Reggie Miller Discussion

[msbutthurt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj1w6ZIC7YQ

[L.Kizzle]

I think Reggie Miller had the most television appearances in the 1990s. I remember him on multiple sitcoms.

[Reggie43]

Reggie is probably in better shape today than most of his peers. Dude never seems to age.

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/Dpk2V0uyMLA

[Phoenix]

Reggie is probably in better shape today than most of his peers. Dude never seems to age.

He has one of those builds and metabolism. I mean can you picture him carrying any more weight than he currently does?

[Reggie43]

He has one of those builds and metabolism. I mean can you picture him carrying any more weight than he currently does?

Its actually easy to see because lots of naturally skinny guys tend to develop a dad bod/gut once they age if they dont keep an active and healthy lifestyle but I also wont deny that you are may be right and he was pretty lucky with his genes/strong metabolism.

[Phoenix]

Its actually easy to see because lots of naturally skinny guys tend to develop a dad bod/gut once they age if they dont keep an active and healthy lifestyle but I also wont deny that you are may be right and he was pretty lucky with his genes/strong metabolism.

Yeah I'm not saying it's not generally possible, just with Reggie in this case. Dude can probably eat 3000 calories a day and not put on a pound.

[Reggie43]

Yeah I'm not saying it's not generally possible, just with Reggie in this case. Dude can probably eat 3000 calories a day and not put on a pound.

The funny thing is he looks skinnier compared to his playing days

[Reggie43]

Him beating Drake at ping pong after being down big in the deciding game was epic. Just shows how competitive these guys are at anything they do.

[LAmbruh]

poor mans Klay Thompson

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/wFYK6EH9jKA

[LAmbruh]

0 chips, fringe top 75 tbh

[msbutthurt]

0 chips, fringe top 75 tbh



I am starting to think your girlfriend left you for Reggie Miller at some point in your life.


Klay Thompson - 8 seasons
PER 16.4 / WS 46.8 / 45.%fg

Reggie Miller - 18 seasons
PER 18.4 / WS 174.4 / 47.1%fg



Even after only averaging 16.5pts, 14.8pts, 12.6pts, 10.0pts in Miller's final 4 seasons, he still had a higher career per than Klay currently has in his prime. And Miller didn't have Steph Curry to give him even easier shots because defenders are focused on Curry more than Klay. Miller was the guy on his team and he would have multiple championships just like Klay if he had played with Curry.

[msbutthurt]

0 chips, fringe top 75 tbh



Is Klay Thompson top 75 all-time?


You said Reggie Miller might be top 75 all-time. So you think Klay Thompson is top 75 all-time?

[Roundball_Rock]

Miller clearly is ahead of Klay all-time--Klay is only halfway through his career. Comparing them through age 28 is revealing (94' season for Miller, before Spike Lee made him a star):

All-star: Klay 5, Miller 1
All-NBA: Klay 2, Miller 0
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Klay has accomplished a lot more to date. We have to see how the rest of his career unfolds but he is clearly on track to finish ahead of Miller. Klay is a better version of Miller: similar shooter who can play strong defense on the other team's best perimeter player, while Miller was a non-factor on defense.

Statistically (through age 28) they are similar as well:

Miller 19.3/3.3/3.2 64% TS 21.6% usage
Klay 19.5/3.5/2.3 58% TS 24.7% usage

Miller more efficient but he is doing it on notably lower volume. Only Reggie could have 21.6% usage and be considered a "first option."

[msbutthurt]

Miller clearly is ahead of Klay all-time--Klay is only halfway through his career. Comparing them through age 28 is revealing (94' season for Miller, before Spike Lee made him a star):

All-star: Klay 5, Miller 1
All-NBA: Klay 2, Miller 0
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Klay has accomplished a lot more to date. We have to see how the rest of his career unfolds but he is clearly on track to finish ahead of Miller. Klay is a better version of Miller: similar shooter who can play strong defense on the other team's best perimeter player, while Miller was a non-factor on defense.

Statistically (through age 28) they are similar as well:

Miller 19.3/3.3/3.2 64% TS 21.6% usage
Klay 19.5/3.5/2.3 58% TS 24.7% usage

Miller more efficient but he is doing it on notably lower volume. Only Reggie could have 21.6% usage and be considered a "first option."


The NBA changed the rules. Spreading the floor is more important now. Defense... lol. I just read the post that complains Artest and Kirlinko were all-stars. Defense is no longer worth while if that's the debate. Steph Curry doesn't play defense, but he spreads the floor. Steph Curry is the newer Reggie Miller.

Who was the first option?

He spread the offense out so the defense had no idea what they were doing.

Steph Curry is Reggie Miller.

[warriorfan]

Anyone saying Klay is better than Reggie Miller needs to be taken out back and shot.

[msbutthurt]

Anyone saying Klay is better than Reggie Miller needs to be taken out back and shot.

lol

I hate to say that I agree.

[Axe]

Pacers could have had more success during his career..

[Gabe Ball]

Reggie Miller is awesome, amazing player

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/JyhkpqGulds

King Mez - Reggie Miller

That homie lead till they see you with the Range
Well I'm Reggie Miller; pull up with the Range
They don't believe till they see you with your chain

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Reggie was a clutch player who improved in playoffs. Having said that, he was still overrated. Lacked an overall game and always inferior to Scottie P.

Reggie is supposed to be a scorer and in his only and last chance to beat Jordan/Pippen he puts up 13 shots in game 7 1998 finals? That's unacceptable for a player who isn't great on defense.

2000 he got beat by a 1 man team in Shaq, so that's nothing to brag about it either.

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/Vc3cyhyWI0A

"You knew it was big when the guy doing the play by play was Marv Albert" :oldlol:

[msbutthurt]

Reggie was a clutch player who improved in playoffs. Having said that, he was still overrated. Lacked an overall game and always inferior to Scottie P.

Reggie is supposed to be a scorer and in his only and last chance to beat Jordan/Pippen he puts up 13 shots in game 7 1998 finals? That's unacceptable for a player who isn't great on defense.

2000 he got beat by a 1 man team in Shaq, so that's nothing to brag about it either.



MJ and Shaq are two of the most dominant players of all-time. And Pippen was more athletic than Reggie Miller.


You say he only took 13 shots... I would have to watch but my guess is that he was being defended everywhere he went. His goal was to spread the floor. He ran everywhere and you couldn't leave him open, so he was highly guarded.

I think the best players he ever played with before the brawl were like Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson.

When Reggie finally got the perfect team, somebody threw something in the face of Ron Artest.

Pacers win the championship if somebody doesn't throw something in Ron Artest's face after Ben Wallace got pissed on a normal foul and then some jackass fan throws a drink at Artest's face. Then the team got suspended basically. That fan took a championship from the Pacers.

[Roundball_Rock]

The meltdowns: the facts are clear, Klay has already accomplished about as much accolades wise through age 28 as Miller did in his entire career.

Klay through 2019 versus Miller Career

All-star: 5 each
All-NBA: Miller 3, Klay 2
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Miller was an all-star caliber player through his age 34 season.

True, the rules have changed but that isn't relevant to how they will be ranked all-time. There is no "curve" for greatness. Players are assessed on what they actually did when they played.


Steph Curry is Reggie Miller.

:lol



Reggie is supposed to be a scorer and in his only and last chance to beat Jordan/Pippen he puts up 13 shots in game 7 1998 finals?

That was an improvement from 8 points on 2 for 13 in Game 6--with the Pacers facing elimination.

That is the issue with Miller. His calling card is scoring but his scoring was...21 PPG. Yet people talk about him like he was this elite scorer. So if he isn't contributing anywhere else, and his scoring is merely good but not great, that is a problem if that is your best player. There is a reason Indiana went 0-3 in ECF Game 7's and 1-4 in conference finals.

Reggie is top 50 all-time because he was good for so long but there is a reason he never finishing top 10 in MVP or made 1st/2nd team all-NBA: his peak was much lower than literally any other player he gets compared to, except for Klay.


You say he only took 13 shots... I would have to watch but my guess is that he was being defended everywhere he went.

He had trouble creating shots--there were only so many shots he could take. He didn't have the skill set to get open like real #1 options.



I think the best players he ever played with before the brawl were like Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson.

Smits, Schrempf, Chuck Person too. The great Reggie was giving up usage to these other guys. How many top all-time 50 players would be deferring to Rik Smits?

[warriorfan]

The meltdowns: the facts are clear, Klay has already accomplished about as much accolades wise through age 28 as Miller did in his entire career.

Klay through 2019 versus Miller Career

All-star: 5 each
All-NBA: Miller 3, Klay 2
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Miller was an all-star caliber player through his age 34 season.

True, the rules have changed but that isn't relevant to how they will be ranked all-time. There is no "curve" for greatness. Players are assessed on what they actually did when they played.



:lol




That was an improvement from 8 points on 2 for 13 in Game 6--with the Pacers facing elimination.

That is the issue with Miller. His calling card is scoring but his scoring was...21 PPG. Yet people talk about him like he was this elite scorer. So if he isn't contributing anywhere else, and his scoring is merely good but not great, that is a problem if that is your best player. There is a reason Indiana went 0-3 in ECF Game 7's and 1-4 in conference finals.

Reggie is top 50 all-time because he was good for so long but there is a reason he never finishing top 10 in MVP or made 1st/2nd team all-NBA: his peak was much lower than literally any other player he gets compared to, except for Klay.



He had trouble creating shots--there were only so many shots he could take. He didn't have the skill set to get open like real #1 options.



Smits, Schrempf, Chuck Person too. The great Reggie was giving up usage to these other guys. How many top all-time 50 players would be deferring to Rik Smits?

This is stomach turning cringe. All this listings of accolades and not one mention about modern era vs the 90s in terms of difference of the game for guards. Plus skimming over the part where Klay has played with the greatest shooter and floor spacer of all time....Still routinely putting up 15 ppg stinkers in the Finals. You are an awful troll and a disgusting human being. Leave here and crawl back to whatever hole you slithered without from.

[Reggie43]

I guess somebody is still triggered about Miller? :roll:

[Jay-B]

Great player, very underrated if you ask me. Always thought he should of joined that 08 Celtics team and got that ring

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/b6UORw879Os

Rare Buzzer Beaters at age 37.

Have never seen it in any of his videos/mixes aside from this.

[Roundball_Rock]

Great player, very underrated if you ask me. Always thought he should of joined that 08 Celtics team and got that ring

When he was 42? He retired in 05'.

His team made 5 ECF in 7 years, including a finals. He had ample opportunities to win a championship. 1999 was probably their best shot. They face an 8 seed in the ECF, Ewing goes down in the series and misses games 3-6 (series was 1-1 after two games). How did "clutch" Reggie respond?

4 for 9 for 12 points (lose by 1)
3 for 10 for 12 points (win by 12)
9 for 19 for 30 points (lose by 7)
1 for 8 for 8 points (lose by 8, eliminated)

This is the problem with Miller in a nutshell, as hbq alluded to. His calling card is scoring but look at that log: 9, 10, 19, and 8 shots and the inconsistency inherent to a shooter (one big game but three duds). The guy couldn't create shots like a real number 1 option due to his limited skill set. So his "efficiency" numbers are great to kids 25 years later but 21 points on 14 shots don't cut it when your team needed 30 points on 20 shots (21 PPG scorer for his prime yet people talk about him like he was scoring like Curry) and you can't contribute in any other facet of the game when you aren't scoring.

Reggie has to be the only top 50 all-time player who never finished top 10 in MVP (his high was 13th, when he tied teammate Jalen Rose with 0.001% of the vote).

[Reggie43]

Reggie Miller mind****ed this dude so hard it turned into an obsession :lebroncry:

[Roundball_Rock]

Slight error (listed his 3 point numbers for Game 6 in the 99' ECF). Here is the corrected info:

4 for 9 for 12 points (lose by 1)
3 for 10 for 12 points (win by 12)
9 for 19 for 30 points (lose by 7)
3 for 18 for 8 points (lose by 8, eliminated)

In total, he averaged 15.5 on 33.9% shooting (with 3.3 boards and 2.3 assists) in Games 3-6. Allan Houston averaged 20.0 on 44.8% shooting as a comparison.

The year before, in the 98' ECF, which many others would say was their best shot at a ring a similar thing happened (the Pacers came closest to beating the MJ/Pippen/Rodman Bulls):

5 for 14 for 16 points (L by 6)
4 for 13 for 19 points (L by 6)
9 for 15 for 28 points (W by 2)
5 for 11 for 15 points (W by 2)
5 for 10 for 14 points (L by 19)
2 for 13 for 8 points (W by 3)
7 for 13 for 22 points (L by 5)

So he supposedly is this Curry-like scorer and he is averaging 17.4 PPG on 12.7 shots (only 1.6 boards, 2.0 assists)? :lol

[tpols]

Reggie Miller mind****ed this dude so hard it turned into an obsession :lebroncry:

it's crazy....

the expectations for reggie are so high that if he couldn't beat MJ + Pippen with Rik Smits as his next best player, he was a loser.

And the hilarious part is roundrock considers Pippen to be >> Miller, so he admits the Bulls just vastly out talented Indiana.

Yet they were a hair away from beating them?

:biggums:


Something aint adding up. :lol

[tpols]

Reggie Miller mind****ed this dude so hard it turned into an obsession :lebroncry:

he turned him into spike lee.

:oldlol:

https://i.gifer.com/Shbh.gif

[Reggie43]

he turned him into spike lee.

:oldlol:

https://i.gifer.com/Shbh.gif

The only arguments he has is built on lies and deceit. Poor dude cant think of anything smart and has to result to copy pasting another mans work (Kblaze). Imagine insisting a high scoring low usage player is somehow a bad thing :roll:

[Reggie43]

Reggie Miller winning playoff games at age 39...


https://youtu.be/BamexgM2TLE
28 points and the dagger


https://youtu.be/59wPriklXNI
Game high 33 points

Boston writer getting triggered by Uncle Reggie after these games...

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20050430/news/304309977?template=ampart


The NBA will be better off once Reggie Miller is gone from the game.

Basketball fans surely want my head for such a statement -- after all, Reggie's one of the few remaining holdouts from the most recent 90's heyday of the NBA. Michael, Scottie, Isiah, Karl, Magic ... they're all gone.

But for all his unbelievable performances, for all his clutch shots, Reggie Miller is nothing more than just another punk.

Why do people tune out a cornrowed and tattooed Allen Iverson, spew venom at a hard-nosed Ron Artest, or boo a sexually perverse Kobe Bryant, yet worship the grinning Miller with those cute, taxi-cab ears?


Because he's put a con on the NBA fans almost as good as he's snowing the officials in this playoff series.

With all the drama and intrigue of the Celtics-Pacers first-round matchup, you'd think these were close, heated games. Instead, it's been one back-and-forth affair sandwiched between two blowouts, with Miller front and center.

It's Reggie with those cheap flops, Reggie with those leg kicks into a defender, Reggie grabbing the opposition's arm coming off a pick and swinging them out of the way when the officials' view is obstructed.

But Reggie's impending retirement means eventually, he'll even be cheered in Boston.

[houston]

reggie so overrated

[ralph_i_el]

Miller clearly is ahead of Klay all-time--Klay is only halfway through his career. Comparing them through age 28 is revealing (94' season for Miller, before Spike Lee made him a star):

All-star: Klay 5, Miller 1
All-NBA: Klay 2, Miller 0
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Klay has accomplished a lot more to date. We have to see how the rest of his career unfolds but he is clearly on track to finish ahead of Miller. Klay is a better version of Miller: similar shooter who can play strong defense on the other team's best perimeter player, while Miller was a non-factor on defense.

Statistically (through age 28) they are similar as well:

Miller 19.3/3.3/3.2 64% TS 21.6% usage
Klay 19.5/3.5/2.3 58% TS 24.7% usage

Miller more efficient but he is doing it on notably lower volume. Only Reggie could have 21.6% usage and be considered a "first option."

Check out their scoring when you adjust for pace.

[Horatio33]

If Miller hit those shots against the Charlotte Hornets instead of the New York Knicks no one would care. Its the mystique and the Spike Lee thing. It made Miller. He was nowhere near as good as his legend.

[Reggie43]

If Miller hit those shots against the Charlotte Hornets instead of the New York Knicks no one would care. Its the mystique and the Spike Lee thing. It made Miller. He was nowhere near as good as his legend.

Except that he had similar playoff moments against Shaq/Penny Magic, Jordans Bulls, Iversons Sixers, Ray/Glen/Sam Bucks, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Kidds Nets etc. but fans barely remember them because thats how underrated he was...

[Roundball_Rock]

If Miller hit those shots against the Charlotte Hornets instead of the New York Knicks no one would care. Its the mystique and the Spike Lee thing. It made Miller. He was nowhere near as good as his legend.

Amen! Think about it, before Spike Lee and New York here was his resume:

Miller from 1987-1994

1x all-star, 0x all-NBA

Miller from 1995-2000

4x all-star, 3x all-NBA (all third teams)

So all of a sudden at age 29 he becomes a perennial all-star? :lol It is ridiculous. He was basically the same player throughout the entire 90's. What changed is what you referenced. Now we have to hear about him as being a superstar, the second best guard of the 90's, and other nonsense 26 years later that no one thought when all this was actually happening in the 90's. Thanks, Spike!

[Nashty]

Better than Kobe.

[ZenMaster7210]

This is stomach turning cringe. All this listings of accolades and not one mention about modern era vs the 90s in terms of difference of the game for guards. Plus skimming over the part where Klay has played with the greatest shooter and floor spacer of all time....Still routinely putting up 15 ppg stinkers in the Finals. You are an awful troll and a disgusting human being. Leave here and crawl back to whatever hole you slithered without from.

He is absolute scum. Klay ****ing Thompson over Reggie? Are you nuts!

[Roundball_Rock]

Poor Reggie, the rules were unfair! :lol That isn't how history works. Your all-time ranking is based on what you actually accomplished--not theoretical stuff if time machines existed. You have to be quite ignorant to think otherwise. Pick up a history book. Maybe William Howard Taft would be the GOAT if he was president in 1861 instead of Lincoln. No one cares--he wasn't. Maybe Alexander the Great wouldn't be so great in 21st century warfare. Who knows--no one cares enough to even waste time on the alternate universe. Historical figures are judged by their historical record. If Reggie couldn't get it done when he played, too bad.

If Miller played on the Warriors...he would be Klay without the defense. He benefited from his era--his reputation is heavily based on (nominally) being the #1 option on a perennial contender. If he played today he would be the #3 option on teams like the Warriors, Lakers, Rockets, or Clippers just like Klay would be (or Ray Allen for that matter). Miller gets to have it both ways: the credit of being a #1 option without the scrutiny a player in that role would get, which he evaded because the people covering him then understood what he was. They weren't going to assess him against the same standards as superstars.

All this talk of rules and no mention of Miller benefiting from a shorter three point line for three seasons (he averaged 25.7 PPG in the playoffs with the WNBA line; 22.5 PPG for the rest of his prime)...

[Manny98]

poor mans Klay Thompson
This still the second best shooting guard of the 90s tho i give him that

[Roundball_Rock]

This still the second best shooting guard of the 90s tho i give him that

Over Drexler and Mitch Richmond? Dumars has a case too (since he played defense, unlike Miller) but I would put Miller 4th and Dumars 5th (Hornacek 6th, the best of the non-HOF rest).

[tpols]

He is absolute scum. Klay ****ing Thompson over Reggie? Are you nuts!

worst poster on this board by far.

[Manny98]

Over Drexler and Mitch Richmond? Dumars has a case too (since he played defense, unlike Miller) but I would put Miller 4th and Dumars 5th (Hornacek 6th, the best of the non-HOF rest).
Richmond is overrated no way you're taking him over Reggie especially in the playoffs

[tpols]

Richmond is overrated no way you're taking him over Reggie especially in the playoffs

let spike be. he's gotten the crap kicked out of him in this discussion enough times. :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

Richmond is overrated no way you're taking him over Reggie especially in the playoffs

There isn't much of a playoff sample size with Richmond but here are his prime playoff numbers versus prime Miller:

Richmond 21/6/3 (21 games)
Miller 23/3/3 (100 games)

Similar--except Richmond was a much better defender and Richmond contributed on the glass. Miller has this "clutch" reputation despite losing almost every major series of his career in part due to his limitations. He was a shooter. He got hot at times. So did Klay, Allen, etc.

[tpols]

Mitch Richmond has a negative spread ORTG to DRTG in the playoffs. -6 to be exact.

Reggie? +11. on 5+ times the game volume. His offensive efficiency is leagues better.

Show me a great player who has a negative playoff spread.... doesnt exist.

[Roundball_Rock]

The claim that Klay is dependent on Curry is easy to fact check: what did Klay do when Curry was hurt?

12/6-12/29: 21/4/3 45%
3/9-4/10: 23/3/2 46% (Klay missed some games during this time as well)
2018 season: 20/4/3 49%

2019

11/10-11/29: 25/4/2 45%
2019 season: 22/4/2 47%

How about the playoffs?

2018 w/out Curry: 23/4/3 51% 15.7 game score
2018 with Curry: 18/4/2 44% 11.2 game score

Damn, Klay sucks without Curry! :lol Even without Curry, Klay is putting up better numbers than Reggie did and this is with Klay expending energy playing defense, unlike Miller.

The Curry thing works both ways if you have the ability to think through things. Curry takes defensive attention but he also reduces Klay's stats because he is a 30 PPG caliber first option, not Rik Smits (the player the great Reggie deferred to for 2/3 of the time he was on the court). Miller's stats wouldn't be the same if he had to defer to a superstar, a real #1 option. He was scoring 21 with guys like Smits, Chuck Person, Jalen Rose, and Detlef Schrempf. He would probably be around 18 PPG or so if he played next to a real #1 option who commanded more usage and shots than Smits and co. did.

[Manny98]

There isn't much of a playoff sample size with Richmond but here are his prime playoff numbers versus prime Miller:

Richmond 21/6/3 (21 games)
Miller 23/3/3 (100 games)

Similar--except Richmond was a much better defender and Richmond contributed on the glass. Miller has this "clutch" reputation despite losing almost every major series of his career in part due to his limitations. He was a shooter. He got hot at times. So did Klay, Allen, etc.

Yh but Miller was way more efficient and Richmonds defense wasn't exactly anything notable either

And the fact that Richmonds playoff sample size is so small goes to show how overrated he is.

Only made the playoffs once as the teams best player whilst Miller has lead his team into multiple deep playoff runs and took the 90s Bulls to 7 games with no all star help

[Roundball_Rock]

and took the 90s Bulls to 7 games with no all star help

Rik Smits was an all-star that year, Dale Davis was two years later. Did Miller "carry" the team in the series?

1998 ECF, Pacers

Miller 17/2/2 59% TS 11.6 GS 21.1% usage
Smits 16/5/1 63% TS 10.9 GS 23.3% usage
Davis 10/7/1 65% TS 9.8 GS 17.4% usage
Jackson 10/4/6 52% TS 8.3 GS 22.9% usage

Where is the "carry"? It looks like an ensemble cast to me--Miller is #3 in usage. Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc all had higher game scores than Miller did--so the fourth best player on the other team outplayed Reggie in the series, in what many think was Reggie's best shot to win a ring. Ouch...

Only Miller could go 17/2/2 on 42% and be praised for "carrying" a team via that. This is a recurring theme: Miller isn't held to the same standards as superstars are but he gets the credit they do. Any other ATG would get ripped for this.

In Game 7? Miller went 22/0/4. Solid scoring but 0 rebounds in a game where the opposing SG and SF had 5 and 6 offensive rebounds alone, which turned out to be the difference in the outcome.

[Manny98]

I didn't say he carried but he was the best player on a Pacers team that was one quarter away from taking down the Bulls dynasty and going to the finals

Richmond on the other hand hasn't done anything career wise apart from put up empty numbers and fail to make the playoffs every year

I get Drexler but Richmond has absolutely 0 case over Miller

[Roundball_Rock]

I didn't say he carried but he was the best player on a Pacers team that was one quarter away from taking down the Bulls dynasty and going to the finals

Got it, that is fair.

[Horatio33]

People forget that Miller played a season or two where the three point line was closer to the basket.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I didn't say he carried but he was the best player on a Pacers team that was one quarter away from taking down the Bulls dynasty and going to the finals

Richmond on the other hand hasn't done anything career wise apart from put up empty numbers and fail to make the playoffs every year

I get Drexler but Richmond has absolutely 0 case over Miller

Reggie also played on better teams. With better talent and coaches.

Who did Richmond play with in Sacramento? Bet you cant even name his 'sidekick' without looking it up :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

People forget that Miller played a season or two where the three point line was closer to the basket.

Yup--and he benefited greatly from it.

