ISH All-time Top 25 guards project: #19 - Reggie Miller vs. Ray Allen

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.bballone.com/raya/bucks/images/bucks6.jpg


Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Reggie Miller or Ray Allen should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #20 in our project.


http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/ReggieChoke.jpg

18 seasons
3x all-NBA
5x all-star
5x FT% leader
2nd all-time 3-pointers made
Top Ten all-time in games, minutes and FT%

Votes (4)
magnax1
L. Kizzle
Neyca
G.O.A.T


http://espn.go.com/media/nba/2006/0122/photo/a_allen_268.jpg

15 seasons
2x all-NBA
10x all-star
1st all-time 3-pointers made
1x NBA Champion
5th highest FT% in NBA history


Votes (8)

iamgine
Boston C's
1987 Lakers
SteveNashMVPcro
ThaSwagg3r
nycelt84
RobertdeMeijer
bizil

[SAKOTXA]

Gimme Ray-Ray.

[CeltsGarlic]

Ray Allen: incredible longevity, consistency, all time 3 pt. leader, ring.

[Odinn]

Ray Allen.

[west]

Ray Allen all the way!!!:rockon:

[1987_Lakers]

Ray Allen.

Both are pretty similar players because of their amazing shooting ability, but Allen had the better peak. Plus, Allen winning a ring is Boston is pretty much the icing on the cake.

[Boston C's]

I'll also take ray... he was everything reggie at shooting except in his prime could also rebound and assist pretty well plus his resume is more impressive... but reggie is still the man

[kaiiu]

Ray not close

[ballup]

Ray Allen just because he's the only NBA player who you can make Biblical references towards.

[iamgine]

Ray Allen

[Pointguard]

ray Allen

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

Ray not close

this

[Laimbeer_Rodman]

Jesus

[pauk]

Reggie > Allen

/thread

[pauk]

I'll also take ray... he was everything reggie at shooting except in his prime could also rebound and assist pretty well plus his resume is more impressive... but reggie is still the man

no... Reggie was a more efficient scorer.... had a better scoring arsenal... (to bad he didnt chuck the same amount of FG attempts... the max he took was 29 FG attempts and that time he scored 57 points...).... he was especially a much better midrange shooter... AND CLUTCHNESS / KILLER INSTINCT which cant be compared to anybody.... only Michael Jordan...

2 things also u cant debate...

1. REGGIE WAS THE BEST CATCH N SHOOT PLAYER EVER......
2. REGGIE WAS THE BEST SCREEN ABUSER / OF THE BALL IN NBA HISTORY........ Guys like Ray & Rip Hamilton agreed multiple times to have studied his every move....

Ray Allen is the closest thing ever to Reggie.... almost a clone... Ray said multiple times he patterned alot after Reggie.... but Reggie is the ORIGINAL....... without Reggie... no Ray Allen.... hence Reggie comes first there aswell


the only ones who would say RAY > REGGIE are ignorant kids / new generation of fans today that grew up watching Ray Allen and have no knowledge enough of Reggie.......... im new generation to but i have watched anything of Reggie....

[kaiiu]

no... Reggie was a more efficient scorer.... had a better scoring arsenal... (to bad he didnt chuck the same amount of FG attempts) AND CLUTCHNESS which cant be compared to anybody.... only Michael Jordan...
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[pauk]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

see....

ignorant new generation kid with no viewing/knowledge of Reggie whatsoever #1.........

[kaiiu]

see....

ignorant new generation kid with no viewing/knowledge of Reggie whatsoever #1.........
shut the fvck up. I like Reggie. Only thing he is arguably better at than Ray is shooting. Ray has better handles, playmaker, passer, creating his own shot, defense, rebounding and is scores better in volumes.

Both was clutch doe

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Ray Allen

[Boston C's]

no... Reggie was a more efficient scorer.... had a better scoring arsenal... (to bad he didnt chuck the same amount of FG attempts... the max he took was 29 FG attempts and that time he scored 57 points...).... he was especially a much better midrange shooter... AND CLUTCHNESS / KILLER INSTINCT which cant be compared to anybody.... only Michael Jordan...

2 things also u cant debate...

1. REGGIE WAS THE BEST CATCH N SHOOT PLAYER EVER......
2. REGGIE WAS THE BEST SCREEN ABUSER / OF THE BALL IN NBA HISTORY........ Guys like Ray & Rip Hamilton agreed multiple times to have studied his every move....

Ray Allen is the closest thing ever to Reggie.... almost a clone... Ray said multiple times he patterned alot after Reggie.... but Reggie is the ORIGINAL....... without Reggie... no Ray Allen.... hence Reggie comes first there aswell


the only ones who would say RAY > REGGIE are ignorant kids / new generation of fans today that grew up watching Ray Allen and have no knowledge enough of Reggie.......... im new generation to but i have watched anything of Reggie....

The bold couldn't be further from the truth... if you wanna say reggie is a better shooter sure but arsenal... all reggie did was catch and shoot ray was reggie except a more complete player it really isn't close he scored better then reggie rebounded assisted has more career accomplishments idk what more do you want... again you can say reggie was the better shooter if you want but its close and even at that I'd lean towards ray... ray was not a chucker either... he averaged 20 field goal attempts i believe only once in the season... you can look at the stats the accolades and everything ray just has it over reggie the ring like someone said is pretty much the icing on the cake... in his prime ray did it all he could shoot and take it to the rim all reggie could do his whole career was shoot... he did it extremely well but ray was the better scorer and overall player period

[MELOgamaniac]

Ray RAY

[KGMN]

I want to hear more from both sides, but I'm currently leaning heavily towards Ray.

[magnax1]

This is probably the closest matchup we'll see on the list to me. Ray Allen was the better passer, could play the PG position and had a more complete scpring game, as in he was less reliant on his jumpshot where Reggie scored almost exclusively with his jumper. Reggie was more efficient by a little bit, and used quite a few less possessions to create about the same ppg (It doesn't look that way in the regular season, but he averaged 23.7 ppg over 10 years in the playoffs)
I think they're basically equal, except Reggie wins in a couple intangible categories, and so far has a longer career. I think he's more clutch. He definitely has something that lets him raise his game to another level at the end of games, which is something I'd say for very very few players. I also think that Reggie would fit in better with most teams with lots of talent. Ray on the celtics has often times struggled mightily to find any form of consistency during the playoff runs (excluding that one season where KG was out) because Ray is more of a scorer then just a shooter. Reggie had no such problem on his contending teams from 98-00.
Reggie by a little bit.

[Boston C's]

This is probably the closest matchup we'll see on the list to me. Ray Allen was the better passer, could play the PG position and had a more complete scpring game, as in he was less reliant on his jumpshot where Reggie scored almost exclusively with his jumper. Reggie was more efficient by a little bit, and used quite a few less possessions to create about the same ppg (It doesn't look that way in the regular season, but he averaged 23.7 ppg over 10 years in the playoffs)
I think they're basically equal, except Reggie wins in a couple intangible categories, and so far has a longer career. I think he's more clutch. He definitely has something that lets him raise his game to another level at the end of games, which is something I'd say for very very few players. I also think that Reggie would fit in better with most teams with lots of talent. Ray on the celtics has often times struggled mightily to find any form of consistency during the playoff runs (excluding that one season where KG was out) Reggie had no such problem on his contending teams from 98-00.
Reggie by a little bit.

I pretty much agree with everything said here... except i still say ray just because hes done more in the league then reggie in terms of accolades... also ray in the clutch is nothing to scoff at, sure he was no reggie but the man has ice in his veins as well

[magnax1]

I pretty much agree with everything said here... except i still say ray just because hes done more in the league then reggie in terms of accolades... also ray in the clutch is nothing to scoff at, sure he was no reggie but the man has ice in his veins as well
While I think that accolades are useless in the first place, I think this is an especially bad place to use them. Reggie Miller was never going to get that many all star appearances or all NBA votes because he was plainly boring and not deserving of it in the regular season. Miller in the post season is a different story. I think if you made all star appearances based off of post season play, he would've made 10+ compared to the three or whatever it was that he actually did make.

[colts19]

reggie

[Big164]

I like Reggie better and his games against Jordan and the Knicks stand out but he just doesn't have the stats that ray Allen got.

[pauk]

shut the fvck up. I like Reggie. Only thing he is arguably better at than Ray is shooting. Ray has better handles, playmaker, passer, creating his own shot, defense, rebounding and is scores better in volumes.

Both was clutch doe

both was clutch... but who was more clutch? actually who was MUCH more clutch.. who had a much bigger killer instinct aswell (in that category Ray Allen is ****ing SOFT compared to Reggie).... dont lie to me now....

he has over his 18 seasons hit much more clutch shots...... he had also some of the greatest clutch games in NBA history........

REGGIE WAS ALSO A MUCH BETTER COMPETITOR WHO WOULD GET INTO SOMEBODY LIKE JORDANS HEAD 24-7....

and Reggie was a much more versatile shooter aswell.... notice for example Ray Allen has a very hard time taking uncomfortable shots.... he likes to go straight up and becomes very ineffective when he has to fadeaway / lean when shooting or adjusting his shot awkwardly... or making a jumper in contact.... or make a running jumper like Reggie was so great at........

ray allen shoots most comfortably as more of a spotup shooter / catch n shoot player compared to Reggie & Larry Bird or even Dirk Nowitzki..... Reggie & Larry Bird & Dirk Nowitzki were much more versatile shooters.... they were scorers with pure shooting ability and best SHOOTING ARSENAL.......

[Boston C's]

While I think that accolades are useless in the first place, I think this is an especially bad place to use them. Reggie Miller was never going to get that many all star appearances or all NBA votes because he was plainly boring and not deserving of it in the regular season. Miller in the post season is a different story. I think if you made all star appearances based off of post season play, he would've made 10+ compared to the three or whatever it was that he actually did make.

I try not to put too much input in them in this case but its hard to ignore especially when ray has him beat in all star games 10-5 he has an all nba second team appearance he has a higher career ppg apg rpg and spg... i agree reggies play in the postseason is amazing but its not like ray was a bad playoff performer himself... i do think reggie has the intangibles but i just dont think they are enough to overcome the fact that ray was simply the better basketball player then reggie

[magnax1]

I try not to put too much input in them in this case but its hard to ignore especially when ray has him beat in all star games 10-5 he has an all nba second team appearance he has a higher career ppg apg rpg and spg... i agree reggies play in the postseason is amazing but its not like ray was a bad playoff performer himself... i do think reggie has the intangibles but i just dont think they are enough to overcome the fact that ray was simply the better basketball player then reggie
Well I just don't agree that Ray was better, at least not in the playoffs, which is what really matters to me anyway.

[Pointguard]

The best playoff shooting performance I ever seen was when Bowen couldn't do anything with Ray Allen. And Ray didn't do it off picks. And Bowen totally shut down everybody else that year. Bowen was incredible that year but Allen was unperturbed.

[L.Kizzle]

While these players are very, very similar, they have a different mystique about them.

Both are dead eye shooters, clutch in the closing seconds. But one does everything else a little bit better than the other ... but what does that mean really?

Ray Allen just passed Reggie as the all-time leader in 3 pointers made. He also has more All-Star games (double really), and one NBA championship, but what does that mean really?

Here is the difference, one player has an aura with them that just got bigger and bigger as the game went on. If both players were on the same team down by 3, Ray Allen has 32 points on a good shooting percentage and Reggie just had 8 points on a terrible night, the opposing team would rather have Ray shot than Reggie, that's the difference.

Reggie bought fear to teams in the 90s that only Michael Jordan could have a claim for bringing more.

In 20 years they're still gonna talk about Reggie Miller vs the Knicks (yes, not the Pacers, but Reggie Miller) in those classic 90s battles.

Compare Ray when he was on the Bucks / Soncis to Reggie's best days, they don't compare. Besides Ray's one trip to the conference Finals with the Bucks in 2001 and his one playoff showing with the Sonics in '05, Reggie did that and more.

Multiple Eastern Conference Finals appearances against the Knicks (2x), Magic, Bulls and a Finals appearance in 2000 to boot.

This is another case were the better talent doesn't always come out on top.
Reggie Miller for me.

[RRR3]

This really should be obvious. :facepalm Reggie Miller is so ****ing overrated.

[Papaya Petee]

Jesus

[PowerGlove]

Ray Allen and it really isnt close.

[ThaSwagg3r]

My vote goes to Ray Allen, he was just flat out better than Reggie at everything. Not to mention Ray absolutely craps on him in the accomplishments/accolades factor.

[RRR3]

My vote goes to Ray Allen, he was just flat out better than Reggie at everything. Not to mention Ray absolutely craps on him in the accomplishments/accolades factor.
http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/clap%20clap%20clap/grand/the_rock_clap_clap_gif.gif

[L.Kizzle]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/clap%20clap%20clap/grand/the_rock_clap_clap_gif.gif
Read post #32.

[RRR3]

Read post #32.
I did. Ray Allen had a much better career no matter what way you spin it.

[L.Kizzle]

I did. Ray Allen had a much better career no matter what way you spin it.
How so?

[RRR3]

How so?
Better defender, passer, scorer, equal if not better shooter, more complete offensive game, and better stats if you want those.

[L.Kizzle]

Better defender, passer, scorer, equal if not better shooter, more complete offensive game, and better stats if you want those.
So was Dennis Johnson in the last battle, that doesn't always equal a win.

[D.J.]

Ray Allen >>> Reggie Miller. Not close.

[NugzHeat3]

If I had a vote, it would be Ray Allen and it isn't really close.

[Smoke117]

Better defender, passer, scorer, equal if not better shooter, more complete offensive game, and better stats if you want those.

Pretty much. What sets so many other guards above Reggie Miller is the fact that besides scoring he did practically nothing. Making plays for others? no. Rebounding? no. Playing tough defense? no. All he did was score and the fact of the matter is the scoring numbers aren't that impressive. He never averaged 25ppg once which is probably a pretty good benchmark for elite scoring sg's (along with efficiency) You can see why he didn't take more shots though. Even in his best days he wasn't a good ball handler. Even in his prime he was almost always off the ball and that is going to limit your touches. There's a reason he wasn't first ballot hall of fame and that's because he was a very good (but not great scorer) who did absolutely NOTHING else for his team. It's pretty easily Ray Allen.

[nycelt84]

Ray Allen

[Boston C's]

The best playoff shooting performance I ever seen was when Bowen couldn't do anything with Ray Allen. And Ray didn't do it off picks. And Bowen totally shut down everybody else that year. Bowen was incredible that year but Allen was unperturbed.

I remember that it was great to see ray dominate the playoffs that yr

[Boston C's]

My vote goes to Ray Allen, he was just flat out better than Reggie at everything. Not to mention Ray absolutely craps on him in the accomplishments/accolades factor.

This pretty much describes why ray should win here and is winning here easily... i love reggie but all he could do is shoot thats it... he was great in the clutch actually Godlike but that doesnt hide the fact that he was not really good in anything besides shooting

[L.Kizzle]

This pretty much describes why ray should win here and is winning here easily... i love reggie but all he could do is shoot thats it... he was great in the clutch actually Godlike but that doesnt hide the fact that he was not really good in anything besides shooting
So cause Ray does things better than Reggie, it means he should advance? Eddie Jones was better than both Reggie and Ray at about everything else besides shooting, but he didn't even sniff this list.

[Reggie43]

My vote obviously goes to Reggie Miller. He was the better shooter, scorer,defender and was definitely more clutch and was more importantly the leader of those great pacers teams up to his last days.

The only significant advantages i see ray has over reggie was scoring versatility, and ballhandling/playmaking. I think a lot of people here are blinded by the style and smoothness of ray allens game so they are too quick to write off reggie who was very akward and unconventional both in game and looks but was very effective and efficient.

The consensus here was that ray was a much better allaround player but why doesnt that show in their career numbers?

Player FG% 3fg ft rpg apg spg ppg
Reg .471 .395 .888 3.0 3.0 1.1 18.2
Ray .452 .399 .893 4.3 3.6 1.2 20.2

Ray was only 1.3 rebs and .6 ast better. How does that translate to being a much better allaround player? and those numbers are definitely going down as ray allen plays a few more seasons.

another advantage ray had over reggie was the rule changes, reggie was the player who would have most benifitted from the lack of handchecking because of his offball movement. His ppg and efficincy would have definitely increased with those rules in place, as evidenced by most players having career years when the rules were implemented.

