Reggie Miller as a "First Option", Rik Smits, and 90's Shooting Guards

[Roundball_Rock]

Time has been kind to Reggie Miller. He is discussed as this great “#1 option” and “alpha dog” etc. today despite never finishing top 10 in MVP voting and never making an all-NBA 1st or 2nd team. Moreover, this is odd since anyone who watched him play knows the hype does not match the reality. The Pacers ran more offense through Smits, not Miller, when both were on the court. Yet Miller is spoken of as you would speak of a 27-30 PPG type scorer.

Averages for Miller and Smits (1994-1999)

Per game: Miller 20.1 PPG on 13.8 FGA, Smits 16.8 PPG on 13.4 FGA
Per 36: Smits 21.1 PPG on 16.9 FGA, Miller 21.0 PPG on 14.4 FGA
Usage: Smits 27.8%, Miller 24.4%

The difference is Miller averaged 34.5 MPG and Smits 28.7 MPG (Smits averaged 3.5 fouls per game as a center).

How does Miller’s usage compare to that of other star SG’s of his era?

Miller’s Usage Compared to Contemporaries at Shooting Guard

Jordan (90’-98’): 33.3%
Drexler (88’-94’): 26.7%
Richmond (92’-98’): 27.0%
Miller (90’-98’): 23.5%
Dumars (90’-95’): 23.5%
Starks (92’-96’): 23.9%
Hornacek (90’-95’): 20.8%
Hawkins (90’-93’): 22.7%
Gill (92’-97’): 23.1%

This data is striking. Miller lags behind the first option SG’s and is comparable to SG’s who were 2nd or 3rd options on their teams. This includes one HOF player, Dumars, but also merely good players who weren’t stars like Starks, Hornacek, Hawkins, and Gill. This is “alpha alpha” usage?

How about another SG he is often compared to, but from another era?

Usage for Klay Thompson (15'-19'): 25.9%
Usage for Reggie Miller (90’-98’): 23.5%

These are not the numbers of an "alpha" who is "carrying" a team. He was a great player but one with a limited skill set and that constrained what the Pacers could do with him.

Yearly Data for Miller and Smits (1994-1999)

Per game 94’: Miller 19.9 PPG on 13.2 FGA, Smits 15.7 PPG on 11.8 FGA
Per 36 94’: Miller 21.5 PPG on 14.2 FGA, Smits 20.9 PPG on 15.7 FGA
Usage: Smits 25.0%, Miller 23.5%

Per game 95’: Miller 19.6 PPG on 13.5 FGA, Smits 17.9 PPG on 13.6 FGA
Per 36 95’: Miller 21.5 PPG on 14.8 FGA, Smits 21.2 PPG on 16.0 FGA
Usage: Smits 27.2%, Miller 24.6%

Per game 96’: Miller 21.1 PPG on 14.0 FGA, Smits 18.5 PPG on 14.2 FGA
Per 36 96’: Miller 22.1 PPG on 14.6 FGA, Smits 22.0 PPG on 16.9 FGA
Usage: Smits 28.6%, Miller 25.8%

Per game 97’: Miller 21.6 PPG on 15.4 FGA, Smits 17.1 PPG on 14.1 FGA
Per 36 97’: Miller 21.3 PPG on 15.1 FGA, Smits 21.0 PPG on 17.4 FGA
Usage: Smits 29.1%, Miller 25.2%

Per game 98’: Miller 19.5 on 13.3 FGA, Smits 16.7 on 14.2 FGA
Per 36 98’: Smits 21.0 on 17.9 FGA, Miller 20.3 on 13.9 FGA
Usage: Smits 29.2%, Miller 23.9%

Per game 99’: Miller 18.4 on 13.4 FGA, Smits 14.9 on 12.9 FGA
Per 36 99’: Smits 20.6 on 17.9 FGA, Miller 18.5 on 13.5 FGA
Usage: Smits 28.9%, Miller 22.9%

[juju151111]

Time has been kind to Reggie Miller. He is discussed as this great “#1 option” and “alpha dog” etc. today despite never finishing top 10 in MVP voting and never making an all-NBA 1st or 2nd team. Moreover, this is odd since anyone who watched him play knows the hype does not match the reality. The Pacers ran more offense through Smits, not Miller, when both were on the court. Yet Miller is spoken of as you would speak of a 27-30 PPG type scorer.

Averages for Miller and Smits (1994-1999)

Per game: Miller 20.1 PPG on 13.8 FGA, Smits 16.8 PPG on 13.4 FGA
Per 36: Smits 21.1 PPG on 16.9 FGA, Miller 21.0 PPG on 14.4 FGA
Usage: Smits 27.8%, Miller 24.4%

The difference is Miller averaged 34.5 MPG and Smits 28.7 MPG (Smits averaged 3.5 fouls per game as a center).

How does Miller’s usage compare to that of other star SG’s of his era?

Miller’s Usage Compared to Contemporaries at Shooting Guard

Jordan (90’-98’): 33.3%
Drexler (88’-94’): 26.7%
Richmond (92’-98’): 27.0%
Miller (90’-98’): 23.5%
Dumars (90’-95’): 23.5%
Starks (92’-96’): 23.9%
Hornacek (90’-95’): 20.8%
Hawkins (90’-93’): 22.7%
Gill (92’-97’): 23.1%

This data is striking. Miller lags behind the first option SG’s and is comparable to SG’s who were 2nd or 3rd options on their teams. This includes one HOF player, Dumars, but also merely good players who weren’t stars like Starks, Hornacek, Hawkins, and Gill. This is “alpha alpha” usage?

How about another SG he is often compared to, but from another era?

Usage for Klay Thompson (15'-19'): 25.9%
Usage for Reggie Miller (90’-98’): 23.5%

Yearly Data for Miller and Smits (1994-1999)

Per game 94’: Miller 19.9 PPG on 13.2 FGA, Smits 15.7 PPG on 11.8 FGA
Per 36 94’: Miller 21.5 PPG on 14.2 FGA, Smits 20.9 PPG on 15.7 FGA
Usage: Smits 25.0%, Miller 23.5%

Per game 95’: Miller 19.6 PPG on 13.5 FGA, Smits 17.9 PPG on 13.6 FGA
Per 36 95’: Miller 21.5 PPG on 14.8 FGA, Smits 21.2 PPG on 16.0 FGA
Usage: Smits 27.2%, Miller 24.6%

Per game 96’: Miller 21.1 PPG on 14.0 FGA, Smits 18.5 PPG on 14.2 FGA
Per 36 96’: Miller 22.1 PPG on 14.6 FGA, Smits 22.0 PPG on 16.9 FGA
Usage: Smits 28.6%, Miller 25.8%

Per game 97’: Miller 21.6 PPG on 15.4 FGA, Smits 17.1 PPG on 14.1 FGA
Per 36 97’: Miller 21.3 PPG on 15.1 FGA, Smits 21.0 PPG on 17.4 FGA
Usage: Smits 29.1%, Miller 25.2%

Per game 98’: Miller 19.5 on 13.3 FGA, Smits 16.7 on 14.2 FGA
Per 36 98’: Smits 21.0 on 17.9 FGA, Miller 20.3 on 13.9 FGA
Usage: Smits 29.2%, Miller 23.9%

Per game 99’: Miller 18.4 on 13.4 FGA, Smits 14.9 on 12.9 FGA
Per 36 99’: Smits 20.6 on 17.9 FGA, Miller 18.5 on 13.5 FGA
Usage: Smits 28.9%, Miller 22.9%
So what you just showed me is Miller top scorer and why you stop at 99. Lmao btw playoffs
94- Miller 23 ppg 7.5 BPM
94 smits - 16 ppg 0.1 BPM lmfao
95- 25.5ppg 6.9 Bpm
95- 20ppg 3.9 Lmfao

[HoopsNY]

So what you just showed me is Miller top scorer and why you stop at 99. Lmao btw playoffs
94- Miller 23 ppg 7.5 BPM
94 smits - 16 ppg 0.1 BPM lmfao
95- 25.5ppg 6.9 Bpm
95- 20ppg 3.9 Lmfao

Another tear down thread that serves no purpose other than maligning MJ's competition. What's next Roundball, a Miami Heat thread and how horrible of a team they were? I think you should go for the Cavs first.

[Roundball_Rock]

Damn, you guys are insecure. :oldlol: Miller is a HOF player; he wasn't what his reputation has ballooned to (which your failure to contest implicitly concedes).

I have a thread on Harden coming. I am sure that is part of a diabolical plot to take down MJ too!


So what you just showed me is Miller top scorer and why you stop at 99.

Smits' decline. :facepalm

Anyway, basketball fans discuss basketball on a basketball forum. Take your insecurity elsewhere and let real fans talk.

[RogueBorg]

Another tear down thread that serves no purpose other than maligning MJ's competition. What's next Roundball, a Miami Heat thread and how horrible of a team they were? I think you should go for the Cavs first.

Noticed most of Roundball's threads revolve around certain individual whose team's name starts with a C, ends with an O, and has HICAG in the middle.

No vacancy...living rent free

[RogueBorg]

Damn, you guys are insecure (especially since you, juju, are one of the people who led to the OP). :oldlol: Ignorance has to be corrected, whether it is about the Bulls or something else. Miller is a HOF player; he wasn't what his reputation has ballooned to.

I have a thread on Harden coming. I am sure that is part of a diabolical plot to take down MJ too!



Smits' decline. :facepalm

Aaaaaand another

[Roundball_Rock]

Aaaaaand another

Yes, Harden has to do with MJ. After all let's check the facts:

*Both play basketball
*Both score a lot
*Both are shooting guards

Dun, dun dun!

[tpols]

Reggie Miller has this cat more shook than he had Pippen at the FT line. :lol

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/InsecureDisguisedKoi-small.gif

[Reggie43]

It must be hard being a Jordan hater then pretending to like certain players to prove a point. Rooted against Jordan all my life but if you understand basketball you cant deny he is the goat because the man had no weakness. The only kink in the armor is probably his leadership style that needed support from Jackson and Pippen to be effective.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

I have heard Reggie Miller would be the best player in the league today.

[Carbine]

Reggie has his reputation for what he did in the playoffs, you know... Where the greats make their name.

For a 10+ year stretch he averaged 23.5 ppg in the playoffs, for that era a very respectable number. Not to mention the clutch moments he has, even against the Bulls. If he doesn't make that shot in 98 that series is done.

[Roundball_Rock]

I have heard Reggie Miller would be the best player in the league today.

Yeah, exactly the type of talk that led to the OP. So he was this superstar by reputation but he wasn't even dominant within his own offense. He had the usage of guys like Hornacek.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Now Reggie Miller wasn't Indiana's best player?

What's next Rockball? Hakeem in Houston was just along for the ride? :lol

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Yeah, exactly the type of talk that led to the OP. So he was this superstar by reputation but he wasn't even dominant within his own offense. He had the usage of guys like Hornacek.

Having low usage is good it means you are not a bully with the ball.

[Roundball_Rock]

Having low usage is good it means you are not a bully with the ball.

That's one way to look at it but the reason his usage was (relatively) low was he was a limited player. There was only so much offense you could run through Miller as a scorer and he was not a playmaker.

Miller clearly was better than Smits--Miller is a HOF player and Smits a 1x all-star--but Smits was a skilled 7'4" center who allowed Indiana to run offense through in the post. They had good synergy with Smit's skilled game on the inside and Miller's all-time great shooting on the outside.

[PP34Deuce]

Reggie Miller in todays game is Klay Thompson without the defense. Even with rule changes, except for his first 3 years, Reggie was not a penetrating guard.

Klay Thompson/ Michael Redd are like the 2010's, 2000's version of what Reggie was in the 90's.

[tpols]

Reggie has his reputation for what he did in the playoffs, you know... Where the greats make their name.

For a 10+ year stretch he averaged 23.5 ppg in the playoffs, for that era a very respectable number. Not to mention the clutch moments he has, even against the Bulls. If he doesn't make that shot in 98 that series is done.

it's not just the ppg, but the efficiency. Reggie had GOAT efficiency, way better than playoff klay for example because klay cant draw fouls or manuever inside the line like reggie could.

Klay was a beta scorer by comparison.