Prime Miller in the playoffs with the short 3 point line: 25.7 PPG
Prime Miller in the playoffs with the real 3 point line: 22.5 PPG

He gets hyped because of Spike Lee, New York, the "30 for 30" and because MJ stans are insecure about his era so hype every star (except one :lol ) from that era. Ray Allen was a better version of Miller and how often is he talked about these days?

[BigShotBob]

Yup--and he benefited greatly from it.

Prime Miller in the playoffs with the short 3 point line: 25.7 PPG
Prime Miller in the playoffs with the real 3 point line: 22.5 PPG

He gets hyped because of Spike Lee, New York, the "30 for 30" and because MJ stans are insecure about his era so hype every star (except one :lol ) from that era. Ray Allen was a better version of Miller and how often is he talked about these days?

He gets hyped because he hit a game winner on the GOAT MJ, destroyed the Shaq/Penny Magic, destroyed the Hawks, the Knicks, and hit game winners on LA. No one's buying wat ur sellin.

[Roundball_Rock]

Case in point. :lol The MJ crowd is awfully protective of Reggie.


destroyed the Shaq/Penny Magic, destroyed the Hawks, the Knicks, and hit game winners on LA

Smits' defense turning Shaq into a shell of himself plus solid offense was as important was what Reggie did in the series.

Against Atlanta Miller was 19/4/3 on 41% and Smits 16/5/3. Miller had a game score of 10.8 as the Pacers squeaked by in 7 against a Hawks team that had traded away Wilkins foolishly. Miller was the best Pacer in the series but nothing to write home about.

Knicks? The Knicks won the 94' series. 95' Indy won--but Smits outplaying Ewing for the second time in three years was more important than Miller (both scored the same but Smits' defense on Ewing was huge, Miller a non-factor on defense).

Miller wasn't the type of player to "carry" teams and none of this is "destroying" teams. :lol

[Reggie43]

Only kids would think Miller played no defense when some of his most famous highlights involves him getting a defensive stop. He played better defense on Jordan in the playoffs than most of his peers. Jordan himself even admitted he hated Millers dirty defensive tactics.

Even past his prime he was matching up pretty well with guys like Houston, Sprewell, Ray Allen, Iverson at times etc. and doing a good job.

He always relished that shooting guard matchup and was always giving effort on defense because he was a prideful defender. His defense could be described as scrappy yet fundamentally sound, always trying to stay in front of his man and not gambling too much. Those Larry Brown Pacers was a defense first team and he was a big part of that.

Not that he was a good judge of talent but Isiah Thomas even called Miller the teams best defender at 35 years old.

[Reggie43]

Only a retard would think Smits defense was the main factor on that Magic series. Ever heard of Dale and Antonio Davis? :facepalm

[Reggie43]

Lebron stans version of 3ball with the deceit and lies as usual. Why dont you spread your bullshit on the Pippen threads or are you really this trigerred about Miller that you have become obsessed :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie, who was higher than 12th in scoring once (8th on a bad team), is supposed to be a scorer (the only facet of the game he contributed in) yet we have people citing series where he scored 17 PPG or 19 PPG as among his greatest hits. Any of the players he gets compared to go 17/2/2 in a major series? They got roasted
for it; Reggie gets praised. :lol

[Reggie43]

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1994-05-01-9405010380-story.html

BIG DAVISES SHACKLE SHAQ
George Diaz of The Sentinel Staff
THE ORLANDO SENTINEL



Davis & Davis used their combined 13 feet, 8 inches and 460 pounds effectively, negating the effectiveness of Orlando center Shaquille O'Neal with an aggressive bump-and-run defense that would have pleased all NFL scouts in the audience.

Although Antonio Davis or Rik Smits were often matched against O'Neal, Dale Davis - Indiana's starting power forward - wasn't far away.

"I got Shaq out as far as possible (from the basket), and when he catches it, I scream," Antonio Davis said. "Every time I turn around, I've been relying on Dale to come and trap, and he's been there every time."

[Reggie43]

He gets praised because of this...





Miller's prime playoff numbers (up to age 30) 49 games..

24.7ppg. .481 fg% .436 3p% 7.6 fta 3.2 rebs 2.6 apg. 1.1spg

.628 TS% 26.1 Usg%

All in a tougher more physical era without the help of the modern rule changes like no handchecking and freedom of movement bullshit.

While also having playoff wins against Shaq/Penny Magic, Ewing's Knicks etc.

Miller in interviews basically says that he uses the regular season to involve teammates more to help them build their confidence in preparation for the playoffs. When playoff time comes and he feels some players are not ready for the pressure he just involves himself in the offense more thus the big jump in production with him scoring almost five more point per game compared to the regular season.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Those are good posts, Reggie43.

Miller was a damn marksman. Also seen posts from you saying you don't disagree with people taking Mitch. You're a fan but an objective one. :applause:

[tpols]

Reggie Miller put up 24 ppg 120 ORTG in a brutal defensive era for 100+ playoff games with GOAT clutch moments.

Rik Smits is a Big Z type player.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SsVrWi7boSQ/TD0f7Qmr1UI/AAAAAAAAAFo/gFG5gcsZGgg/s1600/p1_ilgauskas2_getty.jpg

A simple 1 time all star. The kind of guy others played with and we were told they had no help.

[Reggie43]

The Pacers trading Antonio Davis away and then facing Shaq in the Finals the following year was painful. When Pacers fans needed the Davis Brothers the most and we traded half of the duo for the hype of Bender :facepalm

[Roundball_Rock]

1) The rules were unfair to Reggie, even though he had the WNBA three point line for 3 years in the middle of his prime. We don't need to speculate on Reggie in future eras. Ray Allen, Klay Thompson were versions of Reggie. Both were top 10 players but not superstars.
2) What did Reggie score in the biggest series of his career? It isn't really congested that he was a non-factor outside of scoring. The claim is he was this great, alpha, alpha scorer. Was he?

1994 ATL ECSF 19 PPG
1994 NY ECF 25 PPG
1995 NY ECSF 23 PPG*
1995 ORL ECF 26 PPG*
1998 CHI ECF 17 PPG
1999 NY ECF 16 PPG
2000 NY ECF 22 PPG
2000 LA Finals 24 PPG
Average: 21.5 PPG
Average with NBA 3 line: 20.5

How alpha is this to you? What if another great "scorer" did the same? Suppose Curry, Wilkins, KD, Iverson, T Mac, Kobe, LeBron averaged 20.5 or 21.5. Would they be celebrated for it?

*WNBA three point line

[Reggie43]

Again with the very low iq takes :facepalm Miller with the shortened line was probably making around 2 threes made per game so the narrative that he greatly benefitted from the "wnba 3pt line" results to a whopping 2 extra points :oldlol:

Add in the fact that three of his best 3pt shooting seasons came before and after the shortened line makes this argument from the 3ball of lebrontards really weak as usual...

[Reggie43]

Trying to spin that Smits shutdown Shaq thus was better than Miller and acting like Miller was hugely dependent on the shortened line was some of the worst arguments I have seen against him. No wonder he had to copy paste stuff from other posters :roll:

[warriorfan]

Trying to spin that Smits shutdown Shaq thus was better than Miller and acting like Miller was hugely dependent on the shortened line was some of the worst arguments I have seen against him. No wonder he had to copy paste stuff from other posters :roll:

:roll:

Dude is such a clown, it’s pretty insane.

[Reggie43]

An example of his lies...



Smits' defense turning Shaq into a shell of himself plus solid offense was as important was what Reggie did in the series.

Milller 29ppg .545% 2.7rebs 3.7asts 2.3spg .3bpg
.668 TS

Smits 16ppg .405% 5.3rebs 3.3asts 1.3spg .3bpg
.472 TS

was as important in the series apparently :facepalm



Against Atlanta Miller was 19/4/3 on 41% and Smits 16/5/3. Miller had a game score of 10.8 as the Pacers squeaked by in 7 against a Hawks team that had traded away Wilkins
Pacers won in 6 games after holding a 3-1 series lead but they "squeaked by in 7" against the Hawks :facepalm

[aceman]

Miller clearly is ahead of Klay all-time--Klay is only halfway through his career. Comparing them through age 28 is revealing (94' season for Miller, before Spike Lee made him a star):

All-star: Klay 5, Miller 1
All-NBA: Klay 2, Miller 0
Top 10 MVP: Klay 1, Miller 0
All-D: Klay 1, Miller 0

Klay has accomplished a lot more to date. We have to see how the rest of his career unfolds but he is clearly on track to finish ahead of Miller. Klay is a better version of Miller: similar shooter who can play strong defense on the other team's best perimeter player, while Miller was a non-factor on defense.

Statistically (through age 28) they are similar as well:

Miller 19.3/3.3/3.2 64% TS 21.6% usage
Klay 19.5/3.5/2.3 58% TS 24.7% usage

Miller more efficient but he is doing it on notably lower volume. Only Reggie could have 21.6% usage and be considered a "first option."
One of these guys play defense

[Reggie43]

One of these guys play defense

You are the same guy that tried to argue that Kukoc was not a defensive liability. How ironic :lol

[Kblaze8855]

He gets praised because of this...


No he doesnt. Nobody who didnt just google it has any idea what Reggie Millers shooting numbers were or about 24ppg in the playoffs.

Reggie Miller is more famous than others who did more because of years of ESPN specials and new york hype.

Thats really it.

Even bigtime NBA fans in many cases dont even know guys who led teams to titles. Even most of ISH has no idea who Gus Williams is. Reggie Millers fame is a product of the media age and being a rival of the Knicks and spike lee. Praise and fame are obviously not a simple basketball issue. If it were you would have seen a Dave Cowens topic more than once a year. Reggie is obviously more famous than he was great. He came along at the perfect time to catch the media wave and get famous off irrelevant drama in second rounds and losing big series with dramatic game 2s and 3s that get talked about for 25 years while others are total nobodies despite having monster games to win titles.

His fame is based on era, the media, and catching the right age group in their youth so the people on the internet now remember him fondly from childhood. His numbers dont mean shit. The biggest basketball fan you run into this month will have no idea what Reggie averaged over _____ years even if you live in Indiana.

Most basketball fans couldnt name 5 things he did in his career and none of those 5 would be terribly significant. Hes a great player. Hes in the HOF and he should be. He scored 25000 points in the NBA. But his praise is not related to the things you mention. Not only do casual basketball fans barely know of care about that even real fans would barely know.

Reggie is famous because he had dramatic moments vs the Knicks, Bulls, and a hollywood guy that got a lot of media attention but didnt ultimately lead to anything. Hes not famous for whatever he did in a 3 game series vs the Hawks nobody has seen a clip of in 20 years.

Nobody is drooling over 24ppg or advanced stats exactly nobody not currently here on or real GM has ever seen. They think of 8 points in 9 seconds because they have seen it on ESPN 400 times. Not of him having like 10 points the next game or 10 points getting eliminated that year. There is no context. Its the same 3-4 highlights for a quarter century. Hes famous for those 3-4 highlights. Not his total game or what he accomplished. Its not his fault....but the media really kicked into gear shaping legacies in the 90s.

[Roundball_Rock]

One of these guys play defense

Yup. Klay and Ray Allen are better versions of him (who actually won) and neither get talked about the way Miller does because he doesn't have a "30 for 30", Spike Lee, and they don't suit the thinly veiled agendas of these people.

It is funny, all these Miller "advocates" (today--tomorrow it will be Ewing, Saturday Malone, Sunday Stockton and so on--can you detect the agenda? :lol ) implicitly concede Miller wasn't as great as they claim he was here and elsewhere.

*Miller didn't accomplish that much, Klay in half a career has as many accolades as Miller in 18 years--but hey, the rules and game were unfair for Miller! Not his fault he couldn't crack the top 10 in MVP once (probably the only top 50-60 ATG who failed to do so) and was a 1x all-star before Spike Lee.
*Miller didn't win anything despite being on a contender for 7 years--but it's Reggie. Come on, what do you actually expect when it is Reggie facing real superstars on the other teams?
*Miller is hyped as a great scorer but didn't actually score much--but it's because he worked within the offense. In other words, Miller was forced to defer to Rik Smits for 2/3 of the time on the court. So all-time great scorer, alpha alpha scorer--deferring to Rik Smits. :oldlol:
*Miller did nothing but score (at a good, not great level), but we can't expect Reggie to grab a rebound in Game 7 or playmake or play defense or do literally anything other than score and run around trying to get screens because he can't create his own shot or bring the ball up the court.
*Miller had some monster first round series (where he played 40-44 MPG)! Only with Reggie would you see first round series invoked because he didn't do the same in major playoff series with real stakes. As a 7 seed while getting swept? Sure, Reggie is your guy for that.
*Scored 19 PPG, 17 PPG, etc. in series important for his career. These are proferred as among career highlights by people advocating for him...any legitimately great scorer would get roasted for that, especially if they weren't contributing anything else on the court beyond the 17 PPG.

Reggie is held to a lower standard than any of the players he gets compared to here because even his "advocates" know he isn't in the same class as those other guys. He gets zero scrutiny--while you will see the very same people go chapter and verse through the skeletons of other players. Nothing on Reggie because he isn't worth scrutinizing.

[aceman]

You are the same guy that tried to argue that Kukoc was not a defensive liability. How ironic :lol

He wasn't - which series did bulls lose because of his defense?

[aceman]

Yup. Klay and Ray Allen are better versions of him (who actually won) and neither get talked about the way Miller does because he doesn't have a "30 for 30", Spike Lee, and they don't suit the thinly veiled agendas of these people.

It is funny, all these Miller "advocates" (today--tomorrow it will be Ewing, Saturday Malone, Sunday Stockton and so on--can you detect the agenda? :lol ) implicitly concede Miller wasn't as great as they claim he was here and elsewhere.

*Miller didn't accomplish that much, Klay in half a career has as many accolades as Miller in 18 years--but hey, the rules and game were unfair for Miller! Not his fault he couldn't crack the top 10 in MVP once (probably the only top 50-60 ATG who failed to do so) and was a 1x all-star before Spike Lee.
*Miller didn't win anything despite being on a contender for 7 years--but it's Reggie. Come on, what do you actually expect when it is Reggie facing real superstars on the other teams?
*Miller is hyped as a great scorer but didn't actually score much--but it's because he worked within the offense. In other words, Miller was forced to defer to Rik Smits for 2/3 of the time on the court. So all-time great scorer, alpha alpha scorer--deferring to Rik Smits. :oldlol:
*Miller did nothing but score (at a good, not great level), but we can't expect Reggie to grab a rebound in Game 7 or playmake or play defense or do literally anything other than score and run around trying to get screens because he can't create his own shot or bring the ball up the court.
*Miller had some monster first round series (where he played 40-44 MPG)! Only with Reggie would you see first round series invoked because he didn't do the same in major playoff series with real stakes. As a 7 seed while getting swept? Sure, Reggie is your guy for that.
*Scored 19 PPG, 17 PPG, etc. in series important for his career. These are proferred as among career highlights by people advocating for him...any legitimately great scorer would get roasted for that, especially if they weren't contributing anything else on the court beyond the 17 PPG.

Reggie is held to a lower standard than any of the players he gets compared to here because even his "advocates" know he isn't in the same class as those other guys. He gets zero scrutiny--while you will see the very same people go chapter and verse through the skeletons of other players. Nothing on Reggie because he isn't worth scrutinizing.

Klay is simply a better player however Miller was bigger star & villain. I guess that is part of package Miller brought a lot fans to game & he will always be remembered

[Reggie43]

No he doesnt. Nobody who didnt just google it has any idea what Reggie Millers shooting numbers were or about 24ppg in the playoffs.

Reggie Miller is more famous than others who did more because of years of ESPN specials and new york hype.

Thats really it.

Even bigtime NBA fans in many cases dont even know guys who led teams to titles. Even most of ISH has no idea who Gus Williams is. Reggie Millers fame is a product of the media age and being a rival of the Knicks and spike lee. Praise and fame are obviously not a simple basketball issue. If it were you would have seen a Dave Cowens topic more than once a year. Reggie is obviously more famous than he was great. He came along at the perfect time to catch the media wave and get famous off irrelevant drama in second rounds and losing big series with dramatic game 2s and 3s that get talked about for 25 years while others are total nobodies despite having monster games to win titles.

His fame is based on era, the media, and catching the right age group in their youth so the people on the internet now remember him fondly from childhood. His numbers dont mean shit. The biggest basketball fan you run into this month will have no idea what Reggie averaged over _____ years even if you live in Indiana.

Most basketball fans couldnt name 5 things he did in his career and none of those 5 would be terribly significant. Hes a great player. Hes in the HOF and he should be. He scored 25000 points in the NBA. But his praise is not related to the things you mention. Not only do casual basketball fans barely know of care about that even real fans would barely know.

Reggie is famous because he had dramatic moments vs the Knicks, Bulls, and a hollywood guy that got a lot of media attention but didnt ultimately lead to anything. Hes not famous for whatever he did in a 3 game series vs the Hawks nobody has seen a clip of in 20 years.

Nobody is drooling over 24ppg or advanced stats exactly nobody not currently here on or real GM has ever seen. They think of 8 points in 9 seconds because they have seen it on ESPN 400 times. Not of him having like 10 points the next game or 10 points getting eliminated that year. There is no context. Its the same 3-4 highlights for a quarter century. Hes famous for those 3-4 highlights. Not his total game or what he accomplished. Its not his fault....but the media really kicked into gear shaping legacies in the 90s.

Except that you can say these things about a ton of players in regards to their fame. Everyone remembers the highlights but not the averages. What I am saying was he had the numbers at his peak to back it up.

[Reggie43]

He wasn't - which series did bulls lose because of his defense?

Playing behind 3 of the best defenders at their position helped a lot to clean up his mess.

[Reggie43]

Yup. Klay and Ray Allen are better versions of him (who actually won) and neither get talked about the way Miller does because he doesn't have a "30 for 30", Spike Lee, and they don't suit the thinly veiled agendas of these people.

It is funny, all these Miller "advocates" (today--tomorrow it will be Ewing, Saturday Malone, Sunday Stockton and so on--can you detect the agenda? :lol ) implicitly concede Miller wasn't as great as they claim he was here and elsewhere.

*Miller didn't accomplish that much, Klay in half a career has as many accolades as Miller in 18 years--but hey, the rules and game were unfair for Miller! Not his fault he couldn't crack the top 10 in MVP once (probably the only top 50-60 ATG who failed to do so) and was a 1x all-star before Spike Lee.
*Miller didn't win anything despite being on a contender for 7 years--but it's Reggie. Come on, what do you actually expect when it is Reggie facing real superstars on the other teams?
*Miller is hyped as a great scorer but didn't actually score much--but it's because he worked within the offense. In other words, Miller was forced to defer to Rik Smits for 2/3 of the time on the court. So all-time great scorer, alpha alpha scorer--deferring to Rik Smits. :oldlol:
*Miller did nothing but score (at a good, not great level), but we can't expect Reggie to grab a rebound in Game 7 or playmake or play defense or do literally anything other than score and run around trying to get screens because he can't create his own shot or bring the ball up the court.
*Miller had some monster first round series (where he played 40-44 MPG)! Only with Reggie would you see first round series invoked because he didn't do the same in major playoff series with real stakes. As a 7 seed while getting swept? Sure, Reggie is your guy for that.
*Scored 19 PPG, 17 PPG, etc. in series important for his career. These are proferred as among career highlights by people advocating for him...any legitimately great scorer would get roasted for that, especially if they weren't contributing anything else on the court beyond the 17 PPG.

Reggie is held to a lower standard than any of the players he gets compared to here because even his "advocates" know he isn't in the same class as those other guys. He gets zero scrutiny--while you will see the very same people go chapter and verse through the skeletons of other players. Nothing on Reggie because he isn't worth scrutinizing.

Klay and Ray actually won? You really giving them credit for rings won as arguably the 3rd to 4th best player on their team most of their wins?

[Kblaze8855]

Except that you can say these things about a ton of players in regards to their fame. Everyone remembers the highlights but not the averages. What I am saying was he had the numbers at his peak to back it up.


He has numbers to the 45 stat nerds who care what Orating are on the internet. Normal people...even basketball people...have no regard for such things. You think Jerry West knows Reggie Millers offensive rating? Most serious fans would tell you(as I would) that Reggie was simply better than his numbers whatever they were. I doubt 10 basketball fans in 1000 give 2 shits about those numbers you posted nor would they be impressed by them if you put them next to other guys on Reggies level of fame. And the 10 wont have any deeper understanding of the nuances of the game. They wont have a better understanding of the UNLV defenses or know why Pete Newell was important or be able to break down Lindsay Hunters man to man D. Its not some serious basketball fan thing. Its a stat guy on the internet thing in a time a small minority of people substitute an appreciation for numbers for basketball knowledge in order to call people "low IQ" as if they themselves are exceptional for having google.

Reggie Millers numbers arent known or cared about by 95% of the basketball world and 90% of those who know them know they arent really explaining anything. Hes one of the worst people to hype up by numbers. Reggie was a lot better than his numbers.

Fact remains....his fame and praise are based on media hype of a few years of largely irrelevant clips and him staring down a movie director and getting a 30 for 30 and like 6 NBA VHS or DVd special segments on it along with a highlight reel every time a playoff game is played in MSG.

Its not a basketball thing with him. It just isnt. The gap between his fame and ability is pretty massive and I think you would conclude the same if you thought for a moment about how few players as well known as reggie arent better than him and how few of the better players are as well known. Plenty of guys with both rings and MVPs arent as well known as Reggie. How good you are rarely decides those things.

He had the perfect storm of coming up in the media age, while current adults were children to add some nostalgia, and having big but inconsequential plays often in the right arena with the right fans watching and taunting him.

His skill level and numbers are not the source of his fame. Sports media installed Reggie in the heads of every NBA fan at a rate far beyond that of his ability to play the game.

[Reggie43]

You guys are thinking of his fame in general towards the casual nba fans but when someone calls him overrated by simply being compared to Mitch, Ray and Klay and acting like his moments are the only ground he can stand on thats when his actual numbers come into play.

[Reggie43]

He has numbers to the 45 stat nerds who care what Orating are on the internet. Normal people...even basketball people...have no regard for such things. Most would tell you(as I would) that Reggie was simply better than his numbers. I doubt 10 basketballs fan in 1000 give 2 shits about those numbers you posted nor would they be impressed by them. And the 10 wont have any deeper understanding of the nuances of the game. They wont have a better understanding of the UNLV defenses or know why Pete Newell was important or be able to break down Lindsay Hunters man to man D. Its not some serious basketball fan thing. Its a stat guy on the internet thing in a time a small minority of people substitute an appreciation for numbers for basketball knowledge in order to call people "low IQ" as if they themselves are exceptional for having google.

Reggie Millers numbers arent known or cared about by 95% of the basketball world and 90% of those who know them know they arent really explaining anything. Hes one of the worst people to hype up by numbers. Reggie was a lot better than his numbers.

Fact remains....his fame and praise are based on media hype of a few years of largely irrelevant clips and him staring down a movie director and getting a 30 for 30 and like 6 NBA VHS or DVd special segments on it along with a highlight reel every time a playoff game is played in MSG.

Its not a basketball thing with him. It just isnt. The gap between his fame and ability is pretty massive and I think you would conclude the same if you thought for a moment about how few players as well known as reggie arent better than him and how few of the better players are as well known.

I really dont deny all of this because this is basically human nature. Thats why somebody like steve kerr or Kukoc could be more well known to a casual fan compared to a ton of allstars and even superstars

[Reggie43]

Bottomline is that if you delete all his highlights he still has a great case against his peers because of the deep playoff runs and his numbers.

[Reggie43]

Acting like somebody who has never won a championship doesnt deserve any credit for his playing career is a pretty simplistic way to view things.

Would you guys respect him more if he was a sidekick or roleplayer on a championship team? As opposed being a franchise player that helped lead his own team to deep playoff runs and even the Finals?

[Kblaze8855]

I really dont deny all of this because this is basically human nature. Thats why somebody like steve kerr or Kukoc could be more well known to a casual fan compared to a ton of allstars and even superstars


Indeed.

Im not blaming him for it. And as cocky as he was he himself seems to kinda get it. Like during the NBA tv special panel on adding 10 new guys to the top 50. He was one of the guys being considered and he removed himself saying "Im not on that list with those guys. Not THAT list" and they kinda moved on having just put him there I guess out of respect and him being on the panel.

He gets talked about all the time but his basketball just never....put him there. It was all the rest.

His basketball was exceptional. As ive said he would have gotten my HOF vote. But there are SOOOOOO many guys who earned more talk and love and they will just never get it. And much of that...is because they did things outside the medias notice and never got that New York based focus.

I feel bad for some of those guys. Dennis Johnson wins a title in seattle....leads the Suns to being a 50 something win team.....wins 2 more titles in Boston...has bigger plays than Reggie ever made(Dennis Johnson has multiple finals game winning plays). Hes all NBA first team over guys like Magic Johnson. Hes a finals MVP. Years after his prime hes still having 19/9 finals runs. Hes like 10 time all D team. He made 2 finals and won 1 before he was on the Celtics. he led his own 55+ win teams on the Suns. You poll the public on Dennis Johnson or Reggie Reggie would blow him out of the water and most of the voters would have no more information than 5-6 plays and the knowledge that Reggie was a great shooter.