The thing that separates Reggie from Ray was as Pauk and L.Kizzle have said is the killer instinct he had, the fear he brought to teams in the closing seconds and the swagger he possessed despite the pressure of carrying the fortunes of a franchise on his shoulders

[L.Kizzle]

Pretty much. What sets so many other guards above Reggie Miller is the fact that besides scoring he did practically nothing. Making plays for others? no. Rebounding? no. Playing tough defense? no. All he did was score and the fact of the matter is the scoring numbers aren't that impressive. He never averaged 25ppg once which is probably a pretty good benchmark for elite scoring sg's (along with efficiency) You can see why he didn't take more shots though. Even in his best days he wasn't a good ball handler. Even in his prime he was almost always off the ball and that is going to limit your touches. There's a reason he wasn't first ballot hall of fame and that's because he was a very good (but not great scorer) who did absolutely NOTHING else for his team. It's pretty easily Ray Allen.
All of these negatives you've listed about him and he still lead his team to the Conference Finals 4 times and the NBA Finals in his prime, 2 games away from the title ...

[Gifted Mind]

I would take Ray Allen in this comparison

[Kblaze8855]

Reggie in his prime is...off the top of my head...like...the 33rd best player in the NBA right now. Which is me pretending that a good number of players(Deng, Iggy, and Bogut types) arent better than him all around by a huge margin. 33 is my...pretending that shooting jumpers and doing nothing else(at all) means a lot more to a teams success than it does number. Reggie would be the 7th or 8th best player in the atlantic division right now.

Really....Reggie Miller was not that good. Coaches were not putting John Starks, Joe Dumars, Kenny Anderson, Oakley, and Laettner over him in all star games because they forgot about him. Laettner was named as a replacement...over Reggie in his prime healthy and productive leading a good team. he wasnt even the only one. Reggie didnt make it...or get to replace either of the two injured players. In his prime hes not even given a spot in the top 14 in the east. Same thing many times. Michael gotdamn Adams was put over Reggie. And Michaels team won 25 games. The worst team in the nba gets its middling star selected as an all star over Reggie leading an average team but people look bac like everyone thought the world of him....

Reggie being some kind of great player in the 90s is myth created by nostalgia in like 2003....


Reggie was famous. A star. reggie was not very good. He was a beast coming off a screen. Great open from outside. But he was also 60 well played screens a night leading to him catching the ball looking like a deer in headlights because he might have to attack his man.

Ive seen BJ Armstrong straight brick wall Reggie Miller on consecutive plays. He wasnt a great scorer. He was a great shooter.

Valuable player on the right kind of team. But hes the 5th most important player on the 07 Spurs. I cant see Pop giving up Bruce Bowen and what he did on guys like Lebron to get Reggie to come off a screen or two and be worse than manu at everything else.

I get the feeling he wasnt nearly as respected by basketball people as some want to assume. Not for his game. for loyalty, playing hard for years, and all that? Sure?

but when its time to rank the best player of the season hes behind Terrell brandon to the media and the coaches dont list him in one of the 7 bench spots they pick for the ASG. Nor does he play with 2 more people get hurt.

It really is quite telling. feared with a 3 needed or not...people didnt think he was that good until hes talked about in retrospect.

[1987_Lakers]

Reggie in his prime is...off the top of my head...like...the 33rd best player in the NBA right now. Which is me pretending that a good number of players(Deng, Iggy, and Bogut types) arent better than him all around by a huge margin. 33 is my...pretending that shooting jumpers and doing nothing else(at all) means a lot more to a teams success than it does number. Reggie would be the 7th or 8th best player in the atlantic division right now.

Really....Reggie Miller was not that good. Coaches were not putting John Starks, Joe Dumars, Kenny Anderson, Oakley, and Laettner over him in all star games because they forgot about him. Laettner was named as a replacement...over Reggie in his prime healthy and productive leading a good team. he wasnt even the only one. Reggie didnt make it...or get to replace either of the two injured players. In his prime hes not even given a spot in the top 14 in the east. Same thing many times. Michael gotdamn Adams was put over Reggie. And Michaels team won 25 games. The worst team in the nba gets its middling star selected as an all star over Reggie leading an average team but people look bac like everyone thought the world of him....

Reggie being some kind of great player in the 90s is myth created by nostalgia in like 2003....


Reggie was famous. A star. reggie was not very good. He was a beast coming off a screen. Great open from outside. But he was also 60 well played screens a night leading to him catching the ball looking like a deer in headlights because he might have to attack his man.

Ive seen BJ Armstrong straight brick wall Reggie Miller on consecutive plays. He wasnt a great scorer. He was a great shooter.

Valuable player on the right kind of team. But hes the 5th most important player on the 07 Spurs. I cant see Pop giving up Bruce Bowen and what he did on guys like Lebron to get Reggie to come off a screen or two and be worse than manu at everything else.

I get the feeling he wasnt nearly as respected by basketball people as some want to assume. Not for his game. for loyalty, playing hard for years, and all that? Sure?

but when its time to rank the best player of the season hes behind Terrell brandon to the media and the coaches dont list him in one of the 7 bench spots they pick for the ASG. Nor does he play with 2 more people get hurt.

It really is quite telling. feared with a 3 needed or not...people didnt think he was that good until hes talked about in retrospect.

Great post, and it's a shame he got past DJ in the previous round, but I'm not surprised since DJ is often forgotten & Reggie is thought of too much.

[D.J.]

He was the better shooter, scorer,defender and was definitely more clutch and was more importantly the leader of those great pacers teams up to his last days.


:roll: Ray was as good, if not better in shooting. He was a much more versatile scorer and defender. Reggie has the edge in clutchness, but Ray was better offensively.



The only significant advantages i see ray has over reggie was scoring versatility, and ballhandling/playmaking. I think a lot of people here are blinded by the style and smoothness of ray allens game so they are too quick to write off reggie who was very akward and unconventional both in game and looks but was very effective and efficient.


Never mind his athleticism, ability to create for himself, and consistency. :facepalm



The consensus here was that ray was a much better allaround player but why doesnt that show in their career numbers?

Player FG% 3fg ft rpg apg spg ppg
Reg .471 .395 .888 3.0 3.0 1.1 18.2
Ray .452 .399 .893 4.3 3.6 1.2 20.2

Ray was only 1.3 rebs and .6 ast better. How does that translate to being a much better allaround player? and those numbers are definitely going down as ray allen plays a few more seasons.


Not everything is determined by stats. Watch the games.



another advantage ray had over reggie was the rule changes, reggie was the player who would have most benifitted from the lack of handchecking because of his offball movement. His ppg and efficincy would have definitely increased with those rules in place, as evidenced by most players having career years when the rules were implemented.


That's a cop out. The rule changes didn't go into full force until 2004. Ray was putting up roughly 22/5/4 for several seasons by that point.



The thing that separates Reggie from Ray was as Pauk and L.Kizzle have said is the killer instinct he had, the fear he brought to teams in the closing seconds and the swagger he possessed despite the pressure of carrying the fortunes of a franchise on his shoulders


Opponents didn't fear Reggie until the 4th. Opponents feared Ray all game. He carried mediocre Bucks and Sonics teams. He dominated games and for the vast majority of them.

[Smoke117]

Great post, and it's a shame he got past DJ in the previous round, but I'm not surprised since DJ is often forgotten & Reggie is thought of too much.

He got passed DJ? That's just awful.

[magnax1]

Reggie in his prime is...off the top of my head...like...the 33rd best player in the NBA right now. Which is me pretending that a good number of players(Deng, Iggy, and Bogut types) arent better than him all around by a huge margin. 33 is my...pretending that shooting jumpers and doing nothing else(at all) means a lot more to a teams success than it does number. Reggie would be the 7th or 8th best player in the atlantic division right now.

Really....Reggie Miller was not that good. Coaches were not putting John Starks, Joe Dumars, Kenny Anderson, Oakley, and Laettner over him in all star games because they forgot about him. Laettner was named as a replacement...over Reggie in his prime healthy and productive leading a good team. he wasnt even the only one. Reggie didnt make it...or get to replace either of the two injured players. In his prime hes not even given a spot in the top 14 in the east. Same thing many times. Michael gotdamn Adams was put over Reggie. And Michaels team won 25 games. The worst team in the nba gets its middling star selected as an all star over Reggie leading an average team but people look bac like everyone thought the world of him....

Reggie being some kind of great player in the 90s is myth created by nostalgia in like 2003....


Reggie was famous. A star. reggie was not very good. He was a beast coming off a screen. Great open from outside. But he was also 60 well played screens a night leading to him catching the ball looking like a deer in headlights because he might have to attack his man.

Ive seen BJ Armstrong straight brick wall Reggie Miller on consecutive plays. He wasnt a great scorer. He was a great shooter.

Valuable player on the right kind of team. But hes the 5th most important player on the 07 Spurs. I cant see Pop giving up Bruce Bowen and what he did on guys like Lebron to get Reggie to come off a screen or two and be worse than manu at everything else.

I get the feeling he wasnt nearly as respected by basketball people as some want to assume. Not for his game. for loyalty, playing hard for years, and all that? Sure?

but when its time to rank the best player of the season hes behind Terrell brandon to the media and the coaches dont list him in one of the 7 bench spots they pick for the ASG. Nor does he play with 2 more people get hurt.

It really is quite telling. feared with a 3 needed or not...people didnt think he was that good until hes talked about in retrospect.
I knew that you'd come along and post something like this about him, but the reality of it is that the guys who beat him out for all star games, played like shit compared to him.
Reggie's stats from 91-02 in the playoffs
23.7-3-2.5 on 60% TS
Christian Laettner in the 97+98 Playoffs
16.7-7-2 on 51% TS
John Starks in the playoffs- (and I think everyone knows how he got outplayed in 94)
14-3-4 on 55% TS
I could post some others, but most of them didn't make many playoffs in their primes.
Reggie did not play like an all star in the regular season. Nobody is denying that. However in the playoffs he played like the third best shooting guard in the league and consistently played better then Mitch Richmond, who everyone seems to love to point out as someone that was so much better then Reggie and never gets credit for it.

[Kblaze8855]

Its joke that he got voted past denis johnson. Id bet my life on it that a poll of the players, coaches, and serious fans in DJs day would have ranked him way higher than the same would do for Reggie. You have an all nba first teamer/finals MVP/all around great player who had more to offer a team in every area of the game except for shooting jumpers and hes ranked after a guy people decided was great in retrospect when he was 36. Dennis being put behind Reggie shows exactly what I feel is wrong with so many fans.

The name you hear the most and has the most plays you remember gets the nod. And itsn ot like Reggie actually made more plays that mattered than DJ. Dennis made plays in the finals that pretty much set his team up for rings. Game winning steals...took over finals games. Helped guard everyone from MAgic to Jordan...

But Reggie gets the "Boom baby! Reggie hits the theeeeeeeeeereeee!" moment everyone remembers right before he comes back next game goes 7-22 and loses in the playoffs for the 19th year in a row.

DJ gets a game winning steal to send his team t othe finals...knocks down the biggest shot in the finals....or has 22/14 and sinks the shots in OT to put away finals games...or plays MAgic Johnson to a standstill.

Nobody on the streets would know who he is.

It doesnt matter what you do or how good you are. Not when the other guy is famous for shots...before losing. And a rivalry with the Knicks...who usually beat him...or playing 18 or 19 years...and losing at the end of all of them.

Reggie>Dj almost...pisses me off.

[GP_20]

Reggie over KJ is even more tragic

You could even make the case KJ was a better scorer, and everything besides scoring is not even close at all. KJ even has had bigger playoff performances than Reggie. Besides longevity, Reggie has no edge over KJ what so ever.

I mean if it's debatable on Reggie's great strengths (Scoring + Playoff Performances), then you know it's not even close.

[Kblaze8855]

I knew that you'd come along and post something like this about him, but the reality of it is that the guys who beat him out for all star games, played like shit compared to him.
Reggie's stats from 91-02 in the playoffs
23.7-3-2.5 on 60% TS
Christian Laettner in the 97+98 Playoffs
16.7-7-2 on 51% TS
John Starks in the playoffs- (and I think everyone knows how he got outplayed in 94)
14-3-4 on 55% TS
I could post some others, but most of them didn't make many playoffs in their primes.
Reggie did not play like an all star in the regular season. Nobody is denying that. However in the playoffs he played like the third best shooting guard in the league and consistently played better then Mitch Richmond, who everyone seems to love to point out as someone that was so much better then Reggie and never gets credit for it.

Really...do you think Nba coaches were not watching the playoffs? Reggie scoring more in the playoffs than regular season doesnt mean he was a very good player. everyone knew it at the time but act like it matters now.

Everyone watched the playoffs. We saw Reggie score more and lose. What of it? 90% of everything remembered about him is in the playoffs.

The playoffs are why hes remembered at all. Remove the Knicks series, the shot vs the Bulls, and the playoff game vs the Nets and most people here cant name 5 things Reggie ever did.

His playoff performances are why hes who he is. But it didnt make him some great player. You ask Sprewell vs Reggie in his prime now..Reggie wins. Ask it in 1995...Sprewell wins. As he should. He was better than reggie. People changing their minds in 2003 cant change that.

Reggie being great...was decided well after the fact.

[magnax1]

Really...do you think Nba coaches were not watching the playoffs? Reggie scoring more in the playoffs than regular season doesnt mean he was a very good player. everyone knew it at the time but act like it matters now.

Everyone watched the playoffs. We saw Reggie score more and lose. What of it? 90% of everything remembered about him is in the playoffs.

The playoffs are why hes remembered at all. Remove the Knicks series, the shot vs the Bulls, and the playoff game vs the Nets and most people here cant name 5 things Reggie ever did.

His playoff performances are why hes who he is. But it didnt make him some great player. You ask Sprewell vs Reggie in his prime now..Reggie wins. Ask it in 1995...Sprewell wins. As he should. He was better than reggie. People changing their minds in 2003 cant change that.

Reggie being great...was decided well after the fact.
Latrell Sprewell? The same guy that averaged nearly 3 turnovers a game in his career while only averaging 18 ppg on 51% TS%? Is that the guy? Sprewell was good at some things. He was a great defender, and a good but wildly inconsistent on a level that no other player I can think of has reached scorer. However his best year in the regular season, is not as good statistically as Miller's playoff averages....... over a whole decade.

[32MJ32]

No rational human would take Reggie Miller over Dennis Johnson or Ray Allen.

Reggie had a flair for the dramatic, which is more of a personality trait than a basketball skill.

There's absolutely no statistical measure which puts him ahead of Ray Allen. And Dennis Johnson is a Finals MVP, All-NBA 1st Teamer, 6 time 1st Team All-NBA Defender (3 2nds) and has 3 rings.

Smarten up, board.

[Kblaze8855]

Latrell Sprewell? The same guy that averaged nearly 3 turnovers a game in his career while only averaging 18 ppg on 51% TS%? Is that the guy? Sprewell was good at some things. He was a great defender, and a good but wildly inconsistent on a level that no other player I can think of has reached scorer. However his best year in the regular season, is not as good statistically as Miller's playoff averages....... over a whole decade.

Many of those are facts the world knew when Spre was voted all NBA first team while Reggie wasnt even third team finishing behind guys we would now act like he was better than.

dont you find it the least bit odd that so many people know Reggie was great now....but didnt seem to think so then? he isnt some painter toiling in the gutter till his work is discovered after hes dead. Reggie Miller was one of the most famous and most media covered athletes of the 90s. Everyone knew him...and watched him. But all that watching him left people to conclude that Mookie blaylock gets MVp votes over him in his prime. when he actually made all nba...he wasnt one of the 17 people who got an MVP vote of any kind. Pacers win like 58 games...20 people get MVP votes. Reggie? Not a one. googs got one though. Anthony Mason got 7. In 98 he got a third as many as Antione walker. In his second year. On a lottery team. But hey...at least he was joined by smits..who also got 2 votes for 5th place.

Reggie didnt have the skillset to be considered great. He doesnt have accolades of any ind. All hes done anyone will remember is make huge memorable shots...and then lose.

But he scored 23 a game in the playoffs over his prime. Shocking. A hall of famer who is known for NOTHING but his scoring...got al lthe way up to 21ppg for his playoff career. Its amazing to me how low the bar is always set for this guy. Hes a hall of famer for nothing but his offense(which consists of nothing but jumpers) and hes getting propped up for 21 a game for his career 23.7 in his prime? Really?A hall of famer who did nothing but score is getting praised for 23-24 a game in the playoffs in his prime? for scoring 31ppg in 44 minutes a night...while getting swept? Or 27 a game in 43 minutes a night...while getting swept? Or 32 in 44 minutes a game..while getting swept?

