Is Vince Carter HOF bound?

[ChosenOne]

If AI makes it, so should VC.

 

Terrible comparison.

 

Allen Iverson:

 

1x NBA MVP

11x NBA All Star

2x NBA All Star MVP

3x NBA First Team

3x NBA Second Team

1x NBA Third Team

4x NBA Scoring Leader

3x NBA Steals Leader

 

Vince Carter:

 

7x NBA All Star

1x NBA Second Team

1x NBA Third Team

 

There is no way one can say if Iverson makes it then Carter should to, and just to make it clear you cant say that with Rodman either.

 

Dennis Rodman:

 

5x NBA Champion

2x NBA All Star

2x NBA Defensive Player of the Year

7x NBA All-Defensive First Team

1x NBA All-Defensive Second Team

2x NBA All-NBA Third Team

8x NBA Rebounding Leader

[kingfish]

^If Rodman makes it, AI will make it.

 

AI >>>>>> VC

Rodman and AI are POLAR OPPOSITE basketball players. Rodman making it doesnt say anything about AI's chances.

 

I think most people would on here would say AI should be in the hall of fame, if that is the case then so should VC imo. Another thing to think about is there is a lot of great players that could hang them up around the same time VC does, so that may delay his chances and he wont get in on first ballot.

[JYD]

Allen Iverson is definitely making it to the HOF. Isn't the topic about Vince Carter? Lol.

[AboveLegit]

And being arguably the best wing in the league at one point...

Is that really something special? Gilbert Arenas was once a top 5 scoring threat, is his chances of making the hall of fame THAT much greater? Tmac was once the best wing at one point in his career (much better than Carter I might add), and you hear nothing about him making the hall (and rightfully so).

 

The fact is, VC doesn't deserve to be in the Hall...not one bit.

[htown11]

I'm going with yes. He was very good for a long time, was considered eltie at one time, and is the greatest dunker in NBA history. Very few players have ever been as popular as he was with the Raptors.

 

The sad part about VC's career is that everyone tends to overrate what he did in Toronto, and severely underrate what he did in NJ because of how he kamikaze'd his image with how he left Toronto. It's a shame because he was a great player in NJ, and did a lot of things that really went unnoticed and unappreciated.

 

Nice! Well said

[Dash]

Does anyone else remember the late 90's - early 2000's era? I do and Vince Carter was among a small group of players that made those dark times (lack of overall talent, stars from 90's retiring, etc) bearable. Vince Carter was the poster child for that small time frame and that impact alone should get him in the Hall of Fame.

 

I do agree with AL that Vince isn't Hall of Fame quality but his impact is going to be enough to sneak him him, not right away but eventually.

[AboveLegit]

Does anyone else remember the late 90's - early 2000's era? I do and Vince Carter was among a small group of players that made those dark times (lack of overall talent, stars from 90's retiring, etc) bearable. Vince Carter was the poster child for that small time frame and that impact alone should get him in the Hall of Fame.

 

I do agree with AL that Vince isn't Hall of Fame quality but his impact is going to be enough to sneak him him, not right away but eventually.

What impact? I don't want to come off as a VC hater or anything, but I just don't understand why he's any better than Tmac or Gilbert Arenas. The man couldn't lead a team to 50 wins, he was simply a terrific scorer. I'm still wondering what he has accomplished that has put him in this discussion. Winning dunk contests doesn't matter at all and being considered one of the best dunkers has no effect on his eligibility.

 

And that late 90's-early 2000's era was fine... The Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Sixers were powerhouses, and we had two of the top 10 players ever in their prime, as well as 2 of the top 5-10 SG's ever (Iverson and Kobe). I'd hardly consider that a dark time.

[JYD]

Vince Carter was way better than Gilbert Arenas^? Can't believe you brought him up...

Edited April 7, 2011 by JYD

[AboveLegit]

Vince Carter was way better than Gilbert Arenas^? Can't believe you brought him up...

I wasn't trying to imply that Gil was better, I'm simply using Gil as an example. I should've been more clear in my post.

[Dash]

What impact? I don't want to come off as a VC hater or anything, but I just don't understand why he's any better than Tmac or Gilbert Arenas. The man couldn't lead a team to 50 wins, he was simply a terrific scorer. I'm still wondering what he has accomplished that has put him in this discussion. Winning dunk contests doesn't matter at all and being considered one of the best dunkers has no effect on his eligibility.