Thats the definition of overrated. Its not his fault....but shit. Guys earned the spot he got mostly from being in the right place at the right time with the right rivals and as someone who looks into these people and wants people to understand that there are more than 20 great players its always been annoying.

Dudes out here dripping in jewelry and accolades while being flat out better total players and the nba world doesnt even know they existed. I know the world isnt fair but....just rubs me wrong.

Watching the ISH vote in the top guards project years ago go so wildly in favor of Reggie vs some of these guys was a real eye opener. People literally laughing at dennis Johnson being compared talking about "Lol....Dennis Johnson? Killer Miller all day" spouting off nonsense about clutch genes and such. Most great players will just never get the respect their ability deserved. And if they are underrated.....what does that make worse players who do get all the attention, love, and notoriety? Hard to call it anything but overrated isnt it?

What would you call it?

[Reggie43]

Indeed.

Im not blaming him for it. And as cocky as he was he himself seems to kinda get it. Like during the NBA tv special panel on adding 10 new guys to the top 50. He was one of the guys being considered and he removed himself saying "Im not on that list with those guys. Not THAT list" and they kinda moved on having just put him there I guess out of respect and him being on the panel.

He gets talked about all the time but his basketball just never....put him there. It was all the rest.

His basketball was exceptional. As ive said he would have gotten my HOF vote. But there are SOOOOOO many guys who earned more talk and love and they will just never get it. And much of that...is because they did things outside the medias notice and never got that New York based focus.

I feel bad for some of those guys. Dennis Johnson wins a title in seattle....leads the Suns to being a 50 something win team.....wins 2 more titles in Boston...has bigger plays than Reggie ever made(Dennis Johnson has multiple finals game winning plays). Hes all NBA first team over guys like Magic Johnson. Hes a finals MVP. Years after his prime hes still having 19/9 finals runs. Hes like 10 time all D team. He made 2 finals and won 1 before he was on the Celtics. he led his own 55+ win teams on the Suns. You poll the public on Dennis Johnson or Reggie Reggie would blow him out of the water and most of the voters would have no more information than 5-6 plays and the knowledge that Reggie was a great shooter.

Thats the definition of overrated. Its not his fault....but shit. Guys earned the spot he got mostly from being in the right place at the right time with the right rivals and as someone who looks into these people and wants people to understand that there are more than 20 great players its always been annoying.

Dudes out his dripping in jewelry and accolades while being flat out better total players and the nba world doesnt even know they existed. I know the world isnt fair but....just rubs me wrong.

We went through this before and I agreed with you actually. There are a few clips/videos of these great players so casual fans barely know them.

[Kblaze8855]

Acting like somebody who has never won a championship doesnt deserve any credit for his playing career is a pretty simplistic way to view things.

Would you guys respect him more if he was a sidekick or roleplayer on a championship team? As opposed being a franchise player that helped lead his own team to deep playoff runs and even the Finals?

Not deserving credit for his career isnt how id put it.

Winning doesnt make you great.

But.....winning does make you a winner. Its the only thing that makes you a winner. Losing doesnt make you a winner no matter how close you get. Im not giving a guy extra credit for losing by less when it comes to an individual evaluation of ability. If im gonna give you a "Well...hes a winner" credit I generally require winning.

Not being a winner doesnt necessarily make you worse just like winning doesnt prove you are better. But it is what it is. Winners get the "Ok....he won" bump. You dont get it because of how many times you won a series that mattered as much as the Blazers/Nuggets last year.

Its fine to mention if someone is already playing "_____ went to the ____ round" or "____ is a loser" card. Making the ____ or whatever is relevant in a comparison to other people in many cases. Its a factor in your career accomplishments.

But im just not giving a guy the nod for "winning" because he lost by less for 20 years. Makes no more sense to consider Reggie a winner than Karl Malone to me. Less really.

Doesnt mean they cant be great. It does mean you dont get to use "winner" as if it rules the day in a comparison between them and anyone else.

[tpols]

If the rate you hit shots at doesn't matter, nothing matters. Might as well rep brandon Jennings.

You can take out the knick series and Reggie still has a ton of team success and HOF production on blistering efficiency.

These clowns really are boiling everything down to a small sample when there was so much more behind it.

[Kblaze8855]

The rate you hit shots is in Reggies case about 15-20 seconds of information in 35 minutes of basketball. Evaluating players that way then talking sample size is hilarious. There is no more simplistic way to view a game than to boil down a player evaluation to short division. Basketball is everything that happens on the court. If you dont evaluate it that way you have no business acting like a serious fan. But of course you consider a DPOY level defender who is also one of the leagues best rebounders bad at basketball because of how he also scores 30ppg. So you clearly arent a fan of basketball. Youre a fan of shooting numbers.

[Phoenix]

Man, a 6 page and running thread on Reggie Miller. Just one 8 points in 8 seconds moment within the context of a finals series where he wins and that play was the clincher or the momentum shifter may have better justified the hype and energy.

We dont even put this much effort into Ray Allen, a starting all-star guard on a championship team, has probably one of the top 3 all-time clutch shots in the service of winning another title, and more or less out-Reggied Reggie at what he does best, plus added playmaking, ball-handling and better defense on top. Just missing the choke signs in MSG, theatrics and trash talk, mostly. And played more recently to boot, so you cant even use the relative lack of footage excuse you may apply to someone like Jerry West.

[Reggie43]

Not deserving credit for his career isnt how id put it.

Winning doesnt make you great.

But.....winning does make you a winner. Its the only thing that makes you a winner. Losing doesnt make you a winner no matter how close you get. Im not giving a guy extra credit for losing by less when it comes to an individual evaluation of ability. If im gonna give you a "Well...hes a winner" credit I generally require winning.

Not being a winner doesnt necessarily make you worse just like winning doesnt prove you are better. But it is what it is. Winners get the "Ok....he won" bump. You dont get it because of how many times you won a series that mattered as much as the Blazers/Nuggets last year.

Its fine to mention if someone is already playing "_____ went to the ____ round" or "____ is a loser" card. Making the ____ or whatever is relevant in a comparison to other people in many cases. Its a factor in your career accomplishments.

But im just not giving a guy the nod for "winning" because he lost by less for 20 years. Makes no more sense to consider Reggie a winner than Karl Malone to me. Less really.

Doesnt mean they cant be great. It does mean you dont get to use "winner" as if it rules the day in a comparison between them and anyone else.

Just a question, is Ray and Klays type of winning more impressive to you or does Miller leading his own team to deep playoff runs and the Finals have more weight?

[Nashty]

Reggie>Ray>Klay>Jennings>Kobrick

[Reggie43]

Man, a 6 page and running thread on Reggie Miller. Just one 8 points in 8 seconds moment within the context of a finals series where he wins and that play was the clincher or the momentum shifter may have better justified the hype and energy.

We dont even put this much effort into Ray Allen, a starting all-star guard on a championship team, has probably one of the top 3 all-time clutch shots in the service of winning another title, and more or less out-Reggied Reggie at what he does best, plus added playmaking, ball-handling and better defense on top. Just missing the choke signs in MSG, theatrics and trash talk, mostly. And played more recently to boot, so you cant even use the relative lack of footage excuse you may apply to someone like Jerry West.

Out reggied reggie? Lol. Dude cant even beat Miller as an old guy and their last playoff matchup he dropped 41 points on him for the series win

[Kblaze8855]

Man, a 6 page and running thread on Reggie Miller. Just one 8 points in 8 seconds moment within the context of a finals series where he wins and that play was the clincher or the momentum shifter may have better justified the hype and energy.

We dont even put this much effort into Ray Allen, a starting all-star guard on a championship team, has probably one of the top 3 all-time clutch shots in the service of winning another title, and more or less out-Reggied Reggie at what he does best, plus added playmaking, ball-handling and better defense on top. Just missing the choke signs in MSG, theatrics and trash talk, mostly.

You sir are about to hear all about a 22/2/2 46% and 28% from 3 series Reggie had that proves he was better than Ray Allen because he had 2 big games during it. You will not hear about Alan Houston being better than Reggie because Reggie did 16 on 36% shooting as Houston knocked him out. You arent gonna hear about Reggie having 10 points(for like...the 3rd time in an elimination game) and shooting a Starks like 2-18. That doesnt matter in the Houston/Reggie argument. But the very next year sure matters on the issue of him or Ray.

Enjoy that conversation to come.

[Kblaze8855]

Just a question, is Ray and Klays type of winning more impressive to you or does Miller leading his own team to deep playoff runs and the Finals have more weight?


Neither has much weight on the subject of individual talent.

Real Full Metal Jacket "You are all equally worthless" situation.

Reggie winning would factor in. But he didnt. And them winning on their own would as well. But they didnt.

At that point im just looking at basketball skills.

[Reggie43]

You sir are about to hear all about a 22/2/2 46% and 28% from 3 series Reggie had that proves he was better than Ray Allen because he had 2 big games during it. You will not hear about Alan Houston being better than Reggie because Reggie did 16 on 36% shooting as Houston knocked him out. You arent gonna hear about Reggie having 10 points(for like...the 3rd time in an elimination game) and shooting a Starks like 2-18. That doesnt matter in the Houston/Reggie argument. But the very next year sure matters on the issue of him or Ray.

Enjoy that conversation to come.

would a 25 game sample size for their whole careers matter where he still outplayed him?

[Kblaze8855]

Id refer you to my old Deron/Chris Paul arguments on the importance of head to head compared to how you play in general if they weren't lost in the board move. Not that id care what Rays career numbers vs Reggie are anyway. At best they had 2 years of overlapped prime. I dont think you could find me using a career head to head comparison for or against anyone ever.

[Reggie43]

Id refer you to my old Deron/Chris Paul arguments on the importance of head to head compared to how you play in general if they weren't lost in the board move. Not that id care what Rays career numbers vs Reggie are anyway. At best they had 2 years of overlapped prime. I dont think you could find me using a career head to head comparison for or against anyone ever.

finding the unique deron vs paul situation does not really diminish how good head to head matchups is in determining who the better player is especially with somewhat equal teams.

[Kblaze8855]

I wouldnt say I had to "find it". I argued about it for like 4 years. It was a pretty common argument at the time. But in that situation and all others....

If you're an NBA player you're as good as you are vs the NBA. Not vs any individual team you may be able to exploit for any number of reasons. Im sure its frustrating to know you can match or outplay a guy head to head but if he goes and outdoes you vs other teams.....hes generally better than you. The better player is who has the most ability and consistently shows it. If you step up vs someone individually but he shows more for 75 or so games a season....hes better than you. Few people are gonna meet enough times in the playoffs for even that to not be a matter of using a good week to define a decade+.

[Reggie43]

I wouldnt say I had to "find it". I argued about it for like 4 years. It was a pretty common argument at the time. But in that situation and all others....

If you're an NBA player you're as good as you are vs the NBA. Not vs any individual team you may be able to exploit for any number of reasons. Im sure its frustrating to know you can match or outplay a guy head to head but if he goes and outdoes you vs other teams.....hes generally better than you. The better player is who has the most ability and consistently shows it. If you step up vs someone individually but he shows more for 75 or so games a season....hes better than you. Few people are gonna meet enough times in the playoffs for even that to not be a matter of using a good week to define a decade+.

How do you judge players like Miller who self admittedly coasts through the regular season by taking less shots and "magically" show up in the playoffs by just being more agressive on offense? Take his 2001 season for example when Miller basically surenderred his lead role in the regular season to Rose with the latter scoring more and having more shots but when playoff time comes around Rose struggled and Miller scored 31.3 ppg 5rebs 2.5ast 45% fg 43% 3p almost 12 points beter than his season average with Rose going for 18ppg on 38% down from his 20.5ppg 45% regular season? Was Rose still a better player because of a bigger sample size?

[Kblaze8855]

I judge it like anyone else because as always....the spin matches the person presenting the information. For one.....the idea that players are just chilling not trying to win games in January is a lot easier to explain in theory than it is when you watch them diving on the floor, fighting for wins, and celebrating like they won a title when they make a big shot. Reggie being one of them. He didnt just...not care till May. What happens is usually big minutes and more shots that come with them. And when you lose its even worse. Its for the same reason guys like MJ at times scored more in losses. You try to fight your team back into it more than you need to while coasting to an easy W. It all comes together to make playoff numbers hard to take serious at times. People will post them like an increase means some kinda godly step up.

When Reggie has a 31ppg series off several big scoring losses playing 45-46 minutes....is that telling me something? He takes the most shots of the season....losing in a blowout....

Scores 41. Its a brief series(4 games) so a big night inflates the averages. You get to say he scored 31 a game forever as if thats shocking out of a guy who cant contribute any other way playing 45 minutes a game in a defeat.

They won one game. And he was 5-21 with one of the 5 being *I think* that game winner over Iverson. Then they lost 3 straight with him playing 43, 46, and 42 minutes taking his season high in shots.

Am I supposed to judge his year and general level by 4 games it turns out meant nothing? When I think vince Carter....do I evaluate the player I saw hundreds of times or give unequal weight to him playing 47 minutes and having 50 points in a blowout vs the 76ers? Is his 30 or whatever a game that series supposed to be the "real" vince because he was coasting all year or is it just what happens when a scorer plays massive minutes trying to not let his team lose a series?

We make playoff numbers out to be like...the "real" numbers as if they arent often a far more limited look vs one or two teams that dont often put you in as many situations as a full season much less a career. Guy was on here hyping up Elton Brands 06 playoff numbers as if a series vs the Suns where Marion was dropping multiple 30/20 games because of the pace means thats the "real" basketball. Like the guys years ago saying Dirk was a great rebounder because of playoff averages. As if someone 7 feet tall playing 45 minutes shouldnt get 11 rebounds?

Playoff numbers need as much context as any others.

A guy like Reggie who has no other way to help....shooting more and taking one or two shots you might usually pass up when youre losing isnt shocking. I expect a losing scorer to shoot more and generally apply more pressure. But I dont take the numbers to mean thats the real them.

[Reggie43]

I judge it like anyone else because as always....the spin matches the person presenting the information. For one.....the idea that players are just chilling not trying to win games in January is a lot easier to explain in theory than it is when you watch them diving on the floor, fighting for wins, and celebrating like they won a title when they make a big shot. Reggie being one of them. He didnt just...not care till May. What happens is usually big minutes and more shots that come with them. And when you lose its even worse. Its for the same reason guys like MJ at times scored more in losses. You try to fight your team back into it more than you need to while coasting to an easy W. It all comes together to make playoff numbers hard to take serious at times. People will post them like an increase means some kinda godly step up.

When Reggie has a 31ppg series off several big scoring losses playing 45-46 minutes....is that telling me something? He takes the most shots of the season....losing in a blowout....

Scores 41. Its a brief series(4 games) so a big night inflates the averages. You get to say he scored 31 a game forever as if thats shocking out of a guy who cant contribute any other way playing 45 minutes a game in a defeat.

They won one game. And he was 5-21 with one of the 5 being *I think* that game winner over Iverson. Then they lost 3 straight with him playing 43, 46, and 42 minutes taking his season high in shots.

Am I supposed to judge his year and general level by 4 games it turns out meant nothing? When I think vince Carter....do I evaluate the player I saw hundreds of times or give unequal weight to him playing 47 minutes and having 50 points in a blowout vs the 76ers? Is his 30 or whatever a game that series supposed to be the "real" vince because he was coasting all year or is it just what happens when a scorer plays massive minutes trying to not let his team lose a series?

We make playoff numbers out to be like...the "real" numbers as if they arent often a far more limited look vs one or two teams that dont often put you in as many situations as a full season much less a career. Guy was on here hyping up Elton Brands 06 playoff numbers as if a series vs the Suns where Marion was dropping multiple 30/20 games because of the pace means thats the "real" basketball. Like the guys years ago saying Dirk was a great rebounder because of playoff averages. As if someone 7 feet tall playing 45 minutes shouldnt get 11 rebounds?

Playoff numbers need as much context as any others.

A guy like Reggie who has no other way to help....shooting more and taking one or two shots you might usually pass up when youre losing isnt shocking. I expect a losing scorer to shoot more and generally apply more pressure. But I dont take the numbers to mean thats the real them.

How should we judge Miller then? Should we not put weight on his elevated play in the postseason? Or should we solely based on skills wherein he had such an unorthodoxed skillset that very few could understand? Or that his Leadership, coachability, strong mentality and dirty play that trigerred opponents, coaches and fans alike dont really show in some advanced stat that trolls in here like to use?

[Phoenix]

You sir are about to hear all about a 22/2/2 46% and 28% from 3 series Reggie had that proves he was better than Ray Allen because he had 2 big games during it. You will not hear about Alan Houston being better than Reggie because Reggie did 16 on 36% shooting as Houston knocked him out. You arent gonna hear about Reggie having 10 points(for like...the 3rd time in an elimination game) and shooting a Starks like 2-18. That doesnt matter in the Houston/Reggie argument. But the very next year sure matters on the issue of him or Ray.

Enjoy that conversation to come.

Yep, barely took 4 minutes for a reply. My post to defensive response time is improving.

[Phoenix]

Out reggied reggie? Lol. Dude cant even beat Miller as an old guy and their last playoff matchup he dropped 41 points on him for the series win

I actually meant as a 3point shooter. Of course with how big a part of the game that's become now, Ray's gonna get bypassed a few times over too. I figured that when you look at my comment where I reference things like ball handling and defense, you'd understand the context that I was referring to their respective skillsets.

But point remains between Reggie and Ray. Why does the former warrant this much energy compared to the latter? Or a better question, remove those 2 seasons where he's trash talking with Spike on the sidelines. Or those few theatrical moments we recall( media makes it impossible for us to forget). Or let's say those moments happen in some first round series against the Bucks and not in MSG. Are we having this thread? And to be clear, I like Reggie. Felt the need to point that out because of the simple minds( not you) that confuse critique with hate.

[tpols]

Ray and Reggie are kinda close in playoff performance... both highly efficient, somewhat similar volume, GOAT clutch moments, etc.

Allen is a better ballhandler but it didnt amount to any better production or efficiency. Reggie's was still higher in both regards and for longer.

Ray was also not the most socially galvanizing individual. He didn't have the leadership qualities Reggie had.

That dude took his guys to war in a brutal 90s east, even Larry Bird had to tip his cap.

[Reggie43]

I actually meant as a 3point shooter. Of course with how big a part of the game that's become now, Ray's gonna get bypassed a few times over too. I figured that when you look at my comment where I reference things like ball handling and defense, you'd understand the context that I was referring to their respective skillsets.

But point remains between Reggie and Ray. Why does the former warrant this much energy compared to the latter?

Allen hitting a clutch shot in a derek fisher type role means nothing in these comparisons.

You think Allen was a better defender? Pretty sure you are old enough to know that Ray was a known bad defender before coming to Boston. His own coach even insuated on how soft he was that focused more on style than substance.

Getting lucky enough to play with Garnett and Pierce along with a ton of other Superstars while Miller competes with Smits and Rose is not really a fair comparison especially with guys flaunting Rays type of winning over Miller.

Take away the Knicks and he still has his moments against Shaq, Penny, Jordan, Iverson, Allen, Kidd Pierce etc. Weird that people always bring that up when he was clutch against different teams.

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie Miller is more famous than others who did more because of years of ESPN specials and new york hype.

Thats really it.

Even bigtime NBA fans in many cases dont even know guys who led teams to titles. Even most of ISH has no idea who Gus Williams is. Reggie Millers fame is a product of the media age and being a rival of the Knicks and spike lee. Praise and fame are obviously not a simple basketball issue.

:applause:


Klay is simply a better player however Miller was bigger star & villain. I guess that is part of package Miller brought a lot fans to game & he will always be remembered

If I am casting for a basketball movie I want Miller. A great villain, great trash talker, great interview, etc. He was a perfect player for the media. If I am drafting a team, though? I'm taking Klay and Ray Allen over Miller each time.


His basketball was exceptional. As ive said he would have gotten my HOF vote. But there are SOOOOOO many guys who earned more talk and love and they will just never get it. And much of that...is because they did things outside the medias notice and never got that New York based focus.

Agreed. He is a sure-fire HOF player but he is talking about these days (at least on ISH) on the same plane as Malone, Barkley, Pippen, Robinson, Ewing, and Drexler. That is ridiculous. His all-time ranking also is higher than his ability because he had great longevity. 25,000 points matters but prime versus prime he isn't top 50.


Acting like somebody who has never won a championship doesnt deserve any credit for his playing career is a pretty simplistic way to view things.

The irony--since Reggie43 and the "Miller" crowd spends a lot of time denigrating those who won multiple chips (people who actually showed up in big series). This is what I mean by the low standards Reggie is held to, even by his "advocates"...


Just one 8 points in 8 seconds moment within the context of a finals series where he wins and that play was the clincher or the momentum shifter may have better justified the hype and energy.

Yup. Almost all those moments came when it didn't matter the most. None of it in Game 7 or an elimination Game 6 in a big series.

[Roundball_Rock]

We dont even put this much effort into Ray Allen, a starting all-star guard on a championship team, has probably one of the top 3 all-time clutch shots in the service of winning another title, and more or less out-Reggied Reggie at what he does best, plus added playmaking, ball-handling and better defense on top. Just missing the choke signs in MSG, theatrics and trash talk, mostly. And played more recently to boot, so you cant even use the relative lack of footage excuse you may apply to someone like Jerry West.

Allen doesn't have the hype and he also doesn't suit the agenda of a large fan base. Kobe stans aren't out there hyping Allen, for example.


You sir are about to hear all about a 22/2/2 46% and 28% from 3 series Reggie had that proves he was better than Ray Allen because he had 2 big games during it. You will not hear about Alan Houston being better than Reggie because Reggie did 16 on 36% shooting as Houston knocked him out. You arent gonna hear about Reggie having 10 points(for like...the 3rd time in an elimination game) and shooting a Starks like 2-18. That doesnt matter in the Houston/Reggie argument. But the very next year sure matters on the issue of him or Ray.

Reggie has his own rules. 22/2/2 or 17/2/2 is great if Reggie does it but anyone else would get ripped for it. Get outplayed bu Houston as the other SG in the ECF? Gets outperformed by the other team's fourth best player in the ECF? No big deal--we don't expect more from Reggie. The soft bigotry of low expectations from his own advocates.


Miller leading his own team to deep playoff runs and the Finals have more weight?

Miller "leading" the team by deferring to Rik Smits or being considered inferior by coaches to Derrick McKey in the middle of Miller's prime? He wasn't a real #1 option, more like the best player in an ensemble cast. Best player on the team? Sure, but not what he is presented as. The guy was on a contender for 7 years and never finished top 10 in MVP. People didn't credit him for "leading" that contender at the time...it is almost unheard of to be the best player on a contender and never crack the top 10 in MVP but people put Reggie in context then.

[Kblaze8855]

How should we judge Miller then? Should we not put weight on his elevated play in the postseason? Or should we solely based on skills wherein he had such an unorthodoxed skillset that very few could understand? Or that his Leadership, coachability, strong mentality and dirty play that trigerred opponents, coaches and fans alike dont really show in some advanced stat that trolls in here like to use?


Like everyone else. Ability. Its just a frustrating answer to some because it doesnt give you a lot to argue about if you fundamentally disagree. Ring counting gives you 2 numbers to compare. Accolades the same. Im just talking about basketball. A player is his offense, his defense, and the transition between the two(rebounding). Thats it. The rest...the intangibles...they only matter as far as how they change your teams ability to do any of those. Within the 3 are various skills of various importance. Reggie does not have many of those skills. The one he has the most of is incredibly important though so hes more useful...than he is bottom line good. And thats where you run into trouble trying to make it an easy answer. It just isnt.

Reggie is good at less things than Lamar Odom. But Reggies good things will generally make him more effective. But then you compare him to other guys who can shoot at an elite level....but the ycan also handle the ball....pass....well that eliminates the reason to give weight to Reggies usual advantage. If both can shoot....but one can also do x,y, and z....it is what it is.

But its case by case. And there are other variables. For one.....I dont know how you contain Reggie in a league with freedom of movement off the ball, no repercussions for taking 15 threes even if you miss 12, and an insane pace. Reggie might score 32 a game. But on the same note....

Dont let people touch Kenny Anderson. See how that goes.

Hes more than a 1 time all star.

So do we judge by hypothetical situations?

You really cant.

Reggie is to me a notch over the normal "Only score" guard but I cant evaluate him like I do everyone else and disregard the total game because I can dream up situations hed be more than he was. Im sure Bob Lanier would be less than he was now. He wouldnt get 40 post touches. But that doesnt make him less than he was at the time.