These are not terribly impressive things for a hall of famer expected to do nothing at all...but score.

[magnax1]

dont you find it the least bit odd that so many people know Reggie was great now....but didnt seem to think so then? really..Mookie blaylock got MVp votes over Reggie in his prime. when he actually made all nba...he wasnt one of the 17 people who got an MVp vote of any kind. Pacers win liek 58 games...20 people get MVP votes. Reggie? Not a one. googs got one though. Anthony Mason got 7. In 98 he got a third as many aS antione walker. In his second year. On a lottery team. But hey...at least he was joined by smits..who also got 2 votes for 5th place.

Why would they vote a guy into a regular season award when he does nothing until the playoffs? It's like asking why David RObinson was voted MVP over Hakeem when he was dominated in the playoffs. It's not a playoff award. Even then he only made 2 fewer all star games then Pippen.
And to say that nobody thought Reggie was among the best back then is plainly not true. During the 90s he was thought of by most as the third or fourth best shooting guard in the league.


But he scored 23 a game in the playoffs over his prime. Shocking. A hall of famer who is known for NOTHING but his scoring...got al lthe way up to 21ppg for his playoff career. Its amazing to me how low the bar is always set for this guy. Hes a hall of famer for nothing but his offense(which consists of nothing but jumpers) and hes getting propped up for 21 a game for his career 23.7 in his prime? Really?A hall of famer who did nothing but score is getting praised for 23-24 a game in the playoffs in his prime? for scoring 31ppg in 44 minutes a night...while getting swept? Or 27 a game in 43 minutes a night...while getting swept? Or 32 in 44 minutes a game..while getting swept?
Dirk for his whole career has averaged a massive 2 more ppg in the playoffs on a lower % then Reggie. Is that your attitude towards Dirk? 25 ppg on 58% isn't very impressive for a guy that's asked to score and do nothing else?
Honestly, you're just making it sound much worse then it was in reality. Reggie got you 24 ppg without holding onto the ball for prolonged periods for a decade. That's definitely not much different then Ray Allen did, except Ray did it while taking up more possessions.

[iamgine]

Reggie Miller was the most efficient scorer among all 20+ ppg guards in the 90s. Not to mention incredibly clutch and raised his game in the playoff. Lets think about that for a second before we say there's no way player X is ranked lower than Reggie.

Ray Allen is basically Reggie Miller who can do a few more things a little bit better.

[32MJ32]

Reggie Miller was the most efficient scorer among all 20+ ppg guards in the 90s. Not to mention incredibly clutch and raised his game in the playoff. Lets think about that for a second before we say there's no way player X is ranked lower than Reggie.

Ray Allen is basically Reggie Miller who can do a few more things a little bit better.

Reggie Miller was an outstanding shooter. I don't think anyone is disputing that. If you're using TS% as your definition of "efficient scoring," then yes, he was among the best of all time in that category.

He also did very little of anything else. Despite this, he didn't score all that many points per game, and he's behind Ray in literally everything other than a couple of shooting % points.

For those of us that remember a prime Ray Allen and a prime Reggie Miller, there's no way you're taking Reggie if it's just an eye test. Ray was a better athlete, ballhandler, playmaker and equally as good a shooter

[RobertdeMeijer]

Reggie Miller should be remembered for his amazing playoffs moments. He was also a large part of a very good team worth remembering.

These are two things Reggie has going that are lacking for Ray Allen. And they are very hard to quantify. The question I ask myself is: are those two factors more important than being a slightly better player and having been part of a slightly more succesful team?

I'm going to go meta: both deserve to be listed in the top 25, but not high. Reggie Miller will be in the top 25 and that's good enough. As long as his contributions as the ultimate dagger are mentioned, I won't give him much more praise for his moments in the spotlight.
Ray Allen deserves to be higher because he was better and more succesful. Anything else only has to be mentioned as a footnote. That's what Reggie Miller is: a player with a bolded footnote.*

* You can't make a all-time list of Centers without mentioning Bill Walton because for a brief moment, he was the best on the planet. And you have to list Mikan because he was once king of the league. Just the same, you don't make a list of guards without mentioning the best last-minute threat of all time. But mentioning these guys is enough.

[Kblaze8855]

Why would they vote a guy into a regular season award when he does nothing until the playoffs?

And what exactly did he do in the playoffs if his regular seasons were nothing? Reggie wasnt some dominant playoff performer. He just did things people remember. And then lost. He lost virtually every game that really mattered for almost 2 decades. Why am I to care he put up 30 points in 44 minutes and got swept? Or that he put up 19.9 on 39-42% shooting and got wiped out by the Knicks?

We pretending he was doing anything history has reason to remember outside of how spectacular some of the individual shots were? Tmac lost in the first round every time and Reggie never played as well as he did in losing. Going out like Joe Johnson isnt special because your name is Reggie Miller and you hit a cold blooded 3 in game 2.



It's like asking why David RObinson was voted MVP over Hakeem when he was dominated in the playoffs. It's not a playoff award. Even then he only made 2 fewer all star games then Pippen.

Really?


And to say that nobody thought Reggie was among the best back then is plainly not true. During the 90s he was thought of by most as the third or fourth best shooting guard in the league.

And that means what? The 4th best shooting guard in the mid 90s isnt special. That pretty much means hes a notch over Hersey Hawkins and has Kendall Gill on his heels.




Dirk for his whole career has averaged a massive 2 more ppg in the playoffs on a lower % then Reggie. Is that your attitude towards Dirk? 25 ppg on 58% isn't very impressive for a guy that's asked to score and do nothing else?

Unlike reggie..Dirk can be asked to carry you on a regular basis because his ability to score isnt tied up in him getting open. Dirk could score 18 a game and be more reliable to give me points I need than Reggie coming off a screen and being taken out of the play because his man beat him to a spot. Reggie is clutch inthat he hit big shots. Usually off out of bounds plays that were drawn up to get him that shot. Hes not clutch in that you give him the ball and he wins you the game. He is to Dirk what Karl Malone is to Hakeem. The numbers they score dont matter when they cant get you a good shot on their own when you need it.



Honestly, you're just making it sound much worse then it was in reality. Reggie got you 24 ppg without holding onto the ball for prolonged periods for a decade. That's definitely not much different then Ray Allen did, except Ray did it while taking up more possessions.

Im not sure how it came to be that we pretend a guy is a better scorer because he doesnt have the ball much. You know why Reggie didnt have the ball much?

He couldnt do anything with it. he catches it...he shoots or give it to someone who plays basketball better than him. Then he gets out of the way. Half the time scoring in the halfcourt was the weakness of his team. But we praise Reggie running around through 50-60 screens a night t oget 14 good looks because he turns it to 22 points as his team loses close games because they cant get enough good shots if Smits isnt feeling it.

Reggie may have been efficient as a shooter...but he was one of the least efficient players of all time as far as plays run for him that ended in a good shot. Reggie was running off a screen burning up the shot clock to get the ball and have nothing to do with it at a rate that is simply laughable. He wasnt taking 14 shots because they ran him 14 plays. he took them because 14-15 times he got halfway open. Reggie ball was an inefficient offense because it left them with 8 seconds to go and nobody but smits to get a good shot all the time. Travis best, Jalen Rose, and smits had to take so many bad shots off Reggie failing to get open its no wonder they had to lean on defense to win for so long. They might score a good number of points..transition bal and quite a few shooters can do that....but when it gets tight Reggie was unable to put them over the top more often than not.

Blowing big leads to get to the finals because the team cant score...at all. For long stretches.

Plenty of far less efficient players could have simply asked for the ball and made something happen. Reggie? He might shoot 54%. But while his team blows a lead in game 7 hes left to run off screens hoping to find daylight because he has no chance at scoring any other way. He could jab step from 25 feet and just heave up a prayer. And make it now and then. But he couldnt create a good shot. One of the most "efficient" scorers of all time watches his team get bullied in a close game as he takes 13 shots because he cant get anything worth taking and his team cant score to maintain a lead in the biggest game of his life.

Wanna call it efficient...fine. You cant call it reliable though. So really...what does it even matter? dude is going 2 or 3 of 18 getting closed out...but he was just soooooooooo efficient.

Reggie Miller was not ever close to a takeover scorer. He scored off getting open several times a game and would make a big shot if he got a look late. He didnt get shaken by pressure at all. But his efficient play is really just created by the fact that he couldnt do anything but shoot or pass the ball to someone better than him at creating a shot. Its efficient for the wrong reasons and 19 years of failing say nothing to contradict that.

Being efficient isnt everything. Not when it isnt by choice.

[Laimbeer_Rodman]

he isnt some painter toiling in the gutter till his work is discovered after hes dead.


:bowdown:

[32MJ32]

He couldnt do anything with it. he catches it...he shoots or give it to someone who plays basketball better than him.

This is amazing, funny, and pretty much true

[Reggie43]

:roll: Ray was as good, if not better in shooting. He was a much more versatile scorer and defender. Reggie has the edge in clutchness, but Ray was better offensively.

Reggie shot 47% to Rays 45% on similar volume of shots and you think rays the better shooter? Ray was known as a bad defender b4 he came to the celts while reggie has been good defender for most of his career. Having more ways to score means shit if you cant score efficiently





Never mind his athleticism, ability to create for himself, and consistency. :facepalm

Consistency? Reggie played at a high level for 18 years with one team and your talking about consistency?




Not everything is determined by stats. Watch the games.

Yeah sure, I watched Reggie take on the biggest and baddest players in the 90s and go deep in the playoffs even taking on the goat himself were they barely survived. Switch ray with reggie and lets see if he can take that pressure




That's a cop out. The rule changes didn't go into full force until 2004. Ray was putting up roughly 22/5/4 for several seasons by that point.

so you deny the fact that rays game was helped by the rule changes? a change that helped perimeter players




Opponents didn't fear Reggie until the 4th. Opponents feared Ray all game. He carried mediocre Bucks and Sonics teams. He dominated games and for the vast majority of them.

Carried to what? they never went anywhere with ray as the teams best player

[Kblaze8855]

This is amazing, funny, and pretty much true

Really though...someone tell me..

How is it efficient to need literally 40-60 screens run for you to score 19 points a game?

Are we that into true shooting percentages and all that...to the point we ignore the basketbal being played?

Nobody in the 90s made less use of the offense being totally bent to his stregths as Reggie Miller.

The whole offense built around him...and he turns 40 or 50 plays a night run for him into 19 points. And its called efficient...because 30 times he cant do anything but give the ball back to Travis Best and get his hall of fame ass out of the way as he tries to figure out what to do now.

How is it a good thing to only get 12-15 shots out of arguably the most plays run for you in the NBA in games your team needs you to score?

Reggie goes 8-15 scores 23 points...team scores 83 watching him run in circles if they arent getting points in transition. A dozen less "efficient" scorers could make better use of the effort used to get Reggie the ball.

Reggie should have been a 25-30 a game scorer with all the effort that went into getting him looks. Not like anyone can say "Oh but they won s much the way it was...". Often when they lost it was because other teams could score in the halfcourt and if smits wasnt firing they couldnt.

Jalen Rose did more for the pacers than hes ever been given credit for.

[Reggie43]

Why all the hate for Reggie Kblaze :confusedshrug: Really now 33rd best player in the nba right now? I guess you also think that they all can do what reggie did in a similar team?

[Kblaze8855]

I dont hate Reggie. At least not in the way I hate Karl malone. But I do think he was a jackass, thought he was a lot better than he was, and laughed seeing him lose every single year. But it wasnt a...wishing he would fail thing. For most of the back end of his career I wanted to see him do well.

But I didnt think he was that great in the 90s and all he did was keep being gone before games mattered and get talked up for clutchness then watch his team go down in flames.

As for thinking 30 something guys could do more than he did with his teams? hard to say. His teams were so based on him its hard to picture them with a...Pau Gasol or something.

But I have no trouble with the idea that a couple dozen players or more are better than him. And nobody back in the day would either. There are years 26 or 27 people were all stars or stepped in for injured people...none of them being Reggie. And nobdoy was like...outraged. It wasnt him being snubbed. It was him not deserving to be there over 12-14 guys in his own conference.

He was a lot more well known than he was great. But in retrosepct..suddenly hes some highly thought of guy being ranked over all nba first teamers and guys with 3 rings, finals MVPs, and all around ability far beyond his?

Reggie gets rated off name not his game. And those types always annoyed me.

[rodman91]

Reggie was giving nightmares every team,coach and city daily basis.Ray has never been that type of player.

Career wise Ray. Better player is Reggie.

[Reggie43]

I dont hate Reggie. At least not in the way I hate Karl malone. But I do think he was a jackass, thought he was a lot better than he was, and laughed seeing him lose every single year. But it wasnt a...wishing he would fail thing. For most of the back end of his career I wanted to see him do well.

But I didnt think he was that great in the 90s and all he did was keep being gone before games mattered and get talked up for clutchness then watch his team go down in flames.

As for thinking 30 something guys could do more than he did with his teams? hard to say. His teams were so based on him its hard to picture them with a...Pau Gasol or something.

But I have no trouble with the idea that a couple dozen players or more are better than him. And nobody back in the day would either. There are years 26 or 27 people were all stars or stepped in for injured people...none of them being Reggie. And nobdoy was like...outraged. It wasnt him being snubbed. It was him not deserving to be there over 12-14 guys in his own conference.

He was a lot more well known than he was great. But in retrosepct..suddenly hes some highly thought of guy being ranked over all nba first teamers and guys with 3 rings, finals MVPs, and all around ability far beyond his?

Reggie gets rated off name not his game. And those types always annoyed me.


I was just gonna ask who you hated more between reggie and karl :oldlol:

Really disagree with the 33 players thing, its really not hard to make similar teams with those 33 players you said. Lets say a lineup of the 98 pacers minus dale davis and reggie replaced with pau gasol and iguodala, do you think they do better than 7 games against the bulls?

Reggie to me was beyond stats, he had the strength of personality of the all time greats but lacks the all around game to be one. To me he was a very good player who had the ability to be great at the most crucial times and thats the trait that separates him from other sg in the 90s aside from mj

[necya]

the way people are talking about basketball on ish is just amazing.

seriously i don't know if there is 10 guys here who know something. the only way you are only able to talk is those bullshit statistics, TS%, PER or other stupid numbers.

i always laugh when i read hey Allen is a better rebounder and more allrounded player...
i'm just asking what makes people think that a player who average 5 rebound is better than a player who average 4 rebound...i guess they forgot the function of a guard on a random opponent shot.

Miller was a very good one on one player, and in your stupid poll kblaze, i would add that 100% of players would prefer to meet Allen rather than Miller.
Dale Ellis was an awesome shooter but ask yourself why he is miles away whereas they are considered as shooters.

he was a great team player but how "just a shooter" has played so good against MJ. scoring 40pts against MJ while defending him can't make Reggie "just a shooter"

Reggie Miller.

[Bigsmoke]

Ray Allen

[G.O.A.T]

I would have had DJ over Miller and I do think Miller is generally a bit overrated, but some of the crap I've read in this thread is pathetic.

I've read opinions from people who don't understand what constantly moving off screens does for the other four people in the offense, from those who don't understand what team play does. Those who were barely old enough to be alive in the nineties say that Miller was not considered a great player then and that this is all revisionists history. I read more than one person write that Allen does everything better.

Most of all KBlaze, I invited you to contribute, and I value your input, but your opinion on Reggie is filled with incorrect information, bizarre inaccurate analysis and a complete lack of accuracy regardless of subjectivity. In other words your opinion stinks and is actually wrong. I know opinions can't be wrong, but in this case your is.

This has been a pretty bad thread. I'd ask the mods here to please help keep people who are not part of the project from taking over threads with arguments and agendas.

It looks like Ray Allen is going to win, which is fine, he probably deserves it. However having watched both their careers, I never feared Allen as much as Reggie, I never respected his game the way I did Reggie's and I never say Allen lift up a team and carry them one time, the way Miller did in what seemed like every postseason.

The pendulum has shifted here it seems, Reggie Miller, for a long time overrated, seems to have become underrated, at least based on the content of this thread.

