Allen Iverson vs Reggie Miller

[Lebron23]

Who's the better player? Who had the better nba career?

[MrFonzworth]

Iverson.

[Carbine]

AI was my favorite player as a kid growing up.

Im not sure how to answer this. In most team builds I think Reggie would be my choice, but if I had a defensive oriented team and needed an alpha scorer then Iverson would be my choice.

[Reggie43]

Iverson is the better player all things considered but Miller had the better career.

[tpols]

:roll:

[Shooter]

Iverson has a MVP and what, 4 scoring titles? So technically the better career.

Reggie has much MUCH much better stats. His ORtg, DRtg compared to Allen Iverson's isn't even a comparison. It's actually laughable.

Comparing their Finals runs (2001 Iverson vs 2000 Miller)

2000 Miller = 122 ORtg, 110 DRtg
2000 Iverson = 105 ORtg, 106 DRtg :lol

[Shooter]

Iverson is the better player all things considered but Miller had the better career.

You got it backwards. Reggie has zero MVPs and zero scoring titles.

[Axe]

Ai was more interesting to watch

[SouBeachTalents]

Iverson definitely had a more successful individual career, but I'd easily take Reggie on my team over Iverson

[Reggie43]

Depends on what you value more in a career but going 5 times to the conference finals and one finals berth as his teams best player is better than a lone finals berth.

[Bankaii]

Iverson is the better player all things considered but Miller had the better career.
Stop it.
AI: 1x MVP, 7x All-NBA (3x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd), 11x Allstar (2 MVPs), RoTY, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader
Reggie: 3x All-NBA (3x 3rd), 5x Allstar, and a 50/40/90 season

In what world is Reggie’s career remotely close? And the stats would only widen the gap.

[Roundball_Rock]

Stop it.
AI: 1x MVP, 7x All-NBA (3x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd), 11x Allstar (2 MVPs), RoTY, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader
Reggie: 3x All-NBA (3x 3rd), 5x Allstar, and a 50/40/90 season

In what world is Reggie’s career remotely close? And the stats would only widen the gap.

Reggie is the most overrated player on ISH. :lol Iverson>>>Miller career wise as well as peak wise. Iverson is top 30 all-time.

[Reggie43]

Stop it.
AI: 1x MVP, 7x All-NBA (3x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd), 11x Allstar (2 MVPs), RoTY, 4x scoring champ, 3x steals leader
Reggie: 3x All-NBA (3x 3rd), 5x Allstar, and a 50/40/90 season

In what world is Reggie’s career remotely close? And the stats would only widen the gap.

are we judging careers strictly off awards?

[light]

Iverson.

Reggie Miller is a relative scrub that doesn't belong in the hall of fame.

[Reggie43]

I wont deny that I might be off in my criteria for a better nba career but those accolades go out of the window once they matched up in the playoffs wherein Miller had moderate success against Iverson while outplaying him head to head.

[LukeWalton]

on a related note.. Reggie Miller could have won a ring

Celtics asked him in 2007 to come out of retirement to join them
He said nah, he wanna play with Spikey

then the Celtics win

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/that-time-reggie-miller-missed-an-opportunity-to-win-a-championship-with-the-boston-celtics/

[Roundball_Rock]

Iverson was 33/5/6 in 2001 carrying a team with Aaron McKie as it's second scorer. Reggie is top 50-60 AT but could never do something like that (scoring is the calling card for both players so using that as a comp). Iverson won four scoring titles, Miller was higher than 12th once (8th). Iverson won a MVP, Miller never finished higher than 13th. Miller's large longevity edge isn't enough to offset the massive peak and prime gap.

It's unfair to keep comparing Reggie to clearly better players.

[Lebron23]

Iverson was 33/5/6 in 2001 carrying a team with Aaron McKie as it's second scorer. Reggie is top 50-60 AT but could never do something like that (scoring is the calling card for both players so using that as a comp). Iverson won four scoring titles, Miller was higher than 12th once (8th). Iverson won a MVP, Miller never finished higher than 13th. Miller's large longevity edge isn't enough to offset the massive peak and prime gap.

It's unfair to keep comparing Reggie to clearly better players.

This. I got banned from posting from facebook. Ban will be lifted in less than 4 days for saying that Iverson was better than Miller. Insidehoops poster have higher basketball IQ than facebook users who were commenting on basketball discussions

[Axe]

This. I got banned from posting from facebook. Ban will be lifted in less than 4 days for saying that Iverson was better than Miller. Insidehoops poster have higher basketball IQ than facebook users who were commenting on basketball discussions
Shit, that must've sucked. :lol

[Lebron23]

Shit, that must've sucked. :lol

Most of them only watched Reggie Miller on espn 30 for 30. I watched Iverson and Miller as a kid and as a teenager. And the Answer was a much better player than The Knicks Killer Miller.

[Axe]

Most of them only watched Reggie Miller on espn 30 for 30. I watched Iverson and Miller as a kid and as a teenager. And the Answer was a much better player than The Knicks Killer Miller.
Lol is that so? I don't even know what's special with miller aside from leading the league in 3pt fgm by the time he left and best in free throws for five times.

[Reggie43]

Playoffs head to head 13 games

Miller (ages 33-35) 26.2 ppg .485fg% .438 3p% 4rbs 3.1apg .8spg 18.1 shots

Iverson (ages 23-25) 27.9 ppg .389fg% .212 3p% 4.2rbs 4.9apg 1.4spg 25.5 shots

Series 2 - 1 in favor of Miller

I concede Iverson was the better player and had the better career but lets not get carried away with the Miller hate.

[Bankaii]

are we judging careers strictly off awards?
They’re awards achieved throughout the course of your career for being great.
Again, we can use stats but that would make it in even more in AI’s favor.
What should we use tho, team accomplishments lmao?

[Reggie43]

I actually like Iverson back in the day so I'll let you guys have your way on this one because I already said my piece...

[iamgine]

Better player as a strong first option - Iverson.

Better in any other team build - Reggie Miller.

[Sulico]

Reggie Miller TS%
Regular Season - .614
Playoffs - .601

Allen Iverson TS%
Regular Season - .518
Playoffs - .489

There is even no need to go any further. The question is already answered right here.

But if you throw in VORP, BPM, WS, etc. the gap only widens.

[Smook A.]

Iverson was the better player and had the better career

However, if I’m building a team in today’s NBA, I’m choosing Reggie over AI.

[Phoenix]

Next thread: Kobe vs Miller, an ISH exclusive. Let's keep this train going.

[Genaro]

Why this is even a question? AI by a mile, both career and peak wise. They don't belong in the same discussion AI is up there with Wade, Harden, Vince, Ginobili, while Reggie is in Klay Thompson group.

[Nashty]

Reggie and it's not even close. Iverson was a better regular season player, but Reggie actually outplayed him in the playoffs.

In 1999 Pacers swept the 76ers with Reggie being the best player on both teams with 17.7 GmSc, while Iverson had 15.7 GmSc, shooting 38% from the field, and being the worst defender on the team.

In 2000 Pacers win in 6 with Reggie again being the best player on both teams with 19.9 GmSc, while also having highest ORtg with 131. Iverson on the other side posted 14.6 GmSc, while shooting 38% from the field again, and again being the team's worst defender.

In 2001 the 76ers won the series, but 35 year old Reggie was holding his own vs 25 years old Iverson. Reggie posted 21.4 GmSc, while Iverson had 21.2. Sixers won the series because of DPOY Mutombo and 6MOY McKie who were better than anything Pacers had at that point.

Iverson is extremely overrated, undersized guy that shoots the ball alot while making around 40% of his shots, while also not playing defense, and not passing the ball.

