Reggie Miller

[Boston C's]

Where do you rank him all time... I see his rankings fluctuate the most on ppls all time lists... some ppl keep him out of the top 100 whereas some ppl have him as a top 50 player... for me I have reggie around the 75-85 range

Loved reggie and thought he was a great leader

[stallionaire]

Nobody keeps him out of the top 100 or top 50. Stop listening to those 'people'.

[Boston C's]

Nobody keeps him out of the top 100 or top 50. Stop listening to those 'people'.

so where do you put him?

[StateOfMind12]

Top 75, closer to 75 than he is to 60. A lot of people overrate him these days though due to his high TS% and due to the fact that he was a big name player. I don't think he was ever a top 10 player in the league. I'm actually not even sure if he was ever even top 15.

[L.Kizzle]

Who has him outside of the 100? Knick fans? :lol

[Boston C's]

Who has him outside of the 100? Knick fans? :lol

You would be surprised at how many ppl call him an overrated glorified one dimensional player that isnt even worthy of a top 100 claim lol

[BrickingStar]

You would be surprised at how many ppl call him an overrated glorified one dimensional player that isnt even worthy of a top 100 claim lol

They're dumbasses Reggie had a great career and Peak. I can say with full confidence Reggie Miller was a good player, good person, and great lover.

[tmacattack33]

Top 75, closer to 75 than he is to 60. A lot of people overrate him these days though due to his high TS% and due to the fact that he was a big name player. I don't think he was ever a top 10 player in the league. I'm actually not even sure if he was ever even top 15.

Well he did make the all-nba third team three times. In 1995, 1996, and 1998 from what i see.

But I think in those years, you would definitely put the fourth and fifth best centers above him in a top player list. Hakeem, Shaq, Alonzo, David Robinson, and Ewing. Two of them had to be left out of the three all-nba teams each of those years.

So, you'd have those two centers above reggie plus the other 14 guys who were all-nba. Making reggie like top 17 or so in those years.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Who do you guys think ranks higher him or Ray Allen?

[AlonzoGOAT]

They're dumbasses Reggie had a great career and Peak. I can say with full confidence Reggie Miller was a good player, good person, and great lover.


:biggums:

[Knicks101]

They're dumbasses Reggie had a great career and Peak. I can say with full confidence Reggie Miller was a good player, good person, and great lover.

What?

[StateOfMind12]

Who do you guys think ranks higher him or Ray Allen?
Ray Allen easily, Ray was better than Reggie at everything except clutch play and it's not that Ray wasn't clutch or was a choker either. It was just that Reggie was superman in the clutch. It's not Ray's fault he never got to play with teams and coaches as good as Reggie's until he went to Boston.

[Boston C's]

Who do you guys think ranks higher him or Ray Allen?

Ray for sure...i dont even think twice about that...ray was just as good a shooter as reggie if not better along with the fact that he was better at pretty much every other facet of the game

[pauk]

#50

[L.Kizzle]

> Mitch Richmond, Kevin Johnson, Paul Pierce, Alonzo Mourning

[pauk]

Ray for sure...i dont even think twice about that...ray was just as good a shooter as reggie if not better along with the fact that he was better at pretty much every other facet of the game

Reggie was MUCH more of a competitor, had a much better killer instinct and was better in clutch moments, only Bird & Jordan were that good/efficient and productive/consistant clutch players... everybody remember him for what he did against Knicks, but he did stuff like that for 18 years, he was the #1 option in the clutch his entire 18 year career and would always hit some kindof clutch shot win or lose...

[tmacattack33]

Reggie had a much better killer instinct, only Bird & Jordan were that good/efficient and productive/consistant clutch players...

I am not sure if this is really true.

It is unlikely that you can remember more than a few games from Reggie's day. (and if u do remember more than 5 of them, you likely forgot about another 5 or more where he missed clutch shots).

It is much more likely that your conclusion on his clutch ability is getting influenced by a few memories (his 8 points in 6 seconds, and his famous clutch battles with the Knicks in the playoffs) you have of him.

And the reason u have these memories of him is because he luckily played against the Knicks and MJ Bulls, which has allowed these games to become very popular...and the Knicks games were even made into their own documentary.

I would not be too surprised if someone really looked into it and found out that Reggie really wasn't as clutch as it is believed.

[Boston C's]

Reggie was MUCH more of a competitor, had a much better killer instinct and was better in clutch moments, only Bird & Jordan were that good/efficient and productive/consistant clutch players... everybody remember him for what he did against Knicks, but he did stuff like that for 18 years, he was the #1 option in the clutch his entire 18 year career and would always hit some kindof clutch shot win or lose...


I love reggie but all of the things you mentioned ray has and to top it all off theres nothing basketball related that you mentioned that reggie is better then ray at...sure you can say hes more clutch intangibles and what not...but hes not a better scorer, passer, rebounder, defender etc

[Kblaze8855]

everybody remember him for what he did against Knicks, but he did stuff like that for 18 years, he was the #1 option in the clutch his entire 18 year career and would always hit some kindof clutch shot win or lose...

No. He would not.

And most people who think he did cant name more than 3 shots from his career that didnt come in series vs the Knicks that he lost more than won.

98 over Jordan, the half court bank vs the Nets, and maybe one of the shots NBA tv had in commercials around 02.

The Pacers offense failing was one of the more predictable outcomes of a big game in the 90s. They went on so many "Good lord..." level cold streaks partly because Reggie could never just...go get you a good shot. Plenty of games reggie hits 6 shots and 1 of them is in the second half. He was straight up invisible for huge portions of many many many games. The idea that he always came through for big shots but his team was never special is just a joke. Players on a Jordan/Bird level of just willing a team to victory dont have so many throwaway seasons and nothing to show for years of famous playoff battles.

There is no evidence Reggie was more clutch than Jerry West. your claim he is is just the latest in a long line of things said about Reggie based on emotion that dont stand up to actually thinking them out.

I mean...really...Reggie is more reliable down the stretch than Kareem...Russell...Isiah Thomas..Hakeem..Kobe

Guys who just willed their teams to wins playing on levels Reggie never approached. But only Bird and MJ were as...whatever the hell you said up there.

Whatever Bill russell was doing to not lose...ever...was less effective down the stretch than Reggie Miller....

Anyway...

Very good player. The number he ranks isnt important to me. But he isnt top 50. Thats fairly obvious. When you look at the top 50? And who didnt make it? And who has to be added before you can even consider Reggie? Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, KG, Dirk, and so on? Player after player who just put his resume and basketball playing ability to shame?

The number he falls on is hard to say. That it wouldnt be especially high is not.

[Reggie43]

I love reggie but all of the things you mentioned ray has and to top it all off theres nothing basketball related that you mentioned that reggie is better then ray at...sure you can say hes more clutch intangibles and what not...but hes not a better scorer, passer, rebounder, defender etc

Ray averaged 20ppg on 45% while Miller had 19.2ppg on 47% thru 16 seasons. Does the .8 ppg difference make ray the better scorer on lower % ?

How much better was Ray Allen as an all around player when their career numbers indicate that Ray was only 1.2 rebounds and .6 assists better per game? and those numbers will go down as he plays more seasons making it basically a wash :confusedshrug:

I remember Ray had a reputation of being a bad defender before his stint with the celtics and a few years of good defense with rondo and garnett helping him out doesnt erase the average at best defense he played with the bucks and sonics.

The only definite things that Ray was better than Reggie was being a more versatile scorer and playmaking/ ballhandling while Reggie was the better shooter with better efficiency plus all the intangibles like being the better teammate, leader, competitiveness, clutchness etc.

[Pushxx]

Reggie is not even close to the top 50. Also, Ray Allen is slightly ahead of him all-time. I find Reggie Miller slightly overrated due to his popular shots and media personality.

[Boston C's]

Ray averaged 20ppg on 45% while Miller had 19.2ppg on 47% thru 16 seasons. Does the .8 ppg difference make ray the better scorer on lower % ?

How much better was Ray Allen as an all around player when their career numbers indicate that Ray was only 1.2 rebounds and .6 assists better per game? and those numbers will go down as he plays more seasons making it basically a wash :confusedshrug:

I remember Ray had a reputation of being a bad defender before his stint with the celtics and a few years of good defense with rondo and garnett helping him out doesnt erase the average at best defense he played with the bucks and sonics.

The only definite things that Ray was better than Reggie was being a more versatile scorer and playmaking/ ballhandling while Reggie was the better shooter with better efficiency plus all the intangibles like being the better teammate, leader, competitiveness, clutchness etc.

the numbers you speak of still mean hes better and they wont go down so much that it will lesser reggie...just look at scoring...ray had 2 yrs of 25 ppg seasons where reggie had none... ray has 5 yrs of at least 4 assists a game where reggie had one... at exactly 4 as well as ray having a yr of 5 apg...rebounding reggie never averaged 4 boards a game ray had 12 with a few 5 boards a game as well... ray was reggie miller but with a better all around game...the numbers speak for themselves

[Kblaze8855]

Nobody has ever been a good enough shooter to justify saying they are flat out better at it than Ray Allen. And if someone was it wouldnt be seen in shooting percentages. And even if it were....Ray shot more threes than Reggie and still shot better and didnt have the moved in line giving him his career high. he also shoots better from the FT line than Reggie did which is saying something. If one gets a couple more layups a week it doesnt mean one is a better shooter. It means one has a higher field goal percentage. Which is just...not the same thing.

[swi7ch]

Top 50 definitely.

[1987_Lakers]

Definitely not top 50.

I remember we had a Top 25 guards in NBA History project and Reggie Miller was voted ahead of Dennis Johnson. It made me sick. Reggie can only dream of doing the things DJ did on the court.

[Solid Snake]

Ray averaged 20ppg on 45% while Miller had 19.2ppg on 47% thru 16 seasons. Does the .8 ppg difference make ray the better scorer on lower % ?

How much better was Ray Allen as an all around player when their career numbers indicate that Ray was only 1.2 rebounds and .6 assists better per game? and those numbers will go down as he plays more seasons making it basically a wash :confusedshrug:

I remember Ray had a reputation of being a bad defender before his stint with the celtics and a few years of good defense with rondo and garnett helping him out doesnt erase the average at best defense he played with the bucks and sonics.

The only definite things that Ray was better than Reggie was being a more versatile scorer and playmaking/ ballhandling while Reggie was the better shooter with better efficiency plus all the intangibles like being the better teammate, leader, competitiveness, clutchness etc.


