Should Vince Carter be a HOF'er?

[soap07]

It's interesting to me that the consensus among NBA fans seems to be that Reggie Miller is a no-doubt-about-it Hall-of-Famer and that a guy like Vince Carter is not, even though Vince was definitely a better player than Reggie in his prime.

Reggie's career numbers - 18 PPG, 5 All Star Games, 1 3rd-Team All-NBA, 1 Finals Appearance, 25,279 career points (#17 all time)

Vince - career 20,187 points (40th all time) - I could see him conceivably scoring between 2000-3000 more points for his career, which would give him more than Barkley, Parrish, Baylor, Drexler, Payton, Bird and David Robinson, among others. For his career, he's averaging 22.5/5.3/4.1 - pretty versatile over about 900 games. 8 All Star games, ROY, 1 All NBA 2nd team, 1 All NBA 3rd team.


No, he doesn't and probably won't win a ring, but neither did Reggie. It just strikes me as odd that Vince is looked at as a career loser but Reggie not making the HOF ballot brings about outrage.


I think Vince eventually is a HOF'er, not first ballot or anything, but I certainly think that his versatile play, longevity, and elite scoring in his prime will put him in.

[feckless]

NO!

[soap07]

I also want to add that for all of Vince's lack of playoff success- he's been out of the first round multiple times and has rarely lost a playoff series that his team was favored in. Those Nets teams he was on never had any chance of making a playoff splash. Same for the Raptors.

[Roy H.]

I don't put a lot of stock in all-star games, when a lot of Vince's were "earned" because he can dunk.

The big difference:  Reggie played 144 playoff games, and Vince has played in 56.  Reggie led his team to overachieve, and Vince's career has been a major disappointment.

[Fafnir]

Vince also tanked on his team to force his way out. That's not something you think of when you think "HoFer".

[soap07]

I don't put a lot of stock in all-star games, when a lot of Vince's were "earned" because he can dunk.

The big difference:  Reggie played 144 playoff games, and Vince has played in 56.  Reggie led his team to overachieve, and Vince's career has been a major disappointment.

Perhaps but reputation goes for both players. What teams did Reggie really lead to overachieve? What do we define as overachieving? Reaching the Conference Finals consistently in a watered down league?

I don't know if Vince's career has been a major disappointment. Outside of last year, what team has Vince ever really been on that was a surefire contender?  

It's all about perception.


Additionally, do we just discount Vince's regular season numbers? If we are going to base it solely on postseason success, Reggie only made one Finals appearance and in that series, the Pacers won one game.

[soap07]

Vince also tanked on his team to force his way out. That's not something you think of when you think "HoFer".

How about Jason Kidd in his last season with the Nets? Carter made a mistake in his career, it happens. In a vacuum, of course that looks terrible. But HOF players have been jerks before, especially about front office trades.

Again, I'm concerned with the entire body of work, which is very comparatively good and definitely better than Reggie Miller's.

[ACF]

I imagine he'll have a very hard time making it to the Hall.

If you think about DJ and several other players that have yet to enter the HOF, there's no way Vinsanity makes it all the way. But then again, you never know.

I think Miller was a far more deadly offensive weapon in his prime than what Carter was in his prime. Sometimes, Reggie carried the Pacers. Second-most treys all-time. I've seen VC carry a team but I've never seen VC carry a team like Miller, at least not when it really mattered.

[Fafnir]

I don't put a lot of stock in all-star games, when a lot of Vince's were "earned" because he can dunk.

The big difference:  Reggie played 144 playoff games, and Vince has played in 56.  Reggie led his team to overachieve, and Vince's career has been a major disappointment.

Perhaps but reputation goes for both players. What teams did Reggie really lead to overachieve? What do we define as overachieving? Reaching the Conference Finals consistently in a watered down league?

I don't know if Vince's career has been a major disappointment. Outside of last year, what team has Vince ever really been on that was a surefire contender?  

It's all about perception.


Additionally, do we just discount Vince's regular season numbers? If we are going to base it solely on postseason success, Reggie only made one Finals appearance and in that series, the Pacers won one game.

Is the HoF just about stats? I don't think it should be, Vince has the stats to get in. But I don't think he should because of the rest of the package.

http://bkref.com/tiny/2EvJR

I love stats and what they can tell us. But I'm not for reducing the HoF to just numbers.

[soap07]

I imagine he'll have a very hard time making it to the Hall.

If you think about DJ and several other players that have yet to enter the HOF, there's no way Vinsanity makes it all the way. But then again, you never know.

I think Miller was a far more deadly offensive weapon in his prime than what Carter was in his prime. Sometimes, Reggie carried the Pacers. Second-most treys all-time. I've seen VC carry a team but I've never seen VC carry a team like Miller, at least not when it really mattered.

Again, perception here. Vince Carter, in his best three year stretch from 1999 - 2002, averaged between 25- 28 points-per game. Reggie never averaged more than 25 points a game his whole career. Think about that. How can anyone claim that Reggie was more of an offensive threat than Vince?