You give reggie a player like stockton or even mark price and i guarantee he's ringing. Rik ****ing smits aint gonna cut it when other stars have better help.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

That's one way to look at it but the reason his usage was (relatively) low was he was a limited player. There was only so much offense you could run through Miller as a scorer and he was a non-entity as a playmaker.

Miller clearly was better than Smits--Miller is a HOF player and Smits a 1x all-star--but Smits was a skilled center who allowed Indiana to run offense through in the post. They had good synergy with Smit's skilled game on the inside and Miller's all-time great shooting on the outside.

Yes. Smits was a great player too.

[j3lademaster]

Reggie is definitely one of those guys who’re better than their stats suggest. He’s remembered fondly because he has some of the most iconic clutch moments in nba history.

That said, tough to judge as a player. In terms of straight carrying a team I don’t think he’s quite at that superstar level, but I can’t think of more than a few guys I want taking the last shot over him... in NBA history.

Miller got his points in the flow of the offense and you can insert him onto any team and they’ll improve. While I wouldn’t say he’s a great defender, he was definitely pesky and decent on that end. And the guy doesn’t stop moving. He’s in rarified air if we’re discussing goat offball movement. And the guy always performed in the playoffs.

[HoopsNY]

Damn, you guys are insecure. :oldlol: Miller is a HOF player; he wasn't what his reputation has ballooned to (which your failure to contest implicitly concedes).

I have a thread on Harden coming. I am sure that is part of a diabolical plot to take down MJ too!



Smits' decline. :facepalm

Anyway, basketball fans discuss basketball on a basketball forum. Take your insecurity elsewhere and let real fans talk.

Sorry but I don't spend every waking moment on this forum trying to tear down another player. At the most, I made a post about Kobe's playoff performances being overrated, but that was about it, and it certainly wasn't in an effort to tear his legacy down. I also don't create posts trying to gloat about MJ, either. I merely offer an alternative perspective to your essay posts as it's often riddled with selective data.

You on the other hand. You have an odd obsession with Mj "stans" and re-writing history, or at least, people's sentiments. If you think I'm the one that's insecure, then I don't know what to say. It's just very ironic that almost all of what you post seems to revolve around MJ. It's a odd counter to 3ball who does the same, only in the opposite direction.

[r0drig0lac]

It must be hard being a Jordan hater then pretending to like certain players to prove a point. Rooted against Jordan all my life but if you understand basketball you cant deny he is the goat because the man had no weakness. The only kink in the armor is probably his leadership style that needed support from Jackson and Pippen to be effective.

this

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie Miller in todays game is Klay Thompson without the defense. Even with rule changes, except for his first 3 years, Reggie was not a penetrating guard.

Klay Thompson/ Michael Redd are like the 2010's, 2000's version of what Reggie was in the 90's.

Exactly. Yet we don't talk about Klay like we talk about Reggie.


Smits was a great player too.

Overshadowed by playing in the same era as Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, and Mutumbo but if he played today he would easily be a perennial all-star.

I omitted Detlef Schrempf because I was focused on the time Indiana was a contender and Smits still a good player. FWIW, here is what Schrempf did alongside a prime Miller:

Schrempf (90-93'): 17.2 PPG on 11.4 FGA per game, 20.9% usage

So a solid #2 option but he wasn't commanded the usage that Smits could as a skilled center.

[ArbitraryWater]

Bro Reggie Miller and Rik Smits bro, FIERCE competition...

has anyone ever seen such strong competition in the 3rd year of a threepeat?

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie is definitely one of those guys who’re better than their stats suggest. He’s remembered fondly because he has some of the most iconic clutch moments in nba history.

That said, tough to judge as a player. In terms of straight carrying a team I don’t think he’s quite at that superstar level, but I can’t think of more than a few guys I want taking the last shot over him... in NBA history.

Miller got his points in the flow of the offense and you can insert him onto any team and they’ll improve. While I wouldn’t say he’s a great defender, he was definitely pesky and decent on that end. And the guy doesn’t stop moving. He’s in rarified air if we’re discussing goat offball movement. And the guy always performed in the playoffs.

Good points.

One caveat, his clutch moments came in the most favorable possible circumstances. If he did that against Cleveland and Milwaukee instead of New York and Chicago would we be talking about it the same way decades later? I doubt it.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Bro Reggie Miller and Rik Smits bro, FIERCE competition...

has anyone ever seen such strong competition in the 3rd year of a threepeat?

I am a big Pacers fan and also a Cavaliers fan as well. Our Cavaliers with LeBron would have had a tough time with those 90’s Pacers teams.

[j3lademaster]

I have heard Reggie Miller would be the best player in the league today.Who said this?

[Roundball_Rock]

Bro Reggie Miller and Rik Smits bro, FIERCE competition...

has anyone ever seen such strong competition in the 3rd year of a threepeat?

That ultimately is what capped their ceiling. In the 90's you could get far with Miller/Smits, provided you have some other solid role players (e.g., the Davis brothers, Jackson) but you aren't winning championships without a superstar.

Look at the best players on teams who won: Thomas, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq (00' but against Indiana). Then look at the the second best players on those teams: Dumars, Pippen, Thorpe, Drexler, Robinson, Kobe. Only Thorpe is comparable to Smits (Smits>Thorpe for the record) but Thorpe was playing with Hakeem, not Miller.

[j3lademaster]

Good points.

One caveat, his clutch moments came in the most favorable possible circumstances. If he did that against Cleveland and Milwaukee instead of New York and Chicago would we be talking about it the same way decades later? I doubt it.but they did come against ny... what like 7 pts in 8 sec? And that 3 did come right in Jordan’s face in the ECF. You can’t just take that away lol. It’s like me saying “well if Lebron lead all stat categories against the wizards and not golden state no one would care”

[Roundball_Rock]

Who said this?

You can see the superficial logic for that: Miller is an all-time great shooter, in this era threes are the coin of realm, etc. The problem with that notion is we basically have a real world version of Miller (on offense at least) in today's league: Klay Thompson and we know what he is.


but they did come against ny... what like 7 pts in 8 sec? And that 3 did come right in Jordan’s face in the ECF

Of course but it helps explain the delta between his reputation and his record. How are you the best player on a perennial contender and never a MVP candidate? He did not even record a top 10 MVP finish. It is because people understand what he was: a star with a clutch gene but not a superstar and not the type of player who warrants MVP consideration. You can't be MVP when you are ceding this much territory to Rik Smits.

It also helps that he works for TNT and remains visible. Drexler was a much better player than Miller but he is remembered much less today.

His game 7 performances were not great but those aren't remembered.

(Yeah 8 points in 9 seconds.)

[Reggie43]

Good points.

One caveat, his clutch moments came in the most favorable possible circumstances. If he did that against Cleveland and Milwaukee instead of New York and Chicago would we be talking about it the same way decades later? I doubt it.

Except he also had moments like that against Shaq/Penny Magic, Iverson's Sixers, Ray/Glen/Sam Bucks, Jason Kidds Nets and even his last year playing against the walker/pierce celtics at age 39. Klay and Michael fkn Redd dont have that type of resume especially as the franchise player in the playoffs

[andgar923]

That Pacers team must’ve been very special if Reggie wasn’t even their best player!!!

Kobe and others have mentioned how tough he was to defend so he must’ve been even better healthy and in his prime.

This Smits cat must’ve been a beast if he was the go to guy over a deadly cold blooded clutch player like Reggie.

Wowsers what a great squad they must’ve been.

Imagine a 7’2 big center that can post and shoot, with one of the deadliest shooters of all time playing today?

Great analysis once again!!!

[Roundball_Rock]

Except he also had moments like that against Shaq/Penny Magic, Iverson's Sixers, Ray/Glen/Sam Bucks, Jason Kidds Nets and even his last year playing against the walker/pierce celtics at age 39.

Case in point: people remember none of that. They remember the moments against New York and Chicago.

As to Klay, are you saying he hasn't had big playoff moments? The last we saw Klay he was dominating a NBA finals game...

[Reggie43]

How about the time when Indiana reached the Finals with Smits on his last legs and barely playing 20mins a night because of foot problems? Whats the excuse then?

Miller allowing Smits to be first option on his best years is a testament to how unselfish he was and those people who try to make it as a negative really dont follow the Pacers or understand team basketball.

Miller on his best year attempted 15.7 shots per game to get his 24points, is Chuck Person more important to the offense because he lead them with 16.1?

You probably dodged this on the other thread because it breaks your nonsense argument.

[Roundball_Rock]

...


Miller allowing Smits to be first option on his best years

Smits was not the first option. It was more like 1a/1b with Miller being 1a. Smits had his own limitations.


How about the time when Indiana reached the Finals with Smits on his last legs

You mean when Jalen Rose had become their leading scorer? :lol

[Reggie43]

Case in point: people remember none of that. They remember the moments against New York and Chicago.

As to Klay, are you saying he hasn't had big playoff moments? The last we saw Klay he was dominating a NBA finals game...

People who lived the moment remember that because he was having clutch moments and big games against most of the teams he faced.

Klay is a third option in their best years arguably their 4th best player who dont get the same defensive attention as the other stars is not comparable. He basically always gets the other teams 3rd best defender.

[Reggie43]

Smits was not the first option. It was more like 1a/1b with Miller being 1a. Smits had his own limitations.



You mean when Jalen Rose had become their leading scorer? :lol

Jalen Rose is the excuse :roll:

[Reggie43]

2000 playoffs Miller 24ppg .452 Rose 20.8ppg .437

[Roundball_Rock]

Rose replaced Smits and exceeded Smits--Smits never led the team in scoring. It is called context and history (serious people can't remove Smits and ignore Rose's emergence). I am sorry you are unable to find evidence to support your "belief" that Miller was this alpha alpha carrying the Pacers.


2000 playoffs Miller 24ppg .452 Rose 20.8ppg .437

Your own cherry picked sample shows them scoring about the same. So does this:

2000 finals:

Miller 24/3/4 on 41%
Rose 23/5/3 on 47%

[j3lademaster]

People who lived the moment remember that because he was having clutch moments and big games against most of the teams he faced.

Klay is a third option in their best years arguably their 4th best player who dont get the same defensive attention as the other stars is not comparable. He basically always gets the other teams 3rd best defender.yeah Klay’s not quite as good as Reggie, especially come playoff time. Klay benefits a lot off the spacing Curry creates, otoh Miller was the ultimate ‘spacer’ of his era. I also think the difference between Klay and Miller’s defense gets overblown, Klays not that much better. One can even argue Miller is a good playoff defender, had good stretches defending Penny and MJ.

[tpols]

Playoff comparison:


Reggie Miller - 24 ppg on 121 ORTG (filthy)
Klay Thompson - 20 ppg 107 ORTG


Reggie just destroys klay over these huge prime sample sizes.

And that was back in the 90s east which for sure was tougher defense than the 10s west.

AND thats as first option for miller.. the KEY focus of the defense... while klay had curry for defenses to throw the sink at.

It's not close mates.

[Roundball_Rock]

If Miller is on the Warriors what is his role? The implication is that Miller was clearly better and would command a bigger role than Klay. I highly doubt that. If Miller was ceding touches to Smits and Jalen Rose why wouldn't he with Durant and Curry?


yeah Klay’s not quite as good as Reggie, especially come playoff time.

Their playoff numbers are similar. Miller's slightly better but he was not the #2 or #3 option like Klay was so not surprising.

[Reggie43]

Rose replaced Smits and exceeded Smits--Smits never led the team in scoring. It is called context and history (serious people can't remove Smits and ignore Rose's emergence). I am sorry you are unable to find evidence to support your "belief" that Miller was this alpha alpha carrying the Pacers.



Your own cherry picked sample shows them scoring about the same. So does this:

2000 finals:

Miller 24/3/4 on 41%
Rose 23/5/3 on 47%

Putting words in my mouth when the only thing I said was he had an alpha mentality. Rose never exceeded Smits despite what the stats tell you and anybody who watched them through the years know this with the exception of agenda driven Jordan haters :oldlol:

Playoff per game averages are cherry picked now :oldlol:

[Reggie43]

If Miller is on the Warriors what is his role? The implication is that Miller was clearly better and would command a bigger role than Klay. I highly doubt that. If Miller was ceding touches to Smits and Jalen Rose why wouldn't he with Durant and Curry?



Their playoff numbers are similar. Miller's slightly better but he was not the #2 or #3 option like Klay was so not surprising.