Everything you just said is invalid because of your username and avatar.

[Reggie43]

the numbers you speak of still mean hes better and they wont go down so much that it will lesser reggie...just look at scoring...ray had 2 yrs of 25 ppg seasons where reggie had none... ray has 5 yrs of at least 4 assists a game where reggie had one... at exactly 4 as well as ray having a yr of 5 apg...rebounding reggie never averaged 4 boards a game ray had 12 with a few 5 boards a game as well... ray was reggie miller but with a better all around game...the numbers speak for themselves

technically he was better but being ahead by .8 pts, 1.2 rebs, .6 assist is basically a wash even if he had a higher peak. Were not even taking to account that playing with better teammates most of his career hurt Reggies overall numbers.

[Kblaze8855]

Ok....NBAs top 50 list.


Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Magic Johnson
Sam Jones
Michael Jordan
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy



Im gonna list the people I suspect some of you(who dont know anything about them) might want to kick off for Reggie.

Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Rick Barry
Dave Bing
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Jerry Lucas
Pete Maravich
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Robert Parish
Willis Reed
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy

24 guys.

Now...ignoring for a moment that at least 7 of them you would have to be a total idiot to rank behind Reggie...

Its 24 people. Now....these people? Not on the list.

Mcadoo
Nique
Duncan
AI
Kobe
Lebron
Wade
Ray
Pierce
KG
Payton
Kevin Durant
Chris Paul
Dwight Howard
Nash
Dirk
Webber

17 payers.

So..of the 41 players above...between the "Someone somewherem ight say Reggie is better" and the "No on the first list"...of those players...

You cant find 26 better than Reggie Miller?

And its not like I actually listed all the players better than Reggie since 96. I just kept it short.

I dont even need the list. Id just like someone who thinks hes top 50 to tell me they cant find 26 people who should be over him on this list:



Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Rick Barry
Dave Bing
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Jerry Lucas
Pete Maravich
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Robert Parish
Willis Reed
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy
Mcadoo
Nique
Duncan
AI
Kobe
Lebron
Wade
Ray
Pierce
KG
Payton
Kevin Durant
Chris Paul
Dwight Howard
Nash
Dirk
Webber

[L.Kizzle]

Definitely not top 50.

I remember we had a Top 25 guards in NBA History project and Reggie Miller was voted ahead of Dennis Johnson. It made me sick. Reggie can only dream of doing the things DJ did on the court.
...

I like DJ but he's always been surrounded by talent (except maybe in Phoenix.)

[Reggie43]

Nobody has ever been a good enough shooter to justify saying they are flat out better at it than Ray Allen. And if someone was it wouldnt be seen in shooting percentages. And even if it were....Ray shot more threes than Reggie and still shot better and didnt have the moved in line giving him his career high. he also shoots better from the FT line than Reggie did which is saying something. If one gets a couple more layups a week it doesnt mean one is a better shooter. It means one has a higher field goal percentage. Which is just...not the same thing.

Who said Reggie was flatout better?

Percentages are a good indicator of who was the better shooter especially if comparing similar players.

Are you really giving weight to the fact that Ray was better by .005 on 3p% and .006 ft% :confusedshrug:

And for the record I dont believe reggie was the best shooter ever

[Reggie43]

Everything you just said is invalid because of your username and avatar.

Sad but true :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Seems to be exactly what you said here:


The only definite things that Ray was better than Reggie was being a more versatile scorer and playmaking/ ballhandling while Reggie was the better shooter with better efficiency

And I dont care what either of them shot. I didnt even know Ray was ahead till I checked. I assumed he was lower since he shot more from outside.

But caling Reggie a better shooter than Ray just seem like something for the sake of not leaving that side empty.

There is nobody who could be listed that justifies a "Well...___ is on Rays side and shooting is on __ side".

From some specific aspects of shooting sure. But to list shooting as something on the other side of a Ray Allen argument? Just looks like a serious reach when thats the only skill you can list.

Its the one skill mentioned...

In opposition to Ray Allen.


And its shooting?

That pretty much means there is nothing to say.

You could make a better case for Reggie being abetter man to man defender than you could him being a better shooter. Its two people in discussion for the best shooters ever.

Who you feel like listing #1 doesnt matter because its too close to decide anything. You pretty much have to look at all the rest.

And all the rest falls firmly on one side....

[L.Kizzle]

Seems to be exactly what you said here:



And I dont care what either of them shot. I didnt even know Ray was ahead till I checked. I assumed he was lower since he shot more from outside.

But caling Reggie a better shooter than Ray just seem like something for the sake of not leaving that side empty.

There is nobody who could be listed that justifies a "Well...___ is on Rays side and shooting is on __ side".

From some specific aspects of shooting sure. But to list shooting as something on the other side of a Ray Allen argument? Just looks like a serious reach when thats the only skill you can list.

Its the one skill mentioned...

In opposition to Ray Allen.


And its shooting?

That pretty much means there is nothing to say.

You could make a better case for Reggie being abetter man to man defender than you could him being a better shooter. Its two people in discussion for the best shooters ever.

Who you feel like listing #1 doesnt matter because its too close to decide anything. You pretty much have to look at all the rest.

And all the rest falls firmly on one side....
Are we talking about full basketball skill set or what really happens on the courts when the lights came on?

Cause if it's the first, than shit Stephon Marbury is better than Reggie Miller.

[RaininTwos]

Reggie is not even close to the top 50. Also, Ray Allen is slightly ahead of him all-time. I find Reggie Miller slightly overrated due to his popular shots and media personality.
I agree with Reggie being overrated.

I wouldn't put him at anything lower 75. I dont think Ray Allen is slightly ahead though, he's way ahead. He has what, 14 seasons on his resume? That's longevity, plus Ray was a better shooter, just as clutch and had a time where he was actual superstar.

Putting Miller at 50 or below is a joke.

[L.Kizzle]

I agree with Reggie being overrated.

I wouldn't put him at anything lower 75. I dont think Ray Allen is slightly ahead though, he's way ahead. He has what, 14 seasons on his resume? That's longevity, plus Ray was a better shooter, just as clutch and had a time where he was actual superstar.

Putting Miller at 50 or below is a joke.
A Miller wasn't?

[Reggie43]

Seems to be exactly what you said here:



And I dont care what either of them shot. I didnt even know Ray was ahead till I checked. I assumed he was lower since he shot more from outside.

But caling Reggie a better shooter than Ray just seem like something for the sake of not leaving that side empty.

There is nobody who could be listed that justifies a "Well...___ is on Rays side and shooting is on __ side".

From some specific aspects of shooting sure. But to list shooting as something on the other side of a Ray Allen argument? Just looks like a serious reach when thats the only skill you can list.

Its the one skill mentioned...

In opposition to Ray Allen.


And its shooting?

That pretty much means there is nothing to say.

You could make a better case for Reggie being abetter man to man defender than you could him being a better shooter. Its two people in discussion for the best shooters ever.

Who you feel like listing #1 doesnt matter because its too close to decide anything. You pretty much have to look at all the rest.

And all the rest falls firmly on one side....

Career fg% between two players who mostly relied on their jumpshots doesnt mean much to you? Its not as if Reggie made a ton of layups more than ray

[RaininTwos]

A Miller wasn't?
In what world was Miller a superstar? Are you serious? Ray was scoring at a level Miller hasn't touched.

[L.Kizzle]

In what world was Miller a superstar? Are you serious? Ray was scoring at a level Miller hasn't touched.
When everyone knows you, you're a superstar.

Miller high, 24.6, Ray's high 26.4.

Ray was scoring slightly higher in a slightly faster paced league.

[RaininTwos]

When everyone knows you, you're a superstar.

Miller high, 24.6, Ray's high 26.4.

Ray was scoring slightly higher in a slightly faster paced league.

Man f*ck pace. We've seen both of these guys plays and Ray Allen could get his shot when he wanted with or without the ball. He could defend. He could handle the ball and dish. He wasn't a Kobe, but the next level down was Ray.

Ray at his peak/prime was better than Reggie.

I have respect for both players, but Reggie is getting overrated like hell.

[Kblaze8855]

Are we talking about full basketball skill set or what really happens on the courts when the lights came on?

Cause if it's the first, than shit Stephon Marbury is better than Reggie Miller.

If all I considered was total basketball playing ability Reggie would hardly be worth discussion.

But he wasnt really some dominant player either which you could easily say of a number of other guys who were just scorers.

But years and years of highlights and games that nobody has reason to remember has let a lot of people forget(or they just never knew) that the extreme vast majority of the time Reggie just made like 6 shots, 2 of them layups dropped off from Mark Jackson, hit 4 free throws, was invisible for 28 minutes and did nothing worth remembering.

Ive watched Reggie play in person and nearly forgot he was there.

He was a well fitting part of a team that didnt use him nearly as much as people seem to think. Dude ran off 2 screens then didnt get the ball like 65% of the time his team had the ball. And then they give it to Smits to get things going. Or Travis best breaks down the D with 5-6 seconds on the shot clock. Or Jalen Rose. Or Reggie jab steps twice and takes a bad shot his taent let him hit maybe 35% of the time.

He was doing the right thing. Not forcing. Being a good teammate. All that. But he just didnt do very much most of the time. He didnt need t odo much in their best years. Might score 23-24 a game in the playoffs and have people act like its a lot for a guy who does nothing else and is in the HOF.

But really...you watch a random average Reggie game...hes not going to do very much...

It might end in a clutch shot because thats the only reason its on youtube to begin with....

But the games he played most often you will never see if you didnt see them at the time because he didnt do shit worth pointing out.

[Boston C's]

def didnt mean for this to turn into a ray vs reggie war lol

[StateOfMind12]

Ray was scoring slightly higher in a slightly faster paced league.
Are you sure about that? Ray actually played in the toughest defensive era for perimeter players in '99-'04 while Miller didn't.

Ray was easily better than Reggie. Ray could create shots and score points off the dribble, Miller really couldn't and that is the difference. You can give me all the damn accomplishments Reggie made but none of those accomplishments are note worthy and enough to give him the edge to rank him over a player like Ray who was flat out better than Reggie at just about everything.

The truth is that Ray also accomplished more than Reggie so if you really think about Reggie has no arguments at all.