[HylianNightmare]

Iverson easy for me

[KD7]

Give me the one who took the Bulls dynasty to a grueling 7 games with Rik Smits as his second option.

Iverson is so ovverated it's funny, he's the only player to make the all star team shooting 38% from the field.

People acting like he "carried" Philly to the NBA finals when reality it was Mutombo and Philly's defense that was winning them games and making up for Iverson's god awful efficiency

[Nashty]

Iverson is one of the most overrated players of all time.

In 1999 and 2000 he got outplayed by Reggie and the Pacers. In his only long playoff run in 2001, in the 1st round he meets the Pacers again, and he is still not better than Miller, but has better team and they win. In the 2nd round same story, Carter is actually better than him, but DPOY Mutombo and 6MOY McKie are better than anything Raptors have. In the ECF he is being outplayed by Ray Allen, but Mutombo has a great series with 16-16-3 averages, and is arguably the MVP of the series because while Iverson did score a lot, he shot 34% from the field, while being the worst defender in the starting lineup. In the Finals he is actually better than Kobe, but Shaq is just too good. In 2002 he gets outplayed by Paul Pierce, and 76ers lose in the 1st round vs the Celtics with Iverson shooting 38% from the field. 2003 and 2005 were his best years where he outplayed guys like Baron Davis, Chauncey Billups, but that Pistons team was just too good for those 76ers in both of these years. In his first playoffs with Denver, he choked big time, as he was outplayed by Duncan, Melo, Parker and Nene, and Nuggets lost in the 1st round. In 2008 he was the best player on the Nuggets, but both Kobe and Gasol were better than him, as Lakers swept Nuggets in the 1st round.

[fourkicks44]

29.73

[Roundball_Rock]

This. I got banned from posting from facebook. Ban will be lifted in less than 4 days for saying that Iverson was better than Miller. Insidehoops poster have higher basketball IQ than facebook users who were commenting on basketball discussions

Banned for saying something so obvious? :wtf:


Reggie Miller TS%
Regular Season - .614
Playoffs - .601

Allen Iverson TS%
Regular Season - .518
Playoffs - .489

There is even no need to go any further. The question is already answered right here.

Efficiency was a major problem for Iverson's game but you aren't comparing apples to apples if Iverson is operating on almost double the volume of Miller. If you take 14 shots, those looks are going to be of higher quality than if you take 25. Iverson's team needed Iverson to create that volume of shots. He didn't have Rik Smits to throw the ball to--his second option was McKie.


Give me the one who took the Bulls dynasty to a grueling 7 games with Rik Smits as his second option.

The series where he was 17 PPG on 13 shots (Smits was 16 PPG on 11 shots)? Smits was the guy keeping the time afloat in the clutch in Game 7 BTW--Reggie stood and watched (0 for 1 in the fourth). Smits is underrated. He was a top 7-8 center and offensively better than Mutumbo.

[tpols]

Reggie and it's not even close. Iverson was a better regular season player, but Reggie actually outplayed him in the playoffs.

In 1999 Pacers swept the 76ers with Reggie being the best player on both teams with 17.7 GmSc, while Iverson had 15.7 GmSc, shooting 38% from the field, and being the worst defender on the team.


Iverson is the perfect example of why you dont just trust media because it looked great at the time. I grew up watching iverson... and he seemed great back then. When you dig into it however, he's a net negative player. All he does is production at terrible efficiency. And is so small 6'0 170 lbs that he's a huge defensive liability. You will never win with those types. The sixers were great because of Larry Brown Mutumbo and their defense. Their offense sucked. Even when he went to Denver a team with more offensive talent, he was bad in the playoffs and an early knockout. Look at the '04 olympics too him and marbury's anti-team streetball style of play is why they lost. They both took the most shots, and shot like shit. You give Duncan a big share of their looks and we probably would've won.

[warriorfan]

Iverson if you want dope crossovers

Miller if you want to win championships

Lmao at more “efficiency doesn’t even matter” arguments from roundball. This dude is pure cancer.

[tpols]

Iverson if you want dope crossovers

Miller if you want to win championships

Lmao at more “efficiency doesn’t even matter” arguments from roundball. This dude is pure cancer.

:lol

like bro...im a kobe fan, and i can admit there were some stretches and runs where he was a negative because of his stupid shotjacking. There were also some runs where he won big boy rings '01, '09, and '10 where he was at... guess what... 117 ORTG. Thats not a coincidence. If you look into all great players and there runs you will see a very clear trend of them having the best splits when they were winning. You dont usually win shooting like shit.

[warriorfan]

:lol

like bro...im a kobe fan, and i can admit there were some stretches and runs where he was a negative because of his stupid shotjacking. There were also some runs where he won big boy rings '01, '09, and '10 where he was at... guess what... 117 ORTG. Thats not a coincidence. If you look into all great players and there runs you will see a very clear trend of them having the best splits when they were winning. You dont usually win shooting like shit.

Of course. It’s the most common sense type shit.

[imdaman99]

Iverson is more of an icon. I really hate Miller but I know how clutch he is, they call me Reggie at my park which is the ultimate slap in the face of a diehard Knicks fan. But I accept the name because I know how good he was. Besides they won't remember my real name :lol I would rather play with another Reggie than an Iverson on my team.

[Nashty]

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

[Roundball_Rock]

Highest MVP finishes:

Iverson: 1st, 4th, 5th
Miller: 13th (tied with teammate Rose), 16th (tied with teammate Smits), N/A

Iverson was top 10 in MVP seven times.

All-NBA first teams: Iverson 3, Miller 0
All-NBA 1st/2nd: Iverson 6, Miller 0
All-NBA: Iverson 7, Miller 3

Prime Iverson: 29/4/6
Prime Miller: 21/3/3

Iverson was 33/5/6 en route to the finals in 01'. He was 36/6/4 in the finals (the same team Miller faced the prior year).

It is unfair to keep comparing Miller to clearly better players. Then his stan melts down when people say the better guy was better.

https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/ftMovQecj3KBG5R8xdchV58cddA=/1400x932/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5ZTKW6ABIFBFHAR5SZDKURYINU.jpg

[Nashty]

Highest MVP finishes:

Iverson: 1st, 4th, 5th
Miller: 13th (tied with teammate Rose), 16th (tied with teammate Smits), N/A

Iverson was top 10 in MVP seven times.

All-NBA first teams: Iverson 3, Miller 0
All-NBA 1st/2nd: Iverson 6, Miller 0
All-NBA: Iverson 7, Miller 3

Prime Iverson: 29/4/6
Prime Miller: 21/3/3



No one cares for regular season.


Iverson was 33/5/6 en route to the finals in 01'. He was 36/6/4 in the finals (the same team Miller faced the prior year).
33 points on 39 from the field, not that impressive. Let's compare their runs in 2000 and 2001

2000 1R: Ray Allen 15, Reggie 15.9, Cassell 12.7
2000 ECSF: Reggie 19.9, Rose 14.7, Iverson 14.6
2000 ECF: Reggie 14.7, Sprewell 11.8, Ward 11.5
2000 Finals: Shaq 30, Reggie 17.6, Rose 14

2001 1R: Reggie 21.4, Iverson 21.2, Mutombo 13.9
2001 ECSF: Carter 24.3, Iverson 22.5, Antonio Davis 16.2
2001 ECF: Ray Allen 19.9, Mutombo 18.6, Iverson 17.1
2001 Finals: Shaq 27.4, Iverson 20.5, Kobe 17.2

So, not only did Reggie outplayed Iverson in both of these years, but he was the best player on his team in all 4 series in 2000, while only being worse than Shaq, and Ray Allen by 0.1, while Iverson was worse than Allen by 2.8 the next season in ECF, and also worse than Carter in ECSF, and outplayed by his own teammate Mutombo in ECF.