 

And that late 90's-early 2000's era was fine... The Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Sixers were powerhouses, and we had two of the top 10 players ever in their prime, as well as 2 of the top 5-10 SG's ever (Iverson and Kobe). I'd hardly consider that a dark time.

 

And that is a bad thing?

 

It was arguably the worst era in NBA history. Half of the players would be considered scrubs in today's NBA and only a handful of players were in higher regard than Carter at the time.

[Check my Stats]

Is that really something special? Gilbert Arenas was once a top 5 scoring threat, is his chances of making the hall of fame THAT much greater? Tmac was once the best wing at one point in his career (much better than Carter I might add), and you hear nothing about him making the hall (and rightfully so).

 

The fact is, VC doesn't deserve to be in the Hall...not one bit.

 

T-Mac was never 'much' better than Vince Carter, maybe marginally, but not much. And comparing VC to Gil is absolutely ludicrous. Gilbert was a one dimensional chucking point who never won anything with some solid/really good players on his team. VC played with a sub-par cast his entire time in Toronto and was probably one shot away from making the NBA finals. Vince was effortlessly averaging 25-5-4 (the numbers Kobe is dropping now) in his prime while leading a cast of role players to the playoffs. Sure Vince might not have any significant hardware, but he never played on a team capable of winning hardware (no, those Nets teams were not good enough), so how do we hold that against him individually?

 

Because the Raptors couldn't give him more than role players he isn't a hall of famer? Because Kidd was over 30 when he got there and they had no bigs he isn't a HOFer? Because the Magic and Suns are using him as a catch and shoot player he isn't a HOFer? A stat line of 23-5-4 and memorable playoff series with the Sixers should be enough to get in the hall, and has over 20k all time points and will be top 30 when his career is done and over with. Vince Carter at the start of the 2000's is a staple of this era. Sure his attitude sucks, and he didn't care enough about basketball to make him one of the greatest ever, but he is still a hall of famer when it's all said and done.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Check my Stats

[Check my Stats]

The man couldn't lead a team to 50 wins, he was simply a terrific scorer.

 

This, quite simply, just is not true.

[AboveLegit]

And that is a bad thing?

Of course not, but that's all he's known for...and that's my point, he has nothing on his resume to show for.

 

It was arguably the worst era in NBA history. Half of the players would be considered scrubs in today's NBA and only a handful of players were in higher regard than Carter at the time.

I still don't see how it's such a bad era. We had so many great players in their prime..

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_2000.html

 

Find me one all star that would be considered a scrub in the league today. You have no way of proving that even a solid role player would be considered a scrub now.

[JYD]

I wasn't trying to imply that Gil was better, I'm simply using Gil as an example. I should've been more clear in my post.

Ok,but an example as what? Vince Carter was absolutely a much better player, and for a longer time period than Arenas.

 

And that is a bad thing?

 

It was arguably the worst era in NBA history. Half of the players would be considered scrubs in today's NBA and only a handful of players were in higher regard than Carter at the time.

Lol, what? Says who?

 

And I'd have to say T-Mac was definitely better than VC. I'm still undecided if VC is a HOFer, I'm leaning towards NO, but it's very very close.

[?QuestionMark?]

VC was an elite wing for what? 2 seasons don't make you a HOFer. The HOF is based on your entire career, and VC's simply doesn't deserve HOF consideration.

 

AL brought up something I didn't realize: VC never won 50 games except last year when he was just a shell of his former self. And he played the majority of his career in an era where the East was pathetically weak. Even still, no 50 win seasons and never got past the 2nd round.

 

VC was an exciting player to watch and a good scorer, but his overall floor impact during his career isn't all that impressive.

 

If guys like Kevin Johnson, who IMO is better, isn't in the HOF (and he shouldn't), then VC shouldn't even sniff it.

 

But to be fair, I also have a higher expectation of what a HOFer is and if I had a choice, I'd remove a few guys who are in.

[Dash]

Says me.

 

AL I wasn't talking about All-Stars, I meant average players. This team won 45 games:

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2001.html

 

I only see 3 NBA quality players, the rest just suck. There are several other teams like this.