[Maneva]

Reggie Miller

[Kurosawa0]

Ray Allen

[G.O.A.T]

Here is the difference, one player has an aura with them that just got bigger and bigger as the game went on. If both players were on the same team down by 3, Ray Allen has 32 points on a good shooting percentage and Reggie just had 8 points on a terrible night, the opposing team would rather have Ray shot than Reggie, that's the difference.


Reggie bought fear to teams in the 90s that only Michael Jordan could have a claim for bringing more.

In 20 years they're still gonna talk about Reggie Miller vs the Knicks (yes, not the Pacers, but Reggie Miller) in those classic 90s battles.

Compare Ray when he was on the Bucks / Soncis to Reggie's best days, they don't compare. Besides Ray's one trip to the conference Finals with the Bucks in 2001 and his one playoff showing with the Sonics in '05, Reggie did that and more.

Multiple Eastern Conference Finals appearances against the Knicks (2x), Magic, Bulls and a Finals appearance in 2000 to boot.

This is another case were the better talent doesn't always come out on top.
Reggie Miller for me.

This post, from this point on is how you make an argument for a player without disrespecting or misrepresenting the other guy.

I love the part about Reggie getting better as the game goes on, or at least casting a greater shadow. You could feel it. You could see the opponents (especially the Knicks) knew it. Reggie is one of those guys who numbers never do justice. Sure some made up stats will tell you what everyone who watched him already knew, he was an efficient scorer who was even more dangerous late in games, but that's not what defines him. He understood the game and more importantly he understood the moment.

[LJJ]

Poor Reggie, getting stomped on and dragged through the dirt in this thread. I agree he might be ranked a bit too high, but he was too great to be talked about in a disrespectful manner like in this thread.

If you disrespect Reggie Miller like that you are disrespecting the game.

[HylianNightmare]

Ray Allen

[Miller for 3]

lol at the Reggie hate

[G.O.A.T]

To everyone voting who doesn't have a vote. Stop please. It is a pain in the ass to sift through.

If you'd like to join the project state your case in the main thread stickied at the top of the NBA forum page.

[RobertdeMeijer]

Just like nearly every other thread, I'm coming to admire each player more and more. This includes Reggie Miller. I wish there was more talk about how good Ray Allen was.

[oolalaa]

It's very, very close but it has to be rayray.

he was just a better all round player...

[L.Kizzle]

Just like nearly every other thread, I'm coming to admire each player more and more. This includes Reggie Miller. I wish there was more talk about how good Ray Allen was.
Its realy been no essay on Ray Allen, just peole saying "Reggie and its not close." I want a debate dammit.

[Boston C's]

So cause Ray does things better than Reggie, it means he should advance? Eddie Jones was better than both Reggie and Ray at about everything else besides shooting, but he didn't even sniff this list.

Eddie jones really now... you could of thought of someone better then that kizzle and besides jones hasnt accomplished much in the nba compared to those two so that nullifies his importance whereas ray and reggie both accomplished some great feats which helps ray when compared to reggie because he just did everything better then reggie in terms of basketball skills to accolades

[bizil]

Give me Ray all day long! Most pure three point shooters don't have a game as complete as Ray's. Only guys I can think of is Bird of course as well as Jerry West (even though they didn't have a 3ball then he was still pullin deep). Ray could cross u over and pull from three ball range. Reggie wasn't doin it like that. Ray also can swing to the PG and play that, he did it often in Seattle and Milwaukee. Reggie is a legend and should be in the HOF. But I gotta roll with Ray Ray on this one. Can score pretty much anyway u want it in addition to being a great three point shooter. Reggie didn't have the arsenal Ray had due to Ray's superior ball handling.

[Boston C's]

I can understand why some of the people here are picking reggie... to me its no disrespect to reggie some people put more value the teams he carried in the playoffs then I do... I tend to look at what a player has accomplished in the league first and foremost then I like to look at peak play whereas some ppl do it in reverse... I do value winning as well which hurts reggie a little in this case (not much) and lets also remember before boston ray has played with some shitty casts and did as much as he could with them (especially the sonics)... the bucks everyone remembers for their big three of Ray sam cassell and Big Dog but that team had no frontcourt whatsoever... they weren't really juggernauts (though in my opinion they got screwed out of the 01 finals by stern)

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure ive ever seen as much mythical greatness as people want to heap on Reggie miller. Act like he was better than someone better than him at literally everything...

And support it with abstract concepts like fear, a feel for the moment, and magic...all of which resulted in....

What?

And things like this:


Those who were barely old enough to be alive in the nineties say that Miller was not considered a great player then and that this is all revisionists history.

Are just indefensible to me.

Reggie Miller was a star. A bigtime star. Due almost totally to losing in dramatic fashion or wining "big' second round series then getting wiped out. It was 13-14 years before he won a series that mattered. Reggie was bigtime to a lot of kids who follow only the big stars they ehar about on TV. there is no evidence basketball people had him ranked terribly high. It really is telling when a supposed great player plays 18 or 19 mostly healthy years and in 14 or 15 of them neither fans, coaches, or the commishioner when guys are injured saw fit to make him an all star. But people were just soooooooooo enamored with Reggie.

Having a big name doesnt mean he was thought to be a great player.

And his big name combined with...magic...has people ranking him over Ray who they dont fear...despite 50+ point playoff games in the twilight of his career, like 17 game winners the last few years, NBA record 3s in the finals, having games with 7 or 8 threes in the half in playoff games, dropping 45-50 on the kings in the playoffs, 45-50 on Philly, beating team after team after team after team the last few years with 3s nobody understands him always getting open for.

In 11 years the Pacers missed the playoffs or lost in the first round but...people....feeeeeeel like he was powering them to big win after big win in the playoffs.

And that...feel....fear...is given more weight than what he was actually capable of or actually did. Its a joke. Its exactly what is wrong with so many sports fans. Guys like Reggie get a mystique and guys who worked just as hard, gave al lthey had to the game, and reached a higher level especially as a total player..get dismissed while a guy gets lal the love over flashy losses and "So what?" first round wins...while losing early or missing the playoffs the vast majority of his career.

Its not disrespecting the game to call Reggie what he was(a shooter..who did not one thing you remember that wasnt shooting a jumper). Its more disrespectful to the hard work and often better careers of many stars who were better than him but get no love to come in here and praise a guy more than them because they....felt...like he was doing more. Cant put it into words...because it doesnt actually exist...but they....feeeeeeeel it.

Dude is the Joe Namath of the NBA. Except Joe actually won something that mattered before he spent a career living off a legacy of magic.

[L.Kizzle]

Eddie jones really now... you could of thought of someone better then that kizzle and besides jones hasnt accomplished much in the nba compared to those two so that nullifies his importance whereas ray and reggie both accomplished some great feats which helps ray when compared to reggie because he just did everything better then reggie in terms of basketball skills to accolades
You're tellin me Eddie Jones skillswise wasn't better than Ray or Reggie?

[G.O.A.T]

For those saying things like "it's not even close" Just thought I'd show you all just how close it actually is.

I took both players careers from the age of 24 (when they made their first all-star team) until age 35. (Current age of Ray Allen)

Here's the breakdown: Reggie in Blue, Ray in Green

From 1989-90 to 2000-01 Reggie Miller played in all but 14 regular season games for the Indiana Pacers. Reggie averaged 20.4 ppg 3.2 rpg and 3.1 apg shooting 47/40/89 from the field, three and the line respectively with 1.2 steals and 1.9 turnovers per contest.

From 1999-00 to 2010-11 Ray Allen played for the Bucks, Sonics and Celtics; 8 out of 12 seasons he appeared in at 78 of 82 games. He averaged 21.6 points 4.2 rpg and 3.6 apg shooting 46/42/90 with 1.2 steals and 2.1 turnovers per contest.

During that span Miller's teams averaged exactly 47 wins per season, made the playoffs in eleven of twelve seasons, had five fifty win seasons and advanced to five Conference finals and one NBA Finals.

Ray's team also averaged exactly 47 wins per season, made the playoffs in seven of twelve seasons an had six fifty win seasons, advanced to three conference finals and two NBA finals claiming the 2008 NBA Championship.

Miller's teams had an overall playoff record of 57-49 when he played and Reggie averaged 23.1 points 2.9 rebounds and 2.5 assists per game.

Allen's teams had an overall playoff record of 60-47 when he played an Ray averaged 19.3 poins 3.9 rebounds and 3.3 assists.

The biggest difference is in the quality of teammates.

From 1990-2001 Miller played with three players who were selected to a combined three all-star games. Reggie Miller is 6-6 in playoff series without a single all-star teammate and has made three conference finals under those circumstances.

From 2000-2011 Allen played with five players who were selected to a combined thirteen all-star games. Ray Allen has never made a playoff appearance in his career without at least one all-star teammate.

Again my vote is for Reggie Miller by the slightest of margins.

Of Note: Miller and Allen went head to head in the playoffs once. In 2000. Ray was 24, Reggie was 34. Ray averaged 22 points 7 rebounds and 3 assists for the series. Miller 24-3-3. But in the pivotal game five to decide the series, Ray was 6-21 and scored 18 points. Reggie was 15-25 and scored 41.

[Kblaze8855]

Id say it could be argued Eddie Jones had more al laround skills than either depending on how you want t ovalue defense. Ray in his prime had better handles, was a better shooter, and a better playmaker though. Reggie a better shooter and not really a worse passer. Eddie wasnt quite as good a slasher as his athletic ability might suggest either.

[RRR3]

You're tellin me Eddie Jones skillswise wasn't better than Ray or Reggie?
Ray Allen in his prime was quite skilled. Reggie? More of just a pure shooter albeit a great one.

[Boston C's]

You're tellin me Eddie Jones skillswise wasn't better than Ray or Reggie?

Not better then ray honestly... I think ppl forget how good ray was in his prime and the label as a shooter really is diminishing the boards view on his overall abilities

[Boston C's]

For those saying things like "it's not even close" Just thought I'd show you all just how close it actually is.

I took both players careers from the age of 24 (when they made their first all-star team) until age 35. (Current age of Ray Allen)

Here's the breakdown: Reggie in Blue, Ray in Green

From 1989-90 to 2000-01 Reggie Miller played in all but 14 regular season games for the Indiana Pacers. Reggie averaged 20.4 ppg 3.2 rpg and 3.1 apg shooting 47/40/89 from the field, three and the line respectively with 1.2 steals and 1.9 turnovers per contest.

From 1999-00 to 2010-11 Ray Allen played for the Bucks, Sonics and Celtics; 8 out of 12 seasons he appeared in at 78 of 82 games. He averaged 21.6 points 4.2 rpg and 3.6 apg shooting 46/42/90 with 1.2 steals and 2.1 turnovers per contest.

During that span Miller's teams averaged exactly 47 wins per season, made the playoffs in eleven of twelve seasons, had five fifty win seasons and advanced to five Conference finals and one NBA Finals.

Ray's team also averaged exactly 47 wins per season, made the playoffs in seven of twelve seasons an had six fifty win seasons, advanced to three conference finals and two NBA finals claiming the 2008 NBA Championship.

Miller's teams had an overall playoff record of 57-49 when he played and Reggie averaged 23.1 points 2.9 rebounds and 2.5 assists per game.

Allen's teams had an overall playoff record of 60-47 when he played an Ray averaged 19.3 poins 3.9 rebounds and 3.3 assists.

The biggest difference is in the quality of teammates.

From 1990-2001 Miller played with three players who were selected to a combined three all-star games. Reggie Miller is 6-6 in playoff series without a single all-star teammate and has made three conference finals under those circumstances.

From 2000-2011 Allen played with five players who were selected to a combined thirteen all-star games. Ray Allen has never made a playoff appearance in his career without at least one all-star teammate.

Again my vote is for Reggie Miller by the slightest of margins.

Solid breakdown Goat... only thing is to me like i said before boston I think ray and reggie had to carry equally subpar supporting casts but this breakdown is a great objective post of why someone could make a case for reggie (even though i chose ray)

[bizil]

I do think that Reggie actually could have been putting up 26-28 points a night damn near every year. But he didn't attempt as many shots as the other great SG's. He ALWAYS got a very efficient 20 points a night. And I do feel his offensive arsenal is underrated. He was very crafty in how he got his shots off both midrange and 3 ball. He had an assortment of jab steps and fakes. And he had an underrated post game. He had great size in terms of height at the SG at 6'7 or 6'8. I just dig Ray's ball handling ability and athleticism that complements his awesome shooting. But u don't get over 20,000 points by just being a catch and shoot player. Catch and shoot players are guys like Steve Kerr and Kyle Korver. Reggie was a great shooter who was also a very good-great scorer and amongst the five most clutch players EVER.

[G.O.A.T]

Solid breakdown Goat... only thing is to me like i said before boston I think ray and reggie had to carry equally subpar supporting casts but this breakdown is a great objective post of why someone could make a case for reggie (even though i chose ray)


I agree about their casts pre-Boston for Ray. However Miller was much much more successful than Ray pre-Boston. Only with the Boston years does Ray get onto Reggie's level. Reggie was clearly, based on their careers, a better or at least more successful #1 option, but Allen showed how well he can blend his talents and the amount of team success Boston has had with him playing a key role balances it out for me.


In 11 years the Pacers missed the playoffs or lost in the first round but...people....feeeeeeel like he was powering them to big win after big win in the playoffs.

Reggie made the playoffs every year except one in his prime. That's total BS. From 1994-2000 they only lost one first round series, when Miller was injured and missed four of five games.


And that...feel....fear...is given more weight than what he was actually capable of or actually did. Its a joke. Its exactly what is wrong with so many sports fans. Guys like Reggie get a mystique and guys who worked just as hard, gave al lthey had to the game, and reached a higher level especially as a total player..get dismissed while a guy gets lal the love over flashy losses and "So what?" first round wins...while losing early or missing the playoffs the vast majority of his career.

Really, because Miller had a winning record in the postseason as his teams best player. Also Miller's teams were undefeated in the second round with him as their #1 option. Don't let the facts get in the way though.


Its not disrespecting the game to call Reggie what he was(a shooter..who did not one thing you remember that wasnt shooting a jumper).

I remember him for a lot more than just shooting, but then again I am probably just imagining it right?


Its more disrespectful to the hard work and often better careers of many stars who were better than him but get no love to come in here and praise a guy more than them because they....felt...like he was doing more. Cant put it into words...because it doesnt actually exist...but they....feeeeeeeel it.

Every post in this thread from you has been sad. You're wrong, the numbers show it, the old game films show it, the fact that they ended up right next to each other in a poll of 22 people shows it. You're wrong.

[L.Kizzle]

Not better then ray honestly... I think ppl forget how good ray was in his prime and the label as a shooter really is diminishing the boards view on his overall abilities
But Reggie is just considered a shooter?

[MiseryCityTexas]

ray allen a more complete player than reggie miller. ray allen did alot more than just shoot threes when he played on the bucks and sonics.

[Kblaze8855]

Reggie made the playoffs every year except one in his prime. That's total BS. From 1994-2000 they only lost one first round series, when Miller was injured and missed four of five games.

Um...reggie was essentially the same player from likeage 23 to 35. What I said was a fact. The extreme vast majority of Reggies career he missed the playoffs or lost in the first round. What makes 94 count but not 92? Reggie was 29 in 94. Lets not act like he became Reggie Miller at 29.



Really, because Miller had a winning record in the postseason as his teams best player. Also Miller's teams were undefeated in the second round with him as their #1 option. Don't let the facts get in the way though.

22% of the time...he came through every time.

At least if "coming through" is coming up two rounds short of being a winner. And we disregard that 78% of the time he wasnt even that close.



I remember him for a lot more than just shooting, but then again I am probably just imagining it right?

Feel free to list them. Him talking shit to the Lakers and then losing? Scuffling with Jordan...then losing? Shit talking the Celtics...then losing? Arguing with Spike lee...then losing the next 2 games and going home? Remember when he and smits hit like 3 big shots in a row vs the Magic with Penny hitting one too? Before they lost that series? How about him going off in like 03 on the Nets? Then losing? You know...when they lost? That big 3 where he pushed off on Jordan...then they lost the next game as he no showed when needed as the Bulls won the title?

What else you got for me? He and Mark Jackson dancing? That time he took over a game without shooting? when he started running the offense and setting up his teammates as we all sat amazed at his playmaking?

What you got for me?


Every post in this thread from you has been sad. You're wrong, the numbers show it, the old game films show it, the fact that they ended up right next to each other in a poll of 22 people shows it. You're wrong.

THe numbers show nothing worth a mention for a future hall of famer aside from how he used ot have the 3 point record.