[Roundball_Rock]

No one cares for regular season.

Iverson is ranked well ahead of Miller all-time. Mostly because he was a better player but also because he accomplished more, like winning a MVP. It certainly isn't because of his playoff "success." :oldlol:


33 points on 39 from the field, not that impressive

His second option was a guy whose career high was 12.2 PPG. Iverson had to take 30 shots a game for the team to have a shot, even if his TS was 48%.

Iverson and Miller had the same coach. Brown asked Miller to do less, Iverson to dominate. That says a lot about how he viewed the two: one as a superstar, the other as a star who could be "first among equals" like Smits, McKey.

Iverson was trying to win a ring. If he took 14 shots only when he was screened open instead of 30 shots, most of them tough shots, his percentages would be higher but his team would lose in the first round. You do what it takes to win, not pad %'s because a small number of people on ISH and RealGM care about it decades later.



Let's compare their runs in 2000 and 2001

2000 1R: Ray Allen 15, Reggie 15.9, Cassell 12.7
2000 ECSF: Reggie 19.9, Rose 14.7, Iverson 14.6
2000 ECF: Reggie 14.7, Sprewell 11.8, Ward 11.5
2000 Finals: Shaq 30, Reggie 17.6, Rose 14

2001 1R: Reggie 21.4, Iverson 21.2, Mutombo 13.9
2001 ECSF: Carter 24.3, Iverson 22.5, Antonio Davis 16.2
2001 ECF: Ray Allen 19.9, Mutombo 18.6, Iverson 17.1
2001 Finals: Shaq 27.4, Iverson 20.5, Kobe 17.2

That nets out to Iverson 20.3, Miller 16.9. How is that an argument for Miller?

[Shooter]

Iverson definitely had a more successful individual career, but I'd easily take Reggie on my team over Iverson

All the way


And here's the thing. Both are not that great compared to the modern players anyway. I'd put Kawhi, Curry, KD, Harden, (and probably soon Giannis, Luka, Zion) etc many over these guys anyway. Sure in the 90s these guys like AI and Miller were top 30 ish but not anymore...

[Shooter]

Give me the one who took the Bulls dynasty to a grueling 7 games with Rik Smits as his second option.

Iverson is so ovverated it's funny, he's the only player to make the all star team shooting 38% from the field.

People acting like he "carried" Philly to the NBA finals when reality it was Mutombo and Philly's defense that was winning them games and making up for Iverson's god awful efficiency

Painful truth. And the thing is Miller isn't even that great either :lol

Both are overrated.

[Phoenix]

This conversation may be a good time to bust out some old tape and rewatch the 2000 and 2001 finals again. There was a comment above about picking Miller if you want to win championships. Regardless of who the comparison is I don't see how you assign that take to someone who never won a title, no matter how efficiently they went about losing on the way to one.

[Shooter]

This conversation may be a good time to bust out some old tape and rewatch the 2000 and 2001 finals again. There was a comment above about picking Miller if you want to win championships. Regardless of who the comparison is I don't see how you assign that take to someone who never won a title, no matter how efficiently they went about losing on the way to one.

Would you take AI over Miller to win a chip?

[Phoenix]

Would you take AI over Miller to win a chip?

Are they the only two players I can choose from? Because there's a long list of players I'd take before both if given the choice. Both of them got to the finals and lost. They went about it differently. A player I would 'pick to win a championship' is a player who actually did and neither player demonstrably proved superior because they went about losing differently.

[RRR3]

Are they the only two players I can choose from? Because there's a long list of players I'd take before both if given the chose. Both of them got to the finals and lost. They went about it differently.
Why are you even entertaining Mr. 40 alts? He doesn’t believe anything he says.

[Phoenix]

Why are you even entertaining Mr. 40 alts? He doesn’t believe anything he says.

Better question is why do I entertain 75% of the bullshit on this site?

[RRR3]

Better question is why do I entertain 75% of the bullshit on this site?
Good point. I should ask myself the same :lol
Btw I added it up and dude legit has made over 20 accounts :roll:

[Phoenix]

Good point. I should ask myself the same :lol
Btw I added it up and dude legit has made over 20 accounts :roll:

I'm surprised the number is that low.

[Roundball_Rock]

You need a top 5 player to win chips most of the time. A top 15 player won't cut it and that's the difference between the two prime versus prime. It's like asking T Mac and Allen or Harden and Klay.

[Nashty]

Iverson is ranked well ahead of Miller all-time. Mostly because he was a better player but also because he accomplished more, like winning a MVP. It certainly isn't because of his playoff "success."

People care too much about regular season, playoffs is where the big boys play.


His second option was a guy whose career high was 12.2 PPG.

He was also a DPOY that season, and defense was why they were winning games, not because of Iverson's chucking, which is all shown in his years without a DPOY center where he could not get out of the 1st round.


That nets out to Iverson 20.3, Miller 16.9. How is that an argument for Miller?


The man outplayed him twice. In their matchups with Ray Allen, Iverson got destroyed, while Miller had only 0.1 GmSc worse than Ray. In finals they both were the 2nd best player to Shaq, but Iverson was also outplayed by Carter, while Miller was better than Spreewell. There is no point in comparing the numbers straight up, you need to compare players numbers relative to other players they played against, because some series are played more faster with more shots and worse defense, but other series are played slow paced with less shots and better defense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

AI is the better player, but depending on the personnel I would take Miller.

Plays off the ball. Is a way better shooter. Doesn't need to kill an offense to score, and is super efficient on decent volume. Better in the clutch too.

[RRR3]

I'm surprised the number is that low.


Dray N Klay
Lambruh
Scuzzy
Dubeta
Manny98
TheCorporation
Gus Hemingway
Stanley Kobrick
And1AllDay
LeCroix
SpaceJam2
FromDowntown
Shooter
AirBonner
Vino24
ElitePower23
KD7
Lebronxrings
JT123
InsanityKills
HenryGarfunkle
Rico2016
Docs Orders


Did I miss anyone?


I’m not entirely sure about Manny/KD7, but I began to suspect it after he somehow got a ton of votes in the poll on who had the best whatifsports team

[Roundball_Rock]

He was also a DPOY that season, and defense was why they were winning games, not because of Iverson's chucking, which is all shown in his years without a DPOY center where he could not get out of the 1st round.

That is an overlooked factor but you need to score enough for your defense to prevail. Without Iverson, their defense wouldn't matter since they would lose low scoring games due to have an incompetent offense.


There is no point in comparing the numbers straight up, you need to compare players numbers relative to other players they played against

You also have to look at roles. Iverson taking 30 shots instead of 13 deflates his GS because it lowers his percentages significantly.

[Phoenix]

That 2001 Sixers team. Yeah, defense got them to the finals but man. The scoring options after Iverson wouldn't average 15ppg if you left them alone in a gym.

[Phoenix]

Dray N Klay
Lambruh
Scuzzy
Dubeta
Manny98
TheCorporation
Gus Hemingway
Stanley Kobrick
And1AllDay
LeCroix
SpaceJam2
FromDowntown
Shooter
AirBonner
Vino24
ElitePower23
KD7
Lebronxrings
JT123
InsanityKills
HenryGarfunkle
Rico2016
Docs Orders


Did I miss anyone?


I’m not entirely sure about Manny/KD7, but I began to suspect it after he somehow got a ton of votes in the poll on who had the best whatifsports team

Realskipbayless I think.