Reggie would be a WMD right now. But he really wasnt when he played. He was a 3rd tier guard who could step up to second given the right matchup. He was as likely to be Kendall Gill or Hersey Hawkins level as he was to step up to the next and the players ill ignore normal level of play in favor of success for......had success. Real winning. Not a handful of wins vs other teams that also didnt matter and never won. You wanna talk to me about intangibles making up for a lack of total skills im gonna need more on your resume than beating teams that couldnt themselves win or taking a team that could to a tough series you lost.

Lacking the kinda success that makes your shortcomings irrelevant im sticking pretty close to skillset.

[warriorfan]

Miller should have joined up with the 2nd and 4th highest PER in the league.

[Phoenix]

Allen hitting a clutch shot in a derek fisher type role means nothing in these comparisons.

You think Allen was a better defender? Pretty sure you are old enough to know that Ray was a known bad defender before coming to Boston. His own coach even insuated on how soft he was that focused more on style than substance.

Getting lucky enough to play with Garnett and Pierce along with a ton of other Superstars while Miller competes with Smits and Rose is not really a fair comparison especially with guys flaunting Rays type of winning over Miller.

Take away the Knicks and he still has his moments against Shaq, Penny, Jordan, Iverson, Allen, Kidd Pierce etc. Weird that people always bring that up when he was clutch against different teams.

So do you think it's fair that many people who won more and were vital cogs in those machines get less hype than Reggie because he has a half dozen clutch plays in the playoffs that everyone remembers? Those Pacers teams with Smits and Rose, names you're dropping in to say 'that's all he had', got to a few conference finals. For all we know a better player than Reggie in that situation may have nabbed one. The guy was like an all-NBA 3rd team player once. Hes being discussed like he was one of the very upper echelon players of the period but his achievements relative to others in that timeframe say otherwise. And Im not even specifying championships in that context, just other things we use to define players like MVP votes, all NBA, all star. Are you saying he was better than his individual accomplishments suggest and people got it wrong 25 years ago? Should he have been a 7 time all nba player, 10 time all-star and half a dozen top 5 MVP finishes? Because theres players in that era closer to those kinds of bullet points that we talk a lot less about. Which circles me back to why Reggie in particular warrants this much?

Yeah, I am old enough. Before 94, nobody gave a fukk about Reggie outside of Indiana. There was a loooong list of names you'd talk about before you got to him.

[Kblaze8855]

At the same point in his career as Lebron after 2010 Reggie Millers PER was the same as Eric Murdock. He wouldnt qualify for Big 3 status. Mark Jackson and Dale Davis led the pacers in PER in their most successful season. And of course....we care about that.

[warriorfan]

At the same point in his career as Lebron after 2010 Reggie Millers PER was the same as Eric Murdock. He wouldnt qualify for Big 3 status. Mark Jackson and Dale Davis led the pacers in PER in their most successful season. And of course....we care about that.

That’s what I’m saying. He should have joined up with Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon and picked up a couple of titles. Maybr LeBron was smart for getting out. LeBron had a Rik Smits type player in Big Z and some defensive help but he decided it wasn’t enough and he just flat out needed more help to get anything done. Maybe Reggie should have done the same.

[Reggie43]

So do you think it's fair that many people who won more and were vital cogs in those machines get less hype than Reggie because he has a half dozen clutch plays in the playoffs that everyone remembers? Those Pacers teams with Smits and Rose, names you're dropping in to say 'that's all he had', got to a few conference finals. For all we know a better player than Reggie in that situation may have nabbed one. The guy was like an all-NBA 3rd player once. Hes being discussed like he was one of the very upper echelon players of the period but his achievements relative to others in that timeframe say otherwise. And In mot even specifying championships, just other things we use to define players like MVP votes, all NBA, all star. Are you saying he was better than his individual accomplishments suggest and people got it wrong 25 years ago?

Give me a guy that won it all playing with somebody like Smits as the second best player? Which of his peers could win it all like you said given the same situation?

Lets not act like every "Reggie fan" believes the same hype. Most of you act like I said he was a Superstar along the lines of Drexler, Barkley, Malone etc when the only thing Im arguing is his place against the likes of Mitch, Ray, Klay etc.

His highlights overrate him but at the same gets him underrated by overzealous fans who think he can barely dribble or create his own shot without a screen, or even play defense when there is enough clips online showing him doing these things effectively.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

My thing is, why are we taking away years from players? If that wouldn't have happened then Reggie wouldn't be who he is! Well yeah. That is obvious. Nobody is who we perceive them to be without that perception.

But those moments did happen. And we cant pretend they don't exist.

Miller is one of the all time clutch players. And maybe the best shooter in his era. Hit big shots against high profile players and teams. From Jordan and the Bulls to Shaq and Kobe to Ewing and the Knicks.

[Reggie43]

Like everyone else. Ability. Its just a frustrating answer to some because it doesnt give you a lot to argue about if you fundamentally disagree. Ring counting gives you 2 numbers to compare. Accolades the same. Im just talking about basketball. A player is his offense, his defense, and the transition between the two(rebounding). Thats it. The rest...the intangibles...they only matter as far as how they change your teams ability to do any of those. Within the 3 are various skills of various importance. Reggie does not have many of those skills. The one he has the most of is incredibly important though so hes more useful...than he is bottom line good. And thats where you run into trouble trying to make it an easy answer. It just isnt.

Reggie is good at less things than Lamar Odom. But Reggies good things will generally make him more effective. But then you compare him to other guys who can shoot at an elite level....but the ycan also handle the ball....pass....well that eliminates the reason to give weight to Reggies usual advantage. If both can shoot....but one can also do x,y, and z....it is what it is.

But its case by case. And there are other variables. For one.....I dont know how you contain Reggie in a league with freedom of movement off the ball, no repercussions for taking 15 threes even if you miss 12, and an insane pace. Reggie might score 32 a game. But on the same note....

Dont let people touch Kenny Anderson. See how that goes.

Hes more than a 1 time all star.

So do we judge by hypothetical situations?

You really cant.

Reggie is to me a notch over the normal "Only score" guard but I cant evaluate him like I do everyone else and disregard the total game because I can dream up situations hed be more than he was. Im sure Bob Lanier would be less than he was now. He wouldnt get 40 post touches. But that doesnt make him less than he was at the time.

Reggie would be a WMD right now. But he really wasnt when he played. He was a 3rd tier guard who could step up to second given the right matchup. He was as likely to be Kendall Gill or Hersey Hawkins level as he was to step up to the next and the players ill ignore normal level of play in favor of success for......had success. Real winning. Not a handful of wins vs other teams that also didnt matter and never won. You wanna talk to me about intangibles making up for a lack of total skills im gonna need more on your resume than beating teams that couldnt themselves win or taking a team that could to a tough series you lost.

Lacking the kinda success that makes your shortcomings irrelevant im sticking pretty close to skillset.

The problem is your standards are too high when the guys I am comparing him to barely had any sustained playoff success of their own as the teams franchise player. Is a Richmond second round exit the same with Miller taking his team to the Finals for the simple fact that both players eventually lost?

[Phoenix]

Give me a guy that won it all playing with somebody like Smits as the second best player? Which of his peers could win it all like you said given the same situation?

Lets not act like every "Reggie fan" believes the same hype. Most of you act like I said he was a Superstar along the lines of Drexler, Barkley, Malone etc when the only thing Im arguing is his place against the likes of Mitch, Ray, Klay etc.

His highlights overrate him but at the same gets him underrated by overzealous fans who think he can barely dribble or create his own shot without a screen, or even play defense when there is enough clips online showing him doing these things effectively.

Why are you calling out Smits as if he was a scrub or that the Pacers didnt have a fairly well balanced team after Reggie? Smits. Rose. The Davies Boys. Mckey. Byron Scott at one point. If you agree there were better players than Reggie back then, you dont think one of those better players couldnt have done more with that team? Or are you saying Reggie got that team as far as they possibly could go even if you subbed him out for a better player?

We can ignore the championships won by Ray and Klay since it's a team game and focus on their respective abilities as players. Reggie has the most flair out of the group but he's also the least rounded. And he doesnt have the shooting edge that you may argue on his behalf against other players. So how are we measuring him? Just in terms of achievements in their own era, Ray made more all star teams and his prime coincided with guys like Kobe, Iverson, Tmac, Vince, Wade.

[Roundball_Rock]

How should we judge Miller then? Should we not put weight on his elevated play in the postseason?

You meant elevated minutes. If his minutes go up about 10%, it isn't shocking his scoring also went up 10%.


So do you think it's fair that many people who won more and were vital cogs in those machines get less hype than Reggie because he has a half dozen clutch plays in the playoffs that everyone remembers?

It is funny how he downplays Allen--in Boston it was called a "Big 3" for a reason.


Those Pacers teams with Smits and Rose, names you're dropping in to say 'that's all he had', got to a few conference finals.

So on the one hand he says those guys are bums, on the other the offense was giving them more usage. That's damning of Reggie, no?


Yeah, I am old enough. Before 94, nobody gave a fukk about Reggie outside of Indiana. There was a loooong list of names you'd talk about before you got to him.

He was 28 by 94'. So 7 years in the NBA, in his peak years and he was a 1x all-star and 0x all-NBA until Spike Lee made his bacon and he suddenly became a perennial all-star (although not all-NBA and never a MVP candidate) at age 29--unheard of. Now he is the second best guard of the era behind MJ? :confusedshrug:

Here is his scoring in key series compared to the top options.

1994 ATL: Miller 19, Smits 16; Manning 22, Blaylock 13
1994 NY: Miller 25, Smits 16; Ewing 22; Starks 14
1995 NY: Miller/Smits 22.6; Ewing 19, Starks 17 (short 3 point line)
1995 ORL: Miller 26, Smits 18; Shaq 27, Penny 20 (short 3 point line)
1998 CHI: Miller 17, Smits 16; MJ 32, Pippen 17
1999 NY: Miller 16, Smits 13; Houston 19, Sprewell 18
2000 NY: Miller 22, Rose 19; Sprewell 20, Houston 19
2000 LA: Miller 24, Rose 23; Shaq 38, Kobe 16

What are we throwing him a parade for again? These aren't gaudy scoring numbers--just compare it to the other top options in the same series. Even his own team's other scorer was right behind him series after series--yet we hear Reggie was carrying the offense, alpha, leader, etc. By what? Scoring 17 instead of 16 or 22 instead of 19? :confusedshrug:

Many of these other players listed here BTW were able to contribute in other facets of the game; Reggie was a scorer only.


Lets not act like every "Reggie fan" believes the same hype. Most of you act like I said he was a Superstar along the lines of Drexler, Barkley, Malone etc when the only thing Im arguing is his place against the likes of Mitch, Ray, Klay etc.


If he is in a higher tier than top 10 guys like Mitch, Ray, Klay--that implies he is a superstar/top 5 type...


We can ignore the championships won by Ray and Klay since it's a team game and focus on their respective abilities as players

They want it both ways: credit for Reggie being a "winner" but then run from it when people point out Reggie never actually won anything.

[Kblaze8855]

That’s what I’m saying. He should have joined up with Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon and picked up a couple of titles. Maybr LeBron was smart for getting out. LeBron had a Rik Smits type player in Big Z and some defensive help but he decided it wasn’t enough and he just flat out needed more help to get anything done. Maybe Reggie should have done the same.


Except by your trolling standards where you pretend PER actually decides anything...Reggie wouldnt be joining due to lack of help. Depending on the year...Reggie would be the help. By per...when they finally broke through? The 56 win team that made the finals...Reggie was the 3rd best player. You would be talking about who Dale Davis needs to join with.

[Reggie43]

Why are you calling out Smits as if he was a scrub or that the Pacers didnt have a fairly well balanced team after Reggie? Smits. Rose. The Davies Boys. Mckey. Byron Scott at one point. If you agree there were better players than Reggie back then, you dont think one of those better players couldnt have done more with that team? Or are you saying Reggie got that team as far as they possibly could go even if you subbed him out for a better player?

We can ignore the championships won by Ray and Klay since it's a team game and focus on their respective abilities as players. Reggie has the most flair out of the group but he's also the least rounded. And he doesnt have the shooting edge that you may argue on his behalf against other players. So how are we measuring him? Just in terms of achievements in their own era, Ray made more all star teams and his prime coincided with guys like Kobe, Iverson, Tmac, Vince, Wade.

Did I call Smits a scrub? In the context of alltime greats and the players they played with where does Smits rank? Or just maybe with the players I compare Miller to, players on his tier?

[Kblaze8855]

The problem is your standards are too high when the guys I am comparing him to barely had any sustained playoff success of their own as the teams franchise player. Is a Richmond second round exit the same with Miller taking his team to the Finals for the simple fact that both players eventually lost?


If you are attempting to make one of them a winner to compensate for something? Nah. Means nothing. Not a little. Not a tad. Nothing. If we are talking Bill Russell vs...some guy. Ok. Talk to me about the results. You win 2 state titles, 2 ncaa titles with 55 games in a row...a gold medal...then 11 rings?

Im not gonna dispute your value beyond the obvious.

Talking to me about one losing run in 18-19 years?

Your "winning" isnt a factor. Maybe if you even...almost won....a lot. Getting close one time in 2 decades? Nah.

You dont get a "But hes a winner" pass for less skills.

[Kblaze8855]

I will say again for the record though....

Reggie in 2020 would be more effective than a lot of way better total players. Hed eventually drop 70. It would totally change his perception. But Okafor doesnt get to play in 1974 and get 50 touches in the post and Reggie doesnt get to play in 2020.


Sucks. But its fun to think about.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nevermind the fact that Miller would be in exactly the same offensive role as Allen or Klay if he played on those teams...it is odd: we are supposed to grade Miller on a favorable curve by acting like playing with less talent in a more diluted era somehow makes him a better player but we aren't supposed to hold him accountable as a "first option" for those team results either.

The option stuff is out of control. It is a convenient way to erase entire or near entire primes for players and to prop up guys like Reggie. Plus, it amusingly assumes all "options" are the same. Reggie scoring 21 PPG with Smits scoring 18 PPG is the same as a 30 PPG first option.

[Phoenix]

Did I call Smits a scrub? In the context of alltime greats and the players they played with where does Smits rank? Or just maybe with the players I compare Miller to, players on his tier?

You name dropped him a few times in a way that clearly infers 'this is what Reggie had to work with'. And if that wasn't your intent, then there is no reason to mention him specifically.

[Reggie43]

If you are attempting to make one of them a winner to compensate for something? Nah. Means nothing. Not a little. Not a tad. Nothing. If we are talking Bill Russell vs...some guy. Ok. Talk to me about the results. You win 2 state titles, 2 ncaa titles with 55 games in a row...a gold medal...then 11 rings?

Im not gonna dispute your value beyond the obvious.

Talking to me about one losing run in 18-19 years?

Your "winning" isnt a factor. Maybe if you even...almost won....a lot. Getting close one time in 2 decades? Nah.

You dont get a "But hes a winner" pass for less skills.

Having less skills but being far more effective on the ones hes got has to account for something, or the fact that he has a ton more intangibles than some superstars has got to have some weight as far as comparisons go?

So basically a Miller Finals run is the same as a Ray Allen first round exit in the same year because he could dribble better and jump higher?

[tpols]

My thing is, why are we taking away years from players? If that wouldn't have happened then Reggie wouldn't be who he is! Well yeah. That is obvious. Nobody is who we perceive them to be without that perception.

But those moments did happen. And we cant pretend they don't exist.

Miller is one of the all time clutch players. And maybe the best shooter in his era. Hit big shots against high profile players and teams. From Jordan and the Bulls to Shaq and Kobe to Ewing and the Knicks.

It's probably the most retarded argument i've ever heard out of this site.

They're literally erasing a guys greatest achievements and cherrypicking his worst games to try and make a (feeble) point.

Like... you can literally do that with everybody.

For every bad game he had, he mustve had a ****ing 4 or 5 amazing ones because that 120 ORTG 24 ppg for 100+ playoff games aint lying.

[Reggie43]

You dropped Smits name a few times in a way that seems to infer 'THIS is what Reggie was working with'. You name dropped him a few times in a way that clearly infers 'this is what Regfie had to work with'. And if that wasn't your intent, then there is no reason to mention him specifically.

This is what Miller was working with compared to Superstars. Doesnt make Smits a lesser player just not better than a Pippen, Garnett, Penny, Mullin etc

[Roundball_Rock]

You dropped Smits name a few times in a way that seems to infer 'THIS is what Reggie was working with'. You name dropped him a few times in a way that clearly infers 'this is what Regfie had to work with'. And if that wasn't your intent, then there is no reason to mention him specifically.

Which ignores this:

Usage Data for Miller and Smits (1994-1999)

Usage: Smits 25.0%, Miller 23.5%
Usage: Smits 27.2%, Miller 24.6%
Usage: Smits 28.6%, Miller 25.8%
Usage: Smits 29.1%, Miller 25.2%
Usage: Smits 29.2%, Miller 23.9%
Usage: Smits 28.9%, Miller 22.9%

Is there any other "first option" like this among NBA ATG? This is relevant since the whole Miller narrative relies heavily on the "first option" card, as we just saw vis-a-vis Allen and Klay (Klay from 15'-19' is at 25.9%, 26.9% before KD in his prime). In the McHale thread one guy argued Miller>McHale because Miller was the "first option" and McHale was the "second option" for all but one year of his prime.

The "option" stuff is only relevant if the results would change. If you swap Allen and Miller what exactly changes in their team's outcomes? If you swap McHale and Miller--Indiana gets better, Boston worse. So why are we to artificially devalue or inflate particular players based on "option" status?

[Horatio33]

This is what Miller was working with compared to Superstars. Doesnt make Smits a lesser player just not better than a Pippen, Garnett, Penny, Mullin etc

Miller would have been better off as a second option, he should never have been a first option due to his limitations. But him with Ewing or Robinson in the early to mid nineties and he would have been perfect playing off a big man. But Miller didn't have the skill set to be a first option, as we saw.

[Phoenix]

It's probably the most retarded argument i've ever heard out of this site.

They're literally erasing a guys greatest achievements and cherrypicking his worst games to try and make a (feeble) point.

Like... you can literally do that with everybody.

For every bad game he had, he mustve had a ****ing 4 or 5 amazing ones because that 120 ORTG 24 ppg for 100+ playoff games aint lying.

You actually cant literally do that with everyone because most players who are genuinely upper echelon stars( and there are from that era who are getting less press than this) have probably a decades worth of seasons that removing two from their resume still leaves like 8 other all-nba/all-star seasons and something worth talking about.

People remember the 8 in 8 thing with the choke sign, the 98 push off shot against the Bulls, the 25 points in a quarter with the mid court bow. Not to say he didnt have other great moments but those are the ones that people remember him for. Moments that occurred in 3 seasons against highly visible opponents that still led to fishing with everyone else before June. And outside of that, his legacy needs to be propped by stat nerds who think dropping a high Ortg in the pursuit of winning nothing is some great aha moment.

[Roundball_Rock]

Where is this 24 PPG coming from? He was 23.2 from 1990-2000 in the playoffs, with the gain comporting with his rise in minutes. It appears they are cutting it off in 1998, which gets you to 23.5 and then round up. However, we keep hearing how key 00' and 99' were to his legacy, he was still an all-star those years. Why exclude them? To cherry pick to get another 0.3 PPG to round up to 24? :oldlol:

This also ignores the splits based on the shortened 3 point line. He was 25.7 with the shortened line; 22.5 from 1990-1994, 1998-2000. What would Ray Allen or Klay score from the WNBA line?


You actually cant literally do that with everyone because most players who are genuinely upper echelon stars have probably a decades worth of seasons that removing two from their resume still leaves like 8 other all-nba/all-star seasons and something worth talking about.

Yup. Plus, Miller gets extra attention on scoring because that is all he did and he is marketed as clutch. If most other HOF players shoot poorly they can do other things to contribute that day--Reggie couldn't. The clutch thing is a factor too--it is only logical to see what he did it in big games and series. If he showed up consistent with his reputation, he wouldn't be ringless.


his legacy needs to be propped by stat nerds who think dropping a high Ortg in the pursuit of winning nothing is some great aha moment.

The Ortg stuff is ridiculous. He was on low volume, especially for a notional "first option." If he took 18-20 shots like normal first options, instead of 14, what would that "Ortg" be?

What do Miller advocates have to say about Reggie never being top 10 in MVP? He was on a contender for 7 years yet not one top 10 finish? Nearly anyone else in that situation would be a MVP contender at some point, let alone record a mere 9th or 10th place--but voters didn't give him credit for "carrying" or "leading" that contender. What did MVP voters then see that Reggie advocates with Ortg 25 years later didn't?

[tpols]

Where is this 24 PPG coming from?

Why would you cut off at 2000, when Miller averaged 31 ppg in 2001 playoffs? and 23+ ppg in 2002?

1990-2002 it's 23.5 ppg... which rounds to 24.

You were being disingenuous by cutting it short like that. No surprise.



If he took 18-20 shots like normal first options, instead of 14, what would that "Ortg" be?

Reggie averaged 16.4 shots per game to score 23.5 ppg. Career Playoffs in his prime.

Peak "first option" '94 Scottie Pippen took 19.6 shots to score 22.8 ppg in the playoffs.

Reggie could've taken 3 more shots, air balled each one of them, and still averaged more than Pippen.

Absurd.

[Roundball_Rock]

Allen was a first option for much of his prime. We can compare his playoff numbers to Reggie's from that time.

Allen (99'-07'): 25/5/5 48%
Miller (90'-00'): 23/3/3 46%

Allen comes out ahead across the board--despite Miller having the benefit of the shorter three point line in the middle of his prime to goose his numbers.

How about advanced stats for the playoff years above?

VORP per 82 games: Allen 8.0, Miller 6.2
BPM per 82 games: Allen 16.6, Miller 4.7
WS per 82 games: Allen 13.7, Miller 12.9
PER: Allen 23.6, Miller 20.8

A clean sweep for Allen.

Miller took 6.0 threes per game, Allen 6.6. Even Klay was at "only" 7.7 (15'-19') during the playoffs. There isn't as large a gap in threes as you would think since none of these guys were taking 13 threes like Harden does. I was surprised to see how close they were despite the evolution of the game over time.

[Reggie43]

Miller would have been better off as a second option, he should never have been a first option due to his limitations. But him with Ewing or Robinson in the early to mid nineties and he would have been perfect playing off a big man. But Miller didn't have the skill set to be a first option, as we saw.

First option on a championship team he may not had enough skill which is also can be said for players above him but I wont deny he would have been a perfect 2nd option to a Ewing and David like you said.

[Kblaze8855]

Having less skills but being far more effective on the ones hes got has to account for something, or the fact that he has a ton more intangibles than some superstars has got to have some weight as far as comparisons go?

So basically a Miller Finals run is the same as a Ray Allen first round exit in the same year because he could dribble better and jump higher?

Which round two people lost in with their teams does not matter more than who is better at basketball no. The better player has lost first too many times to mention. How that happens doesnt need to be explained. I might explain it if I thought you were stupid. But I dont.

As for the start....obviously being more effective than his total skills is factored in. Thats why hes ranked ahead of most other guys who did nothing special but shoot while having a lackluster total game.

I only advocate for his ranking to reflect the status he held.....and not be randomly assigned a spot much higher decades later. We can dance around it all day. The NBA coaches having seen him up close the whole year....in the second highest scoring season of his career? Not only did they not pick him as an all star...they chose not one...not two....not 3...but 4 shooting guards over him. Dumars, Pierce, Robertson, and Hawkins. But 30 years later I compare him to those players and im an asshole. Mostly in the eyes of people who dont even remember the time in question. There has never been a greater disparity between the truth and the perception of a player than Reggie Miller and its mostly built off ESPN specials creating a narrative.

The point has never been....Reggie cant dribble or pass and is therefore Dell Curry.

Its....there is no reason to mention him with the caliber of player people who weren't there insist on doing. And if you do insist on it....you shouldn't be offended people have the same opinion held by much more informed people in his prime. I will never ever favor the opinions of 30 years later over the people sitting there in person watching at the time. Thats story. Feelings. Narrative. In the present? Its just evaluation.

Reggie is the worst example of rewriting history maybe ever in basketball. Well at least going up. Plenty of guys go down decades later. Jerry Lucas. Guys like that. I dont know who else went so far up so much later. Maybe Pistol Pete?

Im not sure who exactly he belongs next to. Id need a long list and kinda find a range. But what I am sure of.....you dont get better 30 years later. But people who were born in 1993 sure love to tell me how good he was based on some shit they saw in an ESPN special. YOu know I dont mean you specifically. We probably arent that far off in his ranking actually. But his name...compared to his ability? There is just a huge discrepancy. And its largely built off tv specials nad repeated clips. And that just feels wrong. Disrespectful of the guys who did a lot more for a lot less credit. But ill drop it for now. Seems you and roundball have a thing going I walked into.