Ray was not that successful prior to joining Boston but truthfully he played on some really really bad teams and bad coaches and those things are very important when it comes to making it to the post-season, going deep in the post-season, etc. Ray made it to the ECF and led his team there in 2001 and some say that his Bucks actually would have made it to the Finals if it weren't for some questionable calls in that Game 7.

Reggie always had a good team and good coaches to play with and that was why he made the playoffs every season. He didn't make it to the playoffs every season and Ray didn't because he was better. He made it every season because his team and his personal situation was better than Ray's, not because he was a better player than Ray.

[L.Kizzle]

Are you sure about that? Ray actually played in the toughest defensive era for perimeter players in '99-'04 while Miller didn't.

Ray was easily better than Reggie. Ray could create shots and score points off the dribble, Miller really couldn't and that is the difference. You can give me all the damn accomplishments Reggie made but none of those accomplishments are note worthy and enough to give him the edge to rank him over a player like Ray who was flat out better than Reggie at just about everything.

The truth is that Ray also accomplished more than Reggie so if you really think about Reggie has no arguments at all.

Ray was not that successful prior to joining Boston but truthfully he played on some really really bad teams and bad coaches and those things are very important when it comes to making it to the post-season, going deep in the post-season, etc. Ray made it to the ECF and led his team there in 2001 and some say that his Bucks actually would have made it to the Finals if it weren't for some questionable calls in that Game 7.

Reggie always had a good team and good coaches to play with and that was why he made the playoffs every season. He didn't make it to the playoffs every season and Ray didn't because he was better. He made it every season because his team and his personal situation was better than Ray's, not because he was a better player than Ray.
In that span from 99-04, Ray was about a 21-22 ppg scorer. HE didn't hit the 25-26 mark until they had the new rules and guards started goin' ape shit. :lol

I don't deny that Ray is a better pure basketball talent, but including everything that goes into basketball, I have Reggie ranked higher.

[Boston C's]

In that span from 99-04, Ray was about a 21-22 ppg scorer. HE didn't hit the 25-26 mark until they had the new rules and guards started goin' ape shit. :lol

I don't deny that Ray is a better pure basketball talent, but including everything that goes into basketball, I have Reggie ranked higher.

how though...ray has accomplished more then reggie as well as has better stats then him...everyones argument for reggie is intangibles but intangibles dont make up for someone having more achievements better statistics etc

[L.Kizzle]

how though...ray has accomplished more then reggie as well as has better stats then him...everyones argument for reggie is intangibles but intangibles dont make up for someone having more achievements better statistics etc
Joe Dumars has accomplished more than Reggie too, are we ranking him above Reggie also?

[StateOfMind12]

I don't deny that Ray is a better pure basketball talent, but including everything that goes into basketball, I have Reggie ranked higher.
This is just your opinion though. I personally believe that we should rank all-time lists based on how good they were in their prime and how good of a chance they give you of winning championships and as many championships possible.

I think things like accomplishments and longevity should only be used as tiebreakers, not end all be all or anything like that.

I personally think a Reggie Miller vs. Tracy McGrady comparison would be closer mainly because they are complete opposites.

McGrady gives you about 3-4 dominant peak seasons where he was a complete superstar and a top 5-10 player in the league but he pretty much falls off a cliff after those 3-4 years and doesn't become as high of an impact player anymore.

Miller gives you about 12-13 seasons of the same high level of play during his prime but he was never a superstar or a top 10 player in the league like McGrady was.

I think you had Miller ranked higher but it's tough for me just because it ends up being a choice of a short and much more dominant peak or a long but much less dominant prime.

[L.Kizzle]

This is just your opinion though. I personally believe that we should rank all-time lists based on how good they were in their prime and how good of a chance they give you of winning championships and as many championships possible.

I think things like accomplishments and longevity should only be used as tiebreakers, not end all be all or anything like that.

I personally think a Reggie Miller vs. Tracy McGrady comparison would be closer mainly because they are complete opposites.

McGrady gives you about 3-4 dominant peak seasons where he was a complete superstar and a top 5-10 player in the league but he pretty much falls off a cliff after those 3-4 years and doesn't become as high of an impact player anymore.

Miller gives you about 12-13 seasons of the same high level of play during his prime but he was never a superstar or a top 10 player in the league like McGrady was.

I think you had Miller ranked higher but it's tough for me just because it ends up being a choice of a short and much more dominant peak or a long but much less dominant prime.
Mystique is just as much of basketball as everything else.

Reggie puts fear into your eyes, as much as any player not named Jordan or Bird. Ray, not so much.

[Reggie43]

If all I considered was total basketball playing ability Reggie would hardly be worth discussion.

But he wasnt really some dominant player either which you could easily say of a number of other guys who were just scorers.

But years and years of highlights and games that nobody has reason to remember has let a lot of people forget(or they just never knew) that the extreme vast majority of the time Reggie just made like 6 shots, 2 of them layups dropped off from Mark Jackson, hit 4 free throws, was invisible for 28 minutes and did nothing worth remembering.

Ive watched Reggie play in person and nearly forgot he was there.

He was a well fitting part of a team that didnt use him nearly as much as people seem to think. Dude ran off 2 screens then didnt get the ball like 65% of the time his team had the ball. And then they give it to Smits to get things going. Or Travis best breaks down the D with 5-6 seconds on the shot clock. Or Jalen Rose. Or Reggie jab steps twice and takes a bad shot his taent let him hit maybe 35% of the time.

He was doing the right thing. Not forcing. Being a good teammate. All that. But he just didnt do very much most of the time. He didnt need t odo much in their best years. Might score 23-24 a game in the playoffs and have people act like its a lot for a guy who does nothing else and is in the HOF.

But really...you watch a random average Reggie game...hes not going to do very much...

It might end in a clutch shot because thats the only reason its on youtube to begin with....

But the games he played most often you will never see if you didnt see them at the time because he didnt do shit worth pointing out.

So you think that playoff runs that results in championships are the only ones worth remembering?

Most of what you said are very true but just because he didnt have superstar numbers doesnt mean that he didnt do shit.

What really separates Reggie for me from other similar players is his mental toughness. The ability to play infront of a hostile crowd in a playoff series nobody was giving them a chance to win and perform valiantly. I could easilly think a ton of superstar level players, players that are easilly better than Reggie that would have wilted against the pressure of those situations and not have as much team success

[RaininTwos]

Joe Dumars has accomplished more than Reggie too, are we ranking him above Reggie also?
He was also a better player though. Are people really saying that Reggie was better than Joe D?:biggums:

[L.Kizzle]

He was also a better player though. Are people really saying that Reggie was better than Joe D?:biggums:
Damn who else is over Reggie?

Mitch Richmond
Latrell Sprewell
Allan Houston
Rolando Blackman
John Starks
ect, ect.

[Boston C's]

Damn who else is over Reggie?

Mitch Richmond
Latrell Sprewell
Allan Houston
Rolando Blackman
John Starks
ect, ect.

Id seriously consider the rock...severely underrated...was def a better player then reggie but longevity might put reggie above him...and yes joe dumars is definitely above reggie...although I'd take ray over both...(very slightly over dumars)

[RaininTwos]

Damn who else is over Reggie?

Mitch Richmond
Latrell Sprewell
Allan Houston
Rolando Blackman
John Starks
ect, ect.
Nope, just Joe D

[L.Kizzle]

Id seriously consider the rock...severely underrated...was def a better player then reggie but longevity might put reggie above him...and yes joe dumars is definitely above reggie...although I'd take ray over both...(very slightly over dumars)
If Richmond is higher than Reggie, than T-Mac goes above Ray Allen.

[StateOfMind12]

If Richmond is higher than Reggie, than T-Mac goes above Ray Allen.
I'm not sure if this analogy is correct since Richmond averaged about 20 ppg for 10-11 seasons straight starting from his rookie season.

Richmond played at a high level for a decent amount of years but most of his years were wasted with the Kings.

I wouldn't be mad with Richmond being placed above Reggie since Richmond was clearly better during his prime/peak. I'm quite indifferent about it.

[Boston C's]

I'm not sure if this analogy is correct since Richmond averaged about 20 ppg for 10-11 seasons straight starting from his rookie season.

Richmond played at a high level for a decent amount of years but most of his years were wasted with the Kings.

I wouldn't be mad with Richmond being placed above Reggie since Richmond was clearly better during his prime/peak. I'm quite indifferent about it.

pretty much this... I didnt say I'd put richmond for sure above reggie as a matter of fact I said that reggies longevity would give him the edge but like statofmind12 just said i wouldnt be mad if someone wanted to put the rock above reggie

[StateOfMind12]

Damn who else is over Reggie?

Mitch Richmond
Latrell Sprewell
Allan Houston
Rolando Blackman
John Starks
ect, ect.
SGs that should definitely be placed above him

Jordan
Kobe
West
Wade
Drexler
Gervin
Iverson
Ray Allen

(which was also my top 8 sgs of all-time in order)

SGs that have a case over Miller and vice versa

Tracy McGrady
Joe Dumars
Dennis Johnson
Mitch Richmond
Manu Ginobili
Earl Monroe
Vince Carter

I would say most, if not all of these players are only arguably behind Miller because they didn't play at a high level for a very long time because all of these guys during their peak were better than Reggie.

Keep in mind that these are just SGs, not guards.

[Round Mound]

Overrated a BIT

He Was Good at Was Shooting and Being Clutch but He Wasn`t a Great Creator, Passer, Rebounder or Defender.

He Was Basically 1 Dimensional and Worked Well Without the Ball on Offense to Get By and Shoot.

[Kblaze8855]

So you think that playoff runs that results in championships are the only ones worth remembering?


No. I think the ones where you play on an exceptional level are. But he never had one. He couldnt do anything but score and he never even scored 25 a game in a run that wasnt a first round exit. You have to lower your standards quite a bit to call anything he did like...historic...by the standards of great players.


Most of what you said are very true but just because he didnt have superstar numbers doesnt mean that he didnt do shit.

Joe Dumars and Dennis Johnson didnt have superstar numbers. Dont see me saying they needed to step anything up over their numbers. And thats because they are players who do things other than score. They impact the game in many ways. Reggie either makes shots or spaces the floor because he can make shots. Thats it. When he doesnt do it...he might as well not exist.


What really separates Reggie for me from other similar players is his mental toughness. The ability to play infront of a hostile crowd in a playoff series nobody was giving them a chance to win and perform valiantly. I could easilly think a ton of superstar level players, players that are easilly better than Reggie that would have wilted against the pressure of those situations and not have as much team success

Wilted against the pressure and done what?