Its not about what Miller could do with Steph and Kd but about how Klay thompson adjusts as a franchise player with the defensive gameplan zeroed on him.

[RogueBorg]

That Pacers team must’ve been very special if Reggie wasn’t even their best player!!!

Kobe and others have mentioned how tough he was to defend so he must’ve been even better healthy and in his prime.

This Smits cat must’ve been a beast if he was the go to guy over a deadly cold blooded clutch player like Reggie.

Wowsers what a great squad they must’ve been.

Imagine a 7’2 big center that can post and shoot, with one of the deadliest shooters of all time playing today?

Great analysis once again!!!

The Dunking Dutchman was 7'-4"

[Roundball_Rock]

Here is what the two players did in key games in the playoffs.

Miller

Game 6 94' ECF: 27/4/4 on 38% (with a trip to the finals on the line)
Game 7 94' ECF: 25/2/0 on 41%

Game 7 95' ECSF: 29/1/3 on 56%
Game 6 95' ECF: 36/7/2 on 68% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 95' ECF: 12/4/0 on 39%

Game 6 98' ECF: 8/2/0 on 15% (elimination game)
Game 7 98' ECF: 22/0/4 on 54%

Game 6 99' ECF: 8/3/4 on 17% (Pacers eliminated)

Game 5 00' Finals: 25/4/6 on 58%
Game 6 00' Finals: 25/1/3 on 42%

A lot of flops in big games. Again, his reputation runs ahead of his record. He is only a scorer so when his shot is off he can't contribute in any other way like the more well-rounded players who rank ahead of him all-time could do.

Thompson


Game 7 16' WCF: 21/5/0 on 37%
Game 5 16' Finals: 37/3/1 on 55% (GS wins the chip if they win the game)
Game 6 16' Finals: 25/3/1 on 43%
Game 7 16' Finals: 14/2/2 on 35%

Game 6 18' WCF: 35/6/2 on 57% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 18' WCF: 19/3/1 on 62%

Game 6 19' WCF: 27/2/2 on 50% (Durant injured)
Game 5 19' Finals: 26/6/4 on 43% (to stave off elimination)
Game 6 19' Finals: 30/5/0 on 67% (injured but 30 points in 32 minutes)

Thompson has a pretty good clutch track record. Moreover, he can play defense which stats don't capture, although he gives you nothing as a playmaker either.


Rose never exceeded Smits

Rose led the team in scoring; Smits never did. Pretty simple to understand for most people.


Rose never exceeded Smits despite what the stats tell you and anybody who watched them through the years know this with the exception of agenda driven Jordan haters

This is a gem. Elevating Rose ahead of Smits (like the Pacers did) somehow diminishes Jordan. Keep in mind Jordan was retired when Rose surpassed Smits. :roll:

[999Guy]

Weird agenda. Smits ain’t shit compared to Reggie.

Your argument would be Detlef who had a fantastic peak in Indiana and career overall. Still ain’t on Reggie’s level.

Thompson is just by far worse than Reggie at damn near every single thing you can do. Like legitimately less creative off the ball and way less on it. Reggie got to the line like Barkley or Harden because of this. Same fee throw rate level.

Reggie played BEFORE the 3P boom and still had Barkley/Nash efficiency in over a decade of postseason play.

Thompson practically never gets to the line. Less athletic. One of the most overrated modern defenders. The Gary Payton defensively of this era. Really dumb off ball defensively. TB did a good scouting video on him.

Thompson played like a corpse in the entire 2017 playoffs and was duly average as a PLAYER in the 2018 playoffs.

He’s not in Reggie’s league in really any circumstance.

This is the ultimate test on how far people willing to go on team accomplishments much similar to how-the-****-is-he-better comparisons like Chris Paul and Isiah Thomas. Exact same player archetype just completely different level of talent and ability.


But RIINGZ and a few isolated performances right?

[Roundball_Rock]

Smits ain’t shit compared to Reggie.

Your argument would be Detlef who had a fantastic peak in Indiana and career overall. Still ain’t on Reggie’s level.

Smits had a bigger role in Indiana than Schrempf did. Their careers aren't relevant to what they did as Pacers. Moreover, Schrempf was there when Indiana was a 40-42 win team so I didn't use him. Rose emerged when Miller had aged so I didn't use him either. Smits overlapped with Miller's prime while Indiana was relevant but you can use different players to show what Reggie was: a player whose usage capped him at 21 PPG for his prime.

No one is saying Smits>Miller. This is a pretty simple OP: Miller did not command the usage and scoring load that people think he did. He shared a lot of it with Smits (before that Schrempf, after that Rose). He wasn't this Harden or Wade or T Mac type "alpha" scorer he is (mis)remembered as.

[999Guy]

Smits had a bigger role in Indiana than Schrempf did. Their careers aren't relevant to what they did as Pacers. Moreover, Schrempf was there when Indiana was a 40-42 win team so I didn't use him. Rose emerged when Miller had aged so I didn't use him either. Smits overlapped with Miller's prime while Indiana was relevant but you can use different players to show what Reggie was: a player whose usage capped him at 21 PPG for his prime.

No one is saying Smits>Miller. This is a pretty simple OP: Miller did not command the usage and scoring load that people think he did. He shared a lot of it with Smits (before that Schrempf, after that Rose). He wasn't this Harden or Wade or T Mac type "alpha" scorer he is (mis)remembered as.
Well that’s just a really flimsy viewpoint that’s slowing becoming outdated.

The Warriors(And the Spurs right before them) off-ball movement hasn’t really put into perspective what Reggie’s play style and ability really meant for years.

Reggie was impacting games like those guys offensively and he didn’t need to chuck the rock up like Smits was doing(inefficiently) or dominating the ball like T-Mac and Wade. But by god HE WAS accounted for just as much and made the entire team much better.

It’s entirely believable to me Reggie could lead an offense as well as T-Mac if switching places. Not even a question in my mind. I may not have said this just maybe 3 or 4 years ago but I’VE had to watch golden state make defenses look stupid for years trying to chase guys around screens.

You’re fighting an idea. I actually agree with this point you are making ok boxscore load but that’s not the point.

Reggie was the shit because the ptsd he gave entire defenses.

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie was impacting games like those guys offensively and he didn’t need to chuck the rock up like Smits was doing(inefficiently) or dominating the ball like T-Mac and Wade.

Impacting them at a T-Mac and Wade level? I agree Miller had hidden value due to his GOAT-level shooting ability but I don't think he could carry an offense the way T-Mac, Wade did in the 2000's and even Drexler did in Miller's own era.

Miller's efficiency is on 13-14 shots a game. That isn't the typical shooting load of a #1 option. If Miller was asked to take the same load as T-Mac, Wade, or Drexler his efficiency would dip.

[tpols]

Putting words in my mouth when the only thing I said was he had an alpha mentality. Rose never exceeded Smits despite what the stats tell you and anybody who watched them through the years know this with the exception of agenda driven Jordan haters :oldlol:

Playoff per game averages are cherry picked now :oldlol:

He cant use the real playoff prime stats because reggies are closer to curry's numbers than they are to klays. :lol

They play the same way but reggie's efficiency is world's better.

[ralph_i_el]

His Pacers teams ran really slow pace. Look at his per-100 possession numbers and you'll see he actually scored a lot.

He also put up crazy efficiency. I was watching old Pacers playoff games, and they use him as a decoy constantly. It's a bit like the Curry effect, where he draws attention without the ball.

Those were some very egalitarian but disciplined teams that Bird coached.

[Roundball_Rock]

His Pacers teams ran really slow pace. Look at his per-100 possession numbers and you'll see he actually scored a lot.

He also put up crazy efficiency. I was watching old Pacers playoff games, and they use him as a decoy constantly. It's a bit like the Curry effect, where he draws attention without the ball.

His efficiency was on low volume for a #1 option. If he had to take a Wade or T-Mac or Drexler type load it would dip.

Per 100 boosts numbers for everybody (Miller's career peak is 33, same as Smits). Miami in 98' ran at the same pace as Indiana (26th versus 27th for Indiana). Per 100 PPG for them: Mourning 31, Hardaway 28 for example.

Good point on him being a decoy and value via that.

[3ball]

Some decades have 2 teams with more talent than everyone else, like the 80's (Lakers/Celtics) or 2010's (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) - these teams have 3+ perennial all-stars and this was the Finals standard.

Otoh, talent was more spread-out in the 90's and other decades, so many teams met the lower Finals standard of 1 or 2 stars.. some of these teams were incredibly well-balanced, like Reggie's Pacers

It's harder to win a championship being one of many Finals-caliber teams (90's), then to win as 1 of 2 Finals-caliber teams (10's)

[ralph_i_el]

It wasn't really on low volume though, his teams just didn't have nearly as many possessions.

Check this link out. It's players who scored 30 or more points per 100 possessions, with a ts% of at least 60%

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&per_minute_base=36&type=per_poss&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=ts_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&c2stat=pts_per_poss&c2comp=gt&c2val=30&order_by=ws

At 30 years old, Miller was scoring about as much as Harden did in his first two years on Houston. The difference is Houston played up-tempo, and the Pacers played down-tempo.

Look at the guys with comparable seasons to him when you adjust for pace. You wouldn't call any of them "low volume".


Per-100 is the only way to compare guys from this era to other eras.

[Roundball_Rock]

Some decades have 2 teams with more talent than everyone else, like the 80's (Lakers/Celtics) or 2010's (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) - these teams have 3+ perennial all-stars and this was the Finals standard.

Otoh, talent was more spread-out in the 90's and other decades, so many teams met the lower Finals standard of 1 or 2 stars.. some of these teams were incredibly well-balanced, like Reggie's Pacers

It's harder to win a championship being one of many Finals-caliber teams (90's), then to win as 1 of 2 Finals-caliber teams (10's)

Wow, a MJ stan responding without melting down. :cheers:

[tpols]

a man who averaged 24 ppg in the playoffs from '90 to '02 isnt "low volume".

He was smart and didnt chuck his teams out of games.

[ralph_i_el]

a man who averaged 24 ppg in the playoffs from '90 to '02 isnt "low volume".

He was smart and didnt chuck his teams out of games.

Right? What would "low volume" even look like for Miller? He's shooting the rock every time he's open. Other teams had to scheme to keep him from getting the ball in his spots...and that was really hard. Especially when you had a great hub down low in Smits. I miss when teams played inside-out.

[Roundball_Rock]

Right? What would "low volume" even look like for Miller?

13-14 FGA per game for a #1 option is what I meant (Miller peaked at around 15.7 on a bad team; Drexler at 21.4, for example. Even Klay was at 18.0 FGA as a third option in 19'). People keep pointing to his extremely high efficiency, well that is how he was getting 20-21 on 13-14 shots. Ttrolls is being obtuse.


At 30 years old, Miller was scoring about as much as Harden did in his first two years on Houston. The difference is Houston played up-tempo, and the Pacers played down-tempo.

Great info. There are some outliers like Manu and Lowry in the top 100 but your point stands. Here is the OP info per 100 (peak seasons for players listed):

Miller 32.9 (96')
Smits 32.9 (96')
Jordan 46.4 (87')
Drexler 33.5 (92')
Richmond 35.3 (97')
Dumars 30.1 (93')
Starks 28.7 (93')
Hornacek 25.8 (92')
Hawkins 28.5 (91')
Gill 29.1 (97')
Klay 33.2 (15')

So Miller looks a lot better per 100, although Smits is at parity with him by that measure as well. I'll keep per 100 in mind for future posts. :cheers:

[3ball]

Right? What would "low volume" even look like for Miller? He's shooting the rock every time he's open. Other teams had to scheme to keep him from getting the ball in his spots...and that was really hard. Especially when you had a great hub down low in Smits.

I miss when teams played inside-out.



Indeed, back when you could actually appreciate a good drive or foray into the lane... because there were defenders in there.. otoh, ESPN reported that nearly half of Giannis' drives have zero help defenders (video link (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?479300-ESPN-Nearly-half-of-Giannis-drives-had-no-help-defender-due-to-spacing)

[ralph_i_el]

Yup, because the offensive players aren't camping the paint. I've been watching so many old games in quarantine, and it blows my mind that more teams didn't space their guys out and shoot the open deep shots they were being given. I watched a Celtics-Lakers finals game from like 87(?) And the Lakers basically kept 4 guys with a foot in the paint at all times. It took the Celtics until half time to figure out they were just being given open 3's, and they caught up (still lost).