The old game film doesnt interest me. I know Reggie. Well. Ive seen Reggie live. In more than one city. Reggie was one of the most televised players of the 90s too. Nobody my age who loves the NBa missed out on reggie miller.

And a poll of 22 people?

He beat Dennis Johnson in a poll of people who...dont know Dennis Johnsons game. So why should I be concerned? Hes clearly getting a lot of name votes. There is no other way to explain him even being in this vote. Once its clear people arent voting on what they know...why should I take them not agreeing with me to mean im wrong?

Im not a 14 year old who knows Reggie from highlights. I watched the man every second of his career. I was sad to see him go actually because he was in the first generation of stars I got to see from rookie all the way to retirement at 40. I watched Reggie from way back when them and the Bulls played eachother 5 times. I remember gumby fade Reggie Miller playing live in front of me. Id bet anything I saw more of him than most voting for him in here. Especially people ive seen say shit like "Based on what ive seen here" or what they have read in this topic or the other one with DJ.

I base my opinion on the man on watching him every moment of a long and well covered career.

Knowing that most here are younger than me...and I myself was just coming up at the time...I dont care what some people vote.

90% of ISH couldnt point haywood workman out of a crowd but im supposed to take them thinking im wrong about Reggie to mean I am?

[MasterDurant24]

I do think that Reggie actually could have been putting up 26-28 points a night damn near every year. But he didn't attempt as many shots as the other great SG's. He ALWAYS got a very efficient 20 points a night. And I do feel his offensive arsenal is underrated. He was very crafty in how he got his shots off both midrange and 3 ball. He had an assortment of jab steps and fakes. And he had an underrated post game. He had great size in terms of height at the SG at 6'7 or 6'8. I just dig Ray's ball handling ability and athleticism that complements his awesome shooting. But u don't get over 20,000 points by just being a catch and shoot player. Catch and shoot players are guys like Steve Kerr and Kyle Korver. Reggie was a great shooter who was also a very good-great scorer and amongst the five most clutch players EVER.
I disagree. I have Bird, Jordan, Magic, Kobe, Jerry West, and Russell over Miller. Even Elgin Baylor has an arguement over Miller, he was an absolute monster in the playoffs and led the playoffs in scoring three times. Also went to the Finals seven times.

[RRR3]

I disagree. I have Bird, Jordan, Magic, Kobe, Jerry West, and Russell over Miller. Even Elgin Baylor has an arguement over Miller, he was an absolute monster in the playoffs and led the playoffs in scoring three times. Also went to the Finals seven times.
:rolleyes:

[Kblaze8855]

Id say Kobe is more capable of creating a shot when I need it...

Give them both an equal look?

Id give Reggie the ball. Im not sure anyone in history is more likely to make an equal look...than Reggie.

I have nothing negative to say about that. I watched him make a borderline inhuman rate of his big shots for years. Just took a bit of work to get him the look.

[RRR3]

Id say Kobe is more capable of creating a shot when I need it...

Give them both an equal look?

Id give Reggie the ball. Im not sure anyone in history is more likely to make an equal look...than Reggie.

I have nothing negative to say about that. I watched him make a borderline inhuman rate of his big shots for years. Just took a bit of work to get him the look.
I'm not saying Kobe doesnt shit on Miller cuz he does, I just find it hilarious when people keep spouting the "Kobe is clutch" myth. Clutch in general is a dumb argument IMO. The only player who actually seemed to get better in the Clutch was Jordan, and that is due to a small sample size more than any mythical "clutch gene" or "killer instinct".

[MasterDurant24]

I'm talking about overall performances, not just one shot.

[Soothing Layup]

Ray just because he had the better all around game and now broke reggies 3pt record, reggie was the more consistent shooter though.

[G-train]

Of Note: Miller and Allen went head to head in the playoffs once. In 2000. Ray was 24, Reggie was 34. Ray averaged 22 points 7 rebounds and 3 assists for the series. Miller 24-3-3. But in the pivotal game five to decide the series, Ray was 6-21 and scored 18 points. Reggie was 15-25 and scored 41.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eOuUO0lif4


Also of note:

Reggie Miller is one of the players (Karl Malone is another) that Kblaze has underrated and hated on for years. Usually its personality based and not game based.

I didnt register or put my finger up my ass or whatever people did to be voting in this. But having watched Miller and Allen's entire careers I'm comfortable saying Reggie Miller was a better player. He was more than a shooter, Kblaze stating thats all he was is enough to blow up his argument. Further to that the zero value he places on certain intangibles doesnt help him either.

Ray's career has somewhat been exaggerrated because of 3PT record and playing for the Celtics, which has made him look much better than what he is in his later years and enhanced him with a title.

I have no doubt that Reggie was championship calibre.
But he spent a career losing to very talented teams, when his teams simply werent as good as the other team.

Kblaze spins some of the most convincing BS on the interwebz, but he actually is just wrong most of the time. Possibly smokes the peace pipe a little too much.

[bizil]

I disagree. I have Bird, Jordan, Magic, Kobe, Jerry West, and Russell over Miller. Even Elgin Baylor has an arguement over Miller, he was an absolute monster in the playoffs and led the playoffs in scoring three times. Also went to the Finals seven times.

I can see West, Bird, Jordan, and Magic over Miller. But Kobe in my book isn't ahead of Miller in terms of clutch playoff moments. And the fashion that Miller did his damage in had NEVER been duplicated. Miller had the BALLS to push off on Jordan and drill a three in the playoffs. That type of shit doesnt happen to the GOAT! But Miller did it. Kobe is clearly a better player than Reggie and clearly clutch all the way. But frankly, I dont know if Kobe is MORE clutch than Reggie. What I mean by clutch is not a Steve Kerr wide open jump shot, which by the way still counts as a clutch shot. I mean guys that can take a game by the throat in the 4th quarter. And drill the game winner if it comes down to that. For all the heat that Bron catches, the 25 point fourth quarter against Detroit was clutch shit. So it's not only about hitting the final shot, it's about taking the the game over to get to that point. Reggie was ICONIC for this in playoffs. With all due respect to Kobe, his clutch playoffs moments aren't as ICONIC as Reggie's. Because as I said earlier the fashion Reggie did it hasn't been duplicated.

Keep in mind I'm talking Playoff clutch moments. Which trumps ANY regular season clutch moments. Now in Kobe's defense, he and the Lakers were so dominant that it didn't come down to that a lot. But if u accumulate as many clutch playoff moments as Reggie, it can trump a guy who's a better player and an all time great clutch player. But I won't argue with somebody who feels Kobe is more clutch than Reggie in the playoffs. But i gotta disagree as well.

[L.Kizzle]

Kblaze is the opposite to Reggie Miller as Glove is to Kevin Johnson.

[L.Kizzle]

People voted Ray over Reggie I see, but why is T-Mac below Ray than?

It's the same difference. All of you are putting Ray over Reggie cause he has more All-Star games, an All-NBA 2nd team selection, and is damn near better at everything besides the clutch factor.

Well, McGrady is better than Ray Allen at everything besides shooting, yet he's a few spots behind.


PS. And no one should bring up his playoff failure as most picking Ray didn't even ring up his title with the Celtics, just said "he's a better player."

[ThaSwagg3r]

Kblaze is the opposite to Reggie Miller as Glove is to Kevin Johnson.
Kblaze to Reggie Miller is like you to Paul Pierce.

[RRR3]

People voted Ray over Reggie I see, but why is T-Mac below Ray than?

It's the same difference. All of you are putting Ray over Reggie cause he has more All-Star games, an All-NBA 2nd team selection, and is damn near better at everything besides the clutch factor.

Well, McGrady is better than Ray Allen at everything besides shooting, yet he's a few spots behind.


PS. And no one should bring up his playoff failure as most picking Ray didn't even ring up his title with the Celtics, just said "he's a better player."
McGrady got hurt fairly early in his career, that's why. Obviously he shits on Ray Peak wise.

[L.Kizzle]

McGrady got hurt fairly early in his career, that's why. Obviously he shits on Ray Peak wise.
And he still has 5 more All-NBA teams compared to Ray's 2. And what is two spots really. McGrady was voted what #22 (don't remember though?) Would one more healthy season of not gettin past the first round bumped him up a spot or two?

[bizil]

McGrady got hurt fairly early in his career, that's why. Obviously he shits on Ray Peak wise.

Peak wise, TMac is a top 4 or 5 SG of all time. The only guys I would put ahead of him are MJ, Kobe, West. He and Wade are arguable in my book. But even between those two I'm inclined to give Mac the edge. Mac at 6'9 or 6'10 was something the SG spot had never seen before. Imagine a more athletic Durant with a top notch all around game. Or a mix of Penny and George Gervin in a 6'9 body. But Ray was still a beast and a top 10 GOAT SG. So legacy wise, he has the edge on TMac.

[L.Kizzle]

Here is something to think about, would y'all take Reggie Miller over Ray Allen if the Pacers won the title in 2000?

He's still the same exact player most of y'all are describing him to be, a one dimensional shooter would can't pass, defend or create for himself. The only difference is he has a ring on his finger?

[Kblaze8855]

Also of note:

Reggie Miller is one of the players (Karl Malone is another) that Kblaze has underrated and hated on for years. Usually its personality based and not game based.

Karl Malone isnt another. Karl Malone is the only one. I do not hate reggie Miller. I dont even almost hate him like Laimbeer or Antione Walker after he wasted his talent. Hes just someone I spent 20 years watching lose and be a bigger star than his game justified....so its amazing to me to see that years later people who arent nearly my age seem to know so much about him and rate him highly based on the 6 things they saw him do and not the 20 years I watched him lose.



I didnt register or put my finger up my ass or whatever people did to be voting in this. But having watched Miller and Allen's entire careers I'm comfortable saying Reggie Miller was a better player. He was more than a shooter, Kblaze stating thats all he was is enough to blow up his argument. Further to that the zero value he places on certain intangibles doesnt help him either.


Why is it ive seen so many people say he was more than just a shooter with nobody actually saying what else he did well?

I mentioned he is a better post scorer than people think when he put his mind to it...but he wasnt doing it on a regular basis. Lets be real here. What are the skills you look for in a basketball player that Reggie has a lot of...other than shooting?

Ball handling, rebounding, man to man defense, off the ball defense, passing, and so on. Give me the ones Reggie has a lot of.

Good ball handler? No. Offensive or defensive rebounder? No. Defender? No(though he could be). Great passer? Hell no. He did a few flashy passes on the break running with Mark. But hes not just...a playmaker at all. Hes not a special outlet passer...or...help defender.

Reggie Miller shoots the ball. And he plays well off the ball...hoping to shoot the ball. You give me one other thing he does at an exceptional or even above average level.

One. One thing Reggie Miller does of note...that isnt shooting.


Kblaze spins some of the most convincing BS on the interwebz, but he actually is just wrong most of the time. Possibly smokes the peace pipe a little too much.

Yes...Adrian Dantley had countless moves from midrange and a better pullup jumper and fadeaway off the dribble from 18 feet than Paul Pierce. Because you say he did.

[Kblaze8855]

And tmac was better than Ray Allen. By a lot.

[RRR3]

And tmac was better than Ray Allen. By a lot.
Agree. Career wise I'm not sure though. My bias leans towards T-Mac, but objectively I'm not sure.

[MasterDurant24]

I would of picked T-Mac over Ray Allen, he was just too dominant and talented. Even in the few playoff games he played, he dominated.

[Boston C's]

But Reggie is just considered a shooter?

I don't want it to seem like that... its just rays game was more complete then reggies anyone who knows basketball can see that... while i agree with goat that reggie was more successful as the number 1 option what your referring to is a pure skill standpoint rays all around game was in my eyes more superior to reggies and i dont think that there should be a debate about that

I'll give you and goat credit your arguments are very strong and make me think this is a lot closer then i first believed before this thread started but I'm sticking to my guns and staying with ray ray on this one

[L.Kizzle]

Agree. Career wise I'm not sure though. My bias leans towards T-Mac, but objectively I'm not sure.
I'd take McGrady, cause he was dominant. Ray was very consistent, but he didn't stand out. He didn't separate himself from the other swings.

Latrel Sprewell, Allan Houston, Michael Finley, Eddie Jones, other All-Stars from the beginning of the decade. They weren't consistent or they either fell off that's why they only have 4, 3 and 2 (Finley and Houston) all-star games in their career compared to Ray's 10.

If they had 10 All-Star games, they'd be in this discussion too ...

[L.Kizzle]

I don't want it to seem like that... its just rays game was more complete then reggies anyone who knows basketball can see that... while i agree with goat that reggie was more successful as the number 1 option what your referring to is a pure skill standpoint rays all around game was in my eyes more superior to reggies and i dont think that there should be a debate about that

I'll give you and goat credit your arguments are very strong and make me think this is a lot closer then i first believed before this thread started but I'm sticking to my guns and staying with ray ray on this one
Me and GOAT also stated that. But like I said, what does that really mean?

David Thompson, one of the most skilled guards of All-Time, he's no where on this list. Hell, we can go in Ray's era of the 90s and 2000s, PENNY HARDAWAY and VINCE CARTER were more skilled than Reggie and Ray ever were, where are they at ...

The most skilled player shouldn't always come out on top, cause the NBA would be a much different place if that were correct. David Thompson, Sidney Moncrief, Tim Hardawy and Penny Hardaway would be on this top 25. Hal Greer would be much higher than his current spot.

[Boston C's]

I wouldnt take mcgrady over allen career wise but peak wise id take mcgrady and its not even close (ray is my favorite player all time after M.J) but mcgradies prime was just cut too short and ray was consistently great throughout his career while tmac was godlike for a period of time then completely fell off... i value consistency on this board and would even vote for miller over mcgrady in a debate of legacies but again peak wise you could combine ray and reggie and mcgrady is still better

[Boston C's]

Me and GOAT also stated that. But like I said, what does that really mean?

David Thompson, one of the most skilled guards of All-Time, he's no where on this list. Hell, we can go in Ray's era of the 90s and 2000s, PENNY HARDAWAY and VINCE CARTER were more skilled than Reggie and Ray ever were, where are they at ...

The most skilled player shouldn't always come out on top, cause the NBA would be a much different place if that were correct. David Thompson, Sidney Moncrief, Tim Hardawy and Penny Hardaway would be on this top 25. Hal Greer would be much higher than his current spot.

I understand what your saying but for those two bolded I disagree... i value consistency a lot... those two were amazing players at their peak but injuries for penny and lord knows what for vince caused them to fall off greatly... look at vince today... he was supposed to be the magic and suns number 1 scoring option since being there but hes done absolutely nothing with them... i dont understand what happened in vinces case but if those two were consistently good for their careers then hell I'd take them over ray and reggie as well but sadly thats not the case with them

[Kblaze8855]

David Thompson, Sidney Moncrief, Tim Hardawy and Penny Hardaway would be on this top 25.

At least 3 of them are probably better than either Ray or Reggie.

[Boston C's]

Also tmac was godlike in his prime... ray was a beast in his prime as well and comparing his prime to tmac is unfair because ray was an amazing player in his own right

[magnax1]

Reggie may have been efficient as a shooter...but he was one of the least efficient players of all time as far as plays run for him that ended in a good shot. Reggie was running off a screen burning up the shot clock to get the ball and have nothing to do with it at a rate that is simply laughable. He wasnt taking 14 shots because they ran him 14 plays. he took them because 14-15 times he got halfway open. Reggie ball was an inefficient offense because it left them with 8 seconds to go and nobody but smits to get a good shot all the time. Travis best, Jalen Rose, and smits had to take so many bad shots off Reggie failing to get open its no wonder they had to lean on defense to win for so long. They might score a good number of points..transition bal and quite a few shooters can do that....but when it gets tight Reggie was unable to put them over the top more often than not.
That's just not even close to the reality of how a guy running off screens worked. It isn't ineffecient because he's not taking away from other guys when he's doing that. The guys that set the picks get easy points quite often, and the guy with the ball is free to do whatever he wants. Reggie was not holding anyone up by coming off screens, in fact he was freeing the offense up for the bigs like Davis and Smits.

[L.Kizzle]

At least 3 of them are probably better than either Ray or Reggie.
All four of them had at least one All-NBA 1st team and two of them had two first teams.

[magnax1]

And tmac was better than Ray Allen. By a lot.
Yeah, honestly having Ray, Reggie and DJ ranked over TMac on this list is crazy to me. You just can't compare guys who were borderline top ten at best to a top 5 player for years.