[Roundball_Rock]

That 2001 Sixers team. Yeah, defense got to the finals but man. The scoring options after Iverson wouldn't average 15ppg if you left them alone in a gym.

McKie's career high is 12.2 PPG (11.6 in 01'). :lol

BTW, for all the individual player oRTG fans who love Miller, Todd MacCulloch and Mutumbo had the highest ratings. I guess that means they were the best offensive players on the team, right? :lol

[RRR3]

Realskipbayless I think.
I think that one is separate but I just remembered two more: VictorMosquito and Gil Renard. It’s truly incredible he’s this dedicated to creating an army of yes men for himself.

[KD7]

McKie's career high is 12.2 PPG (11.6 in 01'). :lol

BTW, for all the individual player oRTG fans who love Miller, Todd MacCulloch and Mutumbo had the highest ratings. I guess that means they were the best offensive players on the team, right? :lol
Iverson shot 38% from the field in the playoffs that year and they still managed to reach the finals due to Mutombos godly defense that year in the playoffs

You could argue Mutombo was the most valuable player on the 76ers that year and the numbers back it up

[KD7]

Dray N Klay
Lambruh
Scuzzy
Dubeta
Manny98
TheCorporation
Gus Hemingway
Stanley Kobrick
And1AllDay
LeCroix
SpaceJam2
FromDowntown
Shooter
AirBonner
Vino24
ElitePower23
KD7
Lebronxrings
JT123
InsanityKills
HenryGarfunkle
Rico2016
Docs Orders


Did I miss anyone?


I’m not entirely sure about Manny/KD7, but I began to suspect it after he somehow got a ton of votes in the poll on who had the best whatifsports team
They're are at least 7 different people on that list, you're paranoid. :lol

[Nashty]

That is an overlooked factor but you need to score enough for your defense to prevail. Without Iverson, their defense wouldn't matter since they would lose low scoring games due to have an incompetent offense.

And Iverson's offense would not matter without Mutombo's defense since they would be giving away too many points to win with Iverson's 30 points on 30 shots.


You also have to look at roles. Iverson taking 30 shots instead of 13 deflates his GS because it lowers his percentages significantly.

If he was truly that great of a scorer, he would score effitiently, and his GmSc would be higher by taking more shots. If you look like top 20 GmSc in a single game, I think each one of them shot 25+ FGs.

The truth is that Iverson was just an inefficient chucker, who played only iso, and was undersized to play defense. He got lucky that he played with a DPOY, great defensive coach and team that carried him to the Finals in weak East conference in 2001, and that was all from him, he was regularyl losing in 1st rounds all other years he played without a great defensive team to carry him on defense.

[Shooter]

They're are at least 7 different people on that list, you're paranoid. :lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JJpfLOjyESkbAyc/giphy.gif

[GOBB]

Better career, Iverson
Better player, Iverson

How was this a serious question again? Reggie Miller is a 1 dimensional shooter.


I wont deny that I might be off in my criteria for a better nba career but those accolades go out of the window once they matched up in the playoffs wherein Miller had moderate success against Iverson while outplaying him head to head.

Reggie Miller played on better teams clearly.

[fourkicks44]

People care too much about regular season, playoffs is where the big boys play.



He was also a DPOY that season, and defense was why they were winning games, not because of Iverson's chucking, which is all shown in his years without a DPOY center where he could not get out of the 1st round.




The man outplayed him twice. In their matchups with Ray Allen, Iverson got destroyed, while Miller had only 0.1 GmSc worse than Ray. In finals they both were the 2nd best player to Shaq, but Iverson was also outplayed by Carter, while Miller was better than Spreewell. There is no point in comparing the numbers straight up, you need to compare players numbers relative to other players they played against, because some series are played more faster with more shots and worse defense, but other series are played slow paced with less shots and better defense.

AI had a broken back.

And...

29.73

[GOBB]

Reggie Miller isnt even in the discussion for top 7 SGs of all time. Iverson is argued top 5. Smarten up.

[Nashty]

Reggie was at least a good 1 dimensional scorer with 24 pts on decent efficency in his prime, and he was also not a minus defender, and knew how to play team ball without needing the ball in his hands. Iverson was a 1 dimensional scorer with 31 pts on shit efficiency, and was a minus defender and a ball hog.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Reggie was at least a good 1 dimensional scorer with 24 pts on decent efficency in his prime, and he was also not a minus defender, and knew how to play team ball without needing the ball in his hands. Iverson was a 1 dimensional scorer with 31 pts on shit efficiency, and was a minus defender and a ball hog.

Don't forget clutch as a mfer.

Someone here posted a chart of Miller holding the record for MOST threes in crunchtime. Don't think its been broken, and nobody else is close either.

[bizil]

AI hands down!! Reggie as great as he was (would be sick in today's game with emphasis on 3 ball), was one of the more one dimensional legends ever. GOAT wise, Reg is a top 10 GOAT caliber SG. But on a peak-prime level, he's MUCH LOWER among the SG's in my opinion. I wouldn't even put Reg in the top 15 SG's ever peak-prime wise! That 2000s influx of legends like Kobe, T Mac, Wade, AI, Ray, and Vince pushed Reg down that chart BIG TIME!!! Let alone Harden coming down the pike later on.

[GOBB]

Reggie was at least a good 1 dimensional scorer with 24 pts on decent efficency in his prime, and he was also not a minus defender, and knew how to play team ball without needing the ball in his hands. Iverson was a 1 dimensional scorer with 31 pts on shit efficiency, and was a minus defender and a ball hog.

Stat nerds is all guys like you are. Eye test, understanding the situation given at the time. Iverson never played with a legitimate scorer alongside him. He was ASKED to be the primary scorer and carry the load. He was ENCOURAGED by the great Larry Brown to shoot shoot shoot. Larry is caught on the sidelines telling AI keep shooting, just keep shooting we will get the rebound. Paraphrasing. He went out and grabbed Mutombo specifically for his ability to rebound as he was the best rebounder in the game at the time,


THAT said, when Iverson went to Denver his efficiency which you care a lot about went up. While he still provided offense along with getting assists out of being a natural playmaker. No, not saying he was the greatest of PGs based on his assist avg. Highlighting his ability to make plays that didnt involve him scoring.

There is an argument to be made Reggie isnt even worthy of the HOF. When people get asked is so and so a HOF the first thing said is someone mentions a player who is borderline that was selected. Example Reggie.

[Nashty]

Don't forget clutch as a mfer.

Someone here posted a chart of Miller holding the record for MOST threes in crunchtime. Don't think its been broken, and nobody else is close either.

And in the 3 playoff series that they played against each other Reggie averaged 26 pts on 48/44/93 shooting splits, while Iverson averaged 28 pts 39/21/81 splits.

Iverson would probably beat him in a 1v1 match, but for organized 5v5 basketball I will take Reggie easily.

[Nashty]

Stat nerds is all guys like you are. Eye test, understanding the situation given at the time. Iverson never played with a legitimate scorer alongside him. He was ASKED to be the primary scorer and carry the load. He was ENCOURAGED by the great Larry Brown to shoot shoot shoot. Larry is caught on the sidelines telling AI keep shooting, just keep shooting we will get the rebound. Paraphrasing. He went out and grabbed Mutombo specifically for his ability to rebound as he was the best rebounder in the game at the time,


THAT said, when Iverson went to Denver his efficiency which you care a lot about went up. While he still provided offense along with getting assists out of being a natural playmaker. No, not saying he was the greatest of PGs based on his assist avg. Highlighting his ability to make plays that didnt involve him scoring.