My Grandad is a basketball fan from WAY back (used to go to Bill Russell's high school and college games). He says Don Nelson was the first coach to really weaponize deep shots to create space inside. He also can't watch the Warriors anymore (lifelong Bay area guy), because he opposes the existence of the 3 point line.

[Roundball_Rock]

His playoff numbers keep coming up. Playoff numbers are influenced by quality of defense(s) faced and match ups in small sample sizes. Miller's biggest scoring "runs" came in first round defeats:

Top 5 Playoff Scoring Averages for Miller

31.5 (4 games)
31.3 (4 games)
29.0 (1 game)
27.0 (3 games)
25.5 (17 games)

Since he lost in the first round 8 times a higher percentage of his playoff games come from first round games than would be the case for a player whose team had more sustained playoff success in his career.

Here is what he did in the ECF and finals:

1994: 24.7 44%
1995: 25.9 52%
1998: 17.4 42%
1999: 16.2 36%
2000: 21.8 43%
2000: 24.3 on 41% (NBA finals)

If you average the averages that is 21.7 on 43% (lifted up by one series at 52%; the others are all 44% or lower). So solid but not the same impression you get from baking in those sterling first round numbers and not the otherwordly "clutch" performer he is remembered as, including by the "playoffs! playoffs!" crowd in this thread.

[ralph_i_el]

13-14 FGA per game for a #1 option is what I meant (Miller peaked at around 15.7 on a bad team; Drexler at 21.4, for example. Even Klay was at 18.0 FGA as a third option in 19'). People keep pointing to his extremely high efficiency, well that is how he was getting 20-21 on 13-14 shots. Ttrolls is being obtuse.



Great info. There are some outliers like Manu and Lowry in the top 100 but your point stands. Here is the OP info per 100 (peak seasons for players listed):

Miller 32.9 (96')
Smits 32.9 (96')
Jordan 46.4 (87')
Drexler 33.5 (92')
Richmond 35.3 (97')
Dumars 30.1 (93')
Starks 28.7 (93')
Hornacek 25.8 (92')
Hawkins 28.5 (91')
Gill 29.1 (97')
Klay 33.2 (15')

So Miller looks a lot better per 100, although Smits is at parity with him by that measure as well. I'll keep per 100 in mind for future posts. :cheers:
Thanks for putting that comparison together. I see your point, he definitely wasn't shooting at the volume of some other ATG scoring guards.

[tpols]

Yup, because the offensive players aren't camping the paint. I've been watching so many old games in quarantine, and it blows my mind that more teams didn't space their guys out and shoot the open deep shots they were being given. I watched a Celtics-Lakers finals game from like 87(?) And the Lakers basically kept 4 guys with a foot in the paint at all times. It took the Celtics until half time to figure out they were just being given open 3's, and they caught up (still lost).

My Grandad is a basketball fan from WAY back (used to go to Bill Russell's high school and college games). He says Don Nelson was the first coach to really weaponize deep shots to create space inside. He also can't watch the Warriors anymore (lifelong Bay area guy), because he opposes the existence of the 3 point line.

Don Nelson was an OG offensive innovator.

It's crazy how all these old white role players became coaches that all popped off ~ carlisle, nelson, jackson, popovich, brown, sloan, riley, auerbach etc.

They really had to think out the game.

[jstern]

Miller is a player that I've been thinking as of late because he's like the opposite of empty stats. His teams just win him, always in the playoffs, and I just haven't had the opportunity to study his game like a Jordan, a Lebron. Perhaps he makes the players guarding him more exhausted. Kobe once said that he was the hardest player guard. Found it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbJp4DEON2Q

[Roundball_Rock]

Thanks for putting that comparison together. I see your point, he definitely wasn't shooting at the volume of some other ATG scoring guards.

Np--thanks for bringing that to my attention. What I missed absent the "per 100" info is he was closer to those other HOF SG's than his raw stats indicate. He basically is where Drexler was per 100 (at least for peak seasons).

The main point in the OP was Miller wasn't "carrying" the Pacers offense, that Smits had a large role and the per 100 confirms that as well, as they both peaked at 33. He was a great player, top 50 all-time but he wasn't the caliber player to "carry" a team and this was understood at the time and why he was never a MVP candidate. Usually any perennial contender will produce a MVP candidate. Sometimes even two top 5 MVP players (in Miller's era Jordan/Pippen both were top 5 in 96' and Shaq/Kobe did it once too). That Indiana didn't produce any despite having a 7 year run of contention speaks volumes.


His teams just win him, always in the playoffs

To what degree, though? Indiana's records weren't as good as people think they were. They were in the ECF as 47 and 52 win teams in 94' and 95', for example. Before that they were 40-42 wins from 90'-93'. 98' was their big win year with 58 but people conflate that with the rest of their run (39 wins the year before).

There also is the issue of losing Game 7 of the ECF in 94', 95', 98'.

[tpols]

Miller is a player that I've been thinking as of late because he's like the opposite of empty stats. His teams just win him, always in the playoffs, and I just haven't had the opportunity to study his game like a Jordan, a Lebron. Perhaps he makes the players guarding him more exhausted. Kobe once said that he was the hardest player guard. Found it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbJp4DEON2Q

playing ball from my experience the shooter types are always the hardest on a defense because you can never rest. Always gotta chase.

Ray Allen is the best modern day example i can think of... and he had similar effieicncy and movement to reggie.

[3ball]

His playoff numbers keep coming up. Playoff numbers are influenced by quality of defense(s) faced and match ups in small sample sizes. Miller's biggest scoring "runs" came in first round defeats:

Top 5 Playoff Scoring Averages for Miller

31.5 (4 games)
31.3 (4 games)
29.0 (1 game)
27.0 (3 games)
25.5 (17 games)

Since he lost in the first round 8 times a higher percentage of his playoff games come from first round games than would be the case for a player whose team had more sustained playoff success in his career.

Here is what he did in the ECF and finals:

1994: 24.7 44%
1995: 25.9 52%
1998: 17.4 42%
1999: 16.2 36%
2000: 21.8 43%
2000: 24.3 on 41% (NBA finals)

If you average the averages that is 21.7 on 43% (lifted up by one series at 52%; the others are all 44% or lower). So solid but not the same impression you get from baking in those sterling first round numbers and not the otherwordly "clutch" performer he is remembered as, including by the "playoffs! playoffs!" crowd in this thread.


Look how good Reggie was:



2000 Finals

Reggie... 24.1 on 41.2%
Kobe...... 15.6 on 36.7%


1999 1st Round

Kobe...... 18.3 on 40.9%
Pippen... 18.3 on 32.9%



so reggie was WAY better than pippen...

all the actual STATS and FACTS show that Pippen was aids.. it's like - i post facts - you deny facts and make excuses

[ralph_i_el]

Think about how much you have to love bball to actually get to make a run at going pro as a normal height white guy.

[j3lademaster]

Miller is a player that I've been thinking as of late because he's like the opposite of empty stats. His teams just win him, always in the playoffs, and I just haven't had the opportunity to study his game like a Jordan, a Lebron. Perhaps he makes the players guarding him more exhausted. Kobe once said that he was the hardest player guard. Found it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbJp4DEON2Qits not just Reggie. The reason Smits plays low minutes is because he gets shredded by pnr’s, so Indiana runs dale davis and Antonio Davis at the 4 and 5 a lot. Imagine having to chase Miller and getting run into those 2 brick walls 2-3 times per defensive possession. Shit would wear you down. You start not wanting to fight through screens anymore and call for switches, creating mismatches and/or the defense having to constantly scramble. Add this to the spacing a shooter of his caliber would naturally create and you’re running an offense that creates a ton of easy opportunities for others. And the fact that Miller has very low time of possession means his teammates are constantly engaged offensively, as opposed to playing with say Russell Westbrook where you’re either setting a pick for him or you’re just watching.

[Roundball_Rock]

...

Miller was "clutch" except when it came to the biggest games and series.

Here is what he did in the ECF and finals:

1994: 24.7 44%
1995: 25.9 52%
1998: 17.4 42%
1999: 16.2 36%
2000: 21.8 43%
2000: 24.3 on 41% (NBA finals)

Miller in key games:

Game 6 94' ECF: 27/4/4 on 38% (with a trip to the finals on the line)
Game 7 94' ECF: 25/2/0 on 41%

Game 7 95' ECSF: 29/1/3 on 56%
Game 6 95' ECF: 36/7/2 on 68% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 95' ECF: 12/4/0 on 39%

Game 6 98' ECF: 8/2/0 on 15% (elimination game)
Game 7 98' ECF: 22/0/4 on 54%

Game 6 99' ECF: 8/3/4 on 17% (Pacers eliminated)

Game 5 00' Finals: 25/4/6 on 58%
Game 6 00' Finals: 25/1/3 on 42%

[tpols]

its not just Reggie. The reason Smits plays low minutes is because he gets shredded by pnr’s, so Indiana runs dale davis and Antonio Davis at the 4 and 5 a lot. Imagine having to chase Miller and getting run into those 2 brick walls 2-3 times per defensive possession. Shit would wear you down. You start not wanting to fight through screens anymore and call for switches, creating mismatches and/or the defense having to constantly scramble. Add this to the spacing a shooter of his caliber would naturally create and you’re running an offense that creates a ton of easy opportunities for others. And the fact that Miller has very low time of possession means his teammates are constantly engaged offensively, as opposed to playing with say Russell Westbrook where you’re either setting a pick for him or you’re just watching.

You just greatly articulated the power of off ball play and how it has a dual effect positive impact over ball dominators.

1) on the body, its harder to constantly fight through tough screens than just stay in front of somebody thats non stop dribbling. its like taking body shots in a boxing match.

2) an off ball superstar doesnt let the rest of the defense rest while he does his work. as opposed to westbrook or harden types where 4 defenders are doing nothing most of the time, while they dribble spam iso.

Reggie drained the souls of teams and captilized tremendously individually.

He's basically a longer, more alpha ray allen.

[jbryan1984]

The problem is, Reggie was NEVER a #1 option. As much as I loved those Pacer teams from about 93-05. Reggie is about the closest thing to Ray Allen I ever saw. So similar in almost every single way. I think had Indiana went out a got him a partner in crime, he would of won a chip. Honestly, that year Artest got suspended the entire season and JO for some of it, I thought they had a shot to go far. Think that was Reggie's last season. But when Reggie was at his best, and I am saying his early 30's, so like the 95-98 season, I thought he was at his best and just needed another star.

[Roundball_Rock]

The problem is, Reggie was NEVER a #1 option. As much as I loved those Pacer teams from about 93-05. Reggie is about the closest thing to Ray Allen I ever saw. So similar in almost every single way. I think had Indiana went out a got him a partner in crime, he would of won a chip. Honestly, that year Artest got suspended the entire season and JO for some of it, I thought they had a shot to go far. Think that was Reggie's last season. But when Reggie was at his best, and I am saying his early 30's, so like the 95-98 season, I thought he was at his best and just needed another star.

Look at it this way, what would Reggie be on the finals teams of that era?

Lakers: 2nd or 3rd option
Bulls: 3rd option
Blazers: 2nd option
Suns: 2nd option
Rockets 94': 2nd option
Knicks: 2nd option
Rockets 95': 3rd option
Magic: 3rd option
Sonics: 2nd option
Jazz: 3rd option
Spurs: 3rd option

This is the problem with Reggie being your best player, even in the 90's.

[j3lademaster]

Look at it this way, what would Reggie be on the finals teams of that era?

Lakers: 2nd or 3rd option
Bulls: 3rd option
Blazers: 2nd option
Suns: 2nd option
Rockets 94': 2nd option
Knicks: 2nd option
Rockets 95': 3rd option
Magic: 3rd option
Sonics: 2nd option
Jazz: 3rd option
Spurs: 3rd option

This is the problem with Reggie being your best player, even in the 90's.how many teams would 2014 Duncan/Kawhi be 1st option on? You can argue those guys were 3rd and 4th options that year and they won the ring. Hawks won 60 games with millsap as their first option, Pistons Won a ring with Billups. The Pacers were an extremely tough team while not having that superstar.

