Is Vince Carter a HOFer?

[Villain]

 

[JimLeavy59]

I still love how he almost hits Garnett

 

[Agent]

VC deserves to be a hall of famer. Just because he doesn't have a ring it shouldn't discount his legacy. Top 30 All-Time scoring list is a pretty big deal.

 

[Diivox]

VC deserves to be a hall of famer. Just because he doesn't have a ring it shouldn't discount his legacy. Top 30 All-Time scoring list is a pretty big deal.

Not only that but if you want to get literal on this, Vince Carter has been a famous player his entire career. There are numerous articles out there on how he was an inspiration to so many younger players in the league now, especially around the time of the ASG by all the Toronto people who said that they would have never given a crap about the NBA without him. I was a huge opponent to his brief stay here in Phoenix, but I can't deny that the dude was always a big deal and right or wrong, as you said, his numbers can't really be argued with. I respect his Grant Hill-esque resurgence late in his career and the effort he has put in to prolonging his career. The criticisms are valid, no doubt, but this is America, and we all get the chance to reinvent ourselves, and his late career resurgence has only solidified an already stellar career.

 

[FirstTimer]

:facepalm:

In what way? Vince is better statistically than Mullin in pretty much every respect. It's even more substantial given the pace of the league and conference Mullin played in versus the pace and conference Carter played in.

I know NBA fans are conditioned to put on their 90s Rose-colored glasses and assume everything from the 90s is better than anything afterwards but Carter is a far better player than Chris Mullin.

I'm not as well versed with advanced basketball stats, but I guess looking at the numbers I don't see where Carter is that far ahead of Carter or far superior.

 

[FedEx227]

Mullin
Per Game: 18.2 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, 50% FG, 38% 3PG
Per 36: 20.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.9 apg
Advanced: 54% eFG, 59% TS%, 18.8 PER, .139 WS/48

Carter
Per Game: 21.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 43% FG, 37.5% 3PG
Per 36: 21.5 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 3.9 apg
Advanced: 48% eFG, 53% TS%, 20.3 PER, .143 WS/48

No real advanced stats needed, even the basic stuff grade out Carter as a better player.

Moreover, Mullin played in a much faster paced league, especially that team in THAT time period. He was on the extreme end of point scoring and pace and yet still has smaller scoring numbers than Carter who played in one of the slowest leagues ever. Pretty much all the raw numbers show Carter as the better overall player while Mullin was a more efficient scorer.

 

[FirstTimer]

Mullin
Per Game: 18.2 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, 50% FG, 38% 3PG
Per 36: 20.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.9 apg
Advanced: 54% eFG, 59% TS%, 18.8 PER, .139 WS/48

Carter
Per Game: 21.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 43% FG, 37.5% 3PG
Per 36: 21.5 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 3.9 apg
Advanced: 48% eFG, 53% TS%, 20.3 PER, .143 WS/48

No real advanced stats needed, even the basic stuff grade out Carter as a better player.

Moreover, Mullin played in a much faster paced league, especially that team in THAT time period. He was on the extreme end of point scoring and pace and yet still has smaller scoring numbers than Carter who played in one of the slowest leagues ever. Pretty much all the raw numbers show Carter as the better overall player while Mullin was a more efficient scorer.

I guess I was looking at peak numbers. Weren't Mullins better? Then again Carter seems to have had a longer period of effectiveness. But I get the pace stuff. While I agree Carter was better I guess I didn't view the gap as wide as some do.

I was also looking at pbr on my tablet though flipping back and forth so I'm sure I misread something

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Also two completely different types of players. Mullin was one of the top sharp shooters not only in his era, but ever. Both his raw & advanced percentages bear that out. Carter was a good three point shooter, but obviously a much more athletic player and much more of a slasher.

They may have played the same position, but were asked to do much different things.