Be the 10th best player on the floor and go like 1-16 in the biggest game of their life and follow it up with a game in which you attempt just one shot in the 4th(and miss it) in a close loss to go down 0-2 in the finals?

Help your team come out blazing in game 7 to make the finals as you talk shit to the crowd then watch your offense fall apart as you are helpless to stop it?

Go 3-18 to get sent home in a game your team lost in the 4th quarter after Jordan is finally out of the way?

Reggies big tv moments blinded people to an obvious truth. He lost all but one big series he played for almost 20 years and it wasnt just team letting him down again and again. He just didnt perform as expected a hell of a lot of the time. And thats because he was expected to perform like a superstar and he didnt have the game to do it on command.

So he does a little here and there and people make it out to be more than it is. Like someone may mention he finished those 2000 finals strong(after there was little hope).

But really...guy was not some top level performer even in the playoffs. Yet guys are in here saying only Bird and Jordan match his clutch abilities? As if Reggie did anything to put him over Bill Russell who played his ass off 95% of the time he needed to on the way to 11 rings? Acting like hes over Jerry West who is out there wetting 60 foot floaters to keep his team alive in the finals and not going out like a bitch. Hes going down leg full of pain killers 42/15/13 style. Hes leading his team to the finals without Baylor. Hes making big shot after big shot and dropping 40ppg for entire deep playoff runs.

But hes no Reggie...Kareem....#1 option down the stretch for at least 5 rings Kareem....most reliable scorer ever it can be argued. Hitting running hooks to win finals games and taking HOF bigmen apart Kareem....Reggie more bigtime in the big moments.

Wade...guy powers his team to a ring playing ball Reggie never touched. Just...owns the 4th quarter game after game to win it all.

Reggie more clutch because of second round antics in a series he lost because he didnt do anything except the 10 minutes ESPN wont let people forget.

Its just a joke how little this guy had to do to get his reputation.

Was he a great shooter? Yes. Elite clutch shooter? Sure.

He do anything to justify the disrespect shown to others when hes given the status he often is? No.

He just played good unselfish pick my spots basketball. Which is totally ok.

We just dont need to make it something it isnt and ignore that more often than not....his team needed him to do more and he couldnt do it.

[TheBigVeto]

Top 5 GOAT SG

[Reggie43]

No. I think the ones where you play on an exceptional level are. But he never had one. He couldnt do anything but score and he never even scored 25 a game in a run that wasnt a first round exit. You have to lower your standards quite a bit to call anything he did like...historic...by the standards of great players.



Joe Dumars and Dennis Johnson didnt have superstar numbers. Dont see me saying they needed to step anything up over their numbers. And thats because they are players who do things other than score. They impact the game in many ways. Reggie either makes shots or spaces the floor because he can make shots. Thats it. When he doesnt do it...he might as well not exist.



Wilted against the pressure and done what?

Be the 10th best player on the floor and go like 1-16 in the biggest game of their life and follow it up with a game in which you attempt just one shot in the 4th(and miss it) in a close loss to go down 0-2 in the finals?

Help your team come out blazing in game 7 to make the finals as you talk shit to the crowd then watch your offense fall apart as you are helpless to stop it?

Go 3-18 to get sent home in a game your team lost in the 4th quarter after Jordan is finally out of the way?

Reggies big tv moments blinded people to an obvious truth. He lost all but one big series he played for almost 20 years and it wasnt just team letting him down again and again. He just didnt perform as expected a hell of a lot of the time. And thats because he was expected to perform like a superstar and he didnt have the game to do it on command.

So he does a little here and there and people make it out to be more than it is. Like someone may mention he finished those 2000 finals strong(after there was little hope).

But really...guy was not some top level performer even in the playoffs. Yet guys are in here saying only Bird and Jordan match his clutch abilities? As if Reggie did anything to put him over Bill Russell who played his ass off 95% of the time he needed to on the way to 11 rings? Acting like hes over Jerry West who is out there wetting 60 foot floaters to keep his team alive in the finals and not going out like a bitch. Hes going down leg full of pain killers 42/15/13 style. Hes leading his team to the finals without Baylor. Hes making big shot after big shot and dropping 40ppg for entire deep playoff runs.

But hes no Reggie...Kareem....#1 option down the stretch for at least 5 rings Kareem....most reliable scorer ever it can be argued. Hitting running hooks to win finals games and taking HOF bigmen apart Kareem....Reggie more bigtime in the big moments.

Wade...guy powers his team to a ring playing ball Reggie never touched. Just...owns the 4th quarter game after game to win it all.

Reggie more clutch because of second round antics in a series he lost because he didnt do anything except the 10 minutes ESPN wont let people forget.

Its just a joke how little this guy had to do to get his reputation.

Was he a great shooter? Yes. Elite clutch shooter? Sure.

He do anything to justify the disrespect shown to others when hes given the status he often is? No.

He just played good unselfish pick my spots basketball. Which is totally ok.

We just dont need to make it something it isnt and ignore that more often than not....his team needed him to do more and he couldnt do it.

The thing that bugs me about your opinion of Reggie is that you are trying to compare him to alltime greats so its only natural that he seems like a much worse player.

Stating some of his worst games in the playoffs doesnt change the fact that he had some pretty good ones.

Just because somebody said that Reggie was a top 3 clutch player doesnt mean it is the general consensus. I for one do know that they are tons of players that are better clutch performers.

And it even depends on your definition of clutch. Clutch for me is performing better than your normal numbers, doing things that are not expected of you which Reggie has done numerous times just not at an alltime great level.

I agree that Reggie is somewhat overrated by his scoring highlights but that also underrates his allaround ability. Even on the defensive end Reggie had many clutch moments that go unnoticed.

Like in game 1 against the knicks in 95 he was the one who stole the ball to score the 3pter, rebound the ball off starks missed ft, get fouled for the winning fts and finally stopping greg anthony from even getting off a shot for the tie or win. Defending jordan decently in 98 and even stopping league mvp iverson in the clutch in 2001 just after Reggie hit the gamewinner in game 1 of that series

[RaininTwos]

The thing that bugs me about your opinion of Reggie is that you are trying to compare him to alltime greats so its only natural that he seems like a much worse player.

When you're talking about where a player ranks all time, isn't that what you're supposed to do?

[Reggie43]

When you're talking about where a player ranks all time, isn't that what you're supposed to do?

We were talking about clutchness and some other things, not necessarilly as to where Reggie is ranked alltime

[longhornfan1234]

Top 50 player. The sixth best SG of all-time.


1 . MJ



2. Kobe
3. West
4. Drexler
5. Gervin
6. Miller

[Kblaze8855]

The thing that bugs me about your opinion of Reggie is that you are trying to compare him to alltime greats so its only natural that he seems like a much worse player.

I compare him to the players that comment about him suggest hes being compared to. If people mentioned Cuttino Mobley, Rip Hamilton, Alan Houston, and Dan Majerle as people hes better than id have no reason to bring up West and Wade. When you say hes only matched by Bird and Jordan...the many players that suggests hes better than are an issue.


Stating some of his worst games in the playoffs doesnt change the fact that he had some pretty good ones.

When the issue is "____ would crumble under the pressure but not Reggie" the fact that he never actually accomplished anything under real pressure situations is relevant. Talking about heroic game 4 of the second round performances and all. Which count. But its nothing to hang your hat on as some all time great big moments performer.



Just because somebody said that Reggie was a top 3 clutch player doesnt mean it is the general consensus. I for one do know that they are tons of players that are better clutch performers.


When someone says it and I respond to it it is the only comment that matters. I know not everyone is dumb enough to buy into the Reggie for president shit. But enough people are that its fair to ask what he did to justify his status among them.

People on here making claims like:




They mad he was a more versatile scorer then Bron, Wade and Durant. Possibly only Kobe today is a more skilled and multi dimensional scorer.


And saying hes easily top 50 all time which puts him in the top half of the HOF when there are guys who were never even all stars who were nearly as good as him.

Its just amazing to me how much tv and time has done to that guys status. You just cant justify a lot of these claims and people state them like fact.




And it even depends on your definition of clutch. Clutch for me is performing better than your normal numbers, doing things that are not expected of you which Reggie has done numerous times just not at an alltime great level.


Clutch for me is stepping up and doing what your team requires under pressure. I dont care if you normally score 18 a game and do 22 as you lose in the first round and do little to plug the holes your team needs filled to win. Reggie scoring 23 a game when his team is struggling to get baskets means nothing to me. Michael Redd can score more than usual but still not enough. Not like we are talking some real overwhelming scoring that just wasnt enough. When you are nothing but a scorer and you score 24 a game im not acting like its something to be blown away by coming from a HOF guard.

Reggie was clutch in that pressure didnt make him less likely to make a big shot as it does with some. Reggie was cold. Which I respect.

But I watched him go into ghost mode too many times when his team needed him to play big to not respond when someone is gonna rank him over Bill Russell as a big moment/clutch performer
.

I agree that Reggie is somewhat overrated by his scoring highlights but that also underrates his allaround ability. Even on the defensive end Reggie had many clutch moments that go unnoticed.

Thats true of virtually everyone known as just a scorer. I remember plenty of times Dirk made a big defensive play. Its just basketball.

I remember Peja playing what I might have to call lockdown D down the stretch of a few games in like 04. He was going hard and I was impressed.

Im not gonna say he wasnt just a shooter though. Because he was a shooter. A few moments of extra doesnt change what made him who he is.



Like in game 1 against the knicks in 95 he was the one who stole the ball to score the 3pter, rebound the ball off starks missed ft, get fouled for the winning fts and finally stopping greg anthony from even getting off a shot for the tie or win. Defending jordan decently in 98 and even stopping league mvp iverson in the clutch in 2001 just after Reggie hit the gamewinner in game 1 of that series


Which is all well and good. As I said...thats basketball. You would be hard pressed to find someone who never made defensive plays. Im sure Allen Iverson missed a few jumpers over Sam Cassell in the playoffs. Im not gonna make that out to be more than it is.

Reggie could play man to man D when he wanted to(why I said he could be argued over Ray in that area). But he could do nothing on a level to justify knowing his name if his jumper isnt falling.