[Soundwave]

Rik Smits is one of those guys who was under the radar in the 90s. In today's game he would be a star player.

[Roundball_Rock]

Rik Smits is one of those guys who was under the radar in the 90s. In today's game he would be a star player.

Yeah terrible timing to be a C when your prime coincides with the primes of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, and Mutumbo.


how many teams would 2014 Duncan/Kawhi be 1st option on? You can argue those guys were 3rd and 4th options that year and they won the ring. Hawks won 60 games with millsap as their first option, Pistons Won a ring with Billups. The Pacers were an extremely tough team while not having that superstar.

2014 Spurs were like the 2004 Pistons. Good examples, though, because that is part of why I did the OP. People are lazily conflating all "#1 options", as if Wilt or Kareem as a #1 is the same as Miller or Billups. You also have the side corollary: any #1>any #2 which is dumb.

The Hawks got crushed in the ECF. Let's look at recent finals teams. We have the answer for the Warriors since they basically have Reggie: he would be the 3rd option. He would be 2nd over Irving and Love IMO on the Cavs. 3rd on the Heat behind Wade. 3rd on the Thunder. 2nd on the Raptors.

[j3lademaster]

Rik Smits is one of those guys who was under the radar in the 90s. In today's game he would be a star player.ill have to disagree. Smits had the size and skills to pay the bills but the reason he played limited min was due to his limited mobility defensively, ability to get up and down the court and general issues with his stamina. Those weaknesses would be exacerbated by today’s game.

[BigShotBob]

ill have to disagree. Smits had the size and skills to pay the bills but the reason he played limited min was due to his limited mobility defensively, ability to get up and down the court and general issues with his stamina. Those weaknesses would be exacerbated by today’s game.

Dumb.

If Jahilil Okafor can be a serviceable big than so could Rik Smits. His turnaround was money and he was extremely long too.

[ArbitraryWater]

BigShotBob must have grown up in the 90s.


No other phenomenon but nostalgia could explain hyping up the bums MJ "overcame"

[Soundwave]

ill have to disagree. Smits had the size and skills to pay the bills but the reason he played limited min was due to his limited mobility defensively, ability to get up and down the court and general issues with his stamina. Those weaknesses would be exacerbated by today’s game.

Well you don't have to play defence in the modern NBA so right off the bat, Smits is in business, lol.

Back then you were hounded as a center if you were "soft" and weak in the lane, today no one cares, defence is optional and certainly you don't have to worry about a Shaq or Hakeem or DRob or Ewing or even a Mutombo elbowing you in the face.

No doubt if you gave him the vote, he would vote to play in this era, it would be far easier for him.

For a monstrous 7'4 size he has a sweet touch on his J.

[j3lademaster]

Well you don't have to play defence in the modern NBA so right off the bat, Smits is in business, lol.

Back then you were hounded as a center if you were "soft" and weak in the lane, today no one cares, defence is optional and certainly you don't have to worry about a Shaq or Hakeem or DRob or Ewing or even a Mutombo elbowing you in the face.

No doubt if you gave him the vote, he would vote to play in this era, it would be far easier for him.

For a monstrous 7'4 size he has a sweet touch on his J.Fair points. It’d be interesting to see if Smits would force the other team to go big against him first or vice versa.

[LostCause]

What is the OP supposed to be proving? This really only exposes a surface-level understanding of basketball. Reggie's "raw stats" & usage weren't what made him great, it was his impact on offenses by his gravity, efficiency & off-ball play. The stats posted don't capture that. It's interesting OP cites BackPicks often yet ignores Millers ranked 29/30, 4 spots from Pip. He also completely ignored the data presented:

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/18/backpicks-goat-29-reggie-miller/
https://i.ibb.co/89H5601/regg.png

Entirety of the "Impact Evaluation"
https://i.ibb.co/Vm38nCP/reggg.png

Ironically this describes what you're doing here:

Ironically, accolades have historically gone to floor-raisers like Iverson, and it’s worth calling out some of the All-NBA nods that were given to players instead of Reggie. During the ’90s, raw field goal percentage was all the rage, and the effectiveness of off-ball play wasn’t established; Miller’s pedestrian assist and rebounding numbers were viewed as severe limitations, and because of this, comparable (or weaker) offensive players were rewarded at his expense. Below is a comparison of all-league candidates, with Miller’s box plus-minus (BPM) in blue circles and his scaled adjusted plus-minus (APM) in blue squares (available since 1994). The red circles and squares are the same data points for the players given an All-NBA nod over Miller:

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Miller-v-90s-guards-APM-and-BPM.png

All of these players struggle when stacked up against Miller in the Big 4 offensive dimensions, and none of them were figureheads on quality offenses. Richmond’s best offense in Sacramento was +1.5. Strickland’s best offense in Washington was +0.1. Dumars at least played on an above-average offense in 1990 (+1.8 rOrtg) and was given preference for his defense. But as you can see, both plus-minus data and BPM often favored Miller, and sometimes considerably so (e.g. 1994 and 1998). Simply put, voters missed the boat

On how rare his production was:

https://i.ibb.co/8rnJNqk/reggie.png

During those years, the average defensive efficiency of Indy’s postseason opponent’s was around 102, and yet the Pacers still scored 109.5 points per 100, near their regular season output. To borrow an economic concept, their Miller-centric offenses were inelastic against stiffer defensive competition. Not only did this decade of sustained playoff excellence coincide with Miller’s primacy, but when he missed most of the ’96 postseason with an eye injury, Indiana produced its only below-average postseason offense of the decade.

None of this is to say that Miller should take the lion’s share of credit and be viewed as an offensive megastar. It’s instead a reflection of how effective, and additive, his style was. In many ways, Miller is the poster child for efficiency, spacing, portability and scorekeeping biases, making life easier for Indiana’s isolation players like Schrempf, Smits and Jalen Rose, who faced fewer doubles because of Miller’s presence. Perhaps more importantly, Miller’s effect would remain on even better teams, as he would, for the same reasons, make life easier for Jordan or Shaq too.

This graph shows Indy's ORTGs. Note the dip below league average? That's when Miller missed most of the PS:
https://i.ibb.co/Kmhfm4V/xwVyzgO.jpg

Simple right?

[j3lademaster]

Dumb.

If Jahilil Okafor can be a serviceable big than so could Rik Smits. His turnaround was money and he was extremely long too.i never said he didn’t have amazing touch and foot work in the post, I’m simply pointing out that the weaknesses he had when he played are even worse weaknesses to have in today’s game... and the limited minutes he’d play due to said weaknesses will prevent him from accumulating the numbers to be a ‘star’. If he fixed those flaws, sure he’d be a star. And it’s not like I’m saying he wouldn’t make the nba or sth so why we bringing up Okafor?

[LostCause]

Miller in key games:

Game 6 94' ECF: 27/4/4 on 38% (with a trip to the finals on the line)
Game 7 94' ECF: 25/2/0 on 41%

Game 7 95' ECSF: 29/1/3 on 56%
Game 6 95' ECF: 36/7/2 on 68% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 95' ECF: 12/4/0 on 39%

Game 6 98' ECF: 8/2/0 on 15% (elimination game)
Game 7 98' ECF: 22/0/4 on 54%

Game 6 99' ECF: 8/3/4 on 17% (Pacers eliminated)

Game 5 00' Finals: 25/4/6 on 58%
Game 6 00' Finals: 25/1/3 on 42%

Attempting to mislead here. Miller in Elimination Games from 90-2002:
25.4ppg on 62.2 TS% with 1.8 Turnovers per

For reference that's more efficient than LeBrons entire 2018 Playoff run

[ArbitraryWater]

Attempting to mislead here. Miller in Elimination Games from 90-2002:
25.4ppg on 62.2 TS% with 1.8 Turnovers per

For reference that's more efficient than LeBrons entire 2018 Playoff run

Interesting.

Out of curiosity, how many of those elimination games were with the series still in touch, and not just a little-expectations crapshoot. So basically a game 6 or 7?

[BigShotBob]

i never said he didn’t have amazing touch and foot work in the post, I’m simply pointing out that the weaknesses he had when he played are even worse weaknesses to have in today’s game... and the limited minutes he’d play due to said weaknesses will prevent him from accumulating the numbers to be a ‘star’. If he fixed those flaws, sure he’d be a star. And it’s not like I’m saying he wouldn’t make the nba or sth so why we bringing up Okafor?

Like I said, dumb.

If Jokic can labor up and down the court then so can Smits. Jokic isn't fat, and he's been out of shape for awhile. Smits also played big minutes in the post season, main reason why his minutes usually dipped was due to foul trouble guarding HOF greats or helping onto slashers.

There is no "even worse" weaknesses for the "modern" game. Who's guarding him? The GREAT Mitchell Robinson? The INCOMPARABLE Paul Milsap? Even the Davis brothers would thrive in this era.

[3ball]

Interesting.

Out of curiosity, how many of those elimination games were with the series still in touch, and not just a little-expectations crapshoot. So basically a game 6 or 7?

You're asking how many times Miller let a weak team or seed take him 7 games so he gets inflated stats vs weak teams? as if that's a good thing?.. what kinda question is that.. :rolleyes:

[Roundball_Rock]

Out of curiosity, how many of those elimination games were with the series still in touch, and not just a little-expectations crapshoot. So basically a game 6 or 7?

Probably zero, considering Indiana was a 40-42 win team in each case. What he concealed is most of those "elimination games" were first round games (and I gave the info for the key ECF/finals games). Legacies aren't defined by Game 3 of the first round. :oldlol:

Indiana was an also ran so a lot of those big games came down 2-0 in a 5 game series or down 2-1, etc. to a much higher seed as Indiana was the 7 or 8 seed (40-42 wins for every 1st round loss, except one at 52 and Miller went down in Game 1 of the series that year).

He also is lumping in post-prime years, which is dumb. You have to judge players when they were at or near their prime powers (Miller's last all-star season was 00').

Indiana performance in the playoffs (90'-02'): 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, ECF, ECF, 1st round, missed playoffs, ECF, ECF, finals, 1st round, 1st round.

I gave the info for the ECF and finals trips. That leaves the 1st round exits. Those aren't relevant--and a deceptive poster like him knows that--which is why he didn't tell you what those other "elimination games" were. He is a troll attempting to derail basketball discussion, like the other Jordan stans in this thread. Notice everybody else is having a real basketball discussion?

[LostCause]

What he concealed is most of those "elimination games" were first round games. Legacies aren't defined by Game 3 of the first round. :oldlol: He also is lumping in post-prime years, which is dumb. You have to judge players when they were at or near their prime powers (Miller's last all-star season was 00').

Indiana performance in the playoffs (90'-02'): 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, ECF, ECF, 1st round, missed playoffs, ECF, ECF, finals, 1st round, 1st round.

Is this supposed to be a counterargument?

I'll wait for a real one with a valid point

[ArbitraryWater]

You're asking how many times Miller let a weak team or seed take him 7 games so he gets inflated stats vs weak teams? as if that's a good thing?.. what kinda question is that.. :rolleyes:

what?

im asking at which point of the series those elimination games happened, so i can assign more value to that stat.

since roundball just revealed those mostly being 1st round games, paling in comparison to the series/games he posted, it shows me that he wins the argument over lostcause.

[Roundball_Rock]

Here is what Miller did in the final game of those first round losses. It is good for transparency and will show the context of those efforts (keep in mind Indiana is a 40-42 win team in each case):

1990 22/5/4 62% (Indiana swept 3-0 by Detroit, a 59 win team)
1991 22/4/2 41% (Indiana loses 3-2 to Boston, a 56 win team)
1992 32/4/5 50% (Indiana swept 3-0 by Boston, a 51 win team)
1993 33/2/1 on 60% (Indiana loses 3-1 to New York, a 60 win team)
2001 32/4/3 on 50% (Indiana loses 3-1 to Philadelphia, a 56 win team)
2002 31/2/4 on 44% (Indiana loses 3-2 to New Jersey, a 52 win team)

So the only game that mattered when Miller was still an all-star player was the 91' game and Miller played fairly poorly in that game. The rest were valiant efforts in uncompetitive series where Indiana was the tomato can 40-42 win team.

