's a big moment at the time, it's a big moment forever.

I guess it really all depends on what your definition of "clutch" is. But you'r enot really saying that Karl Malone was "clutch" are you? He was arguably the least clutch player in the league especially considering his skill. Him and Stockton basicaly waited for the Superpowers in the West to get old and keel over and even then struggled through the playoffs. The things about Karl Malone that stick in my mind are him whining like a baby, missing two free throws against the Sonics with 10 seconds left in Game 7 of the WCF, missing two free throws against the Bulls in Game 1 of the Finals and getting made to look like a jackass against the Bulls in Game 6 in the final minute - when he got to the highest level he curled up in the fetal position - never lifting his game.

Bottom line for me - when given the opportunity, and sometimes being the catalyst for that opportunity, Horry has been able to step up and actually HIT those big shots - and that's something most players - role or superstars - can't say.

 

[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?

But this gets back to the whole championship conceit. Let me ask you this:

If someone has a great game, helping his team to victory "when it really counts," but ultimately that team doesn't win the title, does it wipe out the great game?

I think it's a legitimate question. For me, the answer is no, it doesn't wipe out the great game, because we never know what's going to happen next.

For instance, let's take Stoudemire's block on Duncan in Game 4. That was a great play. If, by some miracle, the Suns had gone on to win that series, that block would undoubtedly be seen as the critical shift in momentum, the instant at which the Suns asserted themselves and slowly but surely took control of the series. It would become one of the most famous plays in NBA history.

As we know, that didn't happen. The Suns won that game but lost the battle. Does that mean the block isn't a great play anymore? Does that mean that Stoudemire, in that instance, didn't come up big "when it really counted"? To me, the play is still absolutely legitimate.

it's not about winning the championship - it's about winning THAT game. Stoudemire's play live son because it was THE play that won the game. Reggie MIller, while never winning a title remains in my eyes one of th emost clutch players of all time because when he was clutch - he was winning games with his play. They were finishers - much like Horry. Finishing it what makes the play memorable - and Horry has done it both in losses, wins in the Conference Finals and ultimately the NBA finals - all the while not being a superstar - I think that's pretty special.

 

[Cheesebeef]

other memorable games/shots that most people don't remember by Robert Horry:

1) 1995 - 17 footer with 6.5 seconds left to beat SA in SA in Game 1 of the Conference Finals.

2) 18 points per game average in 1995 Finals.

3) 7-7 from 3 against the Jazz in the Conference Semi-finals in 1996.

4) 2000 - 17 points, 6 boards, 2 assist, 2 steals in Game 4 OT win at Pacers when Shaq had fouled out and series was at 2-1.

5) Game 3 - 3 pointer to end first round series with Portland in Portland.

Another tidbit: Over the Lakers' 3 year run, Horry made a game-clinching 3-pointer in at least 1 game in 4 straight series (starting with the 2001 NBA Finals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Horry

 

[elindholm]

it's not about winning the championship - it's about winning THAT game.

I agree with you there. That's one reason that I've never been that big on Kevin Johnson's dunk over Olajuwon, because the game was basically already over and the Suns lost. For that matter, it's hard to get too excited about Stoudemire's huge scoring average in the Spurs series, because it seems pretty clear that part of San Antonio's winning strategy was to let Stoudemire get his and try to clamp down on the three-point shooters.

As for the rest of it, I think we've reached "agree to disagree" stage. You remember Malone's failures because they were unusual, and because Malone has always been one of the league's least popular players. If either of us had the time, we could go into the Jazz playoff archives and find many occasions where Malone came up big.

I think we both know that Malone never had what you'd call a super supporting cast -- heck, the Jazz's third best player was Hornacek, who was certainly a good guy but nowhere near a star -- and yet the Jazz went deep into the playoffs many times. In my opinion, Malone deserves a lot of credit for that. But most people want to remember only his failures, and it's not like I love the guy so much that I'm going to keep busting my ass to defend his honor.

 

[haverford]

other memorable games/shots that most people don't remember by Robert Horry:

1) 1995 - 17 footer with 6.5 seconds left to beat SA in SA in Game 1 of the Conference Finals.

2) 18 points per game average in 1995 Finals.

3) 7-7 from 3 against the Jazz in the Conference Semi-finals in 1996.

4) 2000 - 17 points, 6 boards, 2 assist, 2 steals in Game 4 OT win at Pacers when Shaq had fouled out and series was at 2-1.

5) Game 3 - 3 pointer to end first round series with Portland in Portland.

Another tidbit: Over the Lakers' 3 year run, Horry made a game-clinching 3-pointer in at least 1 game in 4 straight series (starting with the 2001 NBA Finals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Horry

Thanks for doing the hard work here, cheesebeef. You confirm what my gut has been telling me about Horry.

 

[Cheesebeef]

it's not about winning the championship - it's about winning THAT game.