[Kblaze8855]

That's just not even close to the reality of how a guy running off screens worked. It isn't ineffecient because he's not taking away from other guys when he's doing that. The guys that set the picks get easy points quite often, and the guy with the ball is free to do whatever he wants. Reggie was not holding anyone up by coming off screens, in fact he was freeing the offense up for the bigs like Davis and Smits.

I didnt say he was hurting anyone. I dont know when efficient got to be synonymous with good but...it needs to end.

Reggie might literally score 20 points with 50 plays run for him. He needed the offense working...for him because(as I read Larry Brown saying in the previous topic) he couldnt create his own shot at a high level. 40-50 screens for him to make 7 shots a night is not a good ratio.

They were under Brown a defensive team that kept games close and let Reggie try to win them in the end. But their halfcourt offense never operated as well it sounds like people think it did. They could score...especially when Mark had them out running. Good secondary break team as well. But Reggie was hardly the basis of a potent offense that had guys playing above their heads due to the attention he drew.

[Boston C's]

Yeah, honestly having Ray, Reggie and DJ ranked over TMac on this list is crazy to me. You just can't compare guys who were borderline top ten at best to a top 5 player for years.

Its not honestly unless were talking peak... but career wise its sad but tmacs prime was cut way short and hes a shell of his former self... hes a role player on a very shitty team not to mention i think hes 3-4 yrs younger then ray and his game dropped this low considering where hes at while ray whose about to be 37 is still playing at an all star level

[Miller for 3]

Courtesy of Elgee on realgm and here

Here is the % of points Miller scored for the Pacers during his prime postseason runs

92 25.1%
93 30.6%
94 25.7%
95 25.9%
00 24.5%
01 35.9%
02 25.8%

For comparison,
Kobe is between 28.9-29.5% from 08-10.
K. Malone 27.1-29.6% from 94-98.

[Kblaze8855]

All four of them had at least one All-NBA 1st team and two of them had two first teams.


Which is very telling but not always the only way to look at it.

I dont **** with reggie really...hes so often overrated...but minus that I wouldnt have much to say. he was a dick...and talked too much. But im a dick..and I talk too much so....you know?

Reggie in ways is a guy I understand rooting for. Loyal...played hard...was unselfish...didnt really take games off even when he didnt do much. And he was totally without fear. hes the kind of player id like to see do well.

But...as a Chicago guy who came to the south to a bunch of Hawks fans who hated on MJand propped up his opponents...I heard a lot about how Reggie was gonna help the pacers do this or that. Knicks too. But the Knicks were a real threat.

I never feared the Pacers like I never feared the Jazz. I worried for like a minutes and ha lf of game 7 in 98. But I knew Reggie wouldnt beat us. Like I knew Malone wouldnt.

I was funny to see him fail for so long. And then he was old and I wanted to see him win(kinda like Payton). Larry Brown calling the extra time out in Reggies last game so the crowd could keep cheering him is one of my favorite moments in sports ever. watching Reggie go was actually sad to me.

Its just...he wasnt really THAT good. And its pretty easy to show that people didnt think he was...when hundreds of media members leave him off even...third teams. And coaches dont select him for the ASG.

But...im aware that that isnt all a player can do to show he was great. Reggie just happens to make it easy. there are guys who were not all nba better than people who were. Happens all the time.

But Reggie? Eh. the more I look into it the less impressed with him people seem to be. And then he doesnt even make the finalist list to be voted on for the HOF?

I...am not alone. A lot of people in the 90s...and now...know Reggie was not nearly as good as his name was big.

Anyway...believe it or not id put Reggie in the HOF.

Not into what I think the HOF should be...but what it is? 130+ guys many of them never having been elite?

Reggie did enough to get in. Im not sure the HOF voters were not sending a little message year one though. just making it clear that they know he wasnt just...some great great player. He probably gets close next year and makes it the year after that.

[magnax1]

I didnt say he was hurting anyone. I dont know when efficient got to be synonymous with good but...it needs to end.

Reggie might literally score 20 points with 50 plays run for him. He needed the offense working...for him because(as I read Larry Brown saying in the previous topic) he couldnt create his own shot at a high level. 40-50 screens for him to make 7 shots a night is not a good ratio.
Why does it matter if he couldn't create his own shot when he was still creating the points? Especially since the guy we're comparing him too didn't create an awful lot of points for anyone else.


They were under Brown a defensive team that kept games close and let Reggie try to win them in the end. But their halfcourt offense never operated as well it sounds like people think it did. They could score...especially when Mark had them out running. Good secondary break team as well. But Reggie was hardly the basis of a potent offense that had guys playing above their heads due to the attention he drew.
Their halfcourt offense from 98-00 was actually among the best in the league every year, and that was with them having basically no talented offensive players excluding Reggie and Smits. The rest of the team were mostly shooters and bigmen who excelled at setting those screens for the shooters like Davis. People really have started to over value a guy who can score with the ball in his hand, even if he's mediocre at it. It just isn't required for a good offense.

[magnax1]

Its not honestly unless were talking peak... but career wise its sad but tmacs prime was cut way short and hes a shell of his former self... hes a role player on a very shitty team not to mention i think hes 3-4 yrs younger then ray and his game dropped this low considering where hes at while ray whose about to be 37 is still playing at an all star level
Not just peak. Basically every year from 01-05, he was at least in the discussion for top 5 players, and the only one I wouldn't say he was top five was 01. Ray Allen was just never that caliber of player, so even if he's exceeds TMac in terms of longevity on a massive level, I just can't compare them.

[G-train]

Karl Malone isnt another. Karl Malone is the only one. I do not hate reggie Miller. I dont even almost hate him like Laimbeer or Antione Walker after he wasted his talent. Hes just someone I spent 20 years watching lose and be a bigger star than his game justified....so its amazing to me to see that years later people who arent nearly my age seem to know so much about him and rate him highly based on the 6 things they saw him do and not the 20 years I watched him lose.





Why is it ive seen so many people say he was more than just a shooter with nobody actually saying what else he did well?

I mentioned he is a better post scorer than people think when he put his mind to it...but he wasnt doing it on a regular basis. Lets be real here. What are the skills you look for in a basketball player that Reggie has a lot of...other than shooting?

Ball handling, rebounding, man to man defense, off the ball defense, passing, and so on. Give me the ones Reggie has a lot of.

Good ball handler? No. Offensive or defensive rebounder? No. Defender? No(though he could be). Great passer? Hell no. He did a few flashy passes on the break running with Mark. But hes not just...a playmaker at all. Hes not a special outlet passer...or...help defender.

Reggie Miller shoots the ball. And he plays well off the ball...hoping to shoot the ball. You give me one other thing he does at an exceptional or even above average level.

One. One thing Reggie Miller does of note...that isnt shooting.



Yes...Adrian Dantley had countless moves from midrange and a better pullup jumper and fadeaway off the dribble from 18 feet than Paul Pierce. Because you say he did.

Reggie Miller was a scorer whose strength was the jumpshot. He scored from midrange, on the drive, at the FT line, but shooting was his major strength.
However he was not just a shooter.
He may not have been great at anything else, but he wasnt bad at anything else for a SG.
So effectively he was an star scorer in his prime, and he scored at a high level for many years. With a skill set based around his shooting ability. But he was a great all round scorer or else he would be Legler or Korver.
For mine he was a better scorer than Allen by a fair margin, and a much better intangibles guy. The difference in the rest is blah.
This thread is about Miller v Allen, and to me he is just a better scorer - for 82 games and in the playoffs. And Miller v Allen in the other areas is just blah.

[Kblaze8855]

Why does it matter if he couldn't create his own shot when he was still creating the points? Especially since the guy we're comparing him too didn't create an awful lot of points for anyone else.

Creating the points? You mean him shooting or him helping others to score by spacing the floor?

You are giving him credit for guysl ike Smits and rose being able to score or did I misunderstand?


Their halfcourt offense from 98-00 was actually among the best in the league every year, and that was with them having basically no talented offensive players excluding Reggie and Smits. The rest of the team were mostly shooters and bigmen who excelled at setting those screens for the shooters like Davis. People really have started to over value a guy who can score with the ball in his hand, even if he's mediocre at it. It just isn't required for a good offense.

Its...pretty required to be a takeover scorer. Its the same reason guys like Malone can get outplayed down the stretch by guys like Kemp, sheed, Hakeem, KJ, or Tim Hardaway. Cant score as much as Malone but their scoring needs nothing except...giving them the ball.

Reggie needed help to get the looks he liked. Kevin Johnson can walk up and get his shot...almost at will. If two guys score the same id call the one who can do it in the most situation the better scorer. Something bugs me about a great scorer having to really work to score when the play didnt go just the way he wanted.

It often makes for unreliable closers. I dont think its by change so many guys who can take over individually win.

Im not against team ball. Im pro...my star getting us a good shot when the play is broken.

Ive seen Reggie pass it to Travis best to make something happen one on one too many times to really think hes a great scorer. Not like Travis was some kinda beast...

But Reggie? Reggie was too easily walled off. Not what I want from my scoring only star. And he could post up small guards...and often...just wouldnt. It had to have been frustrating watching your best scorer shoot 13-14 times when your team has 78 points late in a game 7 needing a few shots to drop or go home.

[Miller for 3]

Reggie was also among the best ever at using ball fakes. Its stupid and biased to say he was only a shooter.

[G-train]

I don't think a long time bball fan can argue that Miller or Allen were better than Carter, McGrady, Penny and Timbug in their primes. But obviously longevity factors into this discussion which complicates things.

Penny is very underapreciated around here, most posters were in the cradle while he was bouncing around making a mockery of guards without breaking a sweat. Granted Shaq helped with that.
To me prime Penny is better than prime Chris Paul, but you had to watch him day in and day out to see how good he was. He was like Kobe Bryant playing SG in terms of size and athletiscism, with Chris Paul vision but not getting an assist a opst feed and 5 post dribbles for hook. Stats cant gauge Penny whatsoever.

[Boston C's]

Reggie Miller was a scorer whose strength was the jumpshot. He scored from midrange, on the drive, at the FT line, but shooting was his major strength.
However he was not just a shooter.
He may not have been great at anything else, but he wasnt bad at anything else for a SG.
So effectively he was an star scorer in his prime, and he scored at a high level for many years. With a skill set based around his shooting ability. But he was a great all round scorer or else he would be Legler or Korver.
For mine he was a better scorer than Allen by a fair margin, and a much better intangibles guy. The difference in the rest is blah.
This thread is about Miller v Allen, and to me he is just a better scorer - for 82 games and in the playoffs. And Miller v Allen in the other areas is just blah.

I fail to see how reggie was a better scorer honestly... even when looking at the numbers you could see ray was the better scorer because well he scored more

[Kblaze8855]

Reggie Miller was a scorer whose strength was the jumpshot. He scored from midrange, on the drive, at the FT line, but shooting was his major strength.
However he was not just a shooter.

He may not have been great at anything else, but he wasnt bad at anything else for a SG.

So you gave me 3 things he did well other than just shoot and 2 of them were shooting(midrange and FTs). On the drive? Eh. Im not saying he couldnt. But he wasnt doing it at a level to be feared.

But you pretty much made my point for me. You tell me all he can do...and you give me 2 variation of shooting and something he was middle of the pack at.

He was never as good as young Ray going to the basket. And Ray was hardly a beast as a slasher himself.


So effectively he was an star scorer in his prime, and he scored at a high level for many years. With a skill set based around his shooting ability. But he was a great all round scorer or else he would be Legler or Korver.

I dont know if id call 18-21 a game a high level by the standards we are using here but...eh. And I dont think all shooters are role players either. Reggie and Korver both being shooters doesnt make them eual at it. Reggie made tough shots. He wasnt a wide open shot shooter. He could be counted on to make jumpers most shooters cant. Doesnt mean he isnt shooting a jumper though.

[G-train]

Creating the points? You mean him shooting or him helping others to score by spacing the floor?

You are giving him credit for guysl ike Smits and rose being able to score or did I misunderstand?



Its...pretty required to be a takeover scorer. Its the same reason guys like Malone can get outplayed down the stretch by guys like Kemp, sheed, Hakeem, KJ, or Tim Hardaway. Cant score as much as Malone but their scoring needs nothing except...giving them the ball.

Reggie needed help to get the looks he liked. Kevin Johnson can walk up and get his shot...almost at will. If two guys score the same id call the one who can do it in the most situation the better scorer. Something bugs me about a great scorer having to really work to score when the play didnt go just the way he wanted.

It often makes for unreliable closers. I dont think its by change so many guys who can take over individually win.

Im not against team ball. Im pro...my star getting us a good shot when the play is broken.

Ive seen Reggie pass it to Travis best to make something happen one on one too many times to really think hes a great scorer. Not like Travis was some kinda beast...

But Reggie? Reggie was too easily walled off. Not what I want from my scoring only star. And he could post up small guards...and often...just wouldnt. It had to have been frustrating watching your best scorer shoot 13-14 times when your team has 78 points late in a game 7 needing a few shots to drop or go home.

Prime Reggie often just got the ball from 17-25 feet and created his own shot using fakes, jabs, etc. Wsnt just off the ball or off other players. Not sure what you are on about.

[G-train]

Not sold on people saying 'look at the numbers'. Numbers across the board werent the same in the 90's. Reggie played on and against slow, gritty teams that grinded out games. It wasnt free flowing like most of the 00's.

So the numbers just dont tell much of the story.

typical Reggie game in a defensive boring era is 20 points on good %, made up of a couple of treys off the ball, he might create one for himself with a fake, some layups on the drive or break or backdoor, a couple of midrange J's using some jabs and fakes etc. dude was just a machine scorer that did it at a higher level than Ray to the eye, which is what I gauge off. Which doesnt stand for much around here but meh.

[Kblaze8855]

Prime Reggie often just got the ball from 17-25 feet and created his own shot using fakes, jabs, etc. Wsnt just off the ball or off other players. Not sure what you are on about.

When I say he cant create his own shot it doesnt mean I think he literally is clueless as far as what to do with the ball if he cant shoot right away.

Im gonna repost what Larry Brown had to say because its just...fitting:


"I know people are going to say Reggie didn't do this or that, but I've always said it's a team thing for him," said Brown. "He has trouble getting his own shot, beating people off the dribble. He's not what people make him out to be."




His own coach knows Reggie wasnt some good one on one scorer. What he was....is an outstanding shooter who even when he failed to create space...could still hit a shot. We have all seen Reggie vs the Knicks and other jab stepping from 25-28 feet and just rise up and wet a shot. That is the difference between a shooter like Reggie...and a shooterl ike Tim Legler.

Reggie made tough shots. But he made tough shots because he wasnt great creating the space needed for an easy shot one on one.

Reggie could score one on one. So can most nba guards.

Reggie couldnt do it at a rate worthy of note considering hes supposed to be a star who does nothing but score.

[G.O.A.T]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...


Looks like Ray Allen will move on. I have him two spots below Reggie, but I have both below DJ, Tiny, Joe D and Shaman. All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky, Davies, Bing, Westphal, David Thompson etc. All those guys were elite guards in the NBA as long or longer than T-MAC yet nobody argues for them because they don't remember their prime. This isn't a draft, it's an all-time ranking. It's not about how talented you think they are, it's about what they accomplished.

[Boston C's]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...


Looks like Ray Allen will move on. I have him two spots below Reggie, but I have both below DJ, Tiny, Joe D and Shaman. All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky, Davies, Bing, Westphal, David Thompson etc. All those guys were elite guards in the NBA as long or longer than T-MAC yet nobody argues for them because they don't remember their prime. This isn't a draft, it's an all-time ranking. It's not about how talented you think they are, it's about what they accomplished.

Thats exactly why I can't rank mcgrady ahead of these guys unless we were doing a draft of players in their prime and not in their careers

[RRR3]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...


Looks like Ray Allen will move on. I have him two spots below Reggie, but I have both below DJ, Tiny, Joe D and Shaman. All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky, Davies, Bing, Westphal, David Thompson etc. All those guys were elite guards in the NBA as long or longer than T-MAC yet nobody argues for them because they don't remember their prime. This isn't a draft, it's an all-time ranking. It's not about how talented you think they are, it's about what they accomplished.
McGrady was significantly better than a lot of people at his peak.

[G-train]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...