There is an argument to be made Reggie isnt even worthy of the HOF. When people get asked is so and so a HOF the first thing said is someone mentions a player who is borderline that was selected. Example Reggie.

Larry Brown knew that Iverson is not capable of co-existing with other offensive stars, and that's why he put a defensive team around him and hoped for the best. Their defense was good enough to take them in the Finals, despite Iverson being outplayed by Reggie, Carter and Ray Allen, but they could not stop Shaq in the Finals. In Denver where he got that offensive help in Melo and Nene, and also rule change help, he still averaged 23 points on 40% FG, being outplayed by Parker in 2007.

[tpols]

THAT said, when Iverson went to Denver his efficiency which you care a lot about went up.

No it didn't. He shot 39% in the playoffs average for both years with the Nuggets. Melo wasn't much better. 40%.

They are two examples of players whose reputation far exceeds their worth on any team. And I've seen both of them whole primes.



Larry is caught on the sidelines telling AI keep shooting, just keep shooting we will get the rebound.

:roll:

He knew he was gonna miss.

Hilarious.

[GOBB]

No it didn't. He shot 39% in the playoffs average for both years with the Nuggets. Melo wasn't much better. 40%.

They are two examples of players whose reputation far exceeds their worth on any team. And I've seen both of them whole primes.






It did you clearly didnt do your homework. He shot 45 and 46% while scoring 25 and 26ppg. You didnt see much as you claim.

[Nashty]

It did you clearly didnt do your homework. He shot 45 and 46% while scoring 25 and 26ppg. You didnt see much as you claim.

No one cares about the regular season, big boys play in the playoffs where he averaged 23 on 40%, while being outplayed by Parker in 2007, and Gasol in 2008.

[GOBB]

Larry Brown knew that Iverson is not capable of co-existing with other offensive stars, and that's why he put a defensive team around him and hoped for the best. Their defense was good enough to take them in the Finals, despite Iverson being outplayed by Reggie, Carter and Ray Allen, but they could not stop Shaq in the Finals. In Denver where he got that offensive help in Melo and Nene, and also rule change help, he still averaged 23 points on 40% FG, being outplayed by Parker in 2007.

Yeah thats why he drafted Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce. You're right, Brown just knew Pierce couldn't co-exist with AI.

Rule change help? Thats hilarious.

[tpols]

It did you clearly didnt do your homework. He shot 45 and 46% while scoring 25 and 26ppg. You didnt see much as you claim.

Playoffs. 39%.

He shot just like he did in Philly.

Goodbye sir.

[Nashty]

Yeah thats why he drafted Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce. You're right, Brown just knew Pierce couldn't co-exist with AI.

Rule change help? Thats hilarious.

Why is rule change help hilarious? Many guards like Nash got their efficiency up after the hand check rule change before 2004-05 season.

[GOBB]

Playoffs. 39%.

He shot just like he did in Philly.

Goodbye sir.

135gms vs 9 games? Great sample size. Goodbye jackass,.

[GOBB]

Why is rule change help hilarious? Many guards like Nash got their efficiency up after the hand check rule change before 2004-05 season.

Because you selectively dont mention the zone rule that was implemented. But carry on, iverson had nothing to do with such a change. Nah

[tpols]

I would agree with that if not for it being the standard for his whole career with no exception.

40% flat in the playoffs over 71 games.

Take that statistically signifigant sample size and shove it, mate.

*tips hat*

[GOBB]

I would agree with that if not for it being the standard for his whole career with no exception.

40% flat in the playoffs over 71 games.

Take that statistically signifigant sample size and shove it, mate.

*tips hat*

You're struggling mightily my friend. It's ok you cant refute whats been said. Like i said the stuff people bitched about he improved in Denver and here we are with "well in 9gms in the playoffs". Hilarious.

[tpols]

Well yea dude... if you shit the bed in the playoffs in both years... on top of shitting it every year prior, "people" are going to take notice. Or in your case, maybe not.

[Nashty]

You're struggling mightily my friend. It's ok you cant refute whats been said. Like i said the stuff people bitched about he improved in Denver and here we are with "well in 9gms in the playoffs". Hilarious.

Well, playoffs are the only thing that matters, and he played like garbage in the playoffs. Immediately after they traded him for Billups, they reached WCF, while 2 seasons with Iverson they could not get out of 1st round.

[Roundball_Rock]

Larry Brown knew that Iverson is not capable of co-existing with other offensive stars, and that's why he put a defensive team around him and hoped for the best

Larry Brown knew Miller was not a superstar and told him he needed to learn to play in an ensemble cast. That's when Indiana got out of the 40-42 win first round loss trap. Brown knew Iverson was on another level than Miller. Iverson wouldn't be giving up usage and taking equal # of shots with Rik Smits.

[Nashty]

Larry Brown knew Miller was not a superstar and told him he needed to learn to play in an ensemble cast. That's when Indiana got out of the 40-42 win first round loss trap. Brown knew Iverson was on another level than Miller. Iverson wouldn't be giving up usage and taking equal # of shots with Rik Smits.

In the 13 games they played vs each other in the Playoffs Reggie averaged 26 pts on 48/44/93 shooting splits, while Iverson averaged 28 pts 39/21/81 splits.

[GOBB]

Well, playoffs are the only thing that matters, and he played like garbage in the playoffs. Immediately after they traded him for Billups, they reached WCF, while 2 seasons with Iverson they could not get out of 1st round.

Yeah only thing that matters. Not reg season mvp, all nba teams or anything. Those are regular season accolades. Lets talk rings and finals mvp, yea thats the ticket. You two arguments are poop. *flush*

[GOBB]

Miller is not nor will ever be on Iverson level. Fact not opinion.

[tpols]

Career Prime Playoff numbers


29 ppg on 27 shots per game.

vs

24 ppg on 16 shots per game.


So you're telling me... if Reggie took ELEVEN more shots per game... he couldn't muster up an additional 5 points?

He could go 2/11 and match Allen Iverson.

This shit is a wrap. If Iverson was a Kawhi level defender or some ultra hyper intangible force I'd have to concede.

As it is? a LOT of people are taking big L's on this subject.

[Nashty]

Yeah only thing that matters. Not reg season mvp, all nba teams or anything. Those are regular season accolades. Lets talk rings and finals mvp, yea thats the ticket. You two arguments are poop. *flush*

Which player was better in 2018/19 season? 1st Team All NBA and 1st Team All Defense George averaging 27-8-4 in the regular season, but got outplayed by Damian Lillard in the playoffs and lost in the 1st Round, or 2nd Team All NBA and 2nd Team All Defense Kawhi Leonard averaging 27-7-3 but destroyed Jimmy Butler, Embiid, Simmons, Giannis and Curry and won a championship?

I'm not talking about rings and fmvps, I am just talking about player performances in the playoffs compared to the regular season. There are many players that can put up stats in the regular season, but when it matters the most they disappear, while truly great players step up.

[Axe]

Between 1993 and 2004, Miller's teams have appeared a total of six times in the ecf. In the first three of them, they pushed their respective opponents (knicks, magic, bulls) each to seven games but would go home as the loser. The pacers were only able to break through in 2000 by defeating the knicks but came up short in the finals against a newly rebuilt lakers. The sixers under ai finally broke through as well but also came up short against the very same team.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/games_between/allen_iverson_vs_reggie_miller.htm#:~:text=Reggie% 20Miller%20has%20a%2021,9-4%20record%20in%20Playoffs.

[GOBB]

Career Prime Playoff numbers




So you're telling me... if Reggie took ELEVEN more shots per game... he couldn't muster up an additional 5 points?

He could go 2/11 and match Allen Iverson.