[Check my Stats]

Vince was a superstar for probably 3 seasons, and was an elite wing for nearly a decade. I feel like people are really sleeping on the lack of talent VC had in Toronto. He won 47 games with only having one player above 10 PPG (Antonio Davis at 13.7 on only 43%). He won 45 the year before with a young T-Mac as his 2nd option, who was still extremely inconsistent and basically a defensive stopper. Sure, Vince never won any hardware, but it wasn't his fault. He was basically in a similar situation to LBJ, the only difference is LBJ is on a different level and was able to achieve more because simply, he is one of the best ever, while Vince was just a great player, LBJ is a once in a life time player.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/

 

Honestly, check those teams and from 99-01 and tell me again it is VC's fault he never won anything.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Check my Stats

[AboveLegit]

T-Mac was never 'much' better than Vince Carter, maybe marginally, but not much.

Tmac is a significantly better player than Carter. He had 3 seasons with a 25 PER or higher, while VC only has 1. From 2001-2008, Tmac was clearly the better player. And most of all, when it comes to the playoffs, McGrady is substantially better than Carter. Injuries are the reason why Tmac is now a bench player for the Pistons. What's Carter's excuse? He's played on some damn good teams, and he hasn't been hurt, last year being a good example.

 

VC has been historically poor in the playoffs. His postseason PER is 19.7, while McGrady's is 24.7. Carter only had 2 good playoff series, one in '01 and one in '06. Like I said, in '01, I give Carter a ton of credit, in '06 he played the best ball of his career, but the other 4 playoffs are afterthoughts, 3 of which he shot under 40%.

 

And comparing VC to Gil is absolutely ludicrous. Gilbert was a one dimensional chucking point who never won anything with some solid/really good players on his team.

I didn't intend on comparing him to Gil, that was my fault for not being more clear. And as for Gil never winning anything, I recall him getting just as far as VC did in the playoffs as the #1 option.

 

VC played with a sub-par cast his entire time in Toronto and was probably one shot away from making the NBA finals. Vince was effortlessly averaging 25-5-4 (the numbers Kobe is dropping now) in his prime while leading a cast of role players to the playoffs. Sure Vince might not have any significant hardware, but he never played on a team capable of winning hardware (no, those Nets teams were not good enough), so how do we hold that against him individually?

That's fine and all, I'm not going to hold it against him that his team didn't do well enough to win him a ring, I'll never do that to a player, but he also didn't do much individually. How many MVP's has he received? How many first team honors did he receive? Was he ever a good defender? He's made All Star games because the fans love him and he's exciting to watch, but as I've mentioned before, the people who vote players into the hall all happen to be the same people who have only voted for him once in the top 10 for the MVP award, and who have never gave him an All NBA first team honor. How exactly do you expect him to make the Hall?

 

A stat line of 23-5-4 and memorable playoff series with the Sixers should be enough to get in the hall, and has over 20k all time points and will be top 30 when his career is done and over with.

Are you serious? One playoff series is enough to get him in? Gilbert dropped 35-5-5 in the playoffs back in '05-06 (46%FG, 44% 3pFG), yet all people seem to recall about him is that he was a chucker.

[AboveLegit]

..and let's not act as if his teams in Toronto were terrible. The franchise was built around VC to succeed, much like LBJ in Cleveland. Very strong defensively, and had some great role players such as Oakley, Williams, Davis, and Christie. With that being said, I wouldn't consider his career a success at all...but I also wouldn't consider it a complete failure. Is that really hall of fame worthy?

[Check my Stats]

Tmac is a significantly better player than Carter. He had 3 seasons with a 25 PER or higher, while VC only has 1. From 2001-2008, Tmac was clearly the better player. And most of all, when it comes to the playoffs, McGrady is substantially better than Carter. Injuries are the reason why Tmac is now a bench player for the Pistons. What's Carter's excuse? He's played on some damn good teams, and he hasn't been hurt, last year being a good example.