Enjoy your day.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why would you cut off at 2000

It was his last all-star year. Using your logic, 2002 should count as well-when he was 36 because he averaged 24. You have to define prime in some fashion (what I use is his first and last all-star season, which covers his finals trip).


Reggie averaged 16.4 shots per game to score 23.5 ppg

16.1 from 1990-2000 in 39 MPG. And? This is with him being at 25.7 PPG with the WNBA line--22.5 PPG from 1990-1994/1998-2000. We throw him a parade for this? 23/2/2/ or something is Earth shattering?

Back to winning, you define multiple players by a single series (based on your posts elsewhere). Yet we aren't supposed to look at Reggie not showing up in key games and series?


We can dance around it all day. The NBA coaches having seen him up close the whole year....in the second highest scoring season of his career? Not only did they not pick him as an all star...they chose not one...not two....not 3...but 4 shooting guards over him. Dumars, Pierce, Robertson, and Hawkins. But 30 years later I compare him to those players and im an asshole. Mostly in the eyes of people who dont even remember the time in question. There has never been a greater disparity between the truth and the perception of a player than Reggie Miller and its mostly built off ESPN specials creating a narrative.


Exactly. That is basically what we are saying. Reggie was not what people are making him out to be 25 years later due to "30 for 30", Spike Lee, and moments no one would remember if they came against the Cavs or Bucks instead of the Knicks and Bulls, and a bunch of stats that didn't exist back then. No one is saying he is a scrub--he just is being compared to players who clearly were superior to him. Yet, when he is compared to the two most similar players to him historically (Allen and Klay), that is called a ridiculous comparison, hating Reggie, etc. Like it or not, those are his historical comps--not Drexler or Barkley or Robinson or Pippen or Ewing. It is Allen and Klay.


Now that's a flimsy narrative... all star selections. Fluff piece.

Accolades in general dont always mean shit.

It is only one piece of evidence that fits the same story: basically everybody who saw him then viewed him the same way. MVP voters, all-NBA voters, coaches making all-star selections (Phil Jackson in 1994 voted for McKey, with his rationale being McKey was "their best player"), Miller's own coaches, sports writers (SI comparing him to Hornacek and Hawkins in 93') etc.

The burden of proof is on revisionists 25 years later: why were all these people wrong then? Because they were too dumb to do the math on 21 points on 14 shots and realize Reggie really was a 30 PPG scorer if only he got 20 shots (1.5 points per shot, after all)? That is too much of an insight for Larry Brown or Larry Bird to grasp? Get real: anyone who watched those games could read numbers and see he was scoring on extremely high efficiency. Everybody just knew he was limited as a player. You couldn't ask Reggie to take 20-25 shots a game because of his deficiencies in creating his shot, ballhandling, etc. If Reggie could seamlessly score at the same high efficiency on 20 or 22 shots, he would have been taking 20 or 22 shots, not watching Mark Jackson toss the ball to Smits in the post as their first offensive action time and again.

[Reggie43]

Which round two people lost in with their teams does not matter more than who is better at basketball no. The better player has lost first too many times to mention. How that happens doesnt need to be explained. I might explain it if I thought you were stupid. But I dont.

As for the start....obviously being more effective than his total skills is factored in. Thats why hes ranked ahead of most other guys who did nothing special but shoot while having a lackluster total game.

I only advocate for his ranking to reflect the status he held.....and not be randomly assigned a spot much higher decades later. We can dance around it all day. The NBA coaches having seen him up close the whole year....in the second highest scoring season of his career? Not only did they not pick him as an all star...they chose not one...not two....not 3...but 4 shooting guards over him. Dumars, Pierce, Robertson, and Hawkins. But 30 years later I compare him to those players and im an asshole. Mostly in the eyes of people who dont even remember the time in question. There has never been a greater disparity between the truth and the perception of a player than Reggie Miller and its mostly built off ESPN specials creating a narrative.

The point has never been....Reggie cant dribble or pass and is therefore Dell Curry.

Its....there is no reason to mention him with the caliber of player people who weren't there insist on doing. And if you do insist on it....you shouldn't be offended people have the same opinion held by much more informed people in his prime. I will never ever favor the opinions of 30 years later over the people sitting there in person watching at the time. Thats story. Feelings. Narrative. In the present? Its just evaluation.

Reggie is the worst example of rewriting history maybe ever in basketball. Well at least going up. Plenty of guys go down decades later. Jerry Lucas. Guys like that. I dont know who else went so far up so much later. Maybe Pistol Pete?

Im not sure who exactly he belongs next to. Id need a long list and kinda find a range. But what I am sure of.....you dont get better 30 years later. But people who were born in 1993 sure love to tell me how good he was based on some shit they saw in an ESPN special. YOu know I dont mean you specifically. We probably arent that far off in his ranking actually. But his name...compared to his ability? There is just a huge discrepancy. And its largely built off tv specials nad repeated clips. And that just feels wrong. Disrespectful of the guys who did a lot more for a lot less credit. But ill drop it for now. Seems you and roundball have a thing going I walked into.

Enjoy your day.

I guess helping lead his team deep in the playoffs doesnt matter to you even if you compare him to his peers with a lesser resume as a franchise player.

I wish you could atleast overrate the players he played with or say that Ray, Klay, Mitch lead them to the Finals easy in place of Miller or even win it all.

Basketball is not all about actual skills and there are a ton of intangibles that come in to play. Leadership, coachabilty, teamplay, having a strong mentality are all huge factors on who wins ballgames.

If I follow the rules you set in comparing players how do you even distinguish him from someone like Eddie Jones? A two way player with more skills. Is Eddie Jones leading a similar team to the Finals?

[Kblaze8855]

Now that's a flimsy narrative... all star selections. Fluff piece.

Accolades in general dont always mean shit. I'm a huge kobe fan and half of his all D selections are bogus. It doesnt paint reality.

People that saw Reggie play in the playoffs knew what he was about, and im sorry... but i'm pretty sure im taking Larry Bird's POV and what I seen over any of you guys perspectives especially with such weak arguments.


Just remember who votes for all star reserves while you’re quoting coaches opinions....and remember you care what his coaches say when presented with things they say you don’t like.

Also try to remember that when you use someone as an authority you can’t later dismiss their opinion in favor of your own without making it clear you don’t care what they say....only that it matches your opinion. Like when Larry Bird said after the 2011 finals that a ringless Lebron was already as good as anyone ever was:



I think he’s as good as anyone who’s ever played this game. I think he’s going to win a lot of titles. I think he’s going to continue to get better. To me, he’s an amazing athlete. He’s never been hurt, he’s got the body of a football player, and he’s got skill — I just think he’s off the charts good. And I think his time is going to come. I think they did a remarkable job in Miami this year by bringing that team together and getting where they got. They’ll get better next year. His time is going to come if they stay healthy, and he’s going to have a lot of success in this league and win championships.”


I don’t agree at all. Perhaps you do.

[Kblaze8855]

I guess helping lead his team deep in the playoffs doesnt matter to you even if you compare him to his peers with a lesser resume as a franchise player.

I wish you could atleast overrate the players he played with or say that Ray, Klay, Mitch lead them to the Finals easy in place of Miller or even win it all.

Basketball is not all about actual skills and there are a ton of intangibles that come in to play. Leadership, coachabilty, teamplay, having a strong mentality are all huge factors on who wins ballgames.

If I follow the rules you set in comparing players how do you even distinguish him from someone like Eddie Jones? A two way player with more skills. Is Eddie Jones leading a similar team to the Finals?


I would take Magic over Lebron. Do I think Magic wins the 2016 ring in his place?

No.

That plug and play shit isn’t basketball it’s nba 2k and it isn’t how teams are formed in reality. You don’t need to be able to replicate a teams success with someone else to be better than them for one really simple reason.....


Not all players play the same style and teams are built to suit the players on them.

Rick Barry doesn’t actually have to be better than Kareem for his team to win a ring with less talent than one Kareem had in a similar league. The thousand factors that go into such things are too varied to make it out to be that simple. And now I need an oil change so....I’ll check back probably tomorrow. I don’t do shit in the mornings but read ish.

[tpols]

Lebron is a top 10 GOAT which means he's just about as good as anyone to play the game if not a sliver away like everybody else in that range . I dont see how that contradicts Larry saying Reggie has hit more big shots than anybody he's ever seen when you guys are in here acting like he was a garbage time scorer, cherrypicking games.

[Kblaze8855]

I’ll get to that tomorrow. I would like to add on a lighter note that the woman who’s house I’m taking a shower in....has 41 bottles of body wash in the shower. I counted. I took a picture actually of one wall with 30ish on it. I’ve always known she had a lot but now that I count it....it’s excessive. Right?

41 is too many isn’t it?

[Roundball_Rock]

The same Larry Bird who ran the offense through Smits and then Jalen Rose?


I dont see how that contradicts Larry saying Reggie has hit more big shots than anybody he's ever seen when you guys are in here acting like he was a garbage time scorer, cherrypicking games.

No one is saying he put up empty stats. What we are saying is he was inconsistent even as a scorer due to his limited skill-set and he couldn't contribute anywhere else so if his shot wasn't falling he was useless in a big game or series, unlike most HOF players. He was a shooter. Shooters can have big games when they get hot but also duds. Here are his logs in the 98', 99' ECF's and 00' finals:

1998 ECF

16/2/0 on 5 for 14
19/3/3 on 4 for 13
28/1/2 on 9 for 15 (Pacers come out of 0-2 hole)
15/2/3 on 5 for 11
14/1/2 on 5 for 10 (Pacers go down 2-3)
8/2/0 on 2 for 13 (elimination game)
22/0/4 on 7 for 13 (Pacers eliminated)

This series was presented as a prime example of how awesome Reggie was...it is notable this "alpha, alpha" scorer was taking 12.7 shots. Why such little volume in arguably the most important series of his career (they made the finals in 00', but as a sacrificial lamb--in 98' they had a real shot to win it all)? :confusedshrug:

1999 ECF

19/5/3 on 7 for 13
16/3/1 on 3 for 11
12/2/3 on 4 for 9 (first game with Ewing out, Pacers go down 1-2)
12/2/1 on 3 for 10
30/6/1 on 9 for 19 (Pacers go down 2-3)
8/3/4 on 3 for 18 (elimination game)

So he has a John Starks-like elimination game in the ECF two years in a row where he doesn't crack double digits.

2000 Finals

7/2/4 on 1 for 16
21/2/4 on 7 for 16
33/2/2 on 11 for 22 (Pacers come out of a 0-2 hole)
35/5/3 on 9 for 19
25/4/6 on 7 for 12 (elimination game)
25/1/3 on 8 for 19 (Pacers eliminated)

He was better in the finals at least but his teammate was scoring only 1 point less in the series. This wasn't a case of Reggie "carrying" the team.

What exactly is so amazing in these logs? What other HOF first option that he gets compared to would be praised for this? It is notable how much of a non-factor he was outside of scoring in many of these games (and this doesn't show defense since we lack real stats for that).

Game 7 of the 98' ECF is a prime example of Reggie's limitations. The opposing SG and SF get 5 and 6 offensive rebounds alone while Reggie has 0 total rebounds. If Reggie, who was 6'7", contributed on the glass Indiana wins that game and perhaps a title. But he couldn't do anything else, is ringless and now we hear how great it was that he kept losing but came close several times and how that makes him better than guys like McHale, Klay, Allen who actually won.

What does his offensive rating say about getting outrebounded 9-0 by the opposing SG? The team needed Reggie to step up. Davis/Smits combined for a mere 13 boards; the Bulls' SF and SG had 21 (Longley had another 9). Someone had to step up to make that deficit up; no one did.

Who cares, right? All that counts is PPG and 23 PPG is awesome so long as it is on 16 shots, not 19. Except the guy with 23 on 19 was grabbing a game-high 12 boards (half of them offensive boards) over taller players like 7'4" Smits, not 0, in the same game and winning a ring because of that. The Bulls shot 38% (Indiana 48%) but still won because their rebounding dominance gave them 20 more shot opportunities. But hey, Reggie had a 130 oRTG in the game...

[Reggie43]

Finally used the ignore list. Anything else to this feature other than me not seeing his posts?

[Reggie43]

Made the Jones comparison because he was a skilled and athletic guy who seemed to underperform come playoff time, an earlier version of Lowry/Derozan. How do you compare that to someone like Miller who upped his play come postseason if you only base on tangible skills and the bigger sample size of the regular season?

[Norcaliblunt]

I’d take Klay and Ray over Reggie.

[Norcaliblunt]

I’ll get to that tomorrow. I would like to add on a lighter note that the woman who’s house I’m taking a shower in....has 41 bottles of body wash in the shower. I counted. I took a picture actually of one wall with 30ish on it. I’ve always known she had a lot but now that I count it....it’s excessive. Right?

41 is too many isn’t it?


Best post ever. Lmao.

[warriorfan]

I’d take Klay and Ray over Reggie.

Nah Klay is too inconsistent and tends to choke. He’s also an overrated defender.

[Kblaze8855]

Now...


Lebron is a top 10 GOAT which means he's just about as good as anyone to play the game if not a sliver away like everybody else in that range . I dont see how that contradicts Larry saying Reggie has hit more big shots than anybody he's ever seen when you guys are in here acting like he was a garbage time scorer, cherrypicking games.


I didnt pick the games. I responded about a series he gave me as an example of stepping up scoring in the playoffs. Fact is....when you get destroyed in a brief series and take your season high shots in a blowout loss its gonna bump up your ppg....and mean absolutely nothing. When you play 46 minutes and approach your career high in field goal attempts in the next game(also a loss) it raises your ppg...in a short series. It doesnt actually mean anything. The only game they won those playoffs he shot 24% and hit a big shot. In the huge game that series he had 33 in a close first half....8 points in the second shooting 1-7 as they got blown out as Iverson had 19 in the 3rd. So yes. You end up with a high average. That means what? Playoff numbers require context like all the rest. You give me a series as an example of some huge stepping up....I think getting annihilated in it is relevant. They bring up the closeout game vs Ray Allen in their matchup....im not then allowed to ask abut the closeout game Alan Houston put on him the previous playoffs when he had 8 points on 3/18 while Houston gave him 32 on 70%?

Im not picking shit. Im responding directly to numbers and games given to me. People love just throwing out playoff numbers as if them being higher means you dominated something. It usually means you...played insane minutes and in the case of guys like reggie who never won....in a lost cause. When you play 40, 42, 43, and 51 minutes in a series youre destroyed....arent you likely to have higher numbers than when you played 36 a game in the season? When you play 32 minutes a game in the regular season....but youre...you know what?

A lot of this is common sense. And most of you have enough to see it. You just choose to ignore it when you have a point to make.

Long story short.....playoff numbers require context too. Its not as simple as "He stepped up so much!" . Especially when you lose anyway. Scorers are supposed to score more in the playoffs especially when youre losing. Not always gonna hapen but with the bump in minutes and desperation...it not shocking. And going from like 18 to 22-26 isnt exactly an explosion. Its not being judged by the standards of most of the people we give the attention he does for playoff exploits.

[Reggie43]

Everyone has bad games/series, Miller choked in 99 against the Knicks but he got them back in 2000 enroute to a Finals berth at age 34 which is an age where his peers has become sidekicks roleplayers on other teams

[Kblaze8855]

Him having a long prime where he was doing essentially the same things was the whole point of me making this:



https://youtu.be/GXFF-TXxoSw




Reggie was essentially on the same level from the 80s to maybe 2001 or later.

[tpols]

That means what? Playoff numbers require context like all the rest. You give me a series as an example of some huge stepping up....I think getting annihilated in it is relevant. .

You openly stan westbrook when he has awful series while losing. just pitiful performances.

Reggie goes down swinging every year with elite production and GOAT clutch moments and his HOF impact is "irrelevant" just because his team lost... i thought you said you dont go off team results because there's too many other variables...

2nd option rik smits... or 1st option whatever you prefer.

not kobe, not kareem, not wade, not pippen, not oscar... rik smits.

You have a childish view on the game when it comes to Reggie Miller.

[Kblaze8855]

First of all...."Childish view" coming from someone who considers And 1 buffoons skilled as they travel and double dribble around and thinks MVPs can be bad because of an ugly 30ppg with DPOY level defense you ignore like an 8 year old is...pretty amazing.

Second....

You think being a "stan" is not hating the people you hate. You never heard me gush about Westbrook being some amazing playoff performer. I told you its hard to say a guy who put up 37/12/11 and 2 steals a game for a series didnt show up. Im only gonna call a guy out so much when he has I believe 2 50 point triple doubles in a week. You wanna talk about going down swinging....thats what it looks like for better or worse. Reggie was often not one to go down swinging. Bird who you seem to momentarily respect had thoughts about that once. He was asking Reggie to be aggressive and Reggie told him "Im being aggressive....but im 5-15" and Bird told him "If you were being aggressive you would be 5-20". You are rarely gonna complain about Westbrook not being aggressive enough. And in the end....its the same result. An L.

Be 8-22 or 12-29....you dont get a smaller L.

Losers do not get a "But he wins" credit. Period. You wanna talk to me about winners....bring one to the conversation at least.

Lacking success its all pretty much the same.

Like all those idiots for years talking about Tmac not winning a series as if losing in the second round gets you something. Or Paul not making the conference finals....as if when he finally did....you get a medal or something.

Win.....or lose. You lose....dont talk to me about being a winner making you something your skills dont.

Especially when so many people who actually win arent that special either.

[Kblaze8855]

Having checked it was 51/13/10 and 4 steals and 47/11/9. So not quite two 50 point triple doubles.

[tpols]

And in the end....its the same result. An L.

Be 8-22 or 12-29....you dont get a smaller L.

You do though..

i thought you weren't a team results guy because of the abundance of other factors outside of any one man's control that goes into winning.

Almost everybody loses. so what? How did they play? That's what I care about. Because thats all that matters in player comparisons... their ability and impact in a vacuum transplanted across all possible situations.

Reggie... and Durant?

They are winning titles. I'm a huge bandwagon dubs fan and i will admit they close out the 2016 Warriors. Easily.

That thunder team would've been unstoppable.

[Kblaze8855]

I'll let Bird explain it to you himself.




“Superstars are supposed to go get the basketball.”LARRY BIRD

To a man, the Pacers were talking about how hard they need to work to get Reggie Miller better shots tonight.
Larry Bird, though, feels differently. Millerholds his destiny – and the Pacers’ – in his hands. But Miller’s hands have not had the basketball nearly enough. So while, yes, more screens, better screens, would be nice, Miller needs to go get the ball and, in a nutshell, be selfish. Yeah, it’s nice to spring a teammate on a roll. But the teammates aren’t going to be who leads Indiana to victory. Miller can.
So far, though, Miller has attempted just five shots in the final four minutes of the three games combined. He has missed all five. Worse, with the game on the line twice in the final possession, Miller never touched the ball. Great players find a way, Bird insisted, issuing a not so subtle challenge to Miller for tonight’s Game 4 at the Garden.

“We’ve got to set better picks … [but] Reggie gave in a couple times where he was defended well and he sought of gave in to it and let the ball swing to the other side of the court. With two minutes to go, I was sitting there wondering, ‘When is he going to go and get the ball in his hands?'” Bird related. “And that’s where we want it: in his hands because we know they’re not going to foul him and we know he can make that play for us. It just didn’t happen.”
Miller promised to be more aggressive tonight. He’ll put up 15, 20, even 25 shots if need be. But being aggressive isn’t just hurling shots, Bird explained. It’s seeking the ball and seeking the shot, not waiting for teammates to clear everything out and being simply selfish, regardless of what teammates were doing. Bird obviously felt Miller became too much of a spectator during Rik Smits’ Game 3 bust-out. So go get it and shoot.

“Jordan was that way,” Bird said. “Scottie (Pippen) would score six or eight points in a row and then it would come down to the last two minutes and you know who was going to have the ball. That is what we’ve got to do with Reggie. Go get the basketball. That’s the way it is. Superstars are supposed to go get the basketball.”

And there was another guy besides Jordan who thought along those lines. Guy named Bird who laughed recalling his reaction if teammate Kevin McHale was having his way offensively in the post.

“I’ll tell him to get his (butt) out of there and go outside and I was going in the post awhile,” Bird said.
Now he wants to infuse that mentality into Miller, who attempted a paltry nine shots in Game 3. The Pacers cannot defeat the Knicks if one of the greatest Knick killers of all time takes nine shots.

[Kblaze8855]

“Reggie sees other guys going and he’s not going to break off so he can score. That’s why I feel sometimes Reggie is too unselfish,” Bird said. “I remember watching some Eastern Conference finals when I wasn’t coaching and I watched the games and looked in the paper and I thought, ‘Wow, Miller shot 12 times. You can’t win with Miller shooting 12 times. Now I’m in it and he’s shooting nine times. He thinks our team is better when everyone is involved. We are. But there comes a time in the game where he’s got to have the ball in his hands when he’s got to be selfish.”
Maybe that time comes tonight. Miller vowed a more active role after Game 1 but launched only 11 attempts in Game 2.
Think about that, 20 shots for Miller in two games, 33 in all three. But now there is an edge to his voice. A determined edge. Of course, the Knick defense has had a lot to do with muting Miller but the superstar two guard is vowing an aggressive bust out.

“Definitely, no question I’ve got to be more aggressive, I’ve got to shoot more, 15 to 20 even sometimes 25 shots and I think that’s going to be the case in Game 4,” said Miller, who pointed out he and Allan Houston have been “X-ing out each other” in the series.




Reggie would often just let the game go and not even try to impose his will....despite so many of you telling us we didnt see him go ghost all the time.....him being aggressive was always an issue. Some of it was not being great one on one. Some was being legit unselfish. But whatever the cause....Reggie did not always go down swinging. He would score 12 in the first half and end up with 17-19 all the time. If Reggie had a drop or two of Westbrook he probably would have been more impactfull not less. Not shooting doesnt always make your team better.

Lots of guys needed more aggression. Reggie. Steve Nash. Some people just arent built that way and when youre the man...you need some of that.

A reggie who would just go take 28 shots would have shot worse....but might have been better.

[Reggie43]

One of Millers best traits in my opinion is his unselfishness and those Pacers wouldnt have had great team chemistry with him going for 20+ shots a night. Obviously some situations call for it but I dont mind him actively trying to get the ball to Smits with a mismatch on Kukoc/Longley than forcing a shot against Jordan.

[Kblaze8855]

You do though..

i thought you weren't a team results guy because of the abundance of other factors outside of any one man's control that goes into winning.

Almost everybody loses. so what? How did they play? That's what I care about. Because thats all that matters in player comparisons... their ability and impact in a vacuum transplanted across all possible situations.

Reggie... and Durant?

They are winning titles. I'm a huge bandwagon dubs fan and i will admit they close out the 2016 Warriors. Easily.

That thunder team would've been unstoppable.


Let me get my one years emoji use out of the way for that one....


:oldlol:




Smaller L....

Like they hand out "8-13" trophies to put on the shelf.

You shoot 8-13 your ass is on the same couch the 8-22 guy is on.

Iversons 41% got him exactly what Reggies 50 did. A career of losing. End to end. Once thats the case.....not much left to consider but skills.

[Phoenix]

One of Millers best traits in my opinion is his unselfishness and those Pacers wouldnt have had great team chemistry with him going for 20+ shots a night. Obviously some situations call for it but I dont mind him actively trying to get the ball to Smits with a mismatch on Kukoc/Longley than forcing a shot against Jordan.

Yesterday you were saying that Reggie had Smits to work with...who wasn't an elite 2nd scoring option in terms of volume. Wouldn't that kind of dictate that Reggie being a bit more 'selfish' was needed? I don't mean jacking up 25 shots a game. But with the extent his ORtg and scoring efficiency is being given a buff here, would 18-19 shots a game have blown a hole in the teams chemistry or had some adverse impact on Smits?

[Kblaze8855]

One of Millers best traits in my opinion is his unselfishness and those Pacers wouldnt have had great team chemistry with him going for 20+ shots a night. Obviously some situations call for it but I dont mind him actively trying to get the ball to Smits with a mismatch on Kukoc/Longley than forcing a shot against Jordan.



Apparently....his coach minded. That said....his previous coach was on the record saying he had to sit him down and explain he wasnt the type to win that way and he had to be more of an ensemble type to win and not a one man show.

Maybe Brown broke him too much. All I know is....I watched him not do much of anything for 15-20 minutes of big games....all the time. Way too often for people to tell me 20 years later about how he always showed up.

Reggie going quiet for long stretches was one of the themes of the playoffs for years and its just amazing how that gets flipped decades later. What Bird said here is what we all saw:




“I remember watching some Eastern Conference finals when I wasn’t coaching and I watched the games and looked in the paper and I thought, ‘Wow, Miller shot 12 times. You can’t win with Miller shooting 12 times. Now I’m in it and he’s shooting nine times.