[G.O.A.T]

Nobody has ever been a good enough shooter to justify saying they are flat out better at it than Ray Allen. And if someone was it wouldnt be seen in shooting percentages. And even if it were....Ray shot more threes than Reggie and still shot better and didnt have the moved in line giving him his career high. he also shoots better from the FT line than Reggie did which is saying something. If one gets a couple more layups a week it doesnt mean one is a better shooter. It means one has a higher field goal percentage. Which is just...not the same thing.

To me Reggie was a better shooter because the gap between him the next best shooters or even more so the average shooter, was a lot greater then, than it is today or in Allen's prime.

I have Miller right at the edge of my top 50 after years of having him in the 60's and 70's.

My change came when I really looked hard at how many players were the lead guy of a team that had as much consistent success as Miller and the Pacers. Very few outside of the 20-30 players all-time.

I could care less about numbers or weighing a players overall skill set, that always leads to hypocrisy eventually anyways. Miller's teams won, he was the major reason why (relative to other individual players) and there just aren't many guys you can say that about.

[Reggie43]

I compare him to the players that comment about him suggest hes being compared to. If people mentioned Cuttino Mobley, Rip Hamilton, Alan Houston, and Dan Majerle as people hes better than id have no reason to bring up West and Wade. When you say hes only matched by Bird and Jordan...the many players that suggests hes better than are an issue.



When the issue is "____ would crumble under the pressure but not Reggie" the fact that he never actually accomplished anything under real pressure situations is relevant. Talking about heroic game 4 of the second round performances and all. Which count. But its nothing to hang your hat on as some all time great big moments performer.



When someone says it and I respond to it it is the only comment that matters. I know not everyone is dumb enough to buy into the Reggie for president shit. But enough people are that its fair to ask what he did to justify his status among them.

People on here making claims like:




And saying hes easily top 50 all time which puts him in the top half of the HOF when there are guys who were never even all stars who were nearly as good as him.

Its just amazing to me how much tv and time has done to that guys status. You just cant justify a lot of these claims and people state them like fact.




Clutch for me is stepping up and doing what your team requires under pressure. I dont care if you normally score 18 a game and do 22 as you lose in the first round and do little to plug the holes your team needs filled to win. Reggie scoring 23 a game when his team is struggling to get baskets means nothing to me. Michael Redd can score more than usual but still not enough. Not like we are talking some real overwhelming scoring that just wasnt enough. When you are nothing but a scorer and you score 24 a game im not acting like its something to be blown away by coming from a HOF guard.

Reggie was clutch in that pressure didnt make him less likely to make a big shot as it does with some. Reggie was cold. Which I respect.

But I watched him go into ghost mode too many times when his team needed him to play big to not respond when someone is gonna rank him over Bill Russell as a big moment/clutch performer
.


Thats true of virtually everyone known as just a scorer. I remember plenty of times Dirk made a big defensive play. Its just basketball.

I remember Peja playing what I might have to call lockdown D down the stretch of a few games in like 04. He was going hard and I was impressed.

Im not gonna say he wasnt just a shooter though. Because he was a shooter. A few moments of extra doesnt change what made him who he is.


Which is all well and good. As I said...thats basketball. You would be hard pressed to find someone who never made defensive plays. Im sure Allen Iverson missed a few jumpers over Sam Cassell in the playoffs. Im not gonna make that out to be more than it is.

Reggie could play man to man D when he wanted to(why I said he could be argued over Ray in that area). But he could do nothing on a level to justify knowing his name if his jumper isnt falling.


Never said anything about Miller being only matched by Bird and Jordan. I place him on the level of players such as Ray Allen, Richmond, Sprewell, Pierce, Rice, Dumars among others which seems fair enough.

The only issue I have is when people say how much flatout better Ray allen as compared to Miller which is certainly debatable especially when Miller won more and outplayed him numbers wise in head to head matchups.

Again most of what you said are true but why is it that when Reggie Miller and Karl Malone are concerned you seem to have a ready essay? Out of the ton of players much more hated and overrated why do you single out those two?

[Kblaze8855]

To me Reggie was a better shooter because the gap between him the next best shooters or even more so the average shooter, was a lot greater then, than it is today or in Allen's prime.

If your reason for him being better is anything but you feeling he shot the ball better I find it useless. If I can make 8 of 10 open shots and my league has players who can make 6 on average I dont become a better shooter when playing in a league where guys only make 4 of 8 on average. You just have the ability you have. And its not like these guys didnt have careers overlap by like 8-9 years.



I have Miller right at the edge of my top 50 after years of having him in the 60's and 70's.

My change came when I really looked hard at how many players were the lead guy of a team that had as much consistent success as Miller and the Pacers. Very few outside of the 20-30 players all-time.

I could care less about numbers or weighing a players overall skill set, that always leads to hypocrisy eventually anyways. Miller's teams won, he was the major reason why (relative to other individual players) and there just aren't many guys you can say that about.


He was the best player(well...by reputation) on 5 50 win teams in his career. For a guy who played as long as he did...eh. He was the top billed player on 5 teams that won 42 or less.

That isnt "consistent success". Its having a good run. Especially when it doesnt have a peak of actually winning something.

The Pacers kinda had a eastern Sonics thing happen for a moment.

But they were not a team to be scared of for any real long period of time.

Much as I talk about Karl Malone...you could say he had consistent success.

[BlackVVaves]

Probably one of the best threads made this off-season due to the qualify of discussion.

Hope it goes on for a few more pages, must say I'm truly enjoying reading :applause:

In my estimate, Reggie is a top 100 player, but severely overrated due to the aura created by highlights, sports media, ect. There is no reason for him to be ahead of Drexler, Wade, or Ray Allen in the All Time GOAT SG list. And, peak for peak, Reggie could never lead a team of defensive minded misfits to the Finals like Iverson did, or dominate in an unwordly way the way peak T-Mac did.

I truly do think Reggie was a better player all around than he is given credit for, but I also think calling him a "top 3 clutch player of all time" is misguided at best.

[pmj]

Reggie is extremely overrated. Not sure he's even better than Mitch Richmond, who had multiple All-NBA's over Reggie.

[G.O.A.T]

If your reason for him being better is anything but you feeling he shot the ball better I find it useless. If I can make 8 of 10 open shots and my league has players who can make 6 on average I dont become a better shooter when playing in a league where guys only make 4 of 8 on average. You just have the ability you have. And its not like these guys didnt have careers overlap by like 8-9 years.


Reggie's generation was the first to mature with the three-point line as a reality. There were far fewer elite shooters then compared to today. Therefore it was a more valuable skill then. Just as Dwight Howard is a greater center in this era than he would have been 20 years ago when the league was inundated with great big men. A guy who made 33% of his three's in 1990 was a more valuable player than a guy who does that today.

.600 win% seasons as star player: (a .600 win percentage = 50 wins over an 82 game season)

Reggie: 5
Ewing: 6
Robinson: 5
Barkley: 4
Nique: 4
Mullin: 1
English: 2
Pierce: 0
Webber: 3
Iverson: 1
Allen: 2
Carter: 0
Payton: 5
Kidd: 4
Kobe: 5-7 ('03 & '04)
Garnett: 5-7 ('11 & '12)

[Kblaze8855]

That may well be. And im sure that relative to his time Joe Fulks was a great shooter. But I dont think that means he justifies comparison to Reggie Miller when he missed 80% of his shots for long period of time.

Just are what you are.

[G.O.A.T]

Just are what you are.

And if you are the best shooter when you play, it doesn't matter what someone else shoots 5, 10 or 50 years later, you are still among the best shooter of all-time.

Anyway, check out the list of 50-win alpha seasons I posted above.

[Kblaze8855]

So the first basketball player is one of the greatest shooters of all time?

For most people that would be a question I didnt need answered. your history suggests you might say "Yes".

Clearly how good you are in fact isnt a concern.

[Kblaze8855]

Oh and id love to know what justifies Reggie ever being a star while Pierce 08-now doesnt count. When you say "star" do you mean single star or what? I assumed not since KG is counted in 2012. Odd count you have there.

[wang4three]

Reggie's only made his legacy worse by being the blandest commentator ever.

[Da KO King]

The fact that there is more than one person that believes Reggie Miller is a Top 50 player means he's become over-rated. The crazy thing is I thought Slam Magazine was nuts for listing him at 55 when they did their Top 100.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

And if you are the best shooter when you play, it doesn't matter what someone else shoots 5, 10 or 50 years later, you are still among the best shooter of all-time.


do you see a problem with your statement above?

[talamo]

Greatest pacer of all time

[Boston C's]

Probably one of the best threads made this off-season due to the qualify of discussion.

Hope it goes on for a few more pages, must say I'm truly enjoying reading :applause:

In my estimate, Reggie is a top 100 player, but severely overrated due to the aura created by highlights, sports media, ect. There is no reason for him to be ahead of Drexler, Wade, or Ray Allen in the All Time GOAT SG list. And, peak for peak, Reggie could never lead a team of defensive minded misfits to the Finals like Iverson did, or dominate in an unwordly way the way peak T-Mac did.

I truly do think Reggie was a better player all around than he is given credit for, but I also think calling him a "top 3 clutch player of all time" is misguided at best.

thank you sir :cheers:

btw i absolutely agree wiht your assessment 100 percent... reggie is a top 100 player of all time but in an all time goat SG list hes probably right outside of my top 10 (10 at best)

[G.O.A.T]

do you see a problem with your statement above?

No.

Do you?

Should anyone be judged by a standard that doesn't exist?

Are you saying that LeBron not shooting .600 is a failure on his part?

Are you saying Durant not shooting 50/45/90 yet is a failure?

You must be since you think it's weird to judge a player by a standard that doesn't exist.

[Boston C's]

No.

Do you?

Should anyone be judged by a standard that doesn't exist?

Are you saying that LeBron not shooting .600 is a failure on his part?

Are you saying Durant not shooting 50/45/90 yet is a failure?

You must be since you think it's weird to judge a player by a standard that doesn't exist.


I loved your top 100 list for the most part...the most glaring thing to me is having reggie at 55...i dont understand how you could justify that to be honest to me he is like the 75-85 range

[NugzHeat3]

Never said anything about Miller being only matched by Bird and Jordan. I place him on the level of players such as Ray Allen, Richmond, Sprewell, Pierce, Rice, Dumars among others which seems fair enough.

The only issue I have is when people say how much flatout better Ray allen as compared to Miller which is certainly debatable especially when Miller won more and outplayed him numbers wise in head to head matchups.