Compare this to what Miller did when he had something to play for (i.e., had real pressure):

Game 6 94' ECF: 27/4/4 on 38% (with a trip to the finals on the line)
Game 7 94' ECF: 25/2/0 on 41%

Game 7 95' ECSF: 29/1/3 on 56%
Game 6 95' ECF: 36/7/2 on 68% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 95' ECF: 12/4/0 on 39%

Game 6 98' ECF: 8/2/0 on 15% (elimination game)
Game 7 98' ECF: 22/0/4 on 54%

Game 6 99' ECF: 8/3/4 on 17% (Pacers eliminated)

Game 5 00' Finals: 25/4/6 on 58%
Game 6 00' Finals: 25/1/3 on 42%

Gee, kind of different than putting up 32 in a Game 3 in a first round sweep, isn't it? This is why the context was concealed.

[LostCause]

Interesting.

Out of curiosity, how many of those elimination games were with the series still in touch, and not just a little-expectations crapshoot. So basically a game 6 or 7?


Probably zero...

Indiana performance in the playoffs (90'-02'): 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, 1st round, ECF, ECF, 1st round, missed playoffs, ECF, ECF, finals, 1st round, 1st round.

Where'd you guys get the idea that I included things like 1st round sweeps in that data?


He is a troll attempting to derail basketball discussion, like the other Jordan stans in this thread. Notice everybody else is having a real basketball discussion?

Notice this Jordan-obsessed moron can't respond to any point raised in this post, which entirely debunked his whole thread, but instead tried to divert attention away from that fact by going after a much smaller point?
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?480233-Reggie-Miller-as-a-quot-First-Option-quot-Rik-Smits-and-90-s-Shooting-Guards&p=14000639&viewfull=1#post14000639

Respond to the points raised in that post if you want Roundball. We both know your OP was a joke and incredibly shallow analysis. Typical shit

What's funny is that single post was more informative than anything you posted in the thread. Imagine believing you're making a point by citing Reggie Miller's USAGE rate to show he's being overhyped, lol. Go make this exact same thread on RealGM and you’d be laughed off the forum.

[RogueBorg]

Notice this Jordan-obsessed moron can't respond to any point raised in this post



Yes, we all see it. He's having a nervous breakdown. He might really need help.

[knicksman]

alpha dogs gets credited because they are the ones who takes the toughest role. The role of scoring, taking over games when the team needs you the most. Its about quality instead of quantity. That role alone beats all the roles pippen has. Thats why shaq is now crediting kobe for his rings coz he knows how hard and important that role is. And thats the reason why alpha dogs are winners coz they have the balls to take the toughest role. Its not about stats and the many roles you do, its about the quality of role. As vince carter have said, "If you haven't played in One NBA game, then you wouldn't understand what it's like."

Now for pippen and miller. We all know that lebron is a super pippen. If lebron couldnt win 1 legit ring, what makes you think pippen could win 1. And why legit ring? Coz alpha dogs never settle for less. They dont settle for cheap rings like what lebron has.

[Manny98]

I have heard Reggie Miller would be the best player in the league today.
He's Klay Thompson without defense in todays league

[juju151111]

Reggie Miller in todays game is Klay Thompson without the defense. Even with rule changes, except for his first 3 years, Reggie was not a penetrating guard.

Klay Thompson/ Michael Redd are like the 2010's, 2000's version of what Reggie was in the 90's.

Reggie miller is better offensively than Klay and Klay is an slightly better defender.

[juju151111]

Case in point: people remember none of that. They remember the moments against New York and Chicago.

As to Klay, are you saying he hasn't had big playoff moments? The last we saw Klay he was dominating a NBA finals game...
Klay has worse offensive stats in the playoffs than Revgie miller even through he been a 3rd and wnd option his whole career.

[juju151111]

Smits was not the first option. It was more like 1a/1b with Miller being 1a. Smits had his own limitations.



You mean when Jalen Rose had become their leading scorer? :lol

Jalen Rose averged .1 more than Reggie. Reggie had 6% higher TS% you dumbass piece of shit. Reggie Averged 24 on way higher TS% in the playoffs . Smh why do yall argue with this big clown

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Reggie Miller is way better than Klay Thompson. Klay has a hard time scoring 20 points per game in the Finals. Reggie is more clutch and can be a first option. Reggie and Curry would be the GOAT combo.

[KD7]

Reggie and Curry would be the worst defensive star backcourt ever :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Klay has worse offensive stats in the playoffs than Revgie miller even through he been a 3rd and wnd option his whole career.

Klay in the playoffs: 19/4/2 on 44%
Miller in the playoffs: 21/3/3 on 45%

Klay in the playoffs (15'-19'): 20/4/2 on 44%, 16.6 FGA
Miller in the playoffs (90'-00'):23/3/3 on 46%, 16.1 FGA
Usage: Miller 25.4%, Klay 23.2% (25.8%

Thompson actually has a higher eFG% 54%-53% in their primes.

Klay was the 2nd option on a championship team and on a 73 win team that got to the finals. Maybe you stopped watching in 1998 and missed that. :lol


Jalen Rose averged .1 more than Reggie

You are one of the people who go "option! option! option!" all the time. Now your "1st option" gets outscored and suddenly it doesn't matter? How often is a "1st option" outscored? Miller wasn't a "1st option" like people make him out to be. He was always 1a/1b whether it was Smits, Rose, or Schrempf.


Reggie is more clutch

Klay is the better performer in big games. The game logs were posted earlier. Miller had a lot of no shows, which is why he didn't make a finals until he was 34.

[knicksman]

Klay in the playoffs: 19/4/2 on 44%
Miller in the playoffs: 21/3/3 on 45%

Klay in the playoffs (15'-19'): 20/4/2 on 44%, 16.6 FGA
Miller in the playoffs (90'-00'):23/3/3 on 46%, 16.1 FGA
Usage: Miller 25.4%, Klay 23.2% (25.8%

Thompson actually has a higher eFG% 54%-53% in their primes.

Klay was the 2nd option on a championship team and on a 73 win team that got to the finals. Maybe you stopped watching in 1998 and missed that. :lol



You are one of the people who go "option! option! option!" all the time. Now your "1st option" gets outscored and suddenly it doesn't matter? How often is a "1st option" outscored? Miller wasn't a "1st option" like people make him out to be. He was always 1a/1b whether it was Smits, Rose, or Schrempf.



Klay is the better performer in big games. The game logs were posted earlier. Miller had a lot of no shows, which is why he didn't make a finals until he was 34.


the 1st options arent the ones with the highest ppg. They are the ones being relied to when they need a bucket. The guys in the clutch. It doesnt matter if you only score 10ppg, if you score it all in the 4th or clutch then youre the 1st option. Thats why shaq is now crediting his 3 rings to kobe.

As Ive said, alpha dogs never settle for less. They want the best role-scoring esp when it matters. It also happens to be the most difficult role thats why only few could do it.Thats why pippen had a meltdown when pippen wasnt given the last shot coz it means hes no alpha dog.

[Roundball_Rock]

It cut off. I meant to write Klay had a 25.8% usage wrote before Durant got there.

[Duncan21formvp]

Miller beat Peak Ewing in the Playoffs who is better than Dwight Howard who Lebron lost to with HCA when Lebron was at his peak. :oldlol:

Reggie took young Shaq 7 and old MJ 7 and Peak Shaq 6. Lebron lost to almost peak Dwight in 6 with HCA despite having HCA and his MVP season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Miller beat Peak Ewing in the Playoffs

Miller 23/4/3 on 43%
Smits 23/6/1 on 60%

Ewing 19/9/3 on 50%
Starks 17/2/5 on 46%

It is a team sport. "Miller" did not beat "Ewing." Ewing did not have a player like Smits as his 1b option or 2nd option. Starks had to have been the worst #2 on a contender. :lol

Ewing underperformed by a lot, though--but that is on him. He choked in the finals the previous year too, shooting only 36%.

[Duncan21formvp]

Miller beat Peak Ewing in the Playoffs. Smits was good as well and severly underrated. But Miller was the star.

[LostCause]

Roundball, make a counterargument to this post fam

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?480233-Reggie-Miller-as-a-quot-First-Option-quot-Rik-Smits-and-90-s-Shooting-Guards&p=14000639&viewfull=1#post14000639

Literally refutes your entire thread. Like I said, who makes a thread about Reggie Miller and cites his USAGE as a sticking point? That's just a total inability to understand the type of player he is and where his impact lies, and shows your borderline inept understanding of how to analyze the game

You're not gonna run in your own thread, are you? Or is that post just a "sleight of hand" and me being "deceptive" lol

[Roundball_Rock]

Ewing>>Miller. Ewing was a superstar, Miller was a star.

Why is Miller being posed as this Russell-type winner? Indiana had worse results than the Ewing-era Knicks, who are considered disappointments by some.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Reggie was a superstar in the playoffs. He carried the 2nd best playoff offenses of the 90s behind MJs Bulls

he was better in the playoffs than Steph

[Duncan21formvp]

Ewing>>Miller. Ewing was a superstar, Miller was a star.

Why is Miller being posed as this Russell-type winner? Indiana had worse results than the Ewing-era Knicks, who are considered disappointments by some.

Not saying because Miller beat Ewing that he was better. Just saying he beat him. The same as Dwight beating Lebron. But it takes them all down a notch losing to guys when they were the favorite and had HCA.

[Roundball_Rock]

He carried the 2nd best playoff offenses of the 90s behind MJs Bulls

Is there any evidence to support this? I find that hard to believe. The best defensive teams were in the Eastern conference so it would be difficult to rack up great offensive numbers as an EC team, especially if Miller and Smits are your offensive centerpieces.


Not saying because Miller beat Ewing that he was better. Just saying he beat him. The same as Dwight beating Lebron

It is a team sport.


But it takes them all down a notch losing to guys when they were the favorite and had HCA.

Come on. The Knicks were a 55 win team, Pacers a 52 win team (2nd and 3rd best records in the East behind Orlando). They went 7 games in the ECF the previous year and did so again in the second round in 95'. The Pacers winning wasn't this big upset.

[juju151111]

Klay in the playoffs: 19/4/2 on 44%
Miller in the playoffs: 21/3/3 on 45%

Klay in the playoffs (15'-19'): 20/4/2 on 44%, 16.6 FGA
Miller in the playoffs (90'-00'):23/3/3 on 46%, 16.1 FGA
Usage: Miller 25.4%, Klay 23.2% (25.8%

Thompson actually has a higher eFG% 54%-53% in their primes.

Klay was the 2nd option on a championship team and on a 73 win team that got to the finals. Maybe you stopped watching in 1998 and missed that. :lol



You are one of the people who go "option! option! option!" all the time. Now your "1st option" gets outscored and suddenly it doesn't matter? How often is a "1st option" outscored? Miller wasn't a "1st option" like people make him out to be. He was always 1a/1b whether it was Smits, Rose, or Schrempf.



Klay is the better performer in big games. The game logs were posted earlier. Miller had a lot of no shows, which is why he didn't make a finals until he was 34.

Post the TS% and stop cutting off years. Whats with you with taking out games and cherry picking years. Post their entire stats

[Roundball_Rock]

stop cutting off years. Whats with you with taking out games and cherry picking years. ]s

:coleman:

I am "cherry picking" entire prime years for Miller & Thompson, for obvious reasons...

[juju151111]

Miller 23/4/3 on 43%
Smits 23/6/1 on 60%

Ewing 19/9/3 on 50%
Starks 17/2/5 on 46%

It is a team sport. "Miller" did not beat "Ewing." Ewing did not have a player like Smits as his 1b option or 2nd option. Starks had to have been the worst #2 on a contender. :lol

Ewing underperformed by a lot, though--but that is on him. He choked in the finals the previous year too, shooting only 36%.

miller is a 3point shooter bro. Post his TS%. FG% doesn't show how absurd his efficiency is.