 I agree with your first post though that DJ had to wait. I think Vince will certainly have to wait and should. I'm just saying that he should get more consideration.




One more thing: Vince's career PER is 20.8, Reggie's is 18.4. A career 20+ PER is excellent.

[Fafnir]

Vince also tanked on his team to force his way out. That's not something you think of when you think "HoFer".

How about Jason Kidd in his last season with the Nets? Carter made a mistake in his career, it happens. In a vacuum, of course that looks terrible. But HOF players have been jerks before, especially about front office trades.

Again, I'm concerned with the entire body of work, which is very comparatively good and definitely better than Reggie Miller's.

I honestly wasn't a big NBA nut during Miller's prime, but given Vince's absolute refusal to even TRY defensively late in his career. (even when on a contender) I can't put Vince the HoF.

[Fafnir]

I imagine he'll have a very hard time making it to the Hall.

If you think about DJ and several other players that have yet to enter the HOF, there's no way Vinsanity makes it all the way. But then again, you never know.

I think Miller was a far more deadly offensive weapon in his prime than what Carter was in his prime. Sometimes, Reggie carried the Pacers. Second-most treys all-time. I've seen VC carry a team but I've never seen VC carry a team like Miller, at least not when it really mattered.

Again, perception here. Vince Carter, in his best three year stretch from 1999 - 2002, averaged between 25- 28 points-per game. Reggie never averaged more than 25 points a game his whole career. Think about that. How can anyone claim that Reggie was more of an offensive threat than Vince?

 I agree with your first post though that DJ had to wait. I think Vince will certainly have to wait and should. I'm just saying that he should get more consideration.




One more thing: Vince's career PER is 20.8, Reggie's is 18.4. A career 20+ PER is excellent.

Vince took more shots than Reggie, Reggie made them much more often however.

Reggie was never in an iso heavy system that let him jack up a ton of shots like Carter. PER inflates when it comes to scoring.

[soap07]

I don't put a lot of stock in all-star games, when a lot of Vince's were "earned" because he can dunk.

The big difference:  Reggie played 144 playoff games, and Vince has played in 56.  Reggie led his team to overachieve, and Vince's career has been a major disappointment.

Perhaps but reputation goes for both players. What teams did Reggie really lead to overachieve? What do we define as overachieving? Reaching the Conference Finals consistently in a watered down league?

I don't know if Vince's career has been a major disappointment. Outside of last year, what team has Vince ever really been on that was a surefire contender?  

It's all about perception.


Additionally, do we just discount Vince's regular season numbers? If we are going to base it solely on postseason success, Reggie only made one Finals appearance and in that series, the Pacers won one game.

Is the HoF just about stats? I don't think it should be, Vince has the stats to get in. But I don't think he should because of the rest of the package.

http://bkref.com/tiny/2EvJR

I love stats and what they can tell us. But I'm not for reducing the HoF to just numbers.

Well, outside of stats, there is complete subjectivity, which is understandable.

But there are some subjective notions I've read in this thread that I don't feel are backed up...

Among them...

1. Reggie led his team's to overachieve. I think this is a overstatement at best, considering he had more talent around him than Vince ever did.

2. Vince's lack of postseason success should keep him out while Reggie's makes him a definite HOF'er, even though both players, frankly, don't actually have that much success.

[soap07]

I imagine he'll have a very hard time making it to the Hall.

If you think about DJ and several other players that have yet to enter the HOF, there's no way Vinsanity makes it all the way. But then again, you never know.

I think Miller was a far more deadly offensive weapon in his prime than what Carter was in his prime. Sometimes, Reggie carried the Pacers. Second-most treys all-time. I've seen VC carry a team but I've never seen VC carry a team like Miller, at least not when it really mattered.

Again, perception here. Vince Carter, in his best three year stretch from 1999 - 2002, averaged between 25- 28 points-per game. Reggie never averaged more than 25 points a game his whole career. Think about that. How can anyone claim that Reggie was more of an offensive threat than Vince?

 I agree with your first post though that DJ had to wait. I think Vince will certainly have to wait and should. I'm just saying that he should get more consideration.




One more thing: Vince's career PER is 20.8, Reggie's is 18.4. A career 20+ PER is excellent.

Vince took more shots than Reggie, Reggie made them much more often however.

Reggie was never in an iso heavy system that let him jack up a ton of shots like Carter. PER inflates when it comes to scoring.

But PER isn't just about scoring. Vince also was a better rebounder and passer than Reggie.

Besides, my point is simply that Vince was better at pretty much everything on the court than Reggie and both haven't won a ring...and somehow one is considered a HOF lock by the general NBA and one is a long shot.

I just don't understand that.

[fairweatherfan]

He shouldn't, but he will be.  Not on the first ballot, but sooner or later he'll find a way in.