Again most of what you said are true but why is it that when Reggie Miller and Karl Malone are concerned you seem to have a ready essay? Out of the ton of players much more hated and overrated why do you single out those two?
Because those two are the ones KBlaze is most critical of and I'd imagine also believes they're the most overrated. At least, that's the impression I get from reading his posts.

[Reggie43]

Because those two are the ones KBlaze is most critical of and I'd imagine also believes they're the most overrated. At least, that's the impression I get from reading his posts.

While is it true that they are overrated, I think his hate stems from the fact that those two players somewhat took some thunder from his beloved Chicago Bulls and MJ.

Karl Malone winning MVP over Jordan that one year and Reggie Miller outperforming Jordan in the clutch in two games in that playoff series in 98. Even with the Bulls and MJ still winning it all he cant stand the fact that a team lead by a player that he thinks is on the same level as "Cutino Mobley" could push his beloved Chicago Bulls and Jordan to the brink of elimination.

[ErhnamDjinn]

i must say among all the stupid threads in this forum, this has got to be one of the better discussions. Most of the posters here, point out valid arguments and its not just straight bashing. Actually pretty amused in the back and forth banter hehehe

[Kblaze8855]

If I could bring myself to use an emoticon this would be a good time. Reggie Miller took some thunder from Michael Jordan?

Because of a lost playoff series that was close? If anything the 98 series proved Reggie wasnt the reason they were a good team. He had one game worth mentioning and it wouldnt be worth a mention for a guy like Carmelo. He had 37 total points in games 4-6. And in game 7 watched his team fall apart and get sent home when they could have won.

Nothing about that series annoys me in any way. Its the perfect example of what Reggie Miller is. A good player who was part of some very good teams.....who makes 1-2 shots worth remembering a season to make people who dont know him assume he was more.

Rik Smits was a bigger concern than Reggie at that time.

[guy]

He's not even worth mentioning on an all-time list. As far as SGs go, I'd say he's behind Jordan, Kobe, West, Wade, Drexler, Iverson, Gervin, and maybe Jones, Allen, T-Mac, and Dumars.

[Reggie43]

If I could bring myself to use an emoticon this would be a good time. Reggie Miller took some thunder from Michael Jordan?

Because of a lost playoff series that was close? If anything the 98 series proved Reggie wasnt the reason they were a good team. He had one game worth mentioning and it wouldnt be worth a mention for a guy like Carmelo. He had 37 total points in games 4-6. And in game 7 watched his team fall apart and get sent home when they could have won.

Nothing about that series annoys me in any way. Its the perfect example of what Reggie Miller is. A good player who was part of some very good teams.....who makes 1-2 shots worth remembering a season to make people who dont know him assume he was more.

Rik Smits was a bigger concern than Reggie at that time.

Give me a good reason on why you hate Miller then?
of all the similarly overrated players, why single him out?
So its safe to assume that you think that if you replace Miller with Carmelo Anthony that the Pacers would have won that series in 98?

[Kblaze8855]

I dont hate Reggie Miller(I hate Karl Malone...maybe Bill Laimbeer...briefly 1-2 others). I will explain the nature of my opposition to the idea hes some great player shortly. Im gonna go get some kinda burger from jack in the box and try to explain.

[Reggie43]

I dont hate Reggie Miller(I hate Karl Malone...maybe Bill Laimbeer...briefly 1-2 others). I will explain the nature of my opposition to the idea hes some great player shortly. Im gonna go get some kinda burger from jack in the box and try to explain.

To save you from typing a whole lot of txt I agree that he wasnt a great player, just a good one that had some great moments

[Kblaze8855]

To save you from typing a whole lot of txt I agree that he wasnt a great player, just a good one that had some great moments

Well if my reasoning were based on your opinion you saying that would save me the time. But it really isnt. Mostly because I believe you to be different from the people generally talking about Reggie.

Difference is...I believe you know something about him and probably watched him play.

Reggie Miller is one of the most "You dont know shit....why are you talking to me?" athletes of all time because his fame is massive, his exploits are well known from a few major ones, and aside from them he did little to get any attention....which is why most people talking about him in places like this dont remember the vast majority of his career. But what they do remember seeing? Very impressive.

So it paints a very wrong picture. Some guy who is 20(says they were in high school a couple years ago in the non basketball forum) tells me I underrate Reggies ability to this and that and that he was a winner his whole career.

Now....aside from the fact he was probably wetting the bed until 1998 and remembers nothing in question...

What comes to mind is sitting in person watching Reggie lose and have team after team fail to matter. If you are older than maybe 25 you might remember when division rivals mattered. When a team might go pop bottles and celebrate the game they locked up the division lead. Have banner celebrations and all because...winning the division mattered.

This is the time I learned about Reggie Miller.

It was us(Bulls), the Pacers, Pistons, Cavs, Hawks, Bucks, and so on. A division game was kinda like a big deal. I watched Reggie Miller from rookie to old vet off the bench. Every step of the way. Hes the first generation of player I have vivid full memory of from first couple times they played in the league right up to the night they retire. I came up as a bigtime fan as Reggie turned into a bigtime player. I existed before that. I remember before Reggie...watched before him..but around the time Reggie came in...I remember those times as well as I remember this season. It was when I really really paid attention to the small things the way real fans do.

And the Pacers....were also rans. Not league wide. But in the division. A powerhouse division to be fair. But they were not taken serious. Reggie was at his best late 80s/early 90s. I sat and laughed a month or two ago at some kid on here telling me Reggie did nothing but win in his prime as if he wasnt 28 or 29 before he won anything. And when I say "won" I mean like...led a team that justified any attention. He didnt actually win anything.

But he came into the casual fans attention for losing to the Knicks in dramatic fashion(his usual way of standing out...lose in dramatic fashion).

But nobody just ranked him as some great player. He wasnt some all NBA type year to year. Not even third team. Behind Eddie Jones, Terrell Brandon, Spre, and many others people act like hes better than in retrospect.

But its as if none of that happened. I watched the best Reggie there was. And it wasnt mid/late 90s pick your spots 1-2 big shots and lose Reggie. I remember when Reggie had a little athletic ability and might do his shitty little 2 hand dunk in traffic here and there. When he didnt just come off screens. When he got it one on one and made a quick move. Pullup jumper off the dribble reggie. Post you up fake one way fade the other, shoot 5 posessions in a row Reggie, "You will respect me..." Reggie talking shit.

But that Reggie turned into play my part Reggie and while he wasnt really shooting less he sure as hell wasnt the same focus off the offense. He had theb all maybe half as much and got plenty of plays run for him....that didnt end up in touches because he didnt get it when he wasnt open anymore.

And I dont know if its by chance or what but....when Reggie stopped being the focal point the Pacers started winning. Larry Brown came in and saw that Reggie was not gonna get them anywhere as a real take it over scorer. He had to pick his spots. Larry is on record many times saying he had to change how Reggie played.

Reggie was not good enough to lead a team the way great players do...but he did try. Larry said this:





"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."



Glance at this:



<H1>BASKETBALL; Brown Has His Pacers Relishing Their Feat



By IRA BERKOW
Published: May 06, 1994

The way Larry Brown remembers it, the first thing he said to Reggie Miller, after Brown had been named head coach of the Indiana Pacers last summer, was, "Reggie, you're not going to want to hear this, but. . . ."

The way Reggie Miller, the star guard and high scorer of the Pacers, remembers it, Brown said, "Reggie, you're going to have to make sacrifices. . . ."

Turns out that Miller did not mind hearing it at all, and that he did make sacrifices -- passing up shots to feed teammates, playing serious defense, accepting the role of the coach's chief punishment taker -- for what was to be the common goal of Brown, Miller and the rest of the Indiana Pacers: success in the National Basketball Association playoffs. Upset Sweep of Magic
Monday night, some nine months after Brown and Miller first spoke, the team completed a feat that no Indiana team in the N.B.A. had ever performed. They won a playoff series, a first-round, three-game sweep of the favored Orlando Magic.

</H1>


Its clear Larry knew that Reggie wasnt the kind of player who could win with individual brilliance si he asked him to take a step back.

[Kblaze8855]

They start winning partly because the asked LESS of Reggie...and people now come telling me Reggie entered his prime at 30 and acting like he was a winner all along? He BECAME a winner when they stopped letting him be what people seem convinced he is....

They saw he wasnt actually a dominant player and made him stop trying to be.

But now....some kid is gonna tell me what Reggie could do if he ____. That hes top 50 all time citing wins...when at his best...doing all he could...he was on a team going nowhere? A team that finally won something when a brilliant coach just sat him down and told him he has to take a step back as a scorer?

And the longer we get from it happening the more people act like he was the key. some bigtime leader because of 4 shots they remember.

Reggie...at his individual best...wasnt winning anything. And he didnt become a winner because he came into his prime. He became one when Larry Brown pretty much made him stop trying to be something he isnt.

But now....kids and people who were 5 at the time wanna tell me hes.....something he never was? Something he tried to be and failed?

Reggie...was a good player. He never had it in him to carry a team great player style. But now hes top 50 to some leaving out MVPs and guys who led teams to titles?

Reggie is the greatest example of revisionist history in basketball. He became great in retrospect in like 2003 and the Reggie I remember talking shit and losing is some bigtime winner because his team made him take a step back so they could win without his attempted hero ball.......

Difference between the two reggies was Reggie winning just accepted a lesser role because he didnt have it in him to win the way real greats often have.

But now...hes top 50. Hes better than Ray. Only MJ and Bird compare because Reggie is gonna come through down the stretch...hes gonna take over and blah blah blah....

Nevermind the years he was trying to do that and failing.

Never happened.

Reggie just won. Even though he never actually won. Hes a winner....

Even though what little winning he did....the key was accepting that he couldnt win being leaned on the way great scorers are.

But it doesnt matter. He hit 4 shots people remember...so hes a great scorer and leader.

And he gets better and better...in retrospect...as people know less and less about him.

Just rubs me the wrong way.

[Smoke117]

They start winning partly because the asked LESS of Reggie...and people now come telling me Reggie entered his prime at 30 and acting like he was a winner all along? He BECAME a winner when they stopped letting him be what people seem convinced he is....

They saw he wasnt actually a dominant player and made him stop trying to be.

But now....some kid is gonna tell me what Reggie could do if he ____. That hes top 50 all time citing wins...when at his best...doing all he could...he was on a team going nowhere? A team that finally won something when a brilliant coach just sat him down and told him he has to take a step back as a scorer?