[juju151111]

:coleman:

I am "cherry picking" entire prime years for Miller & Thompson, for obvious reasons...

no you like to take out years and stats. This is you oh let make take out things that make my point not good. Post their whole stats including TS%. This man took out Mj best game from 93 vs knicks and gave me his stats. Stop taking out things, Stop being a bias idiot

[999Guy]

Here is what Miller did in the final game of those first round losses. It is good for transparency and will show the context of those efforts (keep in mind Indiana is a 40-42 win team in each case):

1990 22/5/4 62% (Indiana swept 3-0 by Detroit, a 59 win team)
1991 22/4/2 41% (Indiana loses 3-2 to Boston, a 56 win team)
1992 32/4/5 50% (Indiana swept 3-0 by Boston, a 51 win team)
1993 33/2/1 on 60% (Indiana loses 3-1 to New York, a 60 win team)
2001 32/4/3 on 50% (Indiana loses 3-1 to Philadelphia, a 56 win team)
2002 31/2/4 on 44% (Indiana loses 3-2 to New Jersey, a 52 win team)

So the only game that mattered when Miller was still an all-star player was the 91' game and Miller played fairly poorly in that game. The rest were valiant efforts in uncompetitive series where Indiana was the tomato can 40-42 win team.

Compare this to what Miller did when he had something to play for (i.e., had real pressure):



Good god. Not only is your methodology in rating his playoff career stupid here. But elimination games? Every ****ing game is an elimination game, each game holds EQUAL WEIGHT, regardless of when it is played. That’s objective truth and only dumb narratives can skew how clear that is.


On top of that Reggie Miller played NBA basketball. Not 21, not 1v1. He got to the free throw line, A LOT. Using FG% makes you look like the old fish that got beat up by the entire city on Spongebob for no reason. And this is ignoring the raw context of impact without the ball.

Reggie scored 22 on 56 TS% in the 91 game 5 for instance.

And anyway, why would you care when the games didn’t matter according to you? He could’ve done anything and it still wouldn’t have made a difference because apparently only the first two games of the series matter. You know the road games against a far superior higher seed. Any games after are literally statpadding...yet they define his playoff career.

Right? Just shutup. You aren’t even saying any of this in good faith for this dumb agenda.

All you’ve said is his teams lost in the playoffs. Everything else is complete nonsense.

[Roundball_Rock]

miller is a 3point shooter bro. Post his TS%. FG% doesn't show how absurd his efficiency is.

We know his efficiency as an all-time great 3 point shooter and FT shooter. The point was to show Miller got equal production from Smits, at a level that Ewing did not get from Starks. Ewing himself shared blame but he never had the help Miller had.


no you like to take out years and stats

1990 was Miller's first all-star season; 2000 his last all-star season.
2015 was Klay's first all-star season; 2019 his last all-star season to date (we have no 2020 number for obvious reasons).

What I do is use prime years. Not shocking. For Harden I used 2013-2020. Easy to see why.

I did post the career playoff numbers too BTW--those close the gap for Klay. So it is odd to see you complaining about prime years when adding non-prime years benefits Klay, not Miller.


his man took out Mj best game from 93 vs knicks and gave me his stats

Well, if the comment is "MJ outside of Game 4" you have to take Game 4 out to do that. I think that was the great Fatal9, though (sorely missed :bowdown: ). I merely quoted the numbers Fatal came up with.

You seem like a decent guy but if you are going to melt down and act in bad faith there is no point having discussions with you.



And anyway, why would you care when the games didn’t matter according to you

It is called having a conversation, which MJ stans and alt accounts of MJ stans can't do. Arbitrary asked for the info after your original post on your other account. MJ stans simply melt down, rant, and deflect. The rest of us are here to talk basketball.


But elimination games? Every ****ing game is an elimination game, each game holds EQUAL WEIGHT

This is naive. Player legacies aren't defined by what they do on a 40 win team in Game 3 of a sweep. They are defined in the playoffs by deep runs. Miller's legacy would be different if his teams won some of those ECF Game 7's, for obvious reasons.

[juju151111]

We know his efficiency as an all-time great 3 point shooter and FT shooter. The point was to show Miller got equal production from Smits, at a level that Ewing did not get from Starks. Ewing himself shared blame but he never had the help Miller had.



1990 was Miller's first all-star season; 2000 his last all-star season.
2015 was Klay's first all-star season; 2019 his last all-star season to date (we have no 2020 number for obvious reasons).

What I do is use prime years. Not shocking. For Harden I used 2013-2020. Easy to see why.



Well, if the comment is "MJ outside of Game 4" you have to take Game 4 out to do that. I think that was the great Fatal9, though (sorely missed :bowdown: ). I merely quoted the numbers Fatal came up with.

You seem like a decent guy but if you are going to melt down and act in bad faith there is no point having discussions with you.




It is called having a conversation, which MJ stans and alt accounts of MJ stans can't do. Arbitrary asked for the info after your original post on your other account. MJ stans simply melt down, rant, and deflect. The rest of us are here to talk basketball.



This is dumb. Player legacies aren't defined by what they do on a 40 win team in Game 3 of a sweep. They are defined in the playoffs by deep runs. Miller's legacy would be different if his teams won some of those ECF Game 7's, for obvious reasons.

The right thing to do is do 8th seasons to 8 seasons.

Wasn't melting dkwn, Telling people what you like to do to set a narrative. Lets take out Scottie Pippen game 7 vs knicks in 97. He would be trash and you could argue Grant outplayed him. You see how dumb your arguments are. Stop taking things out. Simple.

[Roundball_Rock]

Career playoff numbers in bold were already posted (which you must have seen but omitted in your faux rant)...

The TS % whining is weird too. The trick here is Miller is a 89% lifetime FT shooter so if you include it his numbers look better. They don't want to use EFG % (which adjusts for threes but doesn't count FT %) because Klay>Miller in that.

It is all a deflection by MJ stans: they easily could go to basketballreference.com and get the information if they really wanted it. That would be quicker than whining but their purpose here isn't to actually discuss Miller.




Klay in the playoffs: 19/4/2 on 44%
Miller in the playoffs: 21/3/3 on 45%

Klay in the playoffs (15'-19'): 20/4/2 on 44%, 16.6 FGA
Miller in the playoffs (90'-00'):23/3/3 on 46%, 16.1 FGA
Usage: Miller 25.4%, Klay 23.2% (25.8%

Thompson actually has a higher eFG% 54%-53% in their primes.


The right thing to do is do 8th seasons to 8 seasons.

That is cherry picked--just a bad way of doing it for statistics. That would cut Miller off in 95', for no legit reason, when a lot of his legacy comes from 96'-00' (3 ECF trips and 1 finals trip).

So you bitch about cherry picking and "taking things out" and then want to exclude half of Miller's prime? :wtf:

[LostCause]

Good god. Not only is your methodology in rating his playoff career stupid here. But elimination games? Every ****ing game is an elimination game, each game holds EQUAL WEIGHT, regardless of when it is played. That’s objective truth and only dumb narratives can skew how clear that is.


On top of that Reggie Miller played NBA basketball. Not 21, not 1v1. He got to the free throw line, A LOT. Using FG% makes you look like the old fish that got beat up by the entire city on Spongebob for no reason. And this is ignoring the raw context of impact without the ball.

Reggie scored 22 on 56 TS% in the 91 game 5 for instance.

And anyway, why would you care when the games didn’t matter according to you? He could’ve done anything and it still wouldn’t have made a difference because apparently only the first two games of the series matter. You know the road games against a far superior higher seed. Any games after are literally statpadding...yet they define his playoff career.

Right? Just shutup. You aren’t even saying any of this in good faith for this dumb agenda.

All you’ve said is his teams lost in the playoffs. Everything else is complete nonsense.

Dude's a troll. An elaborate one, but a troll nonetheless. Which is why he avoided my post addressing his OP and tried to jump on to another smaller point which also failed because he used a strawman (Assumed I was reffering to series that were never accounted for)

It's shocking to me that apparently he's supposed to have some esteem on this board from the past. I just find it hard to believe. His points are weird and shallow (Basically just lists random stats - I mean what else do you call trying to find Millers value using USAGE rating). Guys been melting down about Jordan for weeks now, nonstop. Even other posters called him out on it
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?480222-Jordan-Documentary-Perception&p=13999805&viewfull=1#post13999805

Honestly don't think the guy even spends time with his family he's posting so much here in some relation about MJ (With a random thread or post about something current mixed in to shield the fact 99% of his posts tie in to Jordan somehow)

Gotta be a 3ball alt lol. Can't think of anyone else that would go back and forth with him so often on the same subjects. Except maybe that Lazarus dude

[Reggie43]

Klay with a team of his own outside the shadow of Curry, Kd and Green, does he produce the same type of playoff resume that Miller has? Entire gameplans devised to stop him and being guarded by top level defenders night in and night out?

Kyrie and Pippen was rudely awakened by this type of pressure when they both looked lost without the guidance of Lebron and Jordan.

[Roundball_Rock]

Klay with a team of his own outside the shadow of Curry, Kd and Green, does he produce the same type of playoff resume that Miller has? Entire gameplans devised to stop him and being guarded by top level defenders night in and night out?


It is a great question. What do you think the record of players going from #2 options to #1 options is?

Your examples are mixed. Pippen became a MVP candidate without Jordan. Kyrie was the same statistically but has had issues with team chemistry.

Harden blossomed going from the #3 to #1. Westbrook went from #2 to #1 and put up historic numbers. Paul George has had success as a #1 and a #2 with multiple teams in both roles. Curry succeeded as a #2 and #1. Oladipo thrived as a #1 after going to Indiana. Butler has had his best years as a #1. Davis has thrived with LeBron as he did in New Orleans as the clear #1.

Flip the question: how many players have went from a #2 to a #1 and flamed out? Off the top of my head I can't think of a big flame out of a #2 star becoming the #1 outside of Shawn Kemp. Ariza was horrible as a #1 briefly, but he went from a #4 or #5 to a #1.

Bosh, Love did worse as #3 options than as #1 options.

These cases show why the "option" stuff is overblown. Most stars will do fine in a larger role. On the other hand, getting a lesser role doesn't always mean your efficiency would increase.

[Vino24]

Reggie would be a JR Smith in today’s game

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Dude's a troll. An elaborate one, but a troll nonetheless. Which is why he avoided my post addressing his OP and tried to jump on to another smaller point which also failed because he used a strawman (Assumed I was reffering to series that were never accounted for)

It's shocking to me that apparently he's supposed to have some esteem on this board from the past. I just find it hard to believe. His points are weird and shallow (Basically just lists random stats - I mean what else do you call trying to find Millers value using USAGE rating). Guys been melting down about Jordan for weeks now, nonstop. Even other posters called him out on it
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?480222-Jordan-Documentary-Perception&p=13999805&viewfull=1#post13999805

Honestly don't think the guy even spends time with his family he's posting so much here in some relation about MJ (With a random thread or post about something current mixed in to shield the fact 99% of his posts tie in to Jordan somehow)

Gotta be a 3ball alt lol. Can't think of anyone else that would go back and forth with him so often on the same subjects. Except maybe that Lazarus dude

Notice how he ignored you altogether?

Rockball doesn't want that smoke lol.

BTW, he never had "esteem" on here. He posted this way back in 2009, when I and other legit posters forced him into retirement. He's an alt/troll account. Not a coincidence that soon as the Jordan doc got released, he began posting here again. Feverishly :oldlol:

Keep it moving. Just like 3ball, the poster is a gimmick.

[Reggie43]

It is a great question. What do you think the record of players going from #2 options to #1 options is?

Your examples are mixed. Pippen became a MVP candidate without Jordan. Kyrie was the same statistically but has had issues with team chemistry.

Harden blossomed going from the #3 to #1. Westbrook went from #2 to #1 and put up historic numbers. Paul George has had success as a #1 and a #2 with multiple teams in both roles. Curry succeeded as a #2 and #1. Oladipo thrived as a #1 after going to Indiana. Butler has had his best years as a #1. Davis has thrived with LeBron as he did in New Orleans as the clear #1.

Flip the question: how many players have went from a #2 to a #1 and flamed out? Off the top of my head I can't think of a big flame out of a #2 star becoming the #1 outside of Shawn Kemp. Ariza was horrible as a #1 briefly, but he went from a #4 or #5 to a #1.

Bosh, Love did worse as #3 options than as #1 options.

These cases show why the "option" stuff is overblown. Most stars will do fine in a larger role. On the other hand, getting a lesser role doesn't always mean your efficiency would increase.

some of your examples are the result of players entering their prime and getting better and some of your situations have them getting numbers but forget to mention that they lost early in the playoffs and is not really considered a successful season. Butler joining a talented team then destroying team chemistry are one of the reasons he has bounced around the league.