I agree with you there. That's one reason that I've never been that big on Kevin Johnson's dunk over Olajuwon, because the game was basically already over and the Suns lost. For that matter, it's hard to get too excited about Stoudemire's huge scoring average in the Spurs series, because it seems pretty clear that part of San Antonio's winning strategy was to let Stoudemire get his and try to clamp down on the three-point shooters.

As for the rest of it, I think we've reached "agree to disagree" stage. You remember Malone's failures because they were unusual, and because Malone has always been one of the league's least popular players. If either of us had the time, we could go into the Jazz playoff archives and find many occasions where Malone came up big.

I think we both know that Malone never had what you'd call a super supporting cast -- heck, the Jazz's third best player was Hornacek, who was certainly a good guy but nowhere near a star -- and yet the Jazz went deep into the playoffs many times. In my opinion, Malone deserves a lot of credit for that. But most people want to remember only his failures, and it's not like I love the guy so much that I'm going to keep busting my ass to defend his honor.

okay - agree to disagree - that's cool.

 

[Joe Mama]

Okay, since we're getting carried away with this clutch conversation can we please have a universal definition of what the word actually means. Frankly I think it's an overused word sometimes. I hate seeing a guy who shoots 39% in a game being called clutch because he made a shot at the end to win it. Most of the time if they would have just hit a few open shots early on their team would have easily won the game.

So let's hear it. What is clutch?

Joe

 

[Cheesebeef]

Okay, since we're getting carried away with this clutch conversation can we please have a universal definition of what the word actually means. Frankly I think it's an overused word sometimes. I hate seeing a guy who shoots 39% in a game being called clutch because he made a shot at the end to win it. Most of the time if they would have just hit a few open shots early on their team would have easily won the game.

So let's hear it. What is clutch?

Joe

IMO - I believe there are two categories of clutch play. 1) For Superstars, the games where you carry you're team on your back and will them to victory is clutch. 2) Clutch shooters - guys I want to have the ball in their hands in a tight game with 2 minutes left - no matter how they've shot up to that point. When you have ahistory of being a guy that can knock down a shot in those situations, you can also be considered clutch.

Horry fits in #2 in my definition of what clutch is.

Shawn Marion fits in neither.

 

[Mulli]

If he is the greatest role player ever, does that mean I can't hate him?

 

[Chaplin]

IMO - I believe there are two categories of clutch play. 1) For Superstars, the games where you carry you're team on your back and will them to victory is clutch. 2) Clutch shooters - guys I want to have the ball in their hands in a tight game with 2 minutes left - no matter how they've shot up to that point. When you have ahistory of being a guy that can knock down a shot in those situations, you can also be considered clutch.

Horry fits in #2 in my definition of what clutch is.

Shawn Marion fits in neither.

Quentin Richardson fits #2.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Quentin Richardson fits #2.

no way - to fit into #2 you gotta do it in the playoffs as well - or at least not go into a total shell in the playoffs like Q did. He's halfway there, but to put him in the #2 slot is premature.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

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.

feech, that's just stupid semantics. word play. you can't compare horry and malone or their careers. that's ludicrous.

 

[Chaplin]

no way - to fit into #2 you gotta do it in the playoffs as well - or at least not go into a total shell in the playoffs like Q did. He's halfway there, but to put him in the #2 slot is premature.

I wish you'd make up your mind. You never mentioned "the playoffs"--you mentioned 2 minutes left in a close game, that's it. Either make sure you word things right or stop correcting people of bogus mistakes.

 

[fordronken]

I wish you'd make up your mind. You never mentioned "the playoffs"--you mentioned 2 minutes left in a close game, that's it. Either make sure you word things right or stop correcting people of bogus mistakes.

He also said "guys I want to have the ball in their hands in a tight game with 2 minutes left - no matter how they've shot up to that point". I don't think any of us would have felt bad with Q taking a last second three in any of the playoff games. I certainly would have wanted him taking it. Now, I'm not sure I want Q running isolation plays, but that's true of Horry as well. If he gets the ball and he's open on a big play, I want Q shooting the ball.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I wish you'd make up your mind. You never mentioned "the playoffs"--you mentioned 2 minutes left in a close game, that's it. Either make sure you word things right or stop correcting people of bogus mistakes.

are you kidding here Chap? Do you not think the playoffs are part of the equation when evaluating if someone's clutch or not? Come on man, the idea that the playoff aren't part of the equation is stupid. Why wouldn't you include the playoffs when evaluating one's overall clutchness? Do the playoffs just not count in your world?

Was there really a reason to get "ridiculously personal" here Chap? Good lord.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

it's not about winning the championship - it's about winning THAT game.