This shit is a wrap. If Iverson was a Kawhi level defender or some ultra hyper intangible force I'd have to concede.

As it is? a LOT of people are taking big L's on this subject.

Weak ass argument with the give player more shots and he matches that other players production. Reggie was never that type of scorer. Even he would tell you that but you'd argue against him as well. smh

[GOBB]

Which player was better in 2018/19 season? 1st Team All NBA and 1st Team All Defense George averaging 27-8-4 in the regular season, but got outplayed by Damian Lillard in the playoffs and lost in the 1st Round, or 2nd Team All NBA and 2nd Team All Defense Kawhi Leonard averaging 27-7-3 but destroyed Jimmy Butler, Embiid, Simmons, Giannis and Curry and won a championship?

I'm not talking about rings and fmvps, I am just talking about player performances in the playoffs compared to the regular season. There are many players that can put up stats in the regular season, but when it matters the most they disappear, while truly great players step up.

No clue what you're talking about. But to totally dismiss regular season and focus primarily on postseason is foolish is the point. If you take Miller over Iverson when it comes to who was the better player and better career? We have nothing else to discuss here.

[tpols]

Weak ass argument with the give player more shots and he matches that other players production. Reggie was never that type of scorer. Even he would tell you that but you'd argue against him as well. smh

Here you go Gobb...

All 3 playoff series H2H. (and partially skewed since it's old reggie vs prime ivy. but nonetheless...)



Playoffs head to head

Miller (ages 33-35) 26.2 ppg .485fg% .438 3p% 4rbs 3.1apg .8spg 18.1 shots

Iverson (ages 23-25) 27.9 ppg .389fg% .212 3p% 4.2rbs 4.9apg 1.4spg 25.5 shots

26 ppg to 27 ppg.

On 8 extra shots per game.

Reggie could literally chuck halfcourt shots, hit 1/8, and exceed that.

:oldlol:

Night night.

[Nashty]

No clue what you're talking about. But to totally dismiss regular season and focus primarily on postseason is foolish is the point. If you take Miller over Iverson when it comes to who was the better player and better career? We have nothing else to discuss here.

Is Devin Booker better than Reggie Miller? I mean he is averaging like 5 points more on better efficiency, and is having like 4 more assists.

[GOBB]

Is Devin Booker better than Reggie Miller? I mean he is averaging like 5 points more on better efficiency, and is having like 4 more assists.

Not right now but he has the potential to be.

[GOBB]

Here you go Gobb...

All 3 playoff series H2H. (and partially skewed since it's old reggie vs prime ivy. but nonetheless...)



26 ppg to 27 ppg.

On 8 extra shots per game.

Reggie could literally chuck halfcourt shots, hit 1/8, and exceed that.

:oldlol:

Night night.

Did you actually watch these series or just regurgitating stats to me? You guys are from the era where you google stats then create narrative based on them. And claim victory. First series who were the sixers scorers behind AI? Who had the better team early in these head to heads? Who had a team gameplan to stop one player (heres a hint it wasnt reggie miller)? Come better than that. Better go tag kblaze88888888555555555 for some help.

[tpols]

https://media.tenor.com/images/da1bab8eb2f3cb1948777391dc14060d/tenor.gif

Tapping out.

Begging another grown man kblaze to step in and tell us how 26 ppg on elite efficiency is doing "nothing" for most of every game.

True.

[Nashty]

Did you actually watch these series or just regurgitating stats to me? You guys are from the era where you google stats then create narrative based on them. And claim victory. First series who were the sixers scorers behind AI? Who had the better team early in these head to heads? Who had a team gameplan to stop one player (heres a hint it wasnt reggie miller)? Come better than that. Better go tag kblaze88888888555555555 for some help.

Ok, if we go by this logic, I will claim that 2008 Deron Williams was better than 2008 Kobe, but Kobe had better 2nd option and overall better team.

[GOBB]

Tapping out.

Begging another grown man kblaze to step in and tell us how 26 ppg on elite efficiency is doing "nothing" for most of every game.

True.

That would be you tagging Blaze my guy not me. So I'm confused. Who begged for him?

[GOBB]

Ok, if we go by this logic, I will claim that 2008 Deron Williams was better than 2008 Kobe, but Kobe had better 2nd option and overall better team.

Kobe won mvp. What are you babbling about?

[Nashty]

Kobe won mvp. What are you babbling about?

I'm just going by your logic. He won because he had better 2nd option, and better team, best in the whole West. Williams was better, but he had worse team, that's why he played worse than Kobe.

[Axe]

I'm just going by your logic. He won because he had better 2nd option, and better team, best in the whole West. Williams was better, but he had worse team, that's why he played worse than Kobe.
Kobe had gasol. I guess that was the difference there.

[GOBB]

I'm just going by your logic. He won because he had better 2nd option, and better team, best in the whole West. Williams was better, but he had worse team, that's why he played worse than Kobe.

08 kobe > deron
AI > miller

The end.

[Roundball_Rock]

Did you actually watch these series or just regurgitating stats to me? You guys are from the era where you google stats then create narrative based on them. And claim victory. First series who were the sixers scorers behind AI? Who had the better team early in these head to heads? Who had a team gameplan to stop one player (heres a hint it wasnt reggie miller)? Come better than that. Better go tag kblaze88888888555555555 for some help.

tpols has never watched Reggie play. Every post on Reggie is "oRTG" and "efficiency". The fact that those are derived from his inability to handle the ball (so low turnovers), his difficulty getting open (so he was screened into open looks), etc. are lost on him.

I can't believe we are comparing the type of shots Iverson and Miller took and their volume.

Iverson's record suggests this. He took 17.6 FGA in 98' (low for him--would be by far a career high for Miller) and shot 46.1%. When he was taking 24.7 (1999-2006) he was down to 41.7%. In 2008, in Denver in his last prime year, he was below 20 again (19) and shot 45.8%.

Imagine if he took 14 shots instead of 18 or 19. His "efficiency" would climb higher still.

The object of the game is to win, not pad stats for people decades later. If Iverson scoring 20 PPG on 15 shots at 48-49% that would have been terrible for his teams.

[Carbine]

I don't agree that Reggie didn't have the skill set to shoot 10 more times a game if he chose to do that.

He was interested in shooting the best shot, which is a good thing. It's why he fits any type of team build you could think of, whereas Iverson isn't raising good/great teams all that much unless they needed a #1 option - which most good/great teams do not.

Just go through the list of contenders in this season.

I'd take Reggie over AI on the:

Clips
Lakers
Bucks
Rockets
Celtics
Nuggets

If you wanted to count the Jazz as a serious contender, I'd go AI.

[Roundball_Rock]

You think Miller could average 24-26 shots a game, instead of 14-16? That's Iverson/Jordan/Kobe etc. level shot creation. Where do the extra 10 come from and what impact on efficiency?

[tpols]

He could shoot the extra 10 shots from halfcourt and outproduce iverson. Would only have to make 1. And that's the point.

[Carbine]

It doesn't take tremendous ability to shoot a lot. I mean you have to have some baseline of NBA ability, I'm not saying a 6' white PG limited athletic ability could do it.

Reggie was in GOAT level shape, was tall, quick release. He could definitely get of 25 looks a night - but as it with anyone taking that many shots consistently quite a few will be heavily contested looks and that's something that Reggie tried to stay away from as much as possible.

Definitely taking a hit on efficient side of things too - but he'd have to plummet on those extra 10 shots a game to get to Iversons level.

[fourkicks44]

Well, playoffs are the only thing that matters, and he played like garbage in the playoffs. Immediately after they traded him for Billups, they reached WCF, while 2 seasons with Iverson they could not get out of 1st round.

