Should Vince Carter be a HOF'er?

[soap07]

This is just plain interesting, if you step back, and try to separate intrinsic dislike/loyalty of particular players:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=allenra02&y1=2011&p2=millere01&y2=2005&p3=cartevi01&y3=2011

Now, that is interesting. Vince, in his playoff career compared to Reggie's, has a higher career PER, PPG, RPG, and APG.

Reggie has him beat in shooting percentage, (eFG% = .544 to .487)....but one guy is considered a great clutch performer and one is considered "mediocrely good".

 

Playoff stats:

Ray: 101 games played, .531 eFG%, .584 TS%, Win Shares Per 48: .156 
Reggie: 144 games played, .526 eFG%, .601 TS%, WS/48: .180
Vince: 56 games played, .451 eFG%, .514 TS%, WS/48: .137

Vince's very small number of playoff games played, along with his generally poor eFG% and TS%, are what makes him stand out.  He was a guy who put up empty stats, but didn't help his team win, and didn't score with a lot of efficiency, especially in the playoffs.

You and I both know that Vince played on a lot of crappy teams that wouldn't have been anywhere if not for Vince. And according to the link that Fan from VT provided, Vince's eFG% is .487.

I don't think using cumulative playoff numbers is fair because of the number of bad teams Vince played on.

And what does it mean to put up "empty" stats? Stats are stats...are they only full when you want them to be? Win Shares are a flawed sabremetric, something that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Chauncey Billups is 10th all time in Win Shares/48.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html

What I see is that Vince has a better career postseason stat line than Reggie - he just didn't have the support around him than Reggie did. Additionally,  I see Vince having an astronomically better regular season track record than miller.

[Fan from VT]

This is just plain interesting, if you step back, and try to separate intrinsic dislike/loyalty of particular players:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=allenra02&y1=2011&p2=millere01&y2=2005&p3=cartevi01&y3=2011

Now, that is interesting. Vince, in his playoff career compared to Reggie's, has a higher career PER, PPG, RPG, and APG.

Reggie has him beat in shooting percentage, (eFG% = .544 to .487)....but one guy is considered a great clutch performer and one is considered "mediocrely good".

 

Playoff stats:

Ray: 101 games played, .531 eFG%, .584 TS%, Win Shares Per 48: .156 
Reggie: 144 games played, .526 eFG%, .601 TS%, WS/48: .180
Vince: 56 games played, .451 eFG%, .514 TS%, WS/48: .137

Vince's very small number of playoff games played, along with his generally poor eFG% and TS%, are what makes him stand out.  He was a guy who put up empty stats, but didn't help his team win, and didn't score with a lot of efficiency, especially in the playoffs.

Here's a question:

What SHOULD these teams have won?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2001.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2000.html

Then he was on New Jersey...is Kidd's reputation as a "winner" in doubt? If not, why not? Which one, Kidd or Carter, can be blamed for "empty stats" that didn't lead to wins?

[Donoghus]

No.

It's not the Hall of "Medicorely Good"

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.

I just don't see this is "Mediocrely Good". I see him, in his prime, as one of the best in the game, and consistently productive for the rest of his career. He was an elite scorer, good rebounder for his position and a good passer. He was stuck on terrible teams and aside from forcing a trade from Toronto, he had a great career that at this point, he's not being recognized for.

King & Moncrief are more deserving.

Carter's game was exciting to watch and he put up some solid stats.  However, he's one of those guys that when you start drilling below the surface, just isn't a HOFer.

Almost like he's Drew Bledsoe-like.  Some pretty stats but not a HOFer.

[soap07]

Too bad for Vince they don't put Dunks in the hall of fame.

Would like to see a wax statue of him dunking over that 7 footer.


But.. No, he clearly should not go to the HoF.

This is also a giant misconception - that all Vince did was dunk. Also a good passer, rebounder and an excellent shooter (38% from 3 for his career).


I might add, for Roy, that Carter has a better career Win Shares/48 than Tommy Heinsohn, Steve Nash, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Havlicek, James Worthy, Alex English, Robert Parish, Dave Cowens, Joe Dumars, Bob McAdoo, Earl Monroe, Jerry Lucas, Gary Payton, Hal Greer, Dennis Johnson, Lenny Wilkens and Bob Cousy.

[soap07]

No.

It's not the Hall of "Medicorely Good"

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.

I just don't see this is "Mediocrely Good". I see him, in his prime, as one of the best in the game, and consistently productive for the rest of his career. He was an elite scorer, good rebounder for his position and a good passer. He was stuck on terrible teams and aside from forcing a trade from Toronto, he had a great career that at this point, he's not being recognized for.

King & Moncrief are more deserving.