And the longer we get from it happening the more people act like he was the key. some bigtime leader because of 4 shots they remember.

Reggie...at his individual best...wasnt winning anything. And he didnt become a winner because he came into his prime. He became one when Larry Brown pretty much made him stop trying to be something he isnt.

But now....kids and people who were 5 at the time wanna tell me hes.....something he never was? Something he tried to be and failed?

Reggie...was a good player. He never had it in him to carry a team great player style. But now hes top 50 to some leaving out MVPs and guys who led teams to titles?

Reggie is the greatest example of revisionist history in basketball. He became great in retrospect in like 2003 and the Reggie I remember talking shit and losing is some bigtime winner because his team made him take a step back so they could win without his attempted hero ball.......

Difference between the two reggies was Reggie winning just accepted a lesser role because he didnt have it in him to win the way real greats often have.

But now...hes top 50. Hes better than Ray. Only MJ and Bird compare because Reggie is gonna come through down the stretch...hes gonna take over and blah blah blah....

Nevermind the years he was trying to do that and failing.

Never happened.

Reggie just won. Even though he never actually won. Hes a winner....

Even though what little winning he did....the key was accepting that he couldnt win being leaned on the way great scorers are.

But it doesnt matter. He hit 4 shots people remember...so hes a great scorer and leader.

And he gets better and better...in retrospect...as people know less and less about him.

Just rubs me the wrong way.

:applause:

[NugzHeat3]

Excellent posts by KBlaze.

Larry Brown is also on record for saying Derrick McKey was the best player on the Pacers in the mid 90s and he's said so on multiple occasions as well as saying Miller wasn't a leader at all. Guys like Phil Jackson also said McKey was the best player and teammates have also stated he was the most important player on the team.

[Bigsmoke]

> Mitch Richmond, Kevin Johnson, Paul Pierce, Alonzo Mourning

:biggums:

reggie miller can shoot threes better than Paul Pierce and Pierce himself an all time great three point shooter

[Smoke117]

:biggums:

Ray Allen can shoot threes better than Paul Pierce and Pierce himself an all time great three point shooter


Wow, thanks for adding so much to the discussion. :rolleyes: I'm a Celtics fan and Pierce is hardly a name to come up in an discussion of all time great three point shooters.

[Reggie43]

They start winning partly because the asked LESS of Reggie...and people now come telling me Reggie entered his prime at 30 and acting like he was a winner all along? He BECAME a winner when they stopped letting him be what people seem convinced he is....

They saw he wasnt actually a dominant player and made him stop trying to be.

But now....some kid is gonna tell me what Reggie could do if he ____. That hes top 50 all time citing wins...when at his best...doing all he could...he was on a team going nowhere? A team that finally won something when a brilliant coach just sat him down and told him he has to take a step back as a scorer?

And the longer we get from it happening the more people act like he was the key. some bigtime leader because of 4 shots they remember.

Reggie...at his individual best...wasnt winning anything. And he didnt become a winner because he came into his prime. He became one when Larry Brown pretty much made him stop trying to be something he isnt.

But now....kids and people who were 5 at the time wanna tell me hes.....something he never was? Something he tried to be and failed?

Reggie...was a good player. He never had it in him to carry a team great player style. But now hes top 50 to some leaving out MVPs and guys who led teams to titles?

Reggie is the greatest example of revisionist history in basketball. He became great in retrospect in like 2003 and the Reggie I remember talking shit and losing is some bigtime winner because his team made him take a step back so they could win without his attempted hero ball.......

Difference between the two reggies was Reggie winning just accepted a lesser role because he didnt have it in him to win the way real greats often have.

But now...hes top 50. Hes better than Ray. Only MJ and Bird compare because Reggie is gonna come through down the stretch...hes gonna take over and blah blah blah....

Nevermind the years he was trying to do that and failing.

Never happened.

Reggie just won. Even though he never actually won. Hes a winner....

Even though what little winning he did....the key was accepting that he couldnt win being leaned on the way great scorers are.

But it doesnt matter. He hit 4 shots people remember...so hes a great scorer and leader.

And he gets better and better...in retrospect...as people know less and less about him.

Just rubs me the wrong way.

They start winning because they asked less of him?

Of course they asked less of him because thats around the time that the other pacer players were beginning to develop and got better and better. He knew he had to share shots with Rik Smits and he knew he had to defer some of the ballhandling duties to Mark Jackson simply because they were very good players on their own right.

Jordan for example started winning when pippen started to develop and they asked less of him because they knew he can be relied on to take some of the scoring, ballhandling and defensive responsibilities off Michael which was only natural.

For me one of the best traits Miller has is his willingnes to defer to teammates and sacrifice his game for the good of the team. He let other players on his teams develop by not demanding the ball too much and let them get their shots.

To be honest, I dont really believe Reggie was a great clutch player compared to other greats. What he does in the playoffs is simply just shooting more and showing his natural scoring ability. I think he shoots more to take pressure off his other teammates who may not be ready for the big game.

Reggie has too many intangibles going for him that its really hard to gauge him as a player. All the players you listed like Terrell Brandon, Eddie jones, Sprewell etc are all really better than him in terms of basketball ability but do you really think they can replicate the same amount of success Reggie had if they take his place? Eddie jones is not leading the pacers against the Magic, Knicks and Bulls in the playoffs that for sure.

I somewhat understand where your opinion of Reggie is coming from and most of it are very true and I respect that. But when you and some other people say that he is not even comparable or on the same level as players like Allen, pierce, sprewell etc, people he has outplayed in the playoffs thats the time I react.

All in all its nice to know where your "hate" for Miller is coming from, even though my views certainly didnt stop you from writing your essays which is a very good read despite the difference of opinions.

[Reggie43]

Excellent posts by KBlaze.

Larry Brown is also on record for saying Derrick McKey was the best player on the Pacers in the mid 90s and he's said so on multiple occasions as well as saying Miller wasn't a leader at all. Guys like Phil Jackson also said McKey was the best player and teammates have also stated he was the most important player on the team.

How about some links on the quotes? While I do agree that Mckey was a most important part of the pacers and was the most versatile one he certainly wasnt the best player. He was the glue guy that kept things together because of his multifaceted game which no other pacer can match. Its somewhat like the same impact that Lamar Odom brought to the lakers championship runs.
While the gm was castigated for trading detlef for mckey, I do believe that the pacers wouldnt be as succesful in the mid 90s with schrempf. The intangibles that Mckey brought together with the defense and versatility he brought was what was needed at the time.
Miller was more of an emotional leader, a leader that inspired teammates through his game and antics on the court. The more vocal leader on the pacers I believe was mark jackson while Dale Davis led them in toughness on the court

[NugzHeat3]

How about some links on the quotes? While I do agree that Mckey was a most important part of the pacers and was the most versatile one he certainly wasnt the best player. He was the glue guy that kept things together because of his multifaceted game which no other pacer can match. Its somewhat like the same impact that Lamar Odom brought to the lakers championship runs.
While the gm was castigated for trading detlef for mckey, I do believe that the pacers wouldnt be as succesful in the mid 90s with schrempf. The intangibles that Mckey brought together with the defense and versatility he brought was what was needed at the time.
Miller was more of an emotional leader, a leader that inspired teammates through his game and antics on the court. The more vocal leader on the pacers I believe was mark jackson while Dale Davis led them in toughness on the court
Here are the quotes:


In Indiana, coach Larry Brown, the eternal pessimist, blames his team's lack of a leader for the Pacers' unexpected stay around mediocrity. "Reggie (Miller) is not a leader, not at all," Brown says.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1995_1316238


In fact, Bulls coach Phil Jackson voted for McKey for the All-Star team, saying: "He's their best player. He's the reason they are where they are."
The Pacers also note that Dennis Rodman has his most trouble rebounding against taller power forwards with long arms, such as Dale Davis. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-02-18/sports/9602180212_1_bulls-reggie-miller-pacers-president-donnie-walsh


The Associated Press
April 11, 1995
...
And Indiana's defense starts with Derrick McKey.

"He's as good a defender as there is in the league," coach Larry Brown said. "He's a great all-around player. I don't know where we'd be without him."

"He's the best. He defends every night. He does whatever we need him to do to win," Brown said.

While Brown and teammates call McKey the most important player on the team, McKey was characteristically modest about his play following the win over Charlotte.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YLFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0A4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3338,2835313&dq=derrick+mckey+best+player+pacers&hl=en


Washington Post - Dec 20, 1995
Coach Larry Brown, who has referred to McKey as "our best player," said he was " thrilled to death."


Derrick McKey has settled in with the Pacers and become the catalyst through which all offensive plays are run. "People used to tell me Derrick didn't come to play every night," said [Larry Brown]. "He may not have come to play offensively, but he's come to play defensively in every single game I've seen. He's the best all-around player I've ever coached." Remember, Brown coached both Danny Manning and Robinson
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/61932229.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+13%2C+1994&author=Jackie+MacMullan%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=MVP+at+this+point%3F+Edge+to+Olajuwon&pqatl=google


I'm not saying I agree with this by the way, just that the man who coached him and is one of the most keep it real coaches in NBA history had this to say about him.

Of course, there's context behind these quotes as well. Well, not context but a certain reasoning and bias behind them. We all know Brown is a very defensive-oriented coach and considering how much he praises McKey calling him the best defender in the league, it doesn't surprise me he calls him the best player on the team too.

I'm sure his teammates calling him the most important player might have something to do with the fact that he shouldered more responsibility than anyone else on the team. Each guy on the team had specific roles like Smits providing scoring on the low block, Jackson providing playmaking, Miller chipping in with scoring, Davis boys with rebounding and defense, Byron Scott with shooting, Haywoode Workman for defensive purposes like ball pressure though he was a terrible shooter (kind of like Eric Snow, another PG Larry Brown coached and was high on) ect. But collectively, McKey probably covered more areas than anyone else because of how well rounded and versatile his game was so I can see why someone would call him the most important player on the team.

Back in Seattle in the early 90s when Seattle used to run the Bob Kloppenburg SOS pressure defense, McKey's defense was very crucial to how effective it was. He had long arms, good lateral quickness, excellent rotations, trapped well on often forcing a deflection because of his height and length and recovered well in time. He could also guard SGs-PFs and hold his own. Nate McMillan said a big reason Seattle lost in 1994 was because they missed his leadership. Offensively, I think he was a bit too unselfish, often to the point where it was detrimental. He could post up and had a decent enough turnaround jumper and jump hook across the lane, could put the ball on the floor and ran point forward as a rare occurrence as well though he didn't do this a lot in Indiana with Jackson/Workman bringing the ball up the floor. His defense was actually a big reason Indiana traded for him because Brown is a huge fan of defensive minded players. He's a glue guy like you said.