 

The Rockets teams T-Mac were on were better than any team VC had in my opinion. Frankly I don't give a shit about PER (curious how many of those 25+ PER years were irrelevantly in Orlando), at what point does VC being equally as talented and effective come into play? They were both all-stars disguised as superstars in their prime, and the reason Carter isn't as good anymore (and T-Mac as well) was because neither cared enough to develop their skills and their ability to be effective without their explosiveness. VC and T-Mac were comparably talented to Kobe, without a doubt, but their lack of passion is why he is still an MVP candidate and both of them should retire. VC and T-Mac were content being stars, Kobe wanted to be a legend, that's the difference. Even if T-Mac was 100% he still wouldn't be any better than VC now, he is too slow and his flat jump shot is useless and inconsistent. He could be a useful facilitator, but he doesn't really bring much to the table consistently for a team trying to win, and neither does Vince. Both need the ball in their hands, and neither are good enough to dominate the ball anymore. They are both useless, regardless of health.

 

VC has been historically poor in the playoffs. His postseason PER is 19.7, while McGrady's is 24.7. Carter only had 2 good playoff series, one in '01 and one in '06. Like I said, in '01, I give Carter a ton of credit, in '06 he played the best ball of his career, but the other 4 playoffs are afterthoughts, 3 of which he shot under 40%.

 

I am pretty much prepared to throw all these stats out of the window because both were typically fighting uphill battles in the playoffs, but I concede that T-Mac was a better playoff player.

 

I didn't intend on comparing him to Gil, that was my fault for not being more clear. And as for Gil never winning anything, I recall him getting just as far as VC did in the playoffs as the #1 option.

 

I guess that's the difference between playing with Alvin Williams and Antonio Davis compared to Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison (and Haywood too, who is basically the same as Vince's 2nd best player).

 

 

That's fine and all, I'm not going to hold it against him that his team didn't do well enough to win him a ring, I'll never do that to a player, but he also didn't do much individually. How many MVP's has he received? How many first team honors did he receive? Was he ever a good defender? He's made All Star games because the fans love him and he's exciting to watch, but as I've mentioned before, the people who vote players into the hall all happen to be the same people who have only voted for him once in the top 10 for the MVP award, and who have never gave him an All NBA first team honor. How exactly do you expect him to make the Hall?

 

He made all-star teams because he was one of the best players in the league. He led in votes because he was exciting to watch. Go back through the years, how many undeserving all-star nods did he get? Maybe 1? 2? Gil has more all-team appearances, are you telling me he is more of a HOFer than Vince? Statistically and individually speaking, VC should be a HOFer, combine that with the fact he is a major player from our era, I think it will happen.

 

Are you serious? One playoff series is enough to get him in? Gilbert dropped 35-5-5 in the playoffs back in '05-06 (46%FG, 44% 3pFG), yet all people seem to recall about him is that he was a chucker.

 

Vince almost carried his team to the conference finals (and the finals most likely). He keeled over the following year due to injuries, and things just were never the same after the missed shot in Philly. Vince made 3 deep playoff runs as a legitimate option on his team, the first was in Toronto as a one man show where he was going blow for blow with the MVP of the NBA, and was one shot away from who knows what. The 2nd was in New Jersey where he played 11 games and was averaging 30 PPG on 46%. The 3rd I concede was poor, sub 40%, his 4th in Orlando I don't even count in this discussion. Even his first playoff series in Jersey where he struggled with his shot, he still grabbed 8 boards a game and was getting 6 assists. I think Vince was a competent playoff performer.

[Check my Stats]

I just don't think the fact that Vince wasted his talent should be the reason he is kept out of the hall of fame, he was still a star in his era, and one of the best players in the NBA in his prime.

[AboveLegit]

The Rockets teams T-Mac were on were better than any team VC had in my opinion. Frankly I don't give a shit about PER (curious how many of those 25+ PER years were irrelevantly in Orlando)

How can you not care about PER? At least try to keep an open mind about all of this.. And what does it matter where he achieved those numbers? Carter was on teams similar to those, but didn't put up the numbers Mac put up.

 

, at what point does VC being equally as talented and effective come into play? They were both all-stars disguised as superstars in their prime,

I have no idea what all stars disguised as superstars means, but Tmac was arguably the best player in the league in his prime, so he was definitely a superstar. In 2003, it was a legit argument over who would you rather have between him and Kobe Bryant, I can't say the same about Carter.