Looks like Ray Allen will move on. I have him two spots below Reggie, but I have both below DJ, Tiny, Joe D and Shaman. All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky, Davies, Bing, Westphal, David Thompson etc. All those guys were elite guards in the NBA as long or longer than T-MAC yet nobody argues for them because they don't remember their prime. This isn't a draft, it's an all-time ranking. It's not about how talented you think they are, it's about what they accomplished.

whoa you got Miller and Allen more highly ranked than DJ and Dumars?

[G-train]

McGrady averaged 25ppg and above for 7 seasons.
6 boards, 5 assists, a steal and a block.
7 time allstar, all nba 1st team twice and 5 times in other teams. Scoring champion twice.
29 ppg in the playoffs.
Not even about the numbers, he was just a brilliant player, one of the most talented ever.
Wasnt on many good teams though.

He is better than Allen and Miller by a fair margin in my opinion.

[G.O.A.T]

McGrady was significantly better than a lot of people at his peak.

So were those other guys Davies was unquestionably better than McGrady. He won an MVP in a league that had Mikan in it. Never heard you or anyone else argue for him.

[G-train]

I have no problem saying prime McGrady is is just slightly behind prime bryant. And Kobe is probably gonna be top 5 on this list.
And Mcgrady had 7 great seasons, 2 or 3 good ones too.
How many do you need?

[RRR3]

McGrady averaged 25ppg and above for 7 seasons.
6 boards, 5 assists, a steal and a block.
7 time allstar, all nba 1st team twice and 5 times in other teams. Scoring champion twice.
29 ppg in the playoffs.
Not even about the numbers, he was just a brilliant player, one of the most talented ever.
Wasnt on many good teams though.

He is better than Allen and Miller by a fair margin in my opinion.
:applause: :applause: :applause: I honestly think he maybe, just maybe, could have been the GOAT (homer alert LOL but I do believe he had a chance, maybe a small one but a chance nonetheless)

[RRR3]

I have no problem saying prime McGrady is is just slightly behind prime bryant. And Kobe is probably gonna be top 5 on this list.
And Mcgrady had 7 great seasons, 2 or 3 good ones too.
How many do you need?
McGrady was actually better than Kobe from about 2000-2004, then he declined and Kobe got a fair deal better.

[G-train]

Many Laker fans would hate it, but they win those titles in the early 00's with a prime McGrady instead of Kobe too.

IMO.

[Boston C's]

:applause: :applause: :applause: I honestly think he maybe, just maybe, could have been the GOAT (homer alert LOL but I do believe he had a chance, maybe a small one but a chance nonetheless)

idk about GOAT but with no injuries he could have been top 10 player of all time for sure... it sucks that injuries derailed him and made him what he is today ( a shell of his former self)

[G.O.A.T]

whoa you got Miller and Allen more highly ranked than DJ and Dumars?

No, you misread. I have it follows

DJ
Tiny
Dumars
Sharman
Monroe
Miller
Allen
McGrady


McGrady averaged 25ppg and above for 7 seasons.
6 boards, 5 assists, a steal and a block.
7 time allstar, all nba 1st team twice and 5 times in other teams. Scoring champion twice.
29 ppg in the playoffs.
Not even about the numbers, he was just a brilliant player, one of the most talented ever.
Wasnt on many good teams though.

He is better than Allen and Miller by a fair margin in my opinion.

By peak individual play sure. But by career achievement, no. McGrady only showed the capacity to be a good player as a star player and #1 option. In that role he never won a single playoff series and always got outplayed by a lesser star in game sevens. That proved to me he wasn't a true number one or at least had shown no evidence he could be. Thus I take the more accomplished Miller and Allen ahead.

[Jacks3]

I'm not saying Kobe doesnt shit on Miller cuz he does, I just find it hilarious when people keep spouting the "Kobe is clutch" myth. C
:roll:

[Jacks3]

McGrady was actually better than Kobe from about 2000-2004, then he declined and Kobe got a fair deal better.
:roll:

[Jacks3]

Many Laker fans would hate it, but they win those titles in the early 00's with a prime McGrady instead of Kobe too.

IMO.
:roll:

[Boston C's]

McGrady averaged 25ppg and above for 7 seasons.
6 boards, 5 assists, a steal and a block.
7 time allstar, all nba 1st team twice and 5 times in other teams. Scoring champion twice.
29 ppg in the playoffs.
Not even about the numbers, he was just a brilliant player, one of the most talented ever.
Wasnt on many good teams though.

He is better than Allen and Miller by a fair margin in my opinion.

Peak prime play absolutely... but career wise hes not and it sucks to say because he was one of my favorite players to watch... but injuries really took a toll on his career at this point I hope he makes the hall of fame

[catch24]

McGrady was actually better than Kobe from about 2000-2004, then he declined and Kobe got a fair deal better.

Revisionist history at its absolute finest.

I'll give you 2002, 2003 and 2004 (ALL arguable btw), but 2000 and 2001? Mac's playmaking, scoring and defense weren't even on Kobe's level... in fact they were still raw.

[Jacks3]

I have no problem saying prime McGrady is is just slightly behind prime bryant.
T-Mac's prime was way behind Bryant's. His "prime" was about 1 season. :oldlol:

[G-train]

T-Mac's prime was way behind Bryant's. His "prime" was about 1 season. :oldlol:

not sure if serious.

[magnax1]

Guys like David Thompson and Bing were never as good as TMac. Dave Bing made the playoffs.... twice? And he was not working with the same low caliber of teams as McGrady. Thompson is a good guy to point out in terms as having a good case for being on the list, but being as good as McGrady? He really wasn't close in any single year, and had just about as long of a prime as him. Most of the guys you pointed out were more Vince Carter caliber then McGrady caliber.

[RRR3]

not sure if serious.
I hope not.

[G-train]

Peak prime play absolutely... but career wise hes not and it sucks to say because he was one of my favorite players to watch... but injuries really took a toll on his career at this point I hope he makes the hall of fame

yeah but miller and Allen have played an obscenely long time. McGrady still had 7 excellent seasons and a few decent ones on top of that, is taht not enough?
It wasnt just 1 or 2

[Boston C's]

yeah but miller and Allen have played an obscenely long time. McGrady still had 7 excellent seasons and a few decent ones on top of that, is taht not enough?
It wasnt just 1 or 2

I understand that I guess its just the way we think in terms of rankings... I value consistency more then prime/peak play so I guess thats why we rank them differently... believe me I know how amazing T-mac was

[Jacks3]

not sure if serious.
very. his only truly great season was the fluke that was 03. lol @ him being "slightly behind" bryant's prime. :lol :lol :lol :lol

[RRR3]

very. his only truly great season was the fluke that was 03. lol @ him being "slightly behind" bryant's prime. :lol :lol :lol :lol
:facepalm I think I literally have begun to hate Kobe stans.

[Jacks3]

Truth hurts huh. :pimp:

[G-train]

very. his only truly great season was the fluke that was 03. lol @ him being "slightly behind" bryant's prime. :lol :lol :lol :lol

He led the NBA in scoring twice. One wasnt a great season?

You dear sir are a moron.

Face palm :facepalm

and roll eyes. :rolleyes:

[Boston C's]

:facepalm I think I literally have begun to hate Kobe stans.

Honestly jacksx3 from what I've seen can actually be a good objective poster when he wants to be... the worst stans that I've seen are the big 3 of zay 24, alphawolf24 and thelogo


and jacks saying mcgrady had one great fluke yr is crazy he had several great yrs

[Jacks3]

He led the NBA in scoring twice. One wasnt a great season?


Forgive me if I don't consider a 67 game season where he scores at below-average efficiency (52% TS) and leads his team to 21 wins as great...

[G.O.A.T]

Guys like David Thompson and Bing were never as good as TMac. Dave Bing made the playoffs.... twice? And he was not working with the same low caliber of teams as McGrady. Thompson is a good guy to point out in terms as having a good case for being on the list, but being as good as McGrady? He really wasn't close in any single year, and had just about as long of a prime as him. Most of the guys you pointed out were more Vince Carter caliber then McGrady caliber.

Thompson had just as many all-NBA first teams, finished higher in the MVP vote and went deeper in the playoffs...he has no case?

What about Davies. His resume blows T-MAC's away...where is the argument for him?

[nycelt84]

So were those other guys Davies was unquestionably better than McGrady. He won an MVP in a league that had Mikan in it. Never heard you or anyone else argue for him.

How was that possible when the MVP award didn't exist in Mikan's era?

[G.O.A.T]

How was that possible when the MVP award didn't exist in Mikan's era?

It did in the NBL, of which Davies was the 1946-47 MVP.

[Smoke117]

McGrady averaged 25ppg and above for 7 seasons.
6 boards, 5 assists, a steal and a block.
7 time allstar, all nba 1st team twice and 5 times in other teams. Scoring champion twice.
29 ppg in the playoffs.
Not even about the numbers, he was just a brilliant player, one of the most talented ever.
Wasnt on many good teams though.

He is better than Allen and Miller by a fair margin in my opinion.

Mcgrady was a shot jacker, a high volume shooter who was taking 21+ shots to average 25 points. He was only efficient in one season of his entire career and that is that great 2003 season.

[L.Kizzle]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...


Looks like Ray Allen will move on. I have him two spots below Reggie, but I have both below DJ, Tiny, Joe D and Shaman. All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky, Davies, Bing, Westphal, David Thompson etc. All those guys were elite guards in the NBA as long or longer than T-MAC yet nobody argues for them because they don't remember their prime. This isn't a draft, it's an all-time ranking. It's not about how talented you think they are, it's about what they accomplished.
Some of those guys I'd take over Mac, others no chance.

Pete is one of the few player to have less success in the playoffs than McGrady. He influenced more, no doubt, that's what might have folks taking him over McGrady.

Max, I have know idea about. Joe Fulks was probably better than him in the same era.

Davies, I'm learning more about him thanks to you GOAT. But, what separated him from the Tricky Dick Maguires, Andy Phillip's and Slater Martins?

Dave Bing, when in Detroit had no playoff success what so ever.

Paul Westphal is an interesting player. In a four year stretch, he was All-NBA 1st team 3 times. Yet he's no where near a top 100 player (never seen him listed) is outside of the top 25 (dom't even think anyone voted for him.) Though that four year stretch might be one of the weakest stretch for guards in NBA history.

Thompson might be the most gifted in this bunch, the most McGrady like with his abilities.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He was only efficient in one season of his entire career and that is that great 2003 season.

Not true, he averaged 25.6 ppg in 2002(4th in the league) and it did it on 45 FG%/53 TS% which were both above league average. He also finished 7th in scoring in 2001 at 26.8 ppg and shot 46% from the field(easily clearing the league average) and 52 TS%(league average). And he turned the ball over less than most(if not all) other players with a comparable offensive load and also posted impressive assist numbers.

[Kblaze8855]

Who believes that Reggie couldn't create his own shot?

His coach did it would seem.


Let me know what you think once you discover youtube...

I wouldnt want to ask anyone who needed youtube to know. No disrespect to those who dont remember him well. But when I can go on...me...sitting in Charlotte Coliseum watching Dell Curry give him the business...I dont care what is on youtube. Youtube games arent posted to be...fair. They are for the most part posted to showcase one player or a pair. People post them with a point to make. Reggie scoring 57 on youtube means no more to me than me watching him score 12 points with all my friends when they ot knocked out by the magic.

I remember him week in and week out. Looking at how many playoff games he played and how many times he was likely on NBC on sunday...or playing the Bulls...or Hornets when I was in charlotte...or Hawks when I was near Atlanta....

Ive probably seen him 200+ times.

Ive seen him suck...and go off. Dude was more often than not gonna score 17-19 points in unimpressive fashion. He might not score 20 for 8-9 games in a row. And then be called a scoring machine 15-20 years later......

Anyway...something else you said makes me see where you are coming from a bit...

you dont seem t ocare how good the players are...as much as how "great" they are based on accomplishments.

Look at it that way..Reggie is greater than a lot of people he isnt better than.

I assumed we were concerned about who played basketball better. But when I read:


All this McGrady talk is funny to me. The guy was a great talent undeniable, but not significantly better than Maravich, Zaslofsky

You list a 6'3'' forward who was putting up 21 a game on 24 shots shooting 32% near Tracy Mcgrady as a talent...you and I have a very different idea of what talent is. That or the guy was guarded by Jesus every posession of his career. Jesus...on steriods.

But if you are that far from caring how well someone can play basketball to the point of putting Bob davies on Tmac level because of accomplishments and 48 seconds of youtube footage.....

I can see how you put Reggie over a lot of people.

[Smoke117]

Not true, he averaged 25.6 ppg in 2002(4th in the league) and it did it on 45 FG%/53 TS% which were both above league average. He also finished 7th in scoring in 2001 at 26.8 ppg and shot 46% from the field(easily clearing the league average) and 52 TS%(league average). And he turned the ball over less than most(if not all) other players with a comparable offensive load and also posted impressive assist numbers.

52ts% and 53% are mediocre averages for a star, first option level scorer. His efficiency is far below almost all star sg's that have come along in the last 20 years. I just don't see how averaging 26.8ppg on 22.4 shots and 25.6ppg on 20.9 shots is particularly impressive.

[ShaqAttack3234]

52ts% and 53% are mediocre averages for a star, first option level scorer. His efficiency is far below almost all star sg's that have come along in the last 20 years.

Not really. Among the 25+ ppg SG/SF in 2001, only Kobe, Paul Pierce and Vince Carter were significantly more efficient with TS% of 55%(or 56% for Pierce) and not to take anything away from Kobe(who was better than T-Mac in 2001 anyway and a top 3 player already), but he was the second option on his team and the not the primary focus of opposing defenses like McGrady. The other 2 perimeter players who averaged 25+(Iverson and Stackhouse) also had TS% of 52% and FG% that were much worse at 42 and 40%, respectively. The other 2 25+ ppg scorers that year were big men(Shaq and Webber). Shaq's TS% was 57%, while Webber's was a rounded 52%(in fact, slightly worse than T-Mac's).

In 2002, T-Mac's efficiency also doesn't look bad when making a similar comparison. Only 5 other players averaged 25+ ppg. 2 of them were big men(Shaq and Duncan) with TS% of 59 and 58%, respectively. Other than that, there was Kobe whose TS% was 54%, Pierce whose TS% was 57% and Iverson whose TS% was 49%. So among 25+ ppg scorers, only Shaq, Duncan and Pierce separated themselves in terms of efficiency.

Maybe 2002 is a better example, but his efficiency isn't all that bad in 2001 either.

[Smoke117]

Not really. Among the 25+ ppg SG/SF in 2001, only Kobe, Paul Pierce and Vince Carter were significantly more efficient with TS% of 55%(or 56% for Pierce) and not to take anything away from Kobe(who was better than T-Mac in 2001 anyway and a top 3 player already), but he was the second option on his team and the not the primary focus of opposing defenses like McGrady. The other 2 perimeter players who averaged 25+(Iverson and Stackhouse) also had TS% of 52% and FG% that were much worse at 42 and 40%, respectively. The other 2 25+ ppg scorers that year were big men(Shaq and Webber). Shaq's TS% was 57%, while Webber's was a rounded 52%(in fact, slightly worse than T-Mac's).

In 2002, T-Mac's efficiency also doesn't look bad when making a similar comparison. Only 5 other players averaged 25+ ppg. 2 of them were big men(Shaq and Duncan) with TS% of 59 and 58%, respectively. Other than that, there was Kobe whose TS% was 54%, Pierce whose TS% was 57% and Iverson whose TS% was 49%. So among 25+ ppg scorers, only Shaq, Duncan and Pierce separated themselves in terms of efficiency.

Maybe 2002 is a better example, but his efficiency isn't all that bad in 2001 either.

I don't think that averaging 25ppg gives you an excuse to be inefficient. When I said star sg's I meant star sg's in general...you don't have to average 25ppg+ to be a star sg. Take Ray Allen for instance...in that 2001 season he averaged 22ppg on .610ts%. Do you really believe it would have fallen below .550 if he was taking enough shots to average 25ppg? Your argument also doesn't take into account that maybe he just plain had to take as many shots as he did to average as many points as he did like Iverson did but to a lesser extent. He was only ever over .540ts% once in his entire career. He had ONE notably efficient season during an entire career.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't think that averaging 25ppg gives you an excuse to be inefficient. When I said star sg's I meant star sg's in general...you don't have to average 25ppg+ to be a star sg. Take Ray Allen for instance...in that 2001 season he averaged 22ppg on .610ts%. Do you really believe it would have fallen below .550 if he was taking enough shots to average 25ppg? Your argument also doesn't take into account that maybe he just plain had to take as many shots as he did to average as many points as he did like Iverson did but to a lesser extent. He was only ever over .540ts% once in his entire career. He had ONE notably efficient season during an entire career.

