- 74,557
- 23,991
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
This thread's stupid. Robert Horry is a HOFer.
The 'Robert Horry' Argument: 'Stop it' (copyright: KLJ)
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by darthska,
- Start date
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
the point of this thread wasnt to discredit Horry, ska is just pointing out that the "Robert Horry Argument" is not a valid argument when comparing role players to stars
- 7,775
- 4,696
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
Every time I see the Horry argument I assume it's for the lulz. At least that's when I use it.
Horry > LeBron.
Horry > LeBron.
- 1,834
- 521
- Joined
- Dec 29, 1999
Flip a coin. Both Shaq AND Kobe. Whomever says Shaq was the main player without a doubt needsto think again. Both Shaq and Kobe were dominant. Your 100% MAIN player should NEVER be off the floor in crunch time and at times Shaq wouldn't be on the floor in crunch time due to obvious reasons.
I'm a die hard Laker fan by the way. I'm saying this without any bias.
shoeking2101
Banned
- 19,728
- 2,456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
First off, to say it was BOTH Shaq and Kobe is just plain wrong. Shaq was clearly the man on those squads and in the finals. Tbh it's pretty ignorant to even think so. When you average 30 plus points and 13 plus rebounds you are the number one guy. Period.
Secondly, when comparing players, rings should not be the determining factor in who's the better player. It's only a part. Kind of a small part tbh. Rings represent a Team accomplishment. Some players just have the fortune of playing on better teams which leads to being in a better position to win a title. Thus, the whole "So and so is better because of the rings" is pretty dumb.
ohmygosher
Banned
- 8,072
- 2,447
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
When he says "man" he doesn't mean the "man" of that team. He's talking about when comparing players of the same tier. None of the players you mentioned are on the same level as Kobe, Jordan, Bird, Magic, etc.
With that said, Kobe > LeBum. 5 > 1. And if we include imaginary rings, 9 > 7.
- 12,536
- 39
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
This is funny but it's true.
I'm sorry but that Sacramento Game 4 should be the #1 clutch shot ever in that video.
solarius49
Banned
- 6,989
- 1,286
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
when has Adam Morrison ever been a role player in the NBA?
he's much worse than that
he's much worse than that
$tacy
formerly willchamberlain
- 26,167
- 24,944
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
Like I said in the other thread. This rings don't matter argument didn't come about until lebron turned it into overdrive. It was always mj is 6/6 in thr finals 6>5. Kobe has three rings he can never be the goat (gets 2 more) he needs 2 more. Same witg magic. Now since lebron has been amazing its rings dont define tge player since its looking like he might not break 2/3
- 23,016
- 4,970
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
- 10,536
- 10,664
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
It's the first time you have heard it because nobody with a brain thinks it.
- 1,981
- 163
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
Well this has always been a nonsensical viewpoint.
A player's ring count is not the sole deciding factor of greatness or a legacy. It's just not. Championships are indicative of an entire team. It takes a great coach implmenting a system, and players buying into it.
Michael Jordan was great. But he didn't win **** until Phil Jackson and Tex Winter came on aboard and implented the triangle offense(a system that has yielded 11 NBA titles), and until Scottie Pippen developed into a star. Same thing with Shaq and Kobe.
And not every great player was gifted with the greatest of circumstances, and YES circumstances do matter.
Titles are important. But they are just one of many variables when debating who a better player was. They are simply too many variables involved for it to be the most important criteria.
Last edited:
- 20,177
- 4,156
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
If they rings don't matter Wilt Chamberlain is greatest player of all time and there shouldn't even be a discussion about it.
He has the best numbers and was the most dominant player ever by the far. They literally had to change the game of Basketball because he was sp dominant at it.. It's not his fault, he had to go against the Celtics juggernaut.
I thought the reason why he was discounted from the argument is because he only has like 2 rings compared to Russell's 11, MJs 6, Kareems 6, Magics 5, Duncan's 4, Shaqs 4,Birds 3
But since rings don't matter. He's gotta be your top guy
He has the best numbers and was the most dominant player ever by the far. They literally had to change the game of Basketball because he was sp dominant at it.. It's not his fault, he had to go against the Celtics juggernaut.
I thought the reason why he was discounted from the argument is because he only has like 2 rings compared to Russell's 11, MJs 6, Kareems 6, Magics 5, Duncan's 4, Shaqs 4,Birds 3
But since rings don't matter. He's gotta be your top guy
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
I think he gets discounted due to his physical dominance over the players he went against. Many think he is the greatest regardless
- 20,177
- 4,156
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
I think he also gets discredited because many of his best games aren't on film
- 884
- 169
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
That's a fact.
- 1,834
- 521
- Joined
- Dec 29, 1999
NO! Just NO! For you to say it was Shaq and Shaq ONLY IN WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS. I stand by my aforementioned statement. Flip a coin. It was BOTH Shaq and Kobe during those titles. Shaq was the number one guy period? I think not. So many times Shaq had to be taken out of the game due to his free throw deficiencies during cruch time. I'm not discrediting Shaq (he's the man) but your number one player WOULD NEVER BE OFF THE FLOOR IN A TIME LIKE THAT. I don't think you grasped that. For finishers, you seem to be down playing Kobe's play. During the first title run Kobe avg 21 ppg/4.5 rpg/ 4.4 apg. The second title run he averaged 29 ppg/ 7.3 rpg/ 6.1 apg. Capping off the 3peat he avg 27 ppg/ 5.8 rpg/ 4.6 apg. Now look at that think and think rational. Don't try to flame. Shaq was the number one guy period/point blank/and nobody else? I'll wait.
Shaq was dominant without a doubt but it was BOTH him and Kobe. Thinking otherwise is not thinking rational and realistic.
- 7,437
- 2,006
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
i agree with most of what you wrote but i wouldnt say hes part of the role player table, those dudes can be replaced and their team would still have won [minus jj]
he belongs in a group of clutch shot takers/team leaders.
he belongs in a group of clutch shot takers/team leaders.
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
No doubt, also a big factor
- 10,646
- 9,738
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
'Ring-chaser' even in Houston? C'mon son.
Explain yourself if you're gonna make an asinine statement like this one.