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.
I think Malone is 100% hall worthy. I think Kerr is 100% not. It's a thought exercise to demonstrate that the "play to win the game" mentality is mostly irrelevant to determining who is a top, elite, iconic player of a generation. I think 99.9% of the time (as is the case here) the "winner" label gets used to argue for and reinforce a predetermined viewpoint that is in actuality based on personality clashes. I guess Reggie was "clutch" and did it the "right way," while Kidd is someone who "makes his teammates better," and Carter is a "Primadonna" who "wasted his potential." Yet all have exactly the same amount of post season hardware, and all did exactly what you would want out of a player on paper (i.e. for Carter "hey, do you want a shooting guard for 15 years who shoots .375 from deep, .798 from the line, and will give you better than 22/5/4 with 2.2 turnovers?"). Given different circumstances (i.e. teaming up with Shaq or Duncan like Kobe and Manu/Parker got to, or getting to team up with KG + Pierce like Ray did, etc.) any one of those guys would have hit the playoffs more and won a title. I think the Hall of Fame should be how each player stands on their own merits, not the faults of their teammates or GMs. It should be about Who, from that generation, needs to be remembered because they would have been one of the top picked guys year in year out if the league was re-drafted? I think on that criteria, separated from the effects of their teams, Carter and Miller are nearly exactly the same, and, frankly, both fall short to me. I have Ray as more deserving than both, and I think Ray is the quintessential borderline Hall of Famer, less than that is outright NO.
Topic: Should Vince Carter be a HOF'er? (Read 20616 times)