 

and the reason Carter isn't as good anymore (and T-Mac as well) was because neither cared enough to develop their skills and their ability to be effective without their explosiveness. VC and T-Mac were comparably talented to Kobe, without a doubt, but their lack of passion is why he is still an MVP candidate and both of them should retire. VC and T-Mac were content being stars, Kobe wanted to be a legend, that's the difference. Even if T-Mac was 100% he still wouldn't be any better than VC now, he is too slow and his flat jump shot is useless and inconsistent. He could be a useful facilitator, but he doesn't really bring much to the table consistently for a team trying to win, and neither does Vince. Both need the ball in their hands, and neither are good enough to dominate the ball anymore. They are both useless, regardless of health.

Are you really saying that had Tmac not been injured all those years, he wouldn't have extended his prime? Really? Age doesn't become a factor for players like Tmac and Kobe until they hit 32+, there's no doubt in my mind that Tmac would be a hall of fame player had he not been hurt. And you clearly didn't watch Tmac in Houston...he wasn't as ball dominant as his days in Orlando. Not to mention, he developed better playmaking skills when he arrived in Houston..because he was able to play alongside a true superstar.

 

I am pretty much prepared to throw all these stats out of the window because both were typically fighting uphill battles in the playoffs, but I concede that T-Mac was a better playoff player.

The Rockets, in a much tougher Western conference, were a five seed every year they were in the playoffs since Tmac arrived, that's not much of a uphill battle. They won 51+ games each year he was there and healthy.

 

I guess that's the difference between playing with Alvin Williams and Antonio Davis compared to Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison (and Haywood too, who is basically the same as Vince's 2nd best player).

Caron Butler wasn't on the team when we made it to the second round. Gilbert was the reason we got to the second round, he hit the buzzer beater in game 5 and was the clear leader of the team.

 

He made all-star teams because he was one of the best players in the league. He led in votes because he was exciting to watch. Go back through the years, how many undeserving all-star nods did he get? Maybe 1? 2? Gil has more all-team appearances, are you telling me he is more of a HOFer than Vince? Statistically and individually speaking, VC should be a HOFer, combine that with the fact he is a major player from our era, I think it will happen.

I agree he deserved those all star votes, that's not my point..What I'm getting at is that the FANS voted him in because they loved seeing him on the court, but it's obvious the writers and broadcasters think differently...for a good reason too. Statistically speaking means your simply using the "eye test" on the stat sheet, which any fool can do, but individually speaking, there's no way he gets in, because all he has is his impressive scoring total...nothing else.

[AboveLegit]

I just don't think the fact that Vince wasted his talent should be the reason he is kept out of the hall of fame

That's not the reason, it's because he didn't accomplish much even when he was healthy...

 

he was still a star in his era, and one of the best players in the NBA in his prime.

Tmac was arguably the best in his prime (and historically had one of the greatest seasons ever) and I hardly see anyone talking about his hall of fame eligibility.

[Nitro]

And you clearly didn't watch Tmac in Houston...he wasn't as ball dominant as his days in Orlando. Not to mention, he developed better playmaking skills when he arrived in Houston..because he was able to play alongside a true superstar.

 

False, he was actually more ball dominant in Houston (at least the first 3 seasons) because he had to take on a greater role as a facilitator. In Orlando he had Darrell Armstrong who took a bigger playmaking role than Rafer Alston did in Houston, and Doc Rivers used T-Mac off-ball a lot more than JVG did, whose offensive playbook consistent strictly of high PnR's with T-Mac as the ballhandler.

 

With that said, T-Mac AND Carter were superstars in their prime, especially T-Mac. If you put a prime T-Mac in today's league, he'd without a doubt be better than Durant, and VC would be somewhere in the top 10. The reason T-Mac won't make the HoF is because of injuries and the media's stigma against him never getting out of the first round, and if VC doesn't make it it's because of media stigma as well. Besides what he actually did on the court, look at the impact made on the NBA popularity-wise as he was a phenom in Toronto because of his athleticism, which should definitely be considered when he's up for induction.

[AboveLegit]

Besides what he actually did on the court, look at the impact made on the NBA popularity-wise as he was a phenom in Toronto because of his athleticism, which should definitely be considered when he's up for induction.

Yeah it will be considered, but there's no way it trumps the fact that he has nothing on his resume except a few good scoring seasons. You just can't make it to the hall with the career he's had, no way.

 

And thanks for clearing up the TMac situation in Houston and Orlando.