29.73

[Nashty]

Miller 21 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .194 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 5.9 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

But, Iverson shot more shots, and that' why he is better :facepalm

[fourkicks44]

Miller 21 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .194 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 5.9 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

But, Iverson shot more shots, and that' why he is better :facepalm

29.73

[Nashty]

29.73

Imagine averaging 29.73 points per game, and still get outplayed by Reggie 3 times, by Carter, Parker, Ray Allen, Derrick Coleman, Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce in H2H matchups. Yikes

[fourkicks44]

Imagine averaging 29.73 points per game, and still get outplayed by Reggie 3 times, by Carter, Parker, Ray Allen, Derrick Coleman, Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce in H2H matchups. Yikes

29.73

[Kblaze8855]

Miller is not nor will ever be on Iverson level. Fact not opinion.


Youre a basketball fan talking to someone who thinks basketball is division and doesn’t remember Reggie millers prime and was about 10 during Iversons. This is me or you arguing with our dads about Walt Frazier vs Calvin Murphy. We may have been alive for some of that but vs an informed opinion we use our inside voice. We come from a time of shutting the **** up when grown folks are talking and we’re in here fighting with people who as recently as 2004 weren’t allowed to have a rib at the cookout because they are for adults. We are on the grill yelling back and forth at the kids table sitting out in the sun. These people aren’t allowed under the shed at a early 2000s cookout. Kids sit in the sun. We are arguing how good people were from a time when the other side had to be in bed before games that tipped off at 9 could end.

It’s our fault for even engaging with such people.

[warriorfan]

tpols has never watched Reggie play. Every post on Reggie is "oRTG" and "efficiency". The fact that those are derived from his inability to handle the ball (so low turnovers), his difficulty getting open (so he was screened into open looks), etc. are lost on him.

I can't believe we are comparing the type of shots Iverson and Miller took and their volume.

Iverson's record suggests this. He took 17.6 FGA in 98' (low for him--would be by far a career high for Miller) and shot 46.1%. When he was taking 24.7 (1999-2006) he was down to 41.7%. In 2008, in Denver in his last prime year, he was below 20 again (19) and shot 45.8%.

Imagine if he took 14 shots instead of 18 or 19. His "efficiency" would climb higher still.

The object of the game is to win, not pad stats for people decades later. If Iverson scoring 20 PPG on 15 shots at 48-49% that would have been terrible for his teams.

Not dominating the ball, having a great shot selection, and playing incredibly efficiently are positives, not negatives. :oldlol:

:facepalm


“Object of the game is to win, not pad stats” lmao yes that is true, that is why being selective and efficient > low iq shot jacking. When your team takes more shots and misses more shots....and the other team makes their shots more efficiently on better shot selection...you lose. Lol

Roundball with another one. This dude has Down’s syndrome or something. Iq doesn’t come this low normally. This guy is a major outlier.

[oldtimer28]

Youre a basketball fan talking to someone who thinks basketball is division and doesn’t remember Reggie millers prime and was about 10 during Iversons. This is me or you arguing with our dads about Walt Frazier vs Calvin Murphy. We may have been alive for some of that but vs an informed opinion we use our inside voice. We come from a time of shutting the **** up when grown folks are talking and we’re in here fighting with people who as recently as 2004 weren’t allowed to have a rib at the cookout because they are for adults. We are on the grill yelling back and forth at the kids table sitting out in the sun. These people aren’t allowed under the shed at a early 2000s cookout. Kids sit in the sun. We are arguing how good people were from a time when the other side had to be in bed before games that tipped off at 9 could end.

It’s our fault for even engaging with such people.

Was wondering how this question could be entertained.

I try to avoid comparisons generally, plus GOAT seems to make people crazy, like political dogma

[GOBB]

Youre a basketball fan talking to someone who thinks basketball is division and doesn’t remember Reggie millers prime and was about 10 during Iversons. This is me or you arguing with our dads about Walt Frazier vs Calvin Murphy. We may have been alive for some of that but vs an informed opinion we use our inside voice. We come from a time of shutting the **** up when grown folks are talking and we’re in here fighting with people who as recently as 2004 weren’t allowed to have a rib at the cookout because they are for adults. We are on the grill yelling back and forth at the kids table sitting out in the sun. These people aren’t allowed under the shed at a early 2000s cookout. Kids sit in the sun. We are arguing how good people were from a time when the other side had to be in bed before games that tipped off at 9 could end.

It’s our fault for even engaging with such people.

hahaha Shame on me.

[Roundball_Rock]

Football doesn't have these advanced stats yet but I am waiting for a rating system to be invented to tell us that McNabb or Jeff Garcia were really the best QB's of the 2000's. :lol

[Carbine]

Football certainly does have advanced stats - PFF Gades, TQBR, etc.

[tpols]

I only have one football jersey and it's a black philly Donovan McNabb jersey I got in the early 2000s. I was a huge philly fan and donovan mcnabb was not an elite QB and I'm positive the stats would show that. QB rating, pass completion %, TD:INT ratio etc. I'm not gonna bother looking them up but I guarantee his are lower than other elite QBs. I HATE the giants and will fully admit we would've won if had Eli in his place in those early 2000s playoff runs. Particularly against the Patriots in 2004. McNabb choked where Eli was lightning, damn near Jesus in the clutch vs them.

Pretty hilarious i'm not allowed to talk about iverson when i was watching east coast NBA ball every night back then. When you can't attack the argument, attack the man. Very common logical fallacy.

[Roundball_Rock]

Football certainly does have advanced stats - PFF Gades, TQBR, etc.

Football is in the dark ages in advanced stats. There are how many for basketball? NFL is still pretty basic. The few stats that exist are very broad. QBR covers everything a QB does as a passer, not isolate one thing like shooting.

A lot of the reliance is on PFF--but those aren't statistical analysis. They are people watching each play and assigning grades to players and then ranking players based on those season long grades at their position.


I was a huge philly fan and donovan mcnabb was not an elite QB and I'm positive the stats would show that. QB rating, pass completion %, TD:INT ratio etc.

He was a top 10 QB for a decade. He was #1 all-time in INT percentage when he left the Eagles (i.e., in his prime). If you created a formula that heavily weighted not turning the ball over and an ability to throw the deep ball well, he would look great (if your formula weighted accuracy he would look bad). That's why I used him. A very good player who a formula could turn into a "great" player to people 30 years later like Reggie is Exhibit A of.

[tpols]

He was never prolific in yards or TD's. And... most importantly, he was never elite in the playoffs. Lets see his playoff numbers? I guarantee they suck.

The only time i was truly hyped for him was 4th and 26 against Favre. Freddie Mitchell. The people's champion.

Yup... i cant talk early 2000s sports.


if your formula weighted accuracy he would look bad

:roll:

that's exactly the point.

[Kblaze8855]

I only have one football jersey and it's a black philly Donovan McNabb jersey I got in the early 2000s. I was a huge philly fan and donovan mcnabb was not an elite QB and I'm positive the stats would show that. QB rating, pass completion %, TD:INT ratio etc. I'm not gonna bother looking them up but I guarantee his are lower than other elite QBs. I HATE the giants and will fully admit we would've won if had Eli in his place in those early 2000s playoff runs. Particularly against the Patriots in 2004. McNabb choked where Eli was lightning, damn near Jesus in the clutch vs them.

Pretty hilarious i'm not allowed to talk about iverson when i was watching east coast NBA ball every night back then. When you can't attack the argument, attack the man. Very common logical fallacy.