Reggie would often just coast through quarters...halves...games...when the team needed scoring. Its absolutely the truth. I dont know how that got to be a controversial thing to say.

[tpols]

“Jordan was that way,” Bird said. “Scottie (Pippen) would score six or eight points in a row and then it would come down to the last two minutes and you know who was going to have the ball. That is what we’ve got to do with Reggie. Go get the basketball. That’s the way it is. Superstars are supposed to go get the basketball.”

Reggie "got" the basketball a lot more than scottie pippen in their careers. Compare their playoff ppg and efficiencies... it's a landslide. And we know Reggie has clutch moments again in a landslide... Phil tasked rookie kukoc with a season saving shot over MVP Pippen. So was scottie not a superstar?

Bird is explaining here why offense is the creme of the crop when it comes to star scarcity. Reggie wasn't MJ.. who was? He clearly outperformed every other guard in his era sans drexler.. whose on a similar plane.

[Reggie43]

Going quiet for long stretches is not exclusive to Miller it happens to most guys who average the same number of points. Him apparently coasting means they are setting up Smits for the mismatch with him spacing the floor or Mark Jackson pounding the ball in the post to attract double teams or even going to the Davis bros inside against a soft defender like Kukoc in that series.

[Reggie43]

Pippen right after that 98 series with the Pacers


"I have a lot of respect for Indiana," Pippen said. "I can say the best team won, but they gave us a lot. They made us work. Even though we pulled away with a win, I think both teams deserved to get to the Finals."

Pacers not having great athletes to battle with the likes of Jordan and Pippen has more to do with them losing than them not playing a certain way offensively.

[Kblaze8855]

Reggie "got" the basketball a lot more than scottie pippen in their careers. Compare their playoff ppg and efficiencies... it's a landslide. And we know Reggie has clutch moments again in a landslide... Phil tasked rookie kukoc with a season saving shot over MVP Pippen. So was scottie not a superstar?

Bird is explaining here why offense is the creme of the crop when it comes to star scarcity. Reggie wasn't MJ.. who was? He clearly outperformed every other guard in his era sans drexler.. whose on a similar plane.


Ah yes "efficiencies". The game Bird was complaining about Reggie has a 61 TS%. Exactly his career average.....as they lost by 1. With Mark Jackson, Rik Smits, and Derek Mckey taking more shots in the second half and Travis best taking the same as Reggie off the bench. Reggie was 8th on the team in scoring in the second half.

Tell me....

Of what use is your shooting percentage when your team needs points and you dont do anything to help?

Larry was asking for more scoring....not better shooting numbers. Shooting numbers do not go on the scoreboard. Larry pointed out that Reggie needed to score more.

Which is exactly what like 75% of people in the 90s were saying. But say it in 2020.....not only was he scoring enough he was scoring at an incredible rate. Because of how efficient his 23 points might be while his team finishes with 84 and cant score for 8 straight minutes of him not even getting the ball....when his teammates and coach WANT him to have it.

Its like people think if you shoot 64% you get an extra 15 on the scoreboard end of the night......

You dont. You really really dont.

[Phoenix]

Pippen right after that 98 series with the Pacers



Pacers not having great athletes to battle with the likes of Jordan and Pippen has more to do with them losing than them not playing a certain way offensively.

Reggie had 13 shots in a game 7 they lost by 5. If there was one moment to shut this conversation down that could have been it. That's not going down swinging, in a game decided by a few possessions. MJ had 6 more points and took an extra 12 shots to do so. Reggie was 7 for 13. Keep shooting, its do or die.

[Kblaze8855]

Pippen right after that 98 series with the Pacers



Pacers not having great athletes to battle with the likes of Jordan and Pippen has more to do with them losing than them not playing a certain way offensively.


The Bulls should have won that series. Reggie did not come up short in losing. Its not anyones "fault" when you dont win a series you shouldnt.

That said....with like 5 close games? Reggie scoring more than 17 a game might have helped. If the epic 3 to win after the pushoff werent only his second basket of the night maybe they wouldnt have been in position to need it to begin with....

He was in a tough grind it out era. Being a more reliable scorer would have helped those teams. Every person alive in the 90s thought the same thing. THe pacers need more scoring. But 20 years later we hear how they had this amazing scorer due to his shooting numbers. The whole narrative got rebuilt by stat nerds who werent even there.

[tpols]

^

:roll:

He lost to Michael Jordan.

EVERY body lost to prime MJ. He shut a whole decade down.

That's not an argument.

[Reggie43]

Reggie had 13 shots in a game 7 they lost by 5. If there was one moment to shut this conversation down that could have been it. That's not going down swinging, in a game decided by a few possessions. MJ had 6 more points and took an extra 12 shots to do so. Reggie was 7 for 13. Keep shooting, its do or die.

Did I say he came down swinging? How about quote the right people with your shit?

He played great defense on Jordan, better than most superstar defenders. He was also not fully recovered on an ankle sprain mid series so you want him to force stuff on Jordan than go to a Kukoc/Longley Smits mismatch? Smits went for 11/12 fgs i think in game 6 against the same defenders.

[Phoenix]

^

:roll:

He lost to Michael Jordan.

EVERY body lost to prime MJ. He shut a whole decade down.

That's not an argument.

They lost by 5. MJ was 9/25. Scottie, the 'worse scorer' was 6 of 18. We've gone 11 pages debating Reggie Miller and in a game 7 he loses by 5 taking 13 shots where he made over 50% of them.....4 of 7 on 3s, 'but 'it was MJ' is your best answer? If Reggie was like 11 for 23 and they lose? Tip your hat. 13 shots? Nodody can spin that as leaving it on the floor. Nobody else on the team took more than 8. If he doesnt have it in him? Ok. But can we stop throwing around his efficiencies like it means something here?

[Phoenix]

Did I say he came down swinging? How about quote the right people with your shit?

He played great defense on Jordan, better than most superstar defenders. He was also not fully recovered on an ankle sprain mid series so you want him to force stuff on Jordan than go to a Kukoc/Longley Smits mismatch? Smits went for 11/12 fgs i think in game 6 against the same defenders.

Chill the fukk out. I never said you said anything about going down swinging. It was just a comment I made within the body of my reply. If you gonna get this emotional then add me to the ignore list as well.

[Reggie43]

Chill the fukk out. I never said you said anything about going down swinging. It was just a comment I made within the body of my reply. If you gonna get this emotional then add me to the ignore list as well.

Am I the one who is emotional when you are the one putting words in peoples mouths to prove a point? You dont need to quote me then accuse me of things I never said. Whats the agenda here?

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen is an odd player for Miller advocates to benchmark Miller against. We heard Miller scored 23 PPG on 16 shots as a nominal "first option" (the only "first option" who is always 2nd-4th in usage I am aware of--but special rules for Reggie are a recurring theme here) while Pippen was 23 PPG on 19 shots as a "first option" in the playoffs. Playoffs are the chosen benchmark, where Pippen played the #1 defense in 70% of the sample (which counts for Horace Grant's #s but not for Pippen's--let's try to keep up with the hypocrisy :oldlol: ). Still, let's go with the Miller advocate frame.

This is a prime example of why Miller doesn't stack up to the players he gets compared to on ISH. So Miller was a better scorer--same scoring on 3 less shots. Ok. What about rebounding? Playmaking? Does Reggie take the #21 offense to #8 or the #13 offense (with MJ) to #4? Does Reggie make his teammates more efficient? Does Reggie play dominant defense?

If you need Reggie to get you 6 offensive boards to win the ECF in Game 7 or 16 boards in a Game 7 because your PF is averaging 7 RPG, can Reggie do that? If you need 12 assists, can Reggie do that? If you need Reggie to shut down the opposing PG so offensively dependent players like Reggie can't get the ball (one reason he shot so little in the ECF--Pippen wrecked Mark Jackson) or if its Magic Johnson, can he do that? On and on.

Yet Reggie can score the same on 3 less shots. Yeah, 0 coaches are going to take Reggie over Pippen because of 3 shots. This kind of stuff is why coaches were taking Starks and Blaylock over Reggie smack in the middle of his prime. Miller himself said if he could be any other player on the 96' Dream Team III it would be Pippen because he didn't need to score to dominate...


“We’ve got to set better picks … [but] Reggie gave in a couple times where he was defended well and he sought of gave in to it and let the ball swing to the other side of the court.

Larry Brown made a similar comment. Reggie simply couldn't create shots like superstars. He couldn't beat his man, couldn't bring the ball up, etc. If he could handle the ball and function as a secondary playmaker, he could have relieved the intense pressure Mark Jackson was under but he couldn't and was running around looking for picks as the offense struggled.


A reggie who would just go take 28 shots would have shot worse....but might have been better.

The irony is most of these people wouldn't be hyping him if he did. oRTG!


Reggie "got" the basketball a lot more than scottie pippen in their careers.

Prime usage: Pippen 24.6%, Miller 23.2%.
As a #1 option: Pippen 27.1% (31.9% in the playoffs), Miller 23.2%


They lost by 5. MJ was 9/25. Scottie, the 'worse scorer' was 6 of 18. We've gone 11 pages debating Reggie Miller and in a game 7 he loses by 5 taking 13 shots where he made over 50% of them.....4 of 7 on 3s, 'but 'it was MJ' is your best answer?

MJ outrebounded Miller 9-0 and 5-0 on the offensive glass. That isn't "MJ being MJ", that is MJ simply doing whatever it took to win because he had a diverse skill-set, unlike Miller. As to Pippen, he had 6 offensive boards and 12 total--game highs. The reason the Bulls won Game 7 is rebounding--and the great Reggie was literally nowhere to be seen in that regard. The "scrub" Pippen was the best player in the game in that area--ahead of Rodman, Smits, Davis, Longley, MJ.

[Phoenix]

Am I the one who is emotional when you are the one putting words in peoples mouths to prove a point? You dont need to quote me then accuse me of things I never said. Whats the agenda here?

Who put words in who's mouth? Again, the comment I made about not going down swinging was GENERAL. It was not saying that this is what YOU said. I am generally saying he didnt go down swinging. Nobody is accusing you of saying this. This is the second time I've clarified that point and you're still going on about it.

Look at you. Accusations? Agenda? Yeah, getting emotional. I've never talked this much about Reggie Miller in my entire life. Why would I have an agenda for someone who at best is like a top 50 or 60 player? People who are arguing for agenda reasons do so because they consider that person a threat to something they need to protect. Theres nobody I care about in basketball that I need to do that for where Reggie Miller is concerned.

[Phoenix]

MJ outrebounded Miller 9-0 and 5-0 on the offensive glass. That isn't "MJ being MJ", that is MJ simply doing whatever it took to win because he had a diverse skill-set, unlike Miller. As to Pippen, he had 6 offensive boards and 12 total--game highs. The reason the Bulls won Game 7 is rebounding--and the great Reggie was literally nowhere to be seen in that regard. The "scrub" Pippen was the best player in the game in that area--ahead of Rodman, Smits, Davis, Longley, MJ.

All it does is reinforce the point that if Reggie isn't scoring at a high volume his effect on the game is minimal. He had 4 rebounds and no assists in this game. That's not the kind of contribution in other facets where one can make any attempt to justify 13 shots....especially when he was much more efficient than MJ shot for shot in the game we're talking about.

[Reggie43]

Who put words in who's mouth? Again, the comment I made about not going down swinging was GENERAL. It was not saying that this is what YOU said. I am generally saying he didnt go down swinging. Nobody is accusing you of saying this. This is the second time I've clarified that point and you're still going on about it.

Look at you. Accusations? Agenda? Yeah, getting emotional. I've never talked this much about Reggie Miller in my entire life. Why would I have an agenda for someone who at best is like a top 50 or 60 player? People who are arguing for agenda reasons do so because they consider that person a threat to something they need to protect. Theres nobody I care about in basketball that I need to do that for where Reggie Miller is concerned.

Calm down. Im not the one who randomly came to a miller thread looking for reactions.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It's probably the most retarded argument i've ever heard out of this site.

They're literally erasing a guys greatest achievements and cherrypicking his worst games to try and make a (feeble) point.

Like... you can literally do that with everybody.

For every bad game he had, he mustve had a ****ing 4 or 5 amazing ones because that 120 ORTG 24 ppg for 100+ playoff games aint lying.

Its not grounded in reality, so ya. A weird argument for sure.

Where do you rank Miller as a SG in the 90s? With Clyde?

[Phoenix]

Calm down. Im not the one who randomly came to a miller thread looking for reactions.

Lol, on the topic of accusations, look at this beauty. I came into this thread for the same reason I do for all others I expend energy to reply to. To talk basketball if the topic in question interests me enough to do so. None of my posts in the least imply I'm here looking to reactions. You have a high opinion of yourself if you think I'm posting here because I care about how you react to it.

[Roundball_Rock]

All this talk about Reggie and nothing about his reliance on flopping? He had a patented move where he would kick his defender--and the defender would get called for a foul. What would his oRTG be without that?


All it does is reinforce the point that if Reggie isn't scoring at a high volume his effect on the game is minimal.

Therein lies the rub. He didn't have the skill set to regularly take 20 to 25 shots if asked to do that. That is why other players got so much usage. (I exclude anyone who played less than 1,000 minutes--Malik Sealy was at around 600-700 twice and ahead of Miller.) Any real superstar, any of the players Reggie is compared to on ISH could scale up to that if asked to do so because they could beat their man, could handle the ball (if a perimeter player) for themselves and to create for others if things opened up, etc.

Indiana Usage Leaders in Miller's Prime

1990: 1) Person 2) Miller 3) Smits 4) Schrempf
1991: 1) Person 2) Miller 3) Smits 4) Williams
1992: 1) Smits 2) Person 3) Schrempf 4) Miller
1993: 1) Smits 2) Miller 3) Schrempf 4) Fleming
1994: 1) Scott 2) Smits 3) Miller 4) Richardson
1995: 1) Smits 2) Miller 3) Scott 4) McKey
1996: 1) Smits 2) Miller 3) Pierce 4) Johnson
1997: 1) Smits 2) Miller 3) Dampier 4) Rose
1998: 1) Smits 2) Miller 3) Rose 4) Best
1999: 1) Smits 2) Rose 3) Miller 4) Mullin
2000: 1) Smits 2) Rose 3) Croshere 4) Miller (Reggie "leading" this team to the finals!)

Only Reggie could never lead his team in usage and be remembered as this great "first option." :oldlol: First option for what? Giving quotes to the media?

With respect to Miller's clutch highlights: they all look identical, don't they? Miller receives the ball and shoots. That's it...Hey, that works. That is all people remember as clutch. If you beat your man and drive the lane and get tripled covered with a chip on the line in Game 6 of the NBA finals (can anyone imagine this sequence with Reggie?), leaving John Paxson wide open people won't remember that--they'll just remember Paxson, not the guy who Ainge left to cover to cause Paxson (and Grant) to get open in the first place. Hell, you even see people crediting MJ for that--MJ was barely involved in the play.


You have a high opinion of yourself if you think I'm posting here because I care about how you react to it.

He is highly emotional. :lol As you noted, Reggie is top 50-60 all-time. No one cares about him outside of this ridiculous hype (from the same people who will hype Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Kemp, etc. in other threads--every 90's star with the one exception of Pippen. Easy to see the agenda...). If Reggie didn't play the Bulls in 98' (once in 18 years!) we probably aren't having this flock defending Reggie. Generally, it is due to Spike Lee, New York, ESPN, etc. but these particular posters' agenda is transparent if you watch their posting on 90's players.

[Roundball_Rock]

"16" was mentioned as his playoff average--but that is via him putting up monster numbers in 3-4 game first round losses. What about in other rounds during his prime?

1994 1st round: 29/3/4 on 55% 18.3 FGA in 38.3 MPG (first PO series W)
1994 rest of PO: 22/3/3 on 42% 16.5 FGA in 35.5 MPG

1995 1st round: 32/4/3 on 47% 19.0 FGA in 36.3 MPG
1995 rest of PO: 24/4/2 on 48% 16.6 FGA in 38.0 MPG

1998 1st round: 19/2/3 on 40% 14.3 FGA in 39.0 MPG
1998 rest of PO: 20/2/2 on 43% 14.4 FGA in 39.4 MPG

1999 1st round: 26/3/2 on 36% 19.7 FGA in 36.5 MPG
1999 rest of PO: 18/3/4 on 41% 14.0 FGA in 37.1 MPG

2000 1st round: 24/2/2 on 46% 18.2 FGA in 38.9 MPG
2000 rest of PO: 24/2/3 on 45% 17.3 FGA in 41.1 MPG

There is an obvious trend where he shrinks past the 1st round. These are the only prime years he got out the 1st round. Here is what he did in the 1st round from 1990-1993 (all losses--Reggie didn't win a playoff series until year 7):

1990: 21/4/2 57% 11.7 FGA 41.7 MPG
1991: 22/3/3 49% 14.0 FGA 38.6 MPG
1992: 27/2/5 58% 14.3 FGA 43.3 MPG
1993: 32/3/3 53% 18.8 FGA 43.8 MPG

Even past his prime he was a 1st round monster:

2001: 31/5/3 46% 22.5 FGA 44.3 MPG
2002: 24/3/3 51% 16.6 FGA 39.6 MPG

If he played the way he played in the 1st round in tougher playoff series with real stakes (the 1st round is rarely competitive since it, outside of 4/5, places high seeds against low seeds--Indiana was on both ends of this spectrum) we may be talking about him as top 30 all-time but, for whatever reason, he was nowhere near that player in the ECSF or ECF. This is ironic since his "clutch" reputation would suggest the bigger the series, the bigger Reggie got but the opposite happened.

[Roundball_Rock]

Milller 29ppg .545% 2.7rebs 3.7asts 2.3spg .3bpg
.668 TS

Smits 16ppg .405% 5.3rebs 3.3asts 1.3spg .3bpg
.472 TS

The laughable deception here--no mention of the point about Smits' defense because he knows that would support the point he is responding to. Lacks the honesty to post that and the capability to formulate a response. He just careens from emotional meltdown to emotional meltdown due to his deficiencies precluding him formulating responses.

Shaq's stats vs. Smits vs. the RS: -9 PPG, -9 TS% (stats don't show the cascading effects on the Orlando offense of their superstar being shut down)

No big deal, though, to hold prime Shaq to 21 PPG-because that happened all the time, right? :lol Is this prime Shaq's worst playoff series? At the hands of the same guy who was giving Ewing work in the playoffs during this same time frame?

It was all Reggie, though. :lol It is a shame MVP voters at the time, year after year, failed to grasp how Reggie was carrying the team with 21/3/3. These are amazing numbers but all he got was being tied with teammate Jalen Rose for 13th once and 16th place (again tied with a teammate, Rik Smits) on a 58 win team? If only they knew what his oRTG was, perhaps?

Atlanta wasn't 7 games--NY 94', NY 95', ORL 95', CHI 98' all were (first round loss in 96', missed the playoffs altogether in 97'). A lot of 7 game series. Apologies that they actually had one 6 game series mixed in there. Amazing feat to avoid 7 games against a good team for once...What a great team.

[Roundball_Rock]

Give me a guy that won it all playing with somebody like Smits as the second best player? Which of his peers could win it all like you said given the same situation?

They nearly won with one dimensional Reggie. They get over the top with any 90's superstar in place of Reggie or a McHale, who it was argued in another thread is worse than Reggie because McHale was a "#2 option" while Reggie was a "#1 option". As if McHale wouldn't be the #1 if they played together.

On the one hand, the 90's Pacers were this great team for purposes of the agenda of you and the others hawking Miller in this thread--in fact it is "Jordan hate" according to you (a professed non-Jordan fan, of course :lol ) to question any 90's player or team that played against Jordan. Yet on the other it was Miller and nobodies? You can't have it both ways logically and simply shift because doing so suits you temporarily in defending Miller's failure to win.

The Pacers' whole was better than the sum of their parts. Jackson was a great passer, the Davis's tough defenders who could rebound, Smits a good scorer whose height gave guys like Shaq and Ewing trouble, McKey a strong defender who Phil Jackson and others called their best player in the middle of Miller's prime, Mullin an elite shooter. Jalen Rose was their leading scorer on the finals team, not Reggie (who was 4th in usage--1st option, right?). What they were missing was a superstar.

Smits was fine as a 2nd option compared to the other 2nd options on other contenders. For example, Smits was the only "2nd option" to actually lead the team in usage perennially. You could run your offense through him as your first action. Not exactly a useless player.


The problem is your standards are too high when the guys I am comparing him to barely had any sustained playoff success of their own as the teams franchise player.

On the one hand Reggie is supposed to get all the credit for his team being a contender--on the other the team wasn't good enough and therefore Reggie is absolved of any and all accountability for said contender failing to ever win.

He either owns the results or he doesn't. He doesn't get the credit for the limited success but no blame for the ultimate lack of rings.

Moreover, if the quality of the team matters for Reggie, why doesn't that logic extend to other players? Put Ray Allen or Klay or Richmond on the Pacers and what exactly changes? Not much--if anything Indiana could have done better with the extra production they provide outside of scoring while generating the same 21-23 PPG Reggie provided. That 98' loss was narrow. 2 rebounds, a defensive stop or two, creating another two shots for teammates, etc. could have swung the outcome. They had other narrow losses. 94' ECF, 95' ECF, should have beaten the Ewing-less Knicks in 99', etc.


So basically a Miller Finals run is the same as a Ray Allen first round exit in the same year because he could dribble better and jump higher?

Allen's ability to dribble, athletic ability, ability to grab 5, not 3 boards, to playmake are relevant because Indiana would have done better with those skills on top of 21-23 PPG. Miller being on a better team doesn't make him a better player--and this is with arbitrarily and conveniently cutting off Allen's career in 2007 to exclude the (actual) winning he did thereafter from the comparison. Meanwhile Reggie's entire record is included.

[Roundball_Rock]

After this thread I had to rewatch Game 7 of the 98' ECF...Miller: 0 in the final 15 1/2 minutes of his his best shot at a ring. The only times you remember he is even in the game late is when he coughs up an offensive rebound to Pippen, then gives up the go ahead field goal to Pippen, and when he shoots an air ball. The final Indiana shots? Smits, McKey, A
Smits, a Davis tip.

Indiana raped on the boards, laughably losing second chance points 26-1 (Pippen 6 o boards, Jordan 5). Reggie had 0 total boards. Just watched all these others get boards. Too "alpha" to board, too alpha to shoot, too alpha to defend, too alpha to bring the ball up, etc.

Jordan, Pippen, Miller, Smits all shot poorly but MJ, Pippen showed heart while Miller and Smits folded.

Miller nowhere to be seen when it counted. Ortg, doe! https://youtu.be/bJ2goS1f19U

[Phoenix]

More than not scoring in the 4th is the fact that he only took 1 shot and not a single free throw attempt. For further context he was averaging 6 free throws a game in the playoffs. Not high volume but not ineffectual for a shooter, and certainly not when he's shooting them at 87%. Thats unfathomable for a player whose main value to the team is scoring. It's not agenda or looking for reactions to point these things out as really odd for someone we've spent 13 pages debating the virtues of his offensive effect.

And as for 'but he had Rik Smits to work with', Smits scored 9 points in the 4th, 2/5 from the field and 5/6 from the line. He basically matched MJs scoring output and needed two less shots to do so. He's the only reason the Pacers didn't end up losing this game by double digits. Two bad he didnt have a solid 2nd option in the clutch.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's not agenda or looking for reactions to point these things out as really odd for someone we've spent 13 pages debating the virtues of his offensive effect.

Yeah, the entire basis of the argument for Miller always is his scoring, yet when it counted most (his best shot at a ring in the sense that the 98' team was the best Pacers team he had), it was nowhere to be had.


More than not scoring in the 4th is the fact that he only took 1 shot and not a single free throw attempt. For further context he was averaging 6 free throws a game in the playoffs

Some of that likely is he relied on flopping to get to the line and, like Harden learns each year, those calls don't come as easily in big games, but it mostly is that he just disappeared.


Smits scored 9 points in the 4th, 2/5 from the field and 5/6 from the line. He basically matched MJs scoring output and needed two less shots to do so. He's the only reason the Pacers didn't end up losing this game by double digits. Two bad he didnt have a solid 2nd option in the clutch.

Yup. When the going got tough, they went to Smits.

Luc Longley and Steve Kerr took more shots than Reggie in the 4th. :oldlol:

[aceman]

They lost by 5. MJ was 9/25. Scottie, the 'worse scorer' was 6 of 18. We've gone 11 pages debating Reggie Miller and in a game 7 he loses by 5 taking 13 shots where he made over 50% of them.....4 of 7 on 3s, 'but 'it was MJ' is your best answer? If Reggie was like 11 for 23 and they lose? Tip your hat. 13 shots? Nodody can spin that as leaving it on the floor. Nobody else on the team took more than 8. If he doesnt have it in him? Ok. But can we stop throwing around his efficiencies like it means something here?

