He was clutch in that PARTICULAR season, and playoff run for the Raptors (outside of the last second miss in game 7). I'm not talking about how we view Vince right now or for his career (b/c he never fulfilled his potential). There is a reason his name is brought up all the time in discussions of who didn't reach their potential, and his name is always at the top. He showed "flashes" of his clutchness when he was truly a superstar, but it was short-lived. The guy was like Carmelo when he was coming into the league, hitting game winners left and right. There's a difference b/t being clutch for a season/game/series. You're talking about players' careers. It's like Dirk was clutch LAST YEAR. But does he truly provoke the thought of clutchness for his entire career? NO. Get it?
He didn't reach his potential, you are right. incredible athleticism, great skills, yes. Dirk was an MVP, yes he was clutcher than Carter. Maybe I'm reserving the word Clutch for people who did more than play a great season/series against the Sixers and missed the SHOT THAT COULD HAVE WON THE SERIES! You can have your Toronto Vince Carter as your example of Clutchness, I'll take Reggie Miller, I know that guy can win a series. It's what sticks in your head. And Clutchness doesn't for Vince Carter, any team. If it was Robert Horry or Vince Carter for the last shot, I'll take Horry, 1 billion out of 1 billion times.
You still don't get it do you? I never said Vince Carter was clutch for his career. He was clutch that particular season for the Raptors though. It's like you watch a typical NBA game, and say a player Stephen Jackson scores 8 points in the 4th and hit the game winner. You wouldn't say he was clutch for that game? It's like people claim Lebron was clutch vs Celtics and Bulls, then he goes to choke vs the Mavs. Clutch, like greatness, can be short-lived. But only the truly great ones do it year in and year out. And that was not Vince Carter. His greatness, like his clutchness, was very short-lived. Vince Carter's greatness lasted very briefly. His clutchness wasn't consistent enough throughout his career for us to label him as clutch ala a Reggie Miller or Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. Another example so you can understand what I'm trying to say. Grant Hill was a great player for 4-5 year stretch. But 20 years down the line, nobody is going to acknowledge him as a great player for his career b/c his prime was short-lived. But am I wrong to claim that Grant Hill was a great player for a 5 year stretch? You basically claimed Vince Carter did nothing but jack up 3s and dunked vs the Sixers (admit it, you didn't even watch that series) but his "clutchness" and "greatness" were the reasons Toronto was in position that year to defeat the eastern champs that year. I dont' like when people post clips of this and that, and didn't even watch the damn series.
As for the op, I agree about Vince & T-Mac, but I disagree about Sheed. It wasn't that he lacked the desire to great, but in my opinion, Sheed just wanted to be one of the guys. Really, it was about perception. Some guys care about how they are perceived by the media & fans. Sheed wasn't one of those guys. The only perception that mattered to him was how his teammates perceived him. More often than not, he looked to make the right basketball play, rather than the highlight reel play. Had he been more dominant in his play, there is no doubt he would've gone down as the greatest pf of all time. But imho, it was not his work ethic & desire that kept him from getting there. That crown would go to Coleman, Derrick.
If some one said, give me one word to describe Vince Carter. That word "clutch" wouldn't be on the multiple choice selection. that's what I'm trying to tell you, everything else you are correct, I'm not denying any of it.
Earl "the goat" Manigault Manigault was particularly famous for his leaping abilities on the basketball court, including his signature move - the double dunk. He would dunk the ball, catch it with his left hand, switch the ball to his right hand, bring it back around to the top of the basket and jam it through again, all done while still in the air on a single jump, and without hanging on the rim. Like other street basketballers of the day such as Jackie Jackson, Earl was reportedly able to touch the top of the backboard to retrieve quarters and dollar bills, part of "elaborate innovations and tricks" elite street players of the era performed before games to help build their reputations. He was only 6'1", but wore ankle weights constantly during practice as a child which helped him to build up tremendous jumping ability. He once dunked two-handed during a game from near the foul line over two players much taller than himself (Vaughn Harper 6'6", Val Reed 6'8"). He once reverse dunked 36 times in a row to win a $60 bet. But to prove dunking wasn't his only skill, he would practice hundreds of shots each day, making him a deadly long-range shooter as well. Manigault played with some of the best players of his day, such as Earl Monroe, Connie Hawkins, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who went as far as calling Manigault the greatest player he had ever seen. When Abdul-Jabbar finished his career with the Los Angeles Lakers and had his number retired at the Los Angeles Forum, he was asked who was the greatest player he had played with or against. After a long silence, he answered, "That would have to be 'The Goat'." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Manigault
True. But what is the OP's question? Vince Carter displayed everything you wanted in a great player for a brief stretch, and he couldn't sustain it. There's a reason his name is mentioned for this particular topic all the time: what Vince Carter COULD HAVE BEEN? Had he continue to replicate what he did in his first few years in Toronto (99-01), that word "clutch" may have described him. We're not talking about what Vince Carter IS. The topic is what Vince Carter could have been.
I'm talking about the guy who didn't beat Philly on the last second shot. Nobody remembers any clutch shots he made in Toronto. He's not clutch. everything else, I agree with, potential, dunks, and the whole gatorade bottle.. At least for Tmac, people remember that 13 in 33 thing.
He's not a better player than TMAC for his career, but he had more game winners than TMAC had in his entire career <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U1sQxpGhMTE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> A prime Vince Carter was very clutch. I don't know if you remember a stretch in the NBA where teams feared him like no other, when he had a 3-4 game stretch in a row where he hit game winners (his first or 2nd season in the league). I'm sure you're old enough to remember that stretch, since you're an NBA head. EDIT: #2/3 vs Clips and Boston were consecutive games. There was another one but it's not in this clip.
Tmac and Penny are already mentioned, but I like those choices. Also Grant Hill, he was playing so good, too bad he got hurt, and never played like his rookie years.
I still remember his game winner from NBA TV <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LUm-h_yb8IE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Carter is a great talent. Sheed is the definition of a waste of talent.
You are right. I guess it was just that one stretch where ESPN had Carter highlights every day. I remember that Carter dunk with Shandon Andersen guarding him, dark time in Rockets history.
Sheed definitely had the talent to be a KG/Duncan type of player (ridiculously refined post game, very good perimeter game, great defense when motivated, length/athleticism...) and thus an all-timer. But I don't put him in this category because Sheed himself never wanted to be a great individual player--he just wanted to be one of the guys. Guys like TMAC, Vince, Hill, Penny... all wanted to be great at one point in their careers (and were great), but things like injuries and motivational issues derailed their path towards all-time greatness.