[Rico2016]

Another tear down thread that serves no purpose other than maligning MJ's competition. What's next Roundball, a Miami Heat thread and how horrible of a team they were? I think you should go for the Cavs first.

You know, you sure do seem to care an awful lot about Chicago-based teams, with no realy regard for yout supposed love for New York teams, Mr "NY hoops"

[Vino24]

You know, you sure do seem to care an awful lot about Chicago-based teams, with no realy regard for yout supposed love for New York teams, Mr "NY hoops"

He has never talked about Ewing. Ever.









:oldlol::lol:roll:

[HoopsNY]

He has never talked about Ewing. Ever.









:oldlol::lol:roll:

Because there is nothing to talk about. Ewing was a great player who couldn't excel in the playoffs like his counterparts in Shaq and Hakeem. What is there to gloat about?

[HoopsNY]

You know, you sure do seem to care an awful lot about Chicago-based teams, with no realy regard for yout supposed love for New York teams, Mr "NY hoops"

Have you looked at our franchise over the last 45 years? And what other Chicago team have I commented on, other than the Bulls? You do realize 90% of the posts on this forum revolve around MJ, right?

[Roundball_Rock]

You know, you sure do seem to care an awful lot about Chicago-based teams, with no realy regard for yout supposed love for New York teams, Mr "NY hoops"

Exactly--it is an alt. :lol

BTW, have you noticed these nut jobs haven't explained how a thread about Miller and Smits somehow relates to Jordan, a player they faced in the playoffs only once? Indiana's best years were 94', 95', 98', 99', and 00'. Jordan was a factor in only one of those seasons.


He has never talked about Ewing. Ever.


Even after Ewing got dissed in this very thread. Why would "HoopsNYC" defend Miller but not Ewing? :oldlol:


some of your examples are the result of players entering their prime and getting better and some of your situations have them getting numbers

It is an interesting question that deserves examination in its own thread. What players would you put forward as cases who flamed out as #1's?


they lost early in the playoffs and is not really considered a successful season

That is a team result. Most of these guys became #1 options because they went to a weaker team or their team became weaker because the #1 option left.

If team results are so important BTW why is Miller getting praised here? His teams consistently came up short, with his performance in key games in ECF and finals games being a factor in that. Nor were the Pacers this juggernaut. Did they even average 50 wins for the 90's?

[Reggie43]

If team results are so important BTW why is Miller getting praised here? His teams consistently came up short, with his performance in key games in ECF and finals games being a factor in that. Nor were the Pacers this juggernaut. Did they even average 50 wins for the 90's?

Going to five conference finals with their core is an achievement considering that Miller never played with anyone better than him or even anyone as talented like what Jordan had in Pippen , Shaq with Penny or what Lebron had in Wade/Bosh, Kyrie/Love etc.

Nitpicking his bad games yet you forgot that he also delivered great series winning performances like the 31 pts to eliminate Shaq and Penny, 29 to finally beat Ewing's Knicks or the 33 and 41 point games to beat the Allen, Robinson, Cassell Bucks in consecutive years etc.

You and I both know that having good playoff runs is better than regular season wins so why even mention it?

[tpols]

reggie has become underrated due to how people value basketball players purely by summing up attributes, and not look at the real playoff performance.

more well rounded players with gaudier stats being put ahead of him. But when you look at the data, and the contextual iconic moments... the guy was just a playoff beast.

Those numbers, and that sample size, and that competition shaq jordan ewing pippen penny etc. and all he has is rik smits & some hustler types?

Give reggie a decent ballhandling all star. tim hardaway or gary payton or kevin johnson and he'd be ringing and whole career would look different.

[Turbo Slayer]

Have you looked at our franchise over the last 45 years? And what other Chicago team have I commented on, other than the Bulls? You do realize 90% of the posts on this forum revolve around MJ, right? What do you think of Melo? I have a love-hate relationship with him.

[Roundball_Rock]

You do realize 90% of the posts on this forum revolve around MJ, right?

The irony. :lol If you are going to go into every thread and make it about MJ then yeah, every thread is going to be about MJ. Even a thread about Oscar Robertson.


Going to five conference finals with their core is an achievement

I think it is--but the way people talk about team success here it doesn't count if you win a ring. Houston with Harden has been similarly successful and in the Harden thread he is being called a loser. People seem to have double standards based on whether they like a player.


Nitpicking his bad games

Nitpicking? I picked key games in the ECF, finals, and the Knicks ECSF (ask Ewing what the consequences of losing that game are). I did the same with Klay here and with Harden in another thread. It isn't nitpicking simply because the Miller results aren't consistent with his reputation.

The same exercise was bad for Harden and no one complained because we didn't have the MJ trolling in that thread. The Klay data must have been good--since that silenced the Miller>Klay in the playoffs talk.


yet you forgot that he also delivered great series winning performances like the 31 pts to eliminate Shaq and Penny, 29 to finally beat Ewing's Knicks or the 33 and 41 point games to beat the Allen, Robinson, Cassell Bucks




Game 6 94' ECF: 27/4/4 on 38% (with a trip to the finals on the line)
Game 7 94' ECF: 25/2/0 on 41%

Game 7 95' ECSF: 29/1/3 on 56%
Game 6 95' ECF: 36/7/2 on 68% (to stave off elimination)
Game 7 95' ECF: 12/4/0 on 39%

Game 6 98' ECF: 8/2/0 on 15% (elimination game)
Game 7 98' ECF: 22/0/4 on 54%

Game 6 99' ECF: 8/3/4 on 17% (Pacers eliminated)

Game 5 00' Finals: 25/4/6 on 58%
Game 6 00' Finals: 25/1/3 on 42%

You are cherry picking first round games. No one cares about the first round for player legacies, except apparently in this thread. :oldlol:


You and I both know that having good playoff runs is better than regular season wins so why even mention it?

It is a part of team performance. The Pacers weren't the second best team in the East in 94' or 95' but got to the ECF because the brackets placed the two best teams in the other semifinal. People don't look at playoff context. The Blazers made the WCF last year but no one thought they were the second best team in the West. The Rockets just happened to be in the Warriors' bracket.

They were a good team but they are being talked in a way that isn't applied to comparable teams, including the Knicks in their own era.

[Reggie43]

Im done here. I dont know why I even bothered with this agenda driven jordan hater in the first place.

[Roundball_Rock]

JorDUN! jorDUN! These imbeciles can't talk about anything without jacking off to Jordan. What again does JorDANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnn have to do with this thread?

The Knicks were the Pacers' rivals, not the Bulls.

Meanwhile the rest of the thread is actually discussing Miller, Smits, and the Pacers except MJ stans and whatever this "Reggie" account is. It is odd a "Reggie fan" is obsessed with MJ but that tells you it probably is another alt. :lol

[HoopsNY]

Exactly--it is an alt.

Sure it is. You must think everyone else's obsession is equal to yours.


BTW, have you noticed these nut jobs

"Nut jobs"....that's cute. Were you bullied as a kid?


Even after Ewing got dissed in this very thread. Why would "HoopsNYC" defend Miller but not Ewing?

I haven't seen where Ewing got dissed. But I clarified my position on Ewing already. He was a great center who couldn't get it done in the big moments. What do you want from me? To glorify the last 40 years that have been nothing but torture for us Knick fans? Between Ewing, Starks, Charles Smith, and then the later Knicks teams, the horrible drafts, the Isiah Thomas years, the multiplicity of coaches including all time greats like Lenny Wilkens and Larry Brown, all we've tasted is failure. You want me to gloat about Frederic Weis, who then ate Vince Carter's nuts in the olympics?

Maybe I should talk about bringing an already injured Amare for $100 million, which was a horrible move. Then getting Carmelo who is a cancer for any team, let alone a pressure packed Knicks team. And needless to say, it didn't pay off. And here we are in 2020 with no hopes of ever being a championship contending team, let alone being competitive. Honestly, the Knicks are one big comedy show.

Last year I went to the Garden to watch them play the Bucks and somehow they actually won, but given Dolan's growing reputation of being such a douche, I've decided to boycott the Garden and all their games as well. I live in NY and have lived here almost all of my life. I'm in my mid 30s dude, not some kid who just started watching basketball.

And this is rather rich coming from someone who considers himself to be a "Bulls fan", yet spends the majority of every waking moment on this forum trying to tear down their best player in their franchise history. Go figure. What do you want me to do, try to tear down Ewing, Starks, Stephon Marbury, etc? At least in your case, Jordan is worth the praise!

So seriously, spare me with the "alt" accusations.

[Roundball_Rock]

...

Let me guess: JorDAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

Meanwhile Ewing gets dissed and no response from a "New York" account but we see 10 MJ accounts defending Miller (who all real Knicks fans hate), including this one.

[HoopsNY]

What do you think of Melo? I have a love-hate relationship with him.

I never liked Melo. I didn't like him at Syracuse, nor on Denver. When the Knicks got him, I was so upset. It was bad enough that we spent the money on an already injured Amare. The Knicks make desperation moves that are flashy without little substance. Melo is a high volume scorer, that's about it. Can't pass, can't play defense, and certainly couldn't lead a team. Most younger Knicks fans loved him, though. I for one, didn't. But I come from the Nasty Boys generation that saw teams work cohesively.

[HoopsNY]

Let me guess: JorDAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

Meanwhile Ewing gets dissed and no response from a "New York" account but we see 10 MJ accounts defending Miller, including this one.

Was that your first word when you were a baby? You probably said it while you were crying. And you call yourself a Bulls fan? lol. The irony!

[Roundball_Rock]

Back to Reggie Miller and Rik Smits (MJ stans can't discuss anything but MJ but we have to move on). I noticed the big pushback to what Miller did in those key ECF, Finals, and the Knicks ECSF games is first round games. That is it? :lol If he made 5 ECF's that means he was in the second round several times. Anything of note happen there, outside of the Game 7 I already listed?

[999Guy]

That's one way to look at it but the reason his usage was (relatively) low was he was a limited player. There was only so much offense you could run through Miller as a scorer and he was not a playmaker.

Miller clearly was better than Smits--Miller is a HOF player and Smits a 1x all-star--but Smits was a skilled 7'4" center who allowed Indiana to run offense through in the post. They had good synergy with Smit's skilled game on the inside and Miller's all-time great shooting on the outside.
Then what is your point?

Do you not realize you just put Reggie’s USG rate next to a bunch of(largely inferior) shooting guards, showing his was on the low end, but put Rik Smits higher USG rate alongside his as well. Only to say Reggie is a CLEARLY better offensive player.

You just defeated your own point. What am I supposed to conclude by usage rates if you can be way better and have a lower usage rate?

And now you are moving onto Reggie’s Millers field goal percentage after his prime in deep playoff GAMES. Not years not even whole series. Just single games of a 30-something year old man against elite defense. And it’s his field goal percentage....


What exactly is your point?

[tpols]

"Playing against Reggie, and coaching Reggie, and knowing his personality... Reggie's hit more shots in crucial times than just about anybody ive ever seen."

-Larry Bird


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJbwHk0aWw

So not only does he have the absurd stats, we know it wasnt just an in the flow thing. Reggie's game was decoy & takeover when it matters most.

I think the fact that Larry Bird coached the Pacers in the late 90s against MJ's Bulls is undersold and known on this forum. I've never seen it even mentioned.

Now, Reggie had a trash talking reputation going back to his rookie year, but I think Bird really helped him become a truly dominant trash talker.

Thats probably part of why pacers were so damn good despite their talent disadvantage. Imagine facing Bird and Reggie yapping in your ear all the right words.

Had MJ and Pippen completely losing their cool.

[tpols]

Then what is your point?

Do you not realize you just put Reggie’s USG rate next to a bunch of(largely inferior) shooting guards, showing his was on the low end, but put Rik Smits higher USG rate alongside his as well. Only to say Reggie is a CLEARLY better offensive player.

You just defeated your own point. What am I supposed to conclude by usage rates if you can be way better and have a lower usage rate?

And now you are moving onto Reggie’s Millers field goal percentage after his prime in deep playoff GAMES. Not years not even whole series. Just single games of a 30-something year old man against elite defense. And it’s his field goal percentage....


What exactly is your point?

He's got no point.

All thread long just cherry picked individual games. Using FG instead of ORTG which encompasses FG, FT, 3pt, and TO's. (ultimate efficiency umbrella)

The dude's a clown.