Reggie didn't create own shot off dribble - he curled off screens. Mark Jackson has to find him to score.
Smit's in post was big option for pacers.

[Phoenix]

Reggie didn't create own shot off dribble - he curled off screens. Mark Jackson has to find him to score.
Smit's in post was big option for pacers.

I'm going to watch that 4th quarter Roundball dropped above and see how between Reggie and Mark all ability to get off more than a single shot was lost in the 4th, when he had managed to get off 12 shots through 3 quarters. How much of it is credited to the Bulls defense and how much we can attribute to something else.

[Phoenix]

Some of that likely is he relied on flopping to get to the line and, like Harden learns each year, those calls don't come as easily in big games, but it mostly is that he just disappeared.




Reggie was known to kick his leg out when shooting and somehow the refs interpreted this as a defensive foul. As you pointed out with Harden, they also are more likely to swallow the whistle and not allowing those kinds of plays to determine who the better team is when a championship( or an opportunity to play for one) is on the immediate horizon.

[Phoenix]

Just saw the 4th. Everything about Reggies limitations as a player were on display here. The ball found its way into his hands a handful of times and he made pretty quick work passing it off. Between Harper and MJ they stuck to him and he couldnt shoot coming off a screen, but the Pacers really werent making much effort to try and feature him ( take from that what you will), deferring to Smits as the box score indicates. At 2:55 left Isiah seems to remember that Reggie is on the floor and says the Pacers need to get him going, backed up by Costas a few moments later saying he hadnt even taken a shot yet. It's almost like the announcers just saw his jersey number and realized he was out there. Watch the tape.

Really, these were two pretty evenly matched squads. Bodies all over the floor for loose balls. Grinding, slow it down half court offense. Every basket deserved its own celebration as it was earned. Really came down to 'moments': the ball ending up in Kerrs hands who ties it with a 3 when they couldnt get any offense going. Scottie getting an and-1 off a switch with Antonio Davis and fouling him out. Misses the free throw, MJ somehow manages to steal the offensive board getting inside Smits and Dale Davis.

It's so obvious that Chicago was at the end of its rope here and it's pretty much championship poise that carried them through. MJ couldn't buy a jumpshot but pressured the defense by driving to the basket and creating contact. Scottie was like 6/18 but had a 15 footer off a curl that broke a stalemate and then the aforementioned and-1 opportunity. I would say most guys on the floor except Reggie had some kind of visibility. Hell, Longley got a few fouls defending Smits and had the little corner 10 footer off MJs drive and kick. Reggie was really nowhere involved in anything the Pacers did in the 4th quarter, but everyone can watch for themselves.

[Reggie43]

You took this much effort to watch a cherry picked quarter with no context? Was he not setting up Smits for the mismatch against kukoc/longley? How about the defense he played against Jordan that was widely praised? Spacing the floor/gravity that gets players like Korver hyped, allstar berth etc. does not apply to him? How about the fact that he still had that ankle injury to recover from mid series? Would you rather force shots against the Goat perimeter defender with his ankle not yet fully recovered or go to Smits who shot 91% (11/12) against the same defenders the prior game?

Them playing that way got them the lead and was toe to toe with the Bulls till Kerr hit that back breaking three. Was really proud of how the team played and would not have them play any other way.

Already let you have the last say on this but I guess you cant let it go and still piled on the posts.

[warriorfan]

I have rewatched the 2011 Finals and have concluded LeBron James sucks at everything and should be in the top 30 of all time at highest.

Carry on.

[tpols]

I have rewatched the 2011 Finals and have concluded LeBron James sucks at everything and should be in the top 30 of all time at highest.

Carry on.

Yup... i just watched Kobe's 2004 and "tragic" Magic's 1984 Finals.

It's incredible that these fellas think these types of cherrypicks make a credible argument, when we're using the whole career.

These clowns man. :facepalm :lol

Not only are they cherrypicking 1 game... but 1 quarter. Barely losing to Michael Jordan... if thats the threshold for being a loser, everybody is one.

If you base an entire mans hundreds of games career on one QUARTER... you've achieved Barnum and Bailey Ringling Bros clown status.

[Phoenix]

Actually I was done with this post. Roundball brought it back to life and I took the opportunity to watch the 4th quarter.

Theres nothing cherry picked about watching the entire 4th quarter. I saw what everyone was out there doing. Reggie had 22 through 3 quarters, then nothing in the 4th. The same defenders were on him earlier in the game. The reality is Reggie wasnt able to put his footprint on the game offensively in the clutch. He didnt rebound. He didnt assist. Because neither aspects are part of his game. Defense on Jordan? MJ was getting shots that ended up short because of dead legs, not because of Reggies defense. So what did MJ start doing? Taking it to the rim. What was Reggie doing in reply to that? It's as Bird said, if you're the superstar you need to find a way to get the ball in your hands and make something happened. He just didn't, and your retort is a series of whataboutisms. And the Bulls were as vulnerable as any point I've seen in their entire run, so dont hide behind the ' it's not his fault he lost to the GOAT' line of defense.

You think I'm here for your reaction anyway so why are you vested in replying? Already told you, ignore button is a few clicks away if my opinion on Reggie Miller is a problem for you.

[tpols]

Just because he wasnt able to "put his footprint on the game in the clutch" in that game, doesnt mean he generally didnt.

Again... a guy GOAT clutch Larry Bird said he witnessed be as clutch as anybody he ever saw to play the game... thats the full sample size not 1 quarter of 1 game in 1 year.

Your argument is a joke.

[Reggie43]

You need to chill man I dont even know why you got this trigerred but feel free to voice your opinions on Miller. How about watching game 3 when he killed Jordan in the clutch off a newly sprained ankle? Or that epic game winner pushoff that was followed by an epic" what if it went in" miss.

[Phoenix]

Yup... i just watched Kobe's 2004 and "tragic" Magic's 1984 Finals.

It's incredible that these fellas think these types of cherrypicks make a credible argument, when we're using the whole career.

These clowns man. :facepalm :lol

Not only are they cherrypicking 1 game... but 1 quarter. Barely losing to Michael Jordan... if thats the threshold for being a loser, everybody is one.

If you base an entire mans hundreds of games career on one QUARTER... you've achieved Barnum and Bailey Ringling Bros clown status.

Who the hell is basing his career on the one game? I'm talking about this specific game and even more to the point, what Reggie did in the 4th quarter of a game they led with about 5 or 6 minutes left. So what would you propose I do if I want to see what he did in the clutch of THIS game? Watch the first fukking quarter?!

I thought you were a reasonable poster at one point but upon closer examination.....jesus christ.

[Phoenix]

You need to chill man I dont even know why you got this trigerred but feel free to voice your opinions on Miller. How about watching game 3 when he killed Jordan in the clutch off a newly sprained ankle? Or that epic game winner pushoff that was followed by an epic" what if it went in" miss.

I dont need to do a damn thing. I already gave you a suggestion if you dont agree with my posts here or even want to read them. Up to you. If I have no further comment to make to someone I close off the conversation. Simple enough. Or keep going. My post above wasnt directed at you but you choose to take it on. That's on you.

[Phoenix]

Just because he wasnt able to "put his footprint on the game in the clutch" in that game, doesnt mean he generally didnt.

Again... a guy GOAT clutch Larry Bird said he witnessed be as clutch as anybody he ever saw to play the game... thats the full sample size not 1 quarter of 1 game in 1 year.

Your argument is a joke.

It wasnt a general statement though. It was said and intended within the context of this game. Your comprehension is a fukking joke.

[Overdrive]

Yup... i just watched Kobe's 2004 and "tragic" Magic's 1984 Finals.

It's incredible that these fellas think these types of cherrypicks make a credible argument, when we're using the whole career.

These clowns man. :facepalm :lol

Not only are they cherrypicking 1 game... but 1 quarter. Barely losing to Michael Jordan... if thats the threshold for being a loser, everybody is one.

If you base an entire mans hundreds of games career on one QUARTER... you've achieved Barnum and Bailey Ringling Bros clown status.

Doesn't make him a loser. Most guys don't win a ring, but winning a winable game and a winable finals after would have made him a winner.

So yes a quarter can change your career. Even a shot can.
Starks hits and Ewing is a winner...

[warriorfan]

Yup... i just watched Kobe's 2004 and "tragic" Magic's 1984 Finals.

It's incredible that these fellas think these types of cherrypicks make a credible argument, when we're using the whole career.

These clowns man. :facepalm :lol

Not only are they cherrypicking 1 game... but 1 quarter. Barely losing to Michael Jordan... if thats the threshold for being a loser, everybody is one.

If you base an entire mans hundreds of games career on one QUARTER... you've achieved Barnum and Bailey Ringling Bros clown status.

Yes. This is an interesting new style of analysis. I think I’m going to adopt it with my LeBron James evaluations. Thank you Insidehoops. Always so insightful.

[Kblaze8855]

st because he wasnt able to "put his footprint on the game in the clutch" in that game, doesnt mean he generally didnt.

By ratio of big shots made he would be high on my all time list. When he got a shot off that they needed id say he usually made it. But unlike the other top players in the clutch category? He cant simply impose his will and get shots because he didnt have the skillset. Reggie would do virtually nothing to contribute for long periods of time down the stretch of games. A guy like Kobe, Jordan, West, Bird or whoever you wanna make his peers far as making a single shot were far harder to turn into observers.

He was all time great when you can get him a single look. Hes not all time reliable to get looks and score. Travis Best and Mark Jackson and later Jalen Rose were more likely to be called on to figure something out because Reggie just cant make a play. He cant dribble under duress and he was a subpar passer on the move unless it was to a trailer on the break. Reggie is a notch behind other clutch players for the same reason he didnt turn the ball over. You have to be good enough to be trusted with the ball to turn it over in the first place.

Reggie was big shot clutch like Robert Horry or even Ray Allen. Not big game clutch like the others because he wasnt skilled enough to regularly impose his will on a game. He might have a shit game but make a big shot when called on. Thats clutch. But its not reliable to carry your team.

Plenty of way less clutch players would be better to help you win a big game but worse to help you make a game winner. Tricky distinction but its true. You need a guy who can go take the game over. Which is what Bird wanted Reggie to do when he would ask him for more aggression but only get 10 shots outta him.

Reggie didnt have the extra gear of the players Bird wanted him to be like. He just wasnt as skilled as he needed to be for that. You can only impose your will so much when your handles are a 3 out of 10 and your passing is mostly limited to stand still reads.

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie didn't create own shot off dribble - he curled off screens. Mark Jackson has to find him to score.

That came up several times in the game. The commentators noted Pippen kept an eye on Miller and steered Jackson to where it would be hard to get him the ball. At another point Pippen got in foul trouble and went to the bench briefly, the commentator (Collins I think) said it was key because, essentially, with Pippen not there smothering Jackson and wrecking the Pacers' execution (no stat for this!) the Pacers would be able to operate their offense again (which would include getting the ball to Reggie).

This is a big problem...Reggie was a guard. Why couldn't he get the ball by bringing it up himself now and then? He didn't have the skills to do so. It was always Jackson and Best doing so.



Smit's in post was big option for pacers.

Agreed, but the big thing we hear about Reggie is he was this great "first option" and a great scorer in that role. Neither Smits' predominance in the offense or Reggie being erased from big games are consistent with the myths.


Roundball dropped above and see how between Reggie and Mark all ability to get off more than a single shot was lost in the 4th, when he had managed to get off 12 shots through 3 quarters

He had a lightening quick release. If he got open briefly, he would make the defense pay. He had a couple drives but mostly it was quick, catch and shoot situations. Compare him to Jordan, Pippen. They can shoot, drive, play in the post, create for teammates etc. They had full arsenals (to different degrees of course); Miller was limited.


Reggie was known to kick his leg out when shooting and somehow the refs interpreted this as a defensive foul.

Yup, it was ridiculous. :lol It does explain why a shooter got so many FT's, though. Usually the top FTA guys are slashers or post players.


At 2:55 left Isiah seems to remember that Reggie is on the floor and says the Pacers need to get him going, backed up by Costas a few moments later saying he hadnt even taken a shot yet. It's almost like the announcers just saw his jersey number and realized he was out there. Watch the tape.


Which is exactly what some of us have been saying: Reggie disappeared in games.


Everything about Reggies limitations as a player were on display here. The ball found its way into his hands a handful of times and he made pretty quick work passing it off. Between Harper and MJ they stuck to him and he couldnt shoot coming off a screen

Yup, that is a problem: relying so much on screens to get shots because he couldn't generate his own offense. People post random clips of him driving. Every NBA player does that. It just wasn't a major part of his game and it wasn't a big tool in his toolbox.

[Roundball_Rock]

The reason I watched the game again is to see if there was something I missed back then that these guys talk about; the film confirmed everything Miller detractors have been saying here, though.


Really came down to 'moments': the ball ending up in Kerrs hands who ties it with a 3 when they couldnt get any offense going. Scottie getting an and-1 off a switch with Antonio Davis and fouling him out. Misses the free throw, MJ somehow manages to steal the offensive board getting inside Smits and Dale Davis.

I would add there was one with Reggie involved too. The game was tied, Reggie has the ball bounce in his hands but hot potatoes it, allowing Pippen to get the offensive rebound. Then Pippen shakes Miller off a screen and makes the go ahead jumper (81-79). The Bulls never looked back. All Reggie had to do was catch a ball that fell in his hands but he couldn't do it, then gave up the go ahead score.


MJ couldn't buy a jumpshot but pressured the defense by driving to the basket and creating contact. Scottie was like 6/18 but had a 15 footer off a curl that broke a stalemate and then the aforementioned and-1 opportunity. I would say most guys on the floor except Reggie had some kind of visibility. Hell, Longley got a few fouls defending Smits and had the little corner 10 footer off MJs drive and kick. Reggie was really nowhere involved in anything the Pacers did in the 4th quarter, but everyone can watch for themselves.

Yeah, everyone shot poorly in that game except Kukoc--who dominated the third quarter. That tends to happen in Game 7's. The defensive intensity is sky high.

MJ, Pippen, Smits' presence was felt in various ways throughout the game.


It's incredible that these fellas think these types of cherrypicks make a credible argument, when we're using the whole career.

It is arguably the biggest game of his career. :lol


Theres nothing cherry picked about watching the entire 4th quarter.

What they are implying is this was somehow an out of character game for Reggie. That is false. This is who he was and against strong defenses that knew how to deny him the ball this is what happened.


The reality is Reggie wasnt able to put his footprint on the game offensively in the clutch. He didnt rebound. He didnt assist. Because neither aspects are part of his game.

Yup. MJ had 5 offensive boards--where was the taller Reggie when that was happening?


He was all time great when you can get him a single look. Hes not all time reliable to get looks and score. Travis Best and Mark Jackson and later Jalen Rose were more likely to be called on to figure something out because Reggie just cant make a play. He cant dribble under duress and he was a subpar passer on the move unless it was to a trailer on the break. Reggie is a notch behind other clutch players for the same reason he didnt turn the ball over. You have to be good enough to be trusted with the ball to turn it over in the first place.

Yup. A superior talent who had the ball more, shot more (therefore had more turnovers, a lower shooting percentage) would not have the "efficiency" numbers Reggie had but would help his team win more of these big games than Reggie ever did.

[Reggie43]

The problem here is his longevity underrates the skills that he had when he was younger. Him focusing more on his offball game on a better team as an older guy doesnt mean he never had that iso game when he was younger where he was more athletic. He was a better slasher off the catch than his peers. His face up game enabled to go to the line a lot more than most scorers but in hindsight all you hear about is his bad handle etc when there is evidence he was decent enough to score off it consistently. He had a better/quicker first step off the catch/faceup than someone like Ray/Mitch/Klay etc but all you hear is how bad he was at dribbling the ball disregarding how effective he was with the moves that he had.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not gonna go into his first step vs young Ray for now....and just say I dont fundamentally disagree with you. In fact im so sure I made that point I had to find it. This is me 5 years ago:



Reggie Millers prime was well before it seems some think. I know you can google numbers and see that he was more productive early in his career but somehow still...over the years ive seen many many people claiming his prime was from like 30-35. Im serious. I was just reading a topic with a guy telling me he did ____ every year of his prime and I point out that he was at his best way before he started winning and people acted like his prime started at 29 or 30.

Reggie was a more complete scorer early in his career. Or more likely...used more of what he had. He was using floaters, lefty hooks, his post game, and would even break out a little "Dirk":

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-31-2015/s-NJ-6.gif


Here and there.

Though that example is from like 1996.

Ive always known what Reggie could do...likely better than most of those acting like I underrated him. My belief he wasnt a complete scorer is relative...to the people hes compared to. To my horror I once read that he would have the 3rd best scoring skillset today after Kobe and Durant. Shit like that bugs me....but I knew he had more than a jump shot. He had game....just not as much as some want to pretend in retrospect.

[Roundball_Rock]

My belief he wasnt a complete scorer is relative...to the people hes compared to. To my horror I once read that he would have the 3rd best scoring skillset today after Kobe and Durant. Shit like that bugs me....but I knew he had more than a jump shot. He had game....just not as much as some want to pretend in retrospect.

Yeah, I think that is some of the disconnect here. We are comparing him to the standards set by the hype, not in a vacuum. The way people talk about him on ISH, including in this thread, he was this all-time great scorer (e.g., one person on ISH--not in this thread--said he was like Curry, a 30 PPG guy). That isn't what he was and the numbers reflect it. He was an all-time great shooter but due to his limitations he couldn't generate consistent offense and that got exposed against elite defenses and in big games. We keep hearing about his playoff numbers but they nose-dive outside of the first round. If he did what he did in the first round the entire playoffs then he would be close to the guy he is presented as but that isn't what happened.

The entire argument for Reggie revolves around his scoring, particularly in clutch situations. Hence the scrutiny of his scoring in big games, big series, etc. People aren't saying he was a great rebounder, playmaker, ballhandler, defender, etc. The whole thing is 1) he scored a ton 2) he scored a ton in big moments.

We keep hearing about offensive rating, shooting percentages but his net impact statistically wasn't on par with the players he is compared to:


Miller’s career reached into the Databall era, and his statistical footprint there is strong but not overwhelming. In scaled adjusted plus-minus, his first seven seasons (1994-2000) are above the 75th percentile, with three seasons between the 93rd and 96th percentile. His game-level plus-minus is steady, a rung below the superstars. So while Reggie lacks the indicators of a monster peak, all signs are that his economical scoring, spacing and moderate creation made him a valuable offensive weapon for a number of years

This guy is pro-Miller--says Miller is top 30 all-time while conceding Miller's peak wasn't top 50. He gives Miller credit for being good for a really long time. Here is how Reggie ranks all-time in other stats, things that factor in more than scoring:

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Miller-player-card.png

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/18/backpicks-goat-29-reggie-miller/

The highest he ranks is 72nd and people are talking about him as the second or third best perimeter player of his era.

[HoopsNY]

What is the beef here? That Reggie was overrated? Not better than Klay? That he sucked?

[72-10]

Reggie Miller is still better and greater than Klay Thompson. Since he was always his team's first option throughout his career, the opponent could always target Reggie while he was on offense, and despite this, while playing in a legal system, Reggie could take over a game/take out a team better than Klay can.

[Roundball_Rock]

Basically that people who saw him play don't think he was this super elite scorer that people with calculators who looked up his TS % and "offensive rating" (stats aided by his style of play: low volume, low turnovers since he didn't do much with the ball, and by definition since he had trouble getting open the shots he did take tended to be good looks) decades later think he was as they overrated him.

He was a top 10-15 player for a couple years. I am not sure why he inspires this advocacy decades later. Ray Allen and Klay don't.


Reggie Miller is still better and greater than Klay Thompson. Since he was always his team's first option throughout his career, the opponent could always target Reggie while he was on offense, and despite this, while playing in a legal system, Reggie could take over a game/take out a team better than Klay can.

The target in the 98' ECF was Mark Jackson--the head of the offensive snake.

Reggie never lead his team in usage. He was a notional first option. Klay actually commands more usage than Miller did, irrespective of notional option rankings.

The "option" stuff is why Smits keeps coming up. For a "second option", they sure ran a ton of offense through him, not Reggie (including with the season on the line against the Bulls). It also is lazy analysis: someone said Miller>McHale because one was the first option and the other wasn't. Even though McHale clearly was the superior player. We have to compare players, not roles.

The real question relative to Klay: is if you switch their teams what exactly changes for each team? What does Miller do that Klay didn't for GS? The answer for Klay on IND is easy: defense. In theory, MJ, Penny, Allan Houston don't have the same level of success against Indiana if Klay is there to guard them.

As far as greatness versus better, that is about accomplishments. Klay already has comparable accomplishments to Miller and he is only 28. Let's see the second half of his career but to date he is blowing Miller away through age 28 (Miller a 1x all-star at that point, 0 all-NBA).

[Lebron23]

Reggie Miller is still better and greater than Klay Thompson. Since he was always his team's first option throughout his career, the opponent could always target Reggie while he was on offense, and despite this, while playing in a legal system, Reggie could take over a game/take out a team better than Klay can.

Klay in 2019 put up a better finals performance than Miller in 2000.

[72-10]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZfUnCK5qk

https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/101323-Famous-Choke-Sign-By-Reggie-Miller.png

[Lebron23]

Klay averaged 26 ppg on 54.1 FG, 4.8 rpg. 2.9 apg, 0.8 spg in the 2019 nba finals against a good defensive team.

[HoopsNY]

So I've read through some of the posts and I still can't quite assess what everyone is saying. If some are saying that he was an "elite" scorer, then he wasn't. Miller was top 10 just once in his career.

But I do think the way Roundball and Kblaze are talking about him paints the picture that he was simply not that great. As usual, I might be misinterpreting what they're saying, but that's what it feels like, especially since you have opponents speaking so highly of him as a counter.

For one, the argument seems to be that Klay is better, at least in the minds of some. Now Klay, as of last year, was still in his prime. So using the two and their respective primes, how do they add up?

Regular Season

Reggie 1989-00: 21/3/3 on 48/41/89
Klay: 2013-19: 21/4/2 on 47/42/85

Advanced

Reggie 1989-00:
PER: 19.6
WS/48: .189
TS% 62%

Klay 2013-19
PER: 17.2
WS/48: .124
TS%: 58%

Playoffs during that stretch

Reggie: 23.5/3/2.5 on 46/41/89
Klay: 20/4/2 on 44/41/84

Advanced

Reggie

PER: 21
WS/48:.194
TS%: 61%

Klay

PER: 14.6
WS/48: .097
TS%: 56%

Now take your pick. Do you want Klay's defense and his shooting or do you want Reggie and his clutch factor/leadership/shooting. Reggie's clutch ability is something that should be considered.

Also, let's not forget how well a 35 year old Reggie played against Kobe Bryant in the 2000 finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

People want it both ways on stats, note that other players were "#2 options" and then compare their stats straight up with Miller's. If Klay is on Indiana his stats go up.

Miller had only one finals performance and played well there. Klay was just as good offensively while also expending energy on defense in 2019--but he also had a few duds.

I compared the two in big games in a past thread. It is incomplete since you have to look at other games (e.g., Game 1 in an ECF matters a lot too) but it gives us a sample of games to compare.

Here is what the two players did in some 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%

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' WCSF: 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)

Which is better? This is all opinion. To me Klay's logs are better--and he does this while expending energy on defense.

Their career prime playoff numbers are the following:

Miller 23/3/3 on 16.1 FGA (1990-2000)
Klay 20/4/3 on 16.6 FGA (2015-2019)

Miller took 6.0 threes, Klay 7.7. Not the large difference you would expect.


Reggie's clutch ability is something that should be considered.

It's hype. The Pacers always lost the big series, with the exception of the 00' ECF. "Winning Time", his 30 for 30, ends with the Pacers losing. Fitting.


But I do think the way Roundball and Kblaze are talking about him paints the picture that he was simply not that great.

He was what he was: top 10-15 player for several years, top 50-60 all-time. The 90's version of Ray Allen or Klay--just with a ton of hype. His accolades from the time are roughly consistent with a top 10-15 type player (actually, top 15 since he never made all-NBA 1st/2nd).

[HoopsNY]

In addition, I don't think the 3 years of the 3 point line being shorter should be something to dwell on. For one, look at Miller's 3 point percentages including the season before its implementation and after.

1993-94: 42.1% (original line)
1994-95: 41.5% (shortened)

1996-97: 42.7% (shortened)
1997-98: 42.9% (original line)

[Kblaze8855]

But I do think the way Roundball and Kblaze are talking about him paints the picture that he was simply not that great.


That depends on how great “that” is. If “that” is roughly what we all thought when we watched him say after day and he was put on about the same tier as Hawkins or maybe Steve Smith or Joe Dumars at best yes....he’s that great.

I think Reggie is exactly as great as people like me felt he was watching him. I don’t think anyone is as great as cumulative advanced stats 25 years later say.