Carter's game was exciting to watch and he put up some solid stats.  However, he's one of those guys that when you start drilling below the surface, just isn't a HOFer.

Almost like he's Drew Bledsoe-like.  Some pretty stats but not a HOFer.

Bledsoe has a career 57% completion percentage and made only four Pro-Bowls. I don't see the comparison in the least. His prime certainly didn't last long.

[Roy H.]

Then he was on New Jersey...is Kidd's reputation as a "winner" in doubt? If not, why not? Which one, Kidd or Carter, can be blamed for "empty stats" that didn't lead to wins?

Well, Kidd led a similar team to two Finals appearances, so I think that issue has been pretty conclusively settled. 

[Donoghus]

No.

It's not the Hall of "Medicorely Good"

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.

I just don't see this is "Mediocrely Good". I see him, in his prime, as one of the best in the game, and consistently productive for the rest of his career. He was an elite scorer, good rebounder for his position and a good passer. He was stuck on terrible teams and aside from forcing a trade from Toronto, he had a great career that at this point, he's not being recognized for.

King & Moncrief are more deserving.

Carter's game was exciting to watch and he put up some solid stats.  However, he's one of those guys that when you start drilling below the surface, just isn't a HOFer.

Almost like he's Drew Bledsoe-like.  Some pretty stats but not a HOFer.

Bledsoe has a career 57% completion percentage and made only four Pro-Bowls. I don't see the comparison in the least. His prime certainly didn't last long.

Lot of style, not so much substance when you drill into it.

[soap07]

Then he was on New Jersey...is Kidd's reputation as a "winner" in doubt? If not, why not? Which one, Kidd or Carter, can be blamed for "empty stats" that didn't lead to wins?

Well, Kidd led a similar team to two Finals appearances, so I think that issue has been pretty conclusively settled. 

How has it been conclusively settled?

It's all a matter of degrees. If "leading" a team out of one of the historically weakest conferences in history to get swept in two Finals separates one as a winner from another being "Mediocrely Good" and "Empty Stat"- pusher...well, to each their own I suppose.

Jason Kidd is a perfect example of being given the benefit of the doubt - even though he tanked his way out of New Jersey and has had very little postseason success himself.

[soap07]

Also, Roy, Vince has a better career playoff Win Shares/48 than Kidd. .137 to .119. Are Kidd's stats moreso "emptier" than Reggie?

[action781]

No.

It's not the Hall of "Medicorely Good"

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.

I just don't see this is "Mediocrely Good". I see him, in his prime, as one of the best in the game, and consistently productive for the rest of his career. He was an elite scorer, good rebounder for his position and a good passer. He was stuck on terrible teams and aside from forcing a trade from Toronto, he had a great career that at this point, he's not being recognized for.

So, in his best season, VC was a top 10 NBA player in the league and he accomplished that feat once.  One other season over the life of his career, he was a top 15 player in the league.  I don't think that's worthy of being a hall-of-famer.  You need to be a top 15 player of your generation for more than two seasons to be Hall deserving to me.  Gilbert Arenas, Grant Hill, Chris Webber, and T-Mac have more all-nba team appearances than VC and I don't think all 4 of them will make the Hall.

If there's one thing that could convince me on letting him in, it's this.  This is one of the most fantastic dunks I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M54H307qhy4

[BballTim]

Also, Roy, Vince has a better career playoff Win Shares/48 than Kidd. .137 to .119. Are Kidd's stats moreso "emptier" than Reggie?

  Win shares favor scoring, don't they?

[soap07]

Also, Roy, Vince has a better career playoff Win Shares/48 than Kidd. .137 to .119. Are Kidd's stats moreso "emptier" than Reggie?

  Win shares favor scoring, don't they?

Roy was the one who used Win Shares initially, not me, when comparing Reggie/Vince. I hate the Win Shares stat.

[Eja117]

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.

Agreed

You play to win the game

[Fan from VT]

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.

Agreed

You play to win the game

Isn't basketball a team game? Who's more hall worthy, Kerr or Malone?

Not specifically advocating Vince (i don't think he should get in, but i don't think Miller should either), but lots of great players never get the teams to get it done. Titles are overrated as signifiers of individual player ability.

[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.

Agreed

You play to win the game

Isn't basketball a team game? Who's more hall worthy, Kerr or Malone?

Not specifically advocating Vince (i don't think he should get in, but i don't think Miller should either), but lots of great players never get the teams to get it done. Titles are overrated as signifiers of individual player ability.

Karl Malone was a leader on a team that appeared in 193 playoff games, and reached the Finals twice.  I think it's fair to say that he did his part, even if he couldn't get over the final hurdle due to MJ and Pippen.