I agree with you there. That's one reason that I've never been that big on Kevin Johnson's dunk over Olajuwon, because the game was basically already over and the Suns lost. For that matter, it's hard to get too excited about Stoudemire's huge scoring average in the Spurs series, because it seems pretty clear that part of San Antonio's winning strategy was to let Stoudemire get his and try to clamp down on the three-point shooters.

As for the rest of it, I think we've reached "agree to disagree" stage. You remember Malone's failures because they were unusual, and because Malone has always been one of the league's least popular players. If either of us had the time, we could go into the Jazz playoff archives and find many occasions where Malone came up big.

I think we both know that Malone never had what you'd call a super supporting cast -- heck, the Jazz's third best player was Hornacek, who was certainly a good guy but nowhere near a star -- and yet the Jazz went deep into the playoffs many times. In my opinion, Malone deserves a lot of credit for that. But most people want to remember only his failures, and it's not like I love the guy so much that I'm going to keep busting my ass to defend his honor.

kj's dunk is amazing b/c of the physical feat. scoreboard or not olajawon went up to block it and kj dunked on him. the physical greatness of the play happened.

and amare's scoring is impressive for this reason: he did it. when you say, "they let him get it," it raises the spectre that it is easy. what it really means is that they didn't gameplan to shut him down with help defense. but don't suppose that whichever man guarded amare (and it was frequently tim duncan) was just letting him get his points. amare still had to score against a defender (which often was a generally considered top defender in duncan). just b/c a team doesn't gameplan to stop amare doesn't mean that amare was given points.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Okay, since we're getting carried away with this clutch conversation can we please have a universal definition of what the word actually means. Frankly I think it's an overused word sometimes. I hate seeing a guy who shoots 39% in a game being called clutch because he made a shot at the end to win it. Most of the time if they would have just hit a few open shots early on their team would have easily won the game.

So let's hear it. What is clutch?

Joe

to me clutch is a player that with the entire game on the line (meaning a last second shot or play) that player delivers. shots in the earlier portions of the game are easier. why get tense if you've got an entire game left? but if you've only got 5 seconds left and you're down two and you hit THAT shot? you've got balls. you're clutch.

 

[Chaplin]

are you kidding here Chap? Do you not think the playoffs are part of the equation when evaluating if someone's clutch or not? Come on man, the idea that the playoff aren't part of the equation is stupid. Why wouldn't you include the playoffs when evaluating one's overall clutchness? Do the playoffs just not count in your world?

Was there really a reason to get "ridiculously personal" here Chap? Good lord.

LOL

Sorry, it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Errntknght]

My definition of clutch covers everything, not just shooting, for the entire game, and it only depends on the playoffs. The deeper in the playoffs the higher the weight attached to it. Horry is clutch but so is Bruce Bowen - it totally discobobulated the Pistons when Pops put Bowen on Billiups for their last possession, or maybe two. I don't think I'd want to depend on Bowen making a clutch shot, however, but what he's on the floor to do he does even better in the playoffs.

The interesting question is whether Tim Duncan is clutch... it's hard to say he isn't since he's led his team to 2 championships and the brink of a 3rd but on the other hand he does get shooting jitters bad under severe pressure. Maybe he's clutch with an asterisk...

 

[haverford]

My definition of clutch covers everything, not just shooting, for the entire game, and it only depends on the playoffs. The deeper in the playoffs the higher the weight attached to it. Horry is clutch but so is Bruce Bowen - it totally discobobulated the Pistons when Pops put Bowen on Billiups for their last possession, or maybe two. I don't think I'd want to depend on Bowen making a clutch shot, however, but what he's on the floor to do he does even better in the playoffs.

That is a really interesting point, one that gets lost in the fetishizing of offense that goes on b-ball circles. It makes me wonder whom the players themselves would call "clutch." I'd wager that defensive specialists like Bowen, Rodman, (Michael) Cooper, Ben Wallace, and others of that calibre would get more votes than we might suppose.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

That is a really interesting point, one that gets lost in the fetishizing of offense that goes on b-ball circles. It makes me wonder whom the players themselves would call "clutch." I'd wager that defensive specialists like Bowen, Rodman, (Michael) Cooper, Ben Wallace, and others of that calibre would get more votes than we might suppose.

My memory might be a little hazy due to how young I was during the Showtime Lakers era, but I recall Cooper making some big buckets to go along with his superb defense in the mid 1980s. I could be confusing with him Byron Scott though.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

That is a really interesting point, one that gets lost in the fetishizing of offense that goes on b-ball circles. It makes me wonder whom the players themselves would call "clutch." I'd wager that defensive specialists like Bowen, Rodman, (Michael) Cooper, Ben Wallace, and others of that calibre would get more votes than we might suppose.

As of right now, Bruce Bowen is probably the finals MVP assuming the Spurs win.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

feech, that's just stupid semantics. word play. you can't compare horry and malone or their careers. that's ludicrous.

Eric brought it up!