None of that means anything to me. Show me those numbers for my favorite player and they get zero response from me.

I just don’t wanna hear in 2056 how _____ was some amazing player in 2014 when I was in 2014 and nobody was that impressed.

[Roundball_Rock]

In addition, I don't think the 3 years of the 3 point line being shorter should be something to dwell on. For one, look at Miller's 3 point percentages including the season before its implementation and after.

1993-94: 42.1% (original line)
1994-95: 41.5% (shortened)

1996-97: 42.7% (shortened)
1997-98: 42.9% (original line)

His volume tells the tale. 3.7 3PA in 94', 5.8 in 95'; 6.6 in 97', 4.7 in 98'.

He averaged 25.7 PPG in the playoffs with the shortened line (about 20 games), 22.5 without it in his prime (1990-1994, 1998-2000). This makes sense. He is a GOAT-level shooter so of course he would benefit a ton from the change. It could be argued all we are talking about is 3.2 PPG--but 25.7 PPG is near elite scoring circa the mid-90's; 22.5 is very good but not great.


I think Reggie is exactly as great as people like me felt he was watching him. I don’t think anyone is as great as cumulative advanced stats 25 years later say.


Yup. We haven't heard anything in this thread to show that people were wrong about Reggie in real time. TS % and offensive rating are not persuasive--especially since Reggie's limitations inflated those numbers relative to the superstars he is compared to. If half your shots are being open via a screen, your percentages will be higher than if you are taking contested shots. O Rating factors in turnovers--you won't turn it over much if a lot of what you do is catch and shoot.

[Phoenix]

Joe Dumars. 6 time all-star, 3 time all-nba( two 3rd, one 2nd). 5 all D teams ( four first, one second). I'm not even bringing up the obvious team achievement since this is mano a mano.Joe was making the all star team in years that Reggie wasn't, playing the same position. Ask MJ about him. And nobody gives a shit in 2020. They didn't give one in 2000.

I've said Reggie was great a few times in this thread. But there's level to it, and there are players both better in prowess and greater in legacy more deserving of 15 page and counting threads. There's no agenda on hand to misremember him as less than what his achievements tell us about his career relative to others in his tier.

[Roundball_Rock]

Joe Dumars. 6 time all-star, 3 time all-nba( two 3rd, one 2nd). 5 all D teams ( four first, one second). I'm not even bringing up the obvious team achievement since this is mano a mano.Joe was making the all star team in years that Reggie wasn't, playing the same position. Ask MJ about him. And nobody gives a shit in 2020. They didn't give one in 2000.

Good comp at the same position in the same era. Dumars made 1 more all-star team, both were all-NBA 3x but Miller never got higher than the 3rd team. Dumars made all D teams and Miller was not an elite defender. Both were top 10 in scoring once (Dumars 7th in 93', Miller 8th in 90').

Miller's accolades are weird. He was an all-star once in 7 years (90') with 0 all-NBA and then makes four in six years from ages 29-34 and suddenly makes all-NBA three times in four years. I am not aware of any other player who turned into a perennial all-star at 29 years old. It's not like his game drastically improved at 29.

[Phoenix]

Good comp at the same position in the same era. Dumars made 1 more all-star team, both were all-NBA 3x but Miller never got higher than the 3rd team. Dumars made all D teams and Miller was not an elite defender. Both were top 10 in scoring once (Dumars 7th in 93', Miller 8th in 90').

Miller's accolades are weird. He was an all-star once in 7 years (90') with 0 all-NBA and then makes four in six years from ages 29-34 and suddenly makes all-NBA three times in four years. I am not aware of any other player who turned into a perennial all-star at 29 years old. It's not like his game drastically improved at 29.

The fact that Joe was making the all-star team over Reggie during seasons when they were both in their prime( that early 90s period)...... it means Joe was considered more highly at one point. I mean I can't take anything else from that. Joe didnt have those big Madison Square garden moments but accolade wise he comes out on top and we can directly compare them competing in the same time space.

[Roundball_Rock]

The fact that Joe was making the all-star team over Reggie during seasons when they were both in their prime( that early 90s period)...... it means Joe was considered more highly at one point

Agreed. Here are the East all-star SG's from 1990-2000:

1990: MJ, Dumars, Miller
1991: MJ, Dumars, Hawkins, Pierce, Robertson
1992: MJ, Dumars, Lewis
1993: MJ, Dumars (Schrempf the Pacer all-star)
1994: Starks
1995: Miller, Dumars
1996: MJ, Miller
1997: MJ, Dumars
1998: MJ, Miller, Smith
2000: Iverson, Carter, Jones, Miller, Houston, Allen, Stackhouse

It's pretty obvious Dumars was considered the #2 SG in the East behind MJ when he was in his prime. Hawkins, Pierce, Robertson, Lewis, Starks were making all-star teams over Miller and none of these guys is remembered, other than Starks (for choking in Game 7). MJ, Dumars were the mainstays. Then he suddenly becomes a perennial all-star from 29-34 and 20-25 years later he rises again and is now the second or third best perimeter player of the entire era (forget East SG--perimeter player in the league). :oldlol:

I don't see anyone on ISH comparing Dumars to Barkley, Robinson, Pippen, Drexler, Stockton, Payton, Curry, etc.

Miller is still higher all-time than his ability and rank in any given season because he had great longevity and accomplishments like 25,000 points--but he had a lower peak & prime than probably any other top 50-60 player. If you are doing an all-time prime draft, Miller goes a lot lower than 50-60.

[warriorfan]

So I've read through some of the posts and I still can't quite assess what everyone is saying. If some are saying that he was an "elite" scorer, then he wasn't. Miller was top 10 just once in his career.

But I do think the way Roundball and Kblaze are talking about him paints the picture that he was simply not that great. As usual, I might be misinterpreting what they're saying, but that's what it feels like, especially since you have opponents speaking so highly of him as a counter.

For one, the argument seems to be that Klay is better, at least in the minds of some. Now Klay, as of last year, was still in his prime. So using the two and their respective primes, how do they add up?

Regular Season

Reggie 1989-00: 21/3/3 on 48/41/89
Klay: 2013-19: 21/4/2 on 47/42/85

Advanced

Reggie 1989-00:
PER: 19.6
WS/48: .189
TS% 62%

Klay 2013-19
PER: 17.2
WS/48: .124
TS%: 58%

Playoffs during that stretch

Reggie: 23.5/3/2.5 on 46/41/89
Klay: 20/4/2 on 44/41/84

Advanced

Reggie

PER: 21
WS/48:.194
TS%: 61%

Klay

PER: 14.6
WS/48: .097
TS%: 56%

Now take your pick. Do you want Klay's defense and his shooting or do you want Reggie and his clutch factor/leadership/shooting. Reggie's clutch ability is something that should be considered.

Also, let's not forget how well a 35 year old Reggie played against Kobe Bryant in the 2000 finals.

Solid post. Factor in Thompson playing in an era tailor made for perimeter scoring and playing with arguably the greatest offensive player of all time...and it becomes quite an easy decision.

[Roundball_Rock]

Numbers are up in this era but we can compare Miller to SG's from his own era. He wasn't a statistical monster.

90's Era Shooting Guards Compared (Primes)

Miller (90'-00'): 21/3/3
Richmond (89'-98'): 23/4/3
Drexler (88'-95'): 23/7/6
Dumars (90'-98'): 18/2/5
Hawkins (90'-93'): 20/4/4
Lewis (89'-93*'): 19/5/3
Hornacek (90'-95'): 18/4/5
Jordan (87'-96'): 33/6/6
Pierce (87'-93'): 20/3/2
Houston (96'-04'): 19/3/3
Sprewell (94'-02'): 20/4/4

You have a slew of SG's from that era in the 18-21 PPG range in their primes behind MJ & Drexler. Reggie just doesn't stick out as a scorer. In rebounds and assists, he trails most of these players.

Where Miller sticks out is longevity.

*Died after the 93' season.

[HoopsNY]

People want it both ways on stats, note that other players were "#2 options" and then compare their stats straight up with Miller's. If Klay is on Indiana his stats go up.

Yea, but the spread that I was referring to has Klay averaging nearly 3 more field goal attempts per game. So he was already taking more shots and still producing less on less efficiency. If Miller takes 3 more FGA per game, his scoring goes up but does his efficiency numbers drop to the level of Klay's?


Miller had only one finals performance and played well there. Klay was just as good offensively while also expending energy on defense in 2019--but he also had a few duds.

Reggie did that against a 22 year old Kobe Bryant, while he was nearly 35. And Kobe was All-Defensive 1st team. Who was defending Klay? JR Smith?


I compared the two in big games in a past thread. It is incomplete since you have to look at other games (e.g., Game 1 in an ECF matters a lot too) but it gives us a sample of games to compare.


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

We have their numbers collectively, which is probably a better gauge, of their playoff numbers in their primes. Why ignore that? Sure Reggie had some one offs, but he also played more and had a many more impressive playoff years.

[HoopsNY]

It's hype. The Pacers always lost the big series, with the exception of the 00' ECF. "Winning Time", his 30 for 30, ends with the Pacers losing. Fitting.


What's "hype"? The fact that he was a clutch player, best shooter of his era, great playoff performer, of efficient? And let's not forget that while he made his name doing what he did against the Knicks, those Knicks teams were some of the best defensive teams, adding to how impressive some of his performances were.


He was what he was: top 10-15 player for several years, top 50-60 all-time. The 90's version of Ray Allen or Klay--just with a ton of hype. His accolades from the time are roughly consistent with a top 10-15 type player (actually, top 15 since he never made all-NBA 1st/2nd).

I guess the only things that I disagree with is how we compare him to Klay, at least offensively, given Reggie put up significantly better advanced numbers. And I also disagree with his performances as being just "hype."


Reggie Miller headlines the 2012 Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Class, which will be enshrined Friday in Springfield, Massachusetts. Miller played 18 NBA seasons, all with the Pacers, making five All-Star teams and three All-NBA third teams.

Most 3-pt FG in Crunch Time 1997-2005 (Including Playoffs)

He’s 14th in NBA history in points (25,279), second in career 3-pointers, behind only Ray Allen, and nobody has made more 3-pointers in the postseason.

Miller played 1,389 regular season games -- all with the Pacers -- including every game for four straight seasons (1989-90 to 1992-93). Among players who only played for one team, only John Stockton (1,504) with the Jazz played more games.

Miller was always relied on in his career to take the Pacers’ biggest shot in crunch time (defined as the final five minutes of the fourth quarter or overtime and the score within five points).

In the final nine seasons of his career (regular season and playoffs), Miller made 142 three-pointers in crunch time, 54 more than the next closest player in that time period.

https://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/49707/reggie-miller-was-most-clutch-sharpshoote

That doesn't sound like "hype" to me.

[HoopsNY]

Joe Dumars. 6 time all-star, 3 time all-nba( two 3rd, one 2nd). 5 all D teams ( four first, one second). I'm not even bringing up the obvious team achievement since this is mano a mano.Joe was making the all star team in years that Reggie wasn't, playing the same position. Ask MJ about him. And nobody gives a shit in 2020. They didn't give one in 2000.

I've said Reggie was great a few times in this thread. But there's level to it, and there are players both better in prowess and greater in legacy more deserving of 15 page and counting threads. There's no agenda on hand to misremember him as less than what his achievements tell us about his career relative to others in his tier.

Joe Dumars was a better shooting guard than Reggie. The problem is that his prime was shorter. But overall, Dumars gave you shooting, defense, and won a Finals MVP. I'd take that over Reggie's lone ability to shoot any day of the week.

[HoopsNY]

Solid post. Factor in Thompson playing in an era tailor made for perimeter scoring and playing with arguably the greatest offensive player of all time...and it becomes quite an easy decision.

The advanced metrics shed a lot of light into it. What I think is the problem here is that people are doing what they do with Kawhi and Giannis. Klay is young and has more time to go. Five years from now, this will be a very different discussion...but you can't argue against the shooting numbers and advanced metrics here, at least offensively.

Factor in Klay's defense and I think they're even. But that's just me.

[tpols]

So I've read through some of the posts and I still can't quite assess what everyone is saying. If some are saying that he was an "elite" scorer, then he wasn't. Miller was top 10 just once in his career.

But I do think the way Roundball and Kblaze are talking about him paints the picture that he was simply not that great. As usual, I might be misinterpreting what they're saying, but that's what it feels like, especially since you have opponents speaking so highly of him as a counter.

For one, the argument seems to be that Klay is better, at least in the minds of some. Now Klay, as of last year, was still in his prime. So using the two and their respective primes, how do they add up?

Regular Season

Reggie 1989-00: 21/3/3 on 48/41/89
Klay: 2013-19: 21/4/2 on 47/42/85

Advanced

Reggie 1989-00:
PER: 19.6
WS/48: .189
TS% 62%

Klay 2013-19
PER: 17.2
WS/48: .124
TS%: 58%

Playoffs during that stretch

Reggie: 23.5/3/2.5 on 46/41/89
Klay: 20/4/2 on 44/41/84

Advanced

Reggie

PER: 21
WS/48:.194
TS%: 61%

Klay

PER: 14.6
WS/48: .097
TS%: 56%

Now take your pick. Do you want Klay's defense and his shooting or do you want Reggie and his clutch factor/leadership/shooting. Reggie's clutch ability is something that should be considered.

Also, let's not forget how well a 35 year old Reggie played against Kobe Bryant in the 2000 finals.

I think you have to factor in that Reggie wipes Klay by every measure you just posted while doing it in a slow, knockdown 90s east vs today's more cupcake spaced out league.

And also that Reggie didn't have anywhere close to the level of help (or subsequent defensive attention) Klay had.

120 to 106 ORTG while being at a contextual numeric disadvantage is just... a landslide.

[Kblaze8855]

And then you get to a basketball game where none of that means anything and both of them give you similar contributions on offense and the other is better every second of the game your team doesn’t have the ball.

[Phoenix]

Joe Dumars was a better shooting guard than Reggie. The problem is that his prime was shorter. But overall, Dumars gave you shooting, defense, and won a Finals MVP. I'd take that over Reggie's lone ability to shoot any day of the week.

Agreed. The purpose of drawing that comparison was to say that nobody 25 years later gives much of a hoot about him but he played in the same era as Reggie and would have been directly competing for things like all nba nods and all star teams. Didnt have the same flair for the dramatic and didnt play as long, as you pointed out.

[HoopsNY]

I think you have to factor in that Reggie wipes Klay by every measure you just posted while doing it in a slow, knockdown 90s east vs today's more cupcake spaced out league.

And also that Reggie didn't have anywhere close to the level of help (or subsequent defensive attention) Klay had.

120 to 106 ORTG while being at a contextual numeric disadvantage is just... a landslide.

I think this shows up especially more in the playoffs during the time period mentioned.

Playoffs PER 100 POSS
Reggie: 32.5 ppg 122 Ortg
Klay: 26.6 ppg 108 Ortg

[tpols]

the shot making rates are not close to similar offense. And klay's simple man defense doesn't bridge that big of a playoff gap for most people.

[Kblaze8855]

The shot making “rates” don’t give your team more points when it needs them. Unfortunately an efficient 19 is still 19. If you need 107 to win you don’t get extra.

Two of the top 5-10 shooters ever but one plays just shy of top tier defense and the other is unnoteworthy. The end.

[tpols]

More like an all time efficient 24 is still an all time efficient 24.

And with many games ending in ~ 5 point victories or defeats, those extra buckets are going to stack wins over the long run.

And of course reggie could definitely "get you points when you needed them" Everybody has conceded his career GOAT clutch shooting ability and timely shot making.

[Roundball_Rock]

Joe Dumars was a better shooting guard than Reggie. The problem is that his prime was shorter. But overall, Dumars gave you shooting, defense, and won a Finals MVP. I'd take that over Reggie's lone ability to shoot any day of the week

Yeah, what boosts Reggie a lot all-time over better players like Dumars is 1) his prime lasted so long 2) even when he was past his prime he didn't fall of that much. He was still 17/3/3 at age 36. Reggie all-time is a different beast than Reggie prime vs. prime. The way he is talked about here he was a top 5 superstar player in his prime--which he wasn't close to.


I think this shows up especially more in the playoffs during the time period mentioned.

The problem is Miller's playoff splits between the 1st round and the rest of the PO are stark. He was a monster in the first round but as the series got bigger, Reggie got smaller. Klay doesn't have this trend.

It also isn't "apples to apples" to compare PO stats for players who are in the finals every year since the best defenses tend to be the ones that make conference and NBA finals. I am sure Klay faced a lot tougher defenses relative to the league than what Miller did.


The shot making “rates” don’t give your team more points when it needs them. Unfortunately an efficient 19 is still 19. If you need 107 to win you don’t get extra.

Two of the top 5-10 shooters ever but one plays just shy of top tier defense and the other is unnoteworthy. The end.

Yeah, this obsession with efficiency is odd. The issue with Miller we pointed out using Game 7 is a case study is he couldn't get shots off when it mattered--who cares if he was "efficient" on the 13 shots he took, only 1 in the fourth? When they needed buckets, it was Smits who they went to time and again. Miller wasn't even an option.

[tpols]

Using a 1 game sample size out of 144 career playoff games to categorize somebody's whole player profile isn't a case study.... it's an exercise in stupidity. And you're on some ironman shit. :lol

[Kblaze8855]

More like an all time efficient 24 is still an all time efficient 24.

And with many games ending in ~ 5 point victories or defeats, those extra buckets are going to stack wins over the long run.

And of course reggie could definitely "get you points when you needed them" Everybody has conceded his career GOAT clutch shooting ability and timely shot making.


The main person you lean on in that argument flat out tells you he needed him to score more....asked him to....and watched him not do it. But of course he watched Reggie not score much for long periods of time his team needed it the entire 90s while you are talking directly out of your ass and using google. Keep talking about the shooting numbers on 22 points as the team struggled to score and he did nothing to stop it while watching Travis best try to make shit happen. Dude did nothing for huge stretches of a crazy number of games then here you come taking cherry picking like the 7ish games you know anything about him having in the 90s matter.

You seem to know nothing about those teams and little about prime Reggie. Reggie43 I might disagree with but at least he knows the subject matter. You’re not worth speaking to on this issue at this point.

I can read numbers that don’t matter without you.


You’re providing a book report.

Some of these others on reggies side actually seem to know something about him.

[tpols]

For someone that isn't worth speaking to on the issue you've probably replied to my posts on this specific topic at least a dozen times.

so... there's that. But we're just going in circles now.

[Roundball_Rock]

The difficulty you are having is grappling with people who have some criteria, principles in assessing players. You careen from thread to thread contradicting yourself, based on your agenda relative to that given player.

If Miller advocates have other games to point to, let's hear it. We are talking about his skill set--the weaknesses we outline were all on stark display in that game. If Miller is out there beating people off the dribble, driving and dishing, grabbing 10 boards, locking down a star, etc. in other big games, let's see it. We won't get an answer, though. There is a reason his highlights all look the same. His big games will tend to be when they screened him open regularly. You can't rely on that happening, especially against elite defenses. Jackson was getting smothered and the Pacers had no one on the court who could relieve him.


And of course reggie could definitely "get you points when you needed them"

Such as? You are conflating big games with consistency. If you could rely on Reggie, why did they turn to Smits time and again with all the chips on the table?

Yeah he could give you 25 points in a quarter against NY; he also could give you 8 points in consecutive years in the ECF in elimination games.


Everybody has conceded his career GOAT clutch shooting ability and timely shot making.

Yeah--if he could actually get open. That's the entire problem: he couldn't consistently get open himself. Watch the game. The great Reggie is entirely reliant on Mark Jackson to deliver him the ball, screens, etc. He can't do it himself. Erase Jackson, erase Miller and wreck the execution of the offense. Which is exactly what the Bulls did. Miller's oRTG didn't save them--Miller being able to handle the ball to relieve Jackson and not need Jackson to get the ball would have. Jackson was getting smothered to death but the Pacers had no one to relieve him on the first unit.

[Kblaze8855]

I talked to 3ball about a lot of things before I realized that he wasn’t a passionate real fan but a troll with little to say.

Sometimes it takes a while to tell.

Ill talk to you about some things. Not an argument about numbers in games you clearly didn’t see.

Maybe I’ll argue with you about numbers from a game in 2017. At least I know you probably have an idea what happened. This is me arguing with my uncle about how Elvin Hayes played in the 70s. Me being alive doesn’t make my opinion worth hearing when people who were there are talking. I have a hard enough time deciding when you aren’t trolling about shit you actually saw. I don’t need to fight with you over 1993. I still watch ball with the same people I heard talking about Travis Best taking over games some of you dudes post reggies numbers from when he was totally ghost.

Reggie was straight up doing nothing 15-20 minutes at a time....often...in the playoffs....because he couldn’t dribble well enough to make plays and he would give up on plays that didn’t have a screen spring him open. Exactly as Larry said....

But why tell you about it when you think some nerd stat is the truth no matter what?

Ill get back with you on a subject you might be halfway informed on. At least your nerd stats might be backed up with something.

Talking about offensive rating as if people who don’t touch the ball for 9 minutes due to a lack of ability to do something with it are likely to have a turnover....

Serious disconnect between the real world and these numbers. And it’s not worth it with you.

[Roundball_Rock]

He shot 48/41/89 with little turnovers and a large chunk of his shots were when he was screen wide open. Of course he would generate a high offensive rating.

His stats weren't so hot outside of the first round.

1990-1993: 25/3/3 53% (15 first round games)
1996: 29/0/1 41% (1 first round game)
2001-2002: 27/4/3 48% (9 first round games)

1994 1st round: 29/3/4 on 55% 18.3 FGA in 38.3 MPG (first PO series W)
1994 rest of PO: 22/3/3 on 42% 16.5 FGA in 35.5 MPG

1995 1st round: 32/4/3 on 47% 19.0 FGA in 36.3 MPG
1995 rest of PO: 24/4/2 on 48% 16.6 FGA in 38.0 MPG

1998 1st round: 19/2/3 on 40% 14.3 FGA in 39.0 MPG
1998 rest of PO: 20/2/2 on 43% 14.4 FGA in 39.4 MPG

1999 1st round: 26/3/2 on 36% 19.7 FGA in 36.5 MPG
1999 rest of PO: 18/3/4 on 41% 14.0 FGA in 37.1 MPG

2000 1st round: 24/2/2 on 46% 18.2 FGA in 38.9 MPG
2000 rest of PO: 24/2/3 on 45% 17.3 FGA in 41.1 MPG

His scoring goes from 26.0 to 21.7 PPG in the rest of the PO in these years, the only real playoff runs he had in his prime.

In his ECF's he went 25/2/3 44%, 26/3/1 52% (short 3 point line), 17/2/2 41%, 16/4/2 36%, 22/2/2 43%.

In the ECF he was down to 21.2 PPG, so if we separated out the ECSF these years, the ECSF would be around 22.2. So to recap:

1st round: 26.0
2nd round: 22.2
ECF: 21.2 (33 games)
Finals: 24.3 (6 games)

He padded those stats in the first round. If he was scoring 26.0 PPG in the ECF he would have made 4-5 finals instead of 1.

[warriorfan]

For someone that isn't worth speaking to on the issue you've probably replied to my posts on this specific topic at least a dozen times.

so... there's that. But we're just going in circles now.

Kblaze will make insane posts about how Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf would be like Steph Curry if he played in today’s game yet when it comes to Reggie Miller ALL of that shit flys right out the window. :lol

[tpols]

The worst part is how he considers off ball movement "nothing". like a dude pounding the air out of the rock and scoring way less on more shots is more valuable.

it is very weird.

[warriorfan]

The worst part is how he considers off ball movement "nothing". like a dude pounding the air out of the rock and scoring way less on more shots is more valuable.

it is very weird.

What I learned in this thread

Sample sizes of one quarter are okay.

Guard play hasn’t changed in 30 years

Taking lower volume in trade for extremely high efficiency is actually dumb basketball

The more you know

[Kblaze8855]

Kblaze will make insane posts about how Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf would be like Steph Curry if he played in today’s game yet when it comes to Reggie Miller ALL of that shit flys right out the window. :lol


Except literally the first words in the topic you reference were

”Let’s get this out of the way. I am NOT saying he would be curry today or that Curry in the 90s is on his level. We clear?”

But of course rewrite history to fit what your want it to be. This is a Reggie Miller topic after all.

[Kblaze8855]

What I learned in this thread

Sample sizes of one quarter are okay.

Guard play hasn’t changed in 30 years

Taking lower volume in trade for extremely high efficiency is actually dumb basketball

The more you know


When your team needs scoring and you take 14 shots it doesn’t matter if you make 8 while your less talented teammates fight to fill the void. Which is exactly what Larry Bird was talking about when he said “We can’t win when he takes ___ shots”.

Efficiently scoring less points than the other team had is just a pretty numbered L.