Personally, I agree with you and think Miller was the best player on the team, not by much but its clear enough. Its a case of the more (not saying completely) one dimensional player being better than the more complete player just by the virtue of his scoring and pressuring the defense.

[Reggie43]

Here are the quotes:



http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1995_1316238

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-02-18/sports/9602180212_1_bulls-reggie-miller-pacers-president-donnie-walsh

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YLFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0A4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3338,2835313&dq=derrick+mckey+best+player+pacers&hl=en




http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/61932229.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+13%2C+1994&author=Jackie+MacMullan%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=MVP+at+this+point%3F+Edge+to+Olajuwon&pqatl=google


I'm not saying I agree with this by the way, just that the man who coached him and is one of the most keep it real coaches in NBA history had this to say about him.

Of course, there's context behind these quotes as well. Well, not context but a certain reasoning and bias behind them. We all know Brown is a very defensive-oriented coach and considering how much he praises McKey calling him the best defender in the league, it doesn't surprise me he calls him the best player on the team too.

I'm sure his teammates calling him the most important player might have something to do with the fact that he shouldered more responsibility than anyone else on the team. Each guy on the team had specific roles like Smits providing scoring on the low block, Jackson providing playmaking, Miller chipping in with scoring, Davis boys with rebounding and defense, Byron Scott with shooting, Haywoode Workman for defensive purposes like ball pressure though he was a terrible shooter (kind of like Eric Snow, another PG Larry Brown coached and was high on) ect. But collectively, McKey probably covered more areas than anyone else because of how well rounded and versatile his game was so I can see why someone would call him the most important player on the team.

Back in Seattle in the early 90s when Seattle used to run the Bob Kloppenburg SOS pressure defense, McKey's defense was very crucial to how effective it was. He had long arms, good lateral quickness, excellent rotations, trapped well on often forcing a deflection because of his height and length and recovered well in time. He could also guard SGs-PFs and hold his own. Nate McMillan said a big reason Seattle lost in 1994 was because they missed his leadership. Offensively, I think he was a bit too unselfish, often to the point where it was detrimental. He could post up and had a decent enough turnaround jumper and jump hook across the lane, could put the ball on the floor and ran point forward as a rare occurrence as well though he didn't do this a lot in Indiana with Jackson/Workman bringing the ball up the floor. His defense was actually a big reason Indiana traded for him because Brown is a huge fan of defensive minded players. He's a glue guy like you said.

Personally, I agree with you and think Miller was the best player on the team, not by much but its clear enough. Its a case of the more (not saying completely) one dimensional player being better than the more complete player just by the virtue of his scoring and pressuring the defense.

Wow thanks very much for the quotes and the links, very nice post and insight :applause:

Those 90s Pacers teams to me had really good players which were all equally important to the success of the team. While most of the highlights were provided by Miller, those pacers are not winning any games without the post play of Smits, the rebounding and defense of the Davis Brothers, Mark jacksons floor leadership and the versatility and defense provided by Mckey. Too bad that Mckey was getting past his prime when they had their best teams in 1998. All the versatility, rebounding, defense and hustle is what that 98 pacers teams lacked that Mckey could have provided to get over the hump

[NugzHeat3]

Wow thanks very much for the quotes and the links, very nice post and insight :applause:

Those 90s Pacers teams to me had really good players which were all equally important to the success of the team. While most of the highlights were provided by Miller, those pacers are not winning any games without the post play of Smits, the rebounding and defense of the Davis Brothers, Mark jacksons floor leadership and the versatility and defense provided by Mckey. Too bad that Mckey was getting past his prime when they had their best teams in 1998. All the versatility, rebounding, defense and hustle is what that 98 pacers teams lacked that Mckey could have provided to get over the hump

They'd probably have a better shot but when it came down down to that 4th quarter of game 7, they just looked overmatched.

Bulls just seemed determined and playing harder with the way they crashed the offensive glass, how Jordan won the jumpball with Smits igniting the momentum switch and started attacking the paint too since his shot had been off the whole night which opened up offensive rebounding opportunities even if he missed because they were sending multiple defenders at him.

Rebounding was the one issue on that Pacer team and I'm not sure prime, healthy McKey solves that though he does give them another ball handler alongside Rose and Best since Jackson was struggling against Pippen and his did guard Jordan for stretches in that series so his job could've been better. But that again brings up the issue of his playing time since he was backing up Mullin and I think even if he was in his prime, he'd probably still come off the bench. He was pretty unselfish and I get the feeling they'd have Mullin start and bring McKey's defense, energy and versatility off the bench. Rose used to get some minutes at the 3 too when Miller was in the game and handle the ball a bit so that limits McKey's impact somewhat. If Brown was coaching, he'd have started though. He loves defense.

They struggled offensively too. Reggie was having a great game till the 4th with Harper guarding him forcing Jordan to take him and he did a great job sticking with him off-ball and denying him the ball. I don't think he ended up scoring in that quarter. Smits had a good quarter but at times, they couldn't get him the ball since Bulls did a good job fronting. They just had that extra gear that Indiana was lacking.

[Reggie43]

They'd probably have a better shot but when it came down down to that 4th quarter of game 7, they just looked overmatched.

Bulls just seemed determined and playing harder with the way they crashed the offensive glass, how Jordan won the jumpball with Smits igniting the momentum switch and started attacking the paint too since his shot had been off the whole night which opened up offensive rebounding opportunities even if he missed because they were sending multiple defenders at him.

Rebounding was the one issue on that Pacer team and I'm not sure prime, healthy McKey solves that though he does give them another ball handler alongside Rose and Best since Jackson was struggling against Pippen and his did guard Jordan for stretches in that series so his job could've been better. But that again brings up the issue of his playing time since he was backing up Mullin and I think even if he was in his prime, he'd probably still come off the bench. He was pretty unselfish and I get the feeling they'd have Mullin start and bring McKey's defense, energy and versatility off the bench. Rose used to get some minutes at the 3 too when Miller was in the game and handle the ball a bit so that limits McKey's impact somewhat. If Brown was coaching, he'd have started though. He loves defense.

They struggled offensively too. Reggie was having a great game till the 4th with Harper guarding him forcing Jordan to take him and he did a great job sticking with him off-ball and denying him the ball. I don't think he ended up scoring in that quarter. Smits had a good quarter but at times, they couldn't get him the ball since Bulls did a good job fronting. They just had that extra gear that Indiana was lacking.

While they might have not beaten the bulls at the time, they were far from overmatched. I believe they even had a lead in the 4th quarter and was always only down by a few points. It took a very good game from Kukoc in the 4th to hold the pacers off plus all the hustle plays the bulls collectively had. I think Reggies struggles in the 4th was more on the fact that he was the primary defender on Jordan throughout the game thus sapping his energy for the crucial stretch. I might be wrong though because its been awhile since Ive watched that game.

[GoRapz]

:lol @ you guys ranking him top 50, 75, 100. Get a fukkin life u losers :roll:

[pauk]

Killer Miller >>>>>>>>>>>

[NugzHeat3]

While they might have not beaten the bulls at the time, they were far from overmatched. I believe they even had a lead in the 4th quarter and was always only down by a few points. It took a very good game from Kukoc in the 4th to hold the pacers off plus all the hustle plays the bulls collectively had. I think Reggies struggles in the 4th was more on the fact that he was the primary defender on Jordan throughout the game thus sapping his energy for the crucial stretch. I might be wrong though because its been awhile since Ive watched that game.
You're right. They had a lead in the 4th till the Kerr three off the Jordan/Smits jumpball created a momentum shift. Kukoc had a huge 3rd quarter but I don't remember him doing much in the 4th. That's when I felt they were overmatched and just couldn't stop Chicago from getting asto all the loose balls and boards. I didn't mean they were overmatched for the series. They were pretty talented, deep and balanced and gave them a tough battle.

You may be right about Miller catching fatigue and part of it did have to do with their strategy as well since they were looking to get the ball to Smits down low.

[Reggie43]

You're right. They had a lead in the 4th till the Kerr three off the Jordan/Smits jumpball created a momentum shift. Kukoc had a huge 3rd quarter but I don't remember him doing much in the 4th. That's when I felt they were overmatched and just couldn't stop Chicago from getting asto all the loose balls and boards. I didn't mean they were overmatched for the series. They were pretty talented, deep and balanced and gave them a tough battle.

You may be right about Miller catching fatigue and part of it did have to do with their strategy as well since they were looking to get the ball to Smits down low.

Looking back at the recap/ boxscores of the game, Kukoc did have a big 3rd quarter scoring 21 points for the game but I always remembered and felt that he had 30+ because points were so hard to come by that game.

Youre right, the Pacers were overmatched in terms of having the will to win and the desire to go after those loose balls and rebounds. I really gained a lot of respect for Jordan and Pippen in that game because even if they both had very bad games for their standards they still found a way to persevere and win

[Kblaze8855]

I always find it funny how people act like im out of line with my Reggie related comments but virtually everyone who clearly knows something about those Pacer teams seems to agree with me on a basic level.

Not like I said the guy wasnt a star. And a lot of the names its been said I think hes on the level of(Cuttino mobley for one) are misunderstandings.

I just happened to watch his entire career and noticed that when he was actually trying to play superstar ball his team couldnt make use of it. His coach says the exact same thing. coach and other players suggest hes not their best/most important player in the winning years.

But im out of line while idiots rank him as more clutch than Bill russell, Jerry West, Kobe, and Wade and others claim only Kobe these days has his offensive skill...

The people who know something about the subject matter are easy to spot in these topics. You have:



Those 90s Pacers teams to me had really good players which were all equally important to the success of the team. While most of the highlights were provided by Miller, those pacers are not winning any games without the post play of Smits, the rebounding and defense of the Davis Brothers, Mark jacksons floor leadership and the versatility and defense provided by Mckey. Too bad that Mckey was getting past his prime when they had their best teams in 1998. All the versatility, rebounding, defense and hustle is what that 98 pacers teams lacked that Mckey could have provided to get over the hump

And then you have:



Killer Miller >>>>>>>>>>>


I wonder who actually cared about the pacers enough to watch them play at the time in question....