Yeah, but you're not taking into consideration the era. From '98-'04 there were very few guys putting up big scoring seasons on what was considered good efficiency in other eras. In that time period(and it's a significant stretch), here are the only players to average 25+ ppg on 55+ TS%.

Shaq- 6 times('98-'03)
Malone- twice('98 and '00)
Kobe- twice('01 and '03)
Pierce- twice('01 and '02)
Hill- once(2000)
Carter- once(2001)
Duncan- once(2002)
Dirk- once(2003)

As far as Allen in 2001? I don't know, it's very tough to compare their efficiency considering T-Mac scored a lot more(27 ppg vs 22 ppg) and Allen also had other guys to take pressure off of him such as Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell while T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong and rookie Mike Miller.

Granted, his efficiency wasn't great in 2001, but decent considering how much he was scoring and the era.

His 2002 season can be called efficient, imo. 25.6 ppg/45.1 FG%/53.2 TS% with defenses focused entirely on him during that era isn't inefficient. It might look like it for other eras, but considering he was 4th in scoring with FG%, eFG% and TS% that were all over the league averages, that qualifies as efficient for how much he was scoring, imo.

[32MJ32]

No sane person takes Reggie over T-Mac in their respective primes. Would you take Joe Johnson over Kevin Durant right now? Then you're not taking 1997 Reggie over 2002 T-Mac

You guys need to define whether you're evaluating career accomplishments or who the better player was at his zenith. They're completely different discussions.

[Smoke117]

Yeah, but you're not taking into consideration the era. From '98-'04 there were very few guys putting up big scoring seasons on what was considered good efficiency in other eras. In that time period(and it's a significant stretch), here are the only players to average 25+ ppg on 55+ TS%.

Shaq- 6 times('98-'03)
Malone- twice('98 and '00)
Kobe- twice('01 and '03)
Pierce- twice('01 and '02)
Hill- once(2000)
Carter- once(2001)
Duncan- once(2002)
Dirk- once(2003)

As far as Allen in 2001? I don't know, it's very tough to compare their efficiency considering T-Mac scored a lot more(27 ppg vs 22 ppg) and Allen also had other guys to take pressure off of him such as Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell while T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong and rookie Mike Miller.

Granted, his efficiency wasn't great in 2001, but decent considering how much he was scoring and the era.

His 2002 season can be called efficient, imo. 25.6 ppg/45.1 FG%/53.2 TS% with defenses focused entirely on him during that era isn't inefficient. It might look like it for other eras, but considering he was 4th in scoring with FG%, eFG% and TS% that were all over the league averages, that qualifies as efficient for how much he was scoring, imo.

That's also one of the more notable transitional periods in the league when the 90s players were going out and the new breed was coming in. Either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[32MJ32]

Many Laker fans would hate it, but they win those titles in the early 00's with a prime McGrady instead of Kobe too.

IMO.

I agree. And I am a Laker fan.

History shows Shaq + great perimiter player = championship or, at worst, Finals appearance. T-Mac was a great perimiter player before injuries slowed him down.

You could play the same game and put Shaq on the early 00's Orlando teams. They would have crushed the Nets, Pistons and Sixers on route to the Finals, in my opinion.

[Kblaze8855]

So in 2001 tmac put up 27/8/5 1.5 steals and 1.5 blocks...shot 46% and 36% from 3. And took old Darrell Armstrong, young Mike Miller, Bo Outlaw, Andrew DeClercq, Troy Hudson, John Amaechi, Pat Garrity, and Michael Doleac to the playoffs.

And we are trying to explain why he wasnt as bad as some people think...over how ****ing "efficient" they think he was? People are saying it wasnt even a great season?

Really? hes out there playing on a level 80% of the HOF would have to envy most of their careers dragging scrubs into the playoffs and people are saying they dont even see how its impressive...because he took 22 shots a game?

We just throw basketball playing ability and performance right out the window these days huh?

[Jacks3]

I agree. And I am a Laker fan.

History shows Shaq + great perimiter player = championship or, at worst, Finals appearance. T-Mac was a great perimiter player before injuries slowed him down.

You could play the same game and put Shaq on the early 00's Orlando teams. They would have crushed the Nets, Pistons and Sixers on route to the Finals, in my opinion.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[magnax1]

Thompson had just as many all-NBA first teams, finished higher in the MVP vote and went deeper in the playoffs...he has no case?
Thompson's career had a similar arc to that of TMacs, except everything that was bad about TMac's was worse in Thompson's. He fell off quicker and he was irrelevant more quickly. I also don't feel their peak or primes are that terribly close. Thompson made 3 all NBA/ABA teams compared to TMac's 7, and I think that's a good illustration of the gap. However, he probably deserves to be top 25, and I feel bad for forgetting him but it's easy to do when he really had little overall impact on the league in terms of team success.


What about Davies. His resume blows T-MAC's away...where is the argument for him?
I don't have an argument, because I don't have an opinion on players that there is no footage of what so ever. You're probably right about him being one of the best guards ever, but I'm not willing to give an opinion solely based on others opinions. That's why I don't try and rank Mikan or Pettit either. (there are all star games of pettit, but that's not really the same thing)

[L.Kizzle]

Thompson's career had a similar arc to that of TMacs, except everything that was bad about TMac's was worse in Thompson's. He fell off quicker and he was irrelevant more quickly. I also don't feel their peak or primes are that terribly close. Thompson made 3 all NBA/ABA teams compared to TMac's 7, and I think that's a good illustration of the gap. However, he probably deserves to be top 25, and I feel bad for forgetting him but it's easy to do when he really had little overall impact on the league in terms of team success.


I don't have an argument, because I don't have an opinion on players that there is no footage of what so ever. You're probably right about him being one of the best guards ever, but I'm not willing to give an opinion solely based on others opinions. That's why I don't try and rank Mikan or Pettit either. (there are all star games of pettit, but that's not really the same thing)
Pettit played in the same league as Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Robertson, Cousy, ect. He retired in 1965, two years after Cousy and four before Russell.

[magnax1]

Pettit played in the same league as Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Robertson, Cousy, ect. He retired in 1965, two years after Cousy and four before Russell.
But there is footage of Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor. There really isn't any of Pettit, though I haven't checked for a couple years.

[32MJ32]

So in 2001 tmac put up 27/8/5 1.5 steals and 1.5 blocks...shot 46% and 36% from 3. And took old Darrell Armstrong, young Mike Miller, Bo Outlaw, Andrew DeClercq, Troy Hudson, John Amaechi, Pat Garrity, and Michael Doleac to the playoffs.

And we are trying to explain why he wasnt as bad as some people think...over how ****ing "efficient" they think he was? People are saying it wasnt even a great season?

Really? hes out there playing on a level 80% of the HOF would have to envy most of their careers dragging scrubs into the playoffs and people are saying they dont even see how its impressive...because he took 22 shots a game?

We just throw basketball playing ability and performance right out the window these days huh?

Yeah, these guys need to work out if they're grading the players' careers, on paper, or their actual talent/ability.

Lock these guys is a room for an hour with a TV. Show them both 5 random games from Reggie's prime and 5 from T-Mac's prime. Nobody sane would leave thinking Reggie was a better player than prime T-Mac. It would literally be like taking Rudy Gay over Derrick Rose right now.

Now, if you're evaluating career accomplishments, that's different. Reggie has more of everything since he stayed healthy and played for about 20 years.

There needs to be a distinction made between an accomplishments comparison and a talent comparison. Which one are we doing here?

Also, these mopes rating guys from the 40's can **** directly pass GO and not collect $200. Unless you're 110 years old and dictating your posts to your great-great grand daughter, exit the thread.

[L.Kizzle]

But there is footage of Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor. There really isn't any of Pettit, though I haven't checked for a couple years.
There footage of him, they just don't show it as much as Wilt, Russell, ect. Also, if he was constantly included on the all-nba first teams with either Wilt or Russell at center, Robertson and West at the guards and Baylor at the other forward spot, that should tell you about were to rank a Bob Pettit.

[magnax1]

There footage of him, they just don't show it as much as Wilt, Russell, ect. Also, if he was constantly included on the all-nba first teams with either Wilt or Russell at center, Robertson and West at the guards and Baylor at the other forward spot, that should tell you about were to rank a Bob Pettit.
Like I said, I don't see the point of giving an opinion based off of other peoples opinion.
And I checked on Youtube again, and there really is basically no footage of Pettit. All star games are about it.

[G-train]

Now, if you're evaluating career accomplishments, that's different. Reggie has more of everything since he stayed healthy and played for about 20 years.


T-Mac has faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more personal accomplishments, but he has progressed further in the playoffs less than Reggie.

[Kblaze8855]

The kind of person who doesnt see whats so impressive about Tmac in Orlando justm ight take Rudy over derrick Rose though....

[G.O.A.T]

No sane person takes Reggie over T-Mac in their respective primes. Would you take Joe Johnson over Kevin Durant right now? Then you're not taking 1997 Reggie over 2002 T-Mac

You guys need to define whether you're evaluating career accomplishments or who the better player was at his zenith. They're completely different discussions.

Considering it's a list with "All-time" in the title, I'd say it's pretty clear it's about career and that all factors can (and I think should) be considered.

Also it's clear that Ray Allen has won this round.

[necya]

Yeah, these guys need to work out if they're grading the players' careers, on paper, or their actual talent/ability.

Lock these guys is a room for an hour with a TV. Show them both 5 random games from Reggie's prime and 5 from T-Mac's prime. Nobody sane would leave thinking Reggie was a better player than prime T-Mac. It would literally be like taking Rudy Gay over Derrick Rose right now.

Now, if you're evaluating career accomplishments, that's different. Reggie has more of everything since he stayed healthy and played for about 20 years.

There needs to be a distinction made between an accomplishments comparison and a talent comparison. Which one are we doing here?

Also, these mopes rating guys from the 40's can **** directly pass GO and not collect $200. Unless you're 110 years old and dictating your posts to your great-great grand daughter, exit the thread.

it makes me sick to hear "he is better in peak, but the other is better by accomplishment"
it means nothing, career accomplishment are out of the hand of a single player.

i just ask myself which player i would take on my team. Reggie or Ray ?
Ray is a beautiful player, more spectular, ok. both can score, we can use their great shooting ablities. as everybody should know, when the best strenght of your player is shooting, you know they will have good and off night.
Miller has a lot better understanding of the game and is more agressive on the court. he thinks to bump the wing players who cross the paint, making the switch / regain contact with his man easier.

Mcgrady? it's not because he had a shortened career he was an awful player who never went to the second round. but why do you take MGrady ? for his scoring abilities ? agreed. he can also be used in defense as well, and penetrate to give open shots.
he wasn't an efficient scorer, like a lot of the players of his generation. to get a scoring title while having the worst record of the league is a big issue. he wasn't a smart player, never found the the way to get involved his teammates.
i'm not interested to take a SG who fulfill the stats line and make the highlights for the crowd. which coach would like to see his best player playing one on one and take difficult/spectacular shots while the 4 others are motionless ? no one.

Reggie
McGrady
Allen

[Gotterdammerung]

Ray Allen.

Ray Allen performed at a higher level for much longer - with a better all around floor game - and is just as good a shooter if not better.

Right now Allen seems closer to Miller, but That's due to age and his current role as perimeter sniper for the Celtics. In his heyday he could drop 48 points in the playoffs. Miller could get streaky (25 points in the 4th vs the Knicks) but these heroics were rare.

Give me the guy with a higher peak and a longer prime.

[crosso√er]

Can't say I disagree with much of what Kblaze has said to be honest.
Ray Allen is my choice; Miller was a niche player. Very dirty defensively, mediocre passer & at rebounding. Bleh, I just think he's most likely the most overrated and over-exposed basketball player I have ever seen.

I started watching basketball in 88' and because I was in my teen years during the 90's; I watched the NBA religiously (including live games, I've seen Miller maybe five times live). He was incredible shooting the ball; but really did nothing else for his team that was worth mentioning on an all-time scale.

His name is bigger then his game and he should not be ranked above Dumars, McGrady, D. Johnson, Allen or Tiny. He's a borderline top 25 guard of All-Time and that's being generous, IMHO.

Blah, Ray Allen all day. Better defender, passer & playmaker. Only thing Miller did really well in this league, Allen arguably has done just as well.

It's Okay to compare two similar player's resumes; but just knowing their game and seen them play, I just don't see how a case can be made for Reggie Miller.

Miller was never known of being able to create shots for himself; you can not ask him to be assertive with the ball. He is a one-trick pony literally; he was amazing using the screens, great without the ball and a lights-out shooter. I don't know many players I would take over Miller if they're wide-open; he had ice in his veins and could knock down big shots. But that's the misconception I can not stand from casual fans; they concentrate too much on a niche (ex: player being a great dunker, White Chocolate being a fancy passer or someone like Crawford being an entertaining dribbler) and they over-value. If a player who is clearly better but plays fundamental basketball and is clearly more effective; a casual fan will choose the guy who has a niche to his game.

That's my explanation of why Reggie was/is overrated; most of what Kblaze said is the truth. He got too much spotlight for something he didn't deserve and a lot of people try to run with that intangibility when preaching Miller's game.

Great name, legendary shooter; good overall player.
Not worth all the hype he's gotten over the years.

[G.O.A.T]

Ray Allen.

Ray Allen performed at a higher level for much longer -

Actually the opposite is true. Reggie was a franchise player, and a more successful one, for 12 years, Allen for eight.

[G.O.A.T]

Ray Allen.

Ray Allen performed at a higher level for much longer -[.quote]

Actually the opposite is true. Reggie was a franchise player for 12 years, Allen for eight.

When Reggie was Ray's current age he was scoring 41 against a 24 year old Ray Allen to win game five of a playoff series.

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Give me the guy with a higher peak and a longer prime.

Then you meant to vote for Reggie. At his peak he took a team further into the playoffs, posted better playoff numbers and had a longer prime.

btw, want to join the project, I can't see anyone objecting?

[Gotterdammerung]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Ray Allen.

Ray Allen performed at a higher level for much longer -[.quote]

Actually the opposite is true. Reggie was a franchise player for 12 years, Allen for eight.

When Reggie was Ray's current age he was scoring 41 against a 24 year old Ray Allen to win game five of a playoff series.



Then you meant to vote for Reggie. At his peak he took a team further into the playoffs, posted better playoff numbers and had a longer prime.

btw, want to join the project, I can't see anyone objecting?
I may have to re-check the stats. :facepalm

Are you referring to this project?

[G.O.A.T]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Are you referring to this project?

Yes...I know you weren't around when we started it.

[SEEBASS1234]

Put in my vote for Reggie

[Boston C's]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Ray Allen.

Ray Allen performed at a higher level for much longer -[.quote]

Actually the opposite is true. Reggie was a franchise player for 12 years, Allen for eight.

When Reggie was Ray's current age he was scoring 41 against a 24 year old Ray Allen to win game five of a playoff series.



Then you meant to vote for Reggie. At his peak he took a team further into the playoffs, posted better playoff numbers and had a longer prime.

btw, want to join the project, I can't see anyone objecting?

I disagree GOAT theres no doubt reggie went further more consistently but ray allens playoff stats are only down due to his role in boston as hes not a franchise player anymore... you look at his playoff yrs on the sonics and bucks and you see he put up better all around numbers then reggie while leading some subpar casts in some cases

[G.O.A.T]

I disagree GOAT theres no doubt reggie went further more consistently but ray allens playoff stats are only down due to his role in boston as hes not a franchise player anymore... you look at his playoff yrs on the sonics and bucks and you see he put up better all around numbers then reggie while leading some subpar casts in some cases

All-around maybe, but that speaks more to the difference in role. Allen usually averaged more PPG during the regular season as a franchise guy yet his four playoff PPG's prior to the Celtics are 22, 22, 25 and 26 whereas Reggie's prime #1 option PPG are 21, 22, 27, 32, 23, 26, 20, 20, 24, 31 and 24. Consider that the Pacers made the EC in both 20 ppg seasons and it gets even more impressive. The guy consistently elevated his scoring as much as necessary to keep the Pacers competitive. It's the greatest part of his legacy.

I'm not sure Allen had that much worse teams around him. He always had better second and third options and lesser role players. Hard to distinguish for me.