You can talk about what you want. I’ve learned to disregard most everything you have to say before the 2010s though. You’re like my little cousins. I’ll talk to you but I’m not considering the things you say like I’m talking to a serious basketball fan. You fell into the numbers game and don’t generally seem to have basketball opinions anymore and those kinda fans and me will just never see eye to eye. I can go google what you think. I don’t need to get it from you.

[tpols]

it's not just what i think... there are dozens of posters in this thread expressing the same sentiment.

Tally the poll in this thread. I think Reggie won.

[Kblaze8855]

There’s a large kids table. Nobody said you were the only one. Y’all making a lot of noise over there. Sounds like you snuck into the adults cooler.

[Carbine]

Football is in the dark ages in advanced stats. There are how many for basketball? NFL is still pretty basic. The few stats that exist are very broad. QBR covers everything a QB does as a passer, not isolate one thing like shooting.

A lot of the reliance is on PFF--but those aren't statistical analysis. They are people watching each play and assigning grades to players and then ranking players based on those season long grades at their position.



He was a top 10 QB for a decade. He was #1 all-time in INT percentage when he left the Eagles (i.e., in his prime). If you created a formula that heavily weighted not turning the ball over and an ability to throw the deep ball well, he would look great (if your formula weighted accuracy he would look bad). That's why I used him. A very good player who a formula could turn into a "great" player to people 30 years later like Reggie is Exhibit A of.

PFF have stats that look at accuracy in a meaningful way, there are a lot of things out there that are advanced. Elusiveness for RBs, yards created, etc. It's not my thing but neither are the advanced stats in the NBA, but they do exist in the NFL too.

Total QBR evaluates all things not just passing by the way. Rushing, clutch, penalites, etc.

[tpols]

There’s a large kids table. Nobody said you were the only one. Y’all making a lot of noise over there. Sounds like you snuck into the adults cooler.

:roll:

i am still at the kid's table sometimes.

https://keyassets-p2.timeincuk.net/wp/prod/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/2015/12/elf-cgi-1.jpg

You're the guy in the red giving an unapproving gaze.

[warriorfan]

Let’s be serious for a moment this place is pretty much a food fight at the kids table.

[Roundball_Rock]

There’s a large kids table. Nobody said you were the only one

The shark has been jumped. We have thread after thread now boiling players down to TS % or oRTG (the two highest were MaCulloch and Mutumbo on the 01' Sixers as an example--obviously not their best offensive players...).


PFF have stats that look at accuracy in a meaningful way, there are a lot of things out there that are advanced. Elusiveness for RBs, yards created, etc. It's not my thing but neither are the advanced stats in the NBA, but they do exist in the NFL too.

Total QBR evaluates all things not just passing by the way. Rushing, clutch, penalites, etc.


PFF is good but it is subjective. Expert opinion, but subjective. That is why the sports media likes covering their annual rankings or semi-annual rankings, especially for QB's. There will always be an eyebrow raiser or two in there.

I tried looking into some of those stats for fantasy football purposes. That can be misleading. One is "yards when defense is closing in" or something. It doesn't distinguish between a collapse and having to beat 1 guy. Another is broken tackles. Carlos Hyde was a monster in that one year. Obviously, he is not and was not an actual elite player. The only thing I found that was useful is what PFF has to say about offensive lines (even though I drafted Mixon anyway :oldlol: ).

Football is tougher to quantify than basketball or baseball but the push is for more stats, more metrics so it will continue. Just don't be surprised if 20 years from now people are saying McNabb or Phillip Rivers were Manning or Brady based on that new stat.

[tpols]

Allen Iverson was so bad his coach was literally screaming his lungs off for him to shoot it so one of their goons could grab the board and do a putback.

:lol

It's like an offensive system solely built off the "Kobe assist"

[HoopsNY]

Reggie Miller TS%
Regular Season - .614
Playoffs - .601

Allen Iverson TS%
Regular Season - .518
Playoffs - .489

There is even no need to go any further. The question is already answered right here.

But if you throw in VORP, BPM, WS, etc. the gap only widens.

While you're not entirely wrong concerning this, volume does have to be considered where AI is concerned. TS% tends to drop as volume increases.

The obvious answer to this question is Iverson . Iverson was a playmaker, could create his own shot, was faster, a better passer, and a better defender. Reggie was clutch and obviously a better shooter (by a mile). But other than that, he doesn't have a case.

[HoopsNY]

AI is the better player, but depending on the personnel I would take Miller.

Plays off the ball. Is a way better shooter. Doesn't need to kill an offense to score, and is super efficient on decent volume. Better in the clutch too.

I agree with you on this point. One thing about Iverson is that he was a cancer to a team. If Reggie played alongside another great, I think he could co-exist. AI is a different case to me in that he didn't even want to "practice."

[tpols]

While you're not entirely wrong concerning this, volume does have to be considered where AI is concerned. TS% tends to drop as volume increases.

The obvious answer to this question is Iverson . Iverson was a playmaker, could create his own shot, was faster, a better passer, and a better defender. Reggie was clutch and obviously a better shooter (by a mile). But other than that, he doesn't have a case.

That's a lot of buzzwords.

"playmaker" for who? he wasn't john stockton or steve nash. Who did Iverson ever create for or promote outside himself?

better defender?

:roll:

He was the original Isiah Thomas jr. A small 170 lb guy who got routinely picked on in a league of giants. Total joke. Don't you dare cite steals.

They went H2H on 26-27 ppg volume. Reggie took 8 less shots to score 1 less point. You dont think if he wasted an extra 8 possessions as good a shooter he was he couldnt hit 1/8?

You have to be kicked out Chaz style.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPn4rR1damB0MQo/giphy.gif

[HoopsNY]

that's a lot of buzzwords.

"playmaker" for who? he wasn't john stockton or steve nash. Who did Iverson ever create for or promote outside himself?

better defender?

:roll:

He was the original Isiah Thomas jr. A small 170 lb guy who got routinely picked on in a league of giants. Total joke. Don't you dare cite steals.

They went H2H on 26-27 ppg volume. Reggie took 8 less shots to score 1 less point. You dont think if he wasted an extra 8 possessions as good a shooter he was he couldnt hit 1/8?

You have to be kicked out Chaz style.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPn4rR1damB0MQo/giphy.gif

You think Reggie Miller was a better defensive player than AI? Did you watch the two of them play? Miller couldn't even average more defensive rebounds let alone provide the help defense that AI did.

Furthermore, did you watch him in his years with Denver? He was very much a playmaker and had evolved more into that role. Reggie was never a playmaker at any point of his career.

You guys on this forum are really confident of yourselves, lol.

[HoopsNY]

Miller: 2.4 Drbs/1.2 stls/0.2 blks/34.0 DWS
Iverson: 2.9 Drbs/2.2 stls/0.2 blks/38.1 DWS

The playoff numbers are virtually the same. Miller? Defense? lol that's a good one.

[tpols]

Iverson was always a weak link on defense. Eric Snow was the OG defender in that backcourt. With Mutumbo guarding the rim at HOF level. And Larry Brown coaching the squad with the GM filling the team with goons like raja bell. For you to cite Allen Iverson's defense as some trump card shows you have no understanding of that side of the ball. He was an undersized gambler who put up negative splits everywhere he went. And in the playoffs, offensively, he bombed in Denver.

What else do you want?

[tpols]

wait...this guy is boiling defense down to purely steals per game.

:roll:

and i prefaced it.


Don't you dare cite steals.

[Nashty]

Well, of course Iverson will average more assists when he played PG for third of his career and when he played SG he had ball in his hands 99% of the time, while Reggie was playing off ball most of the time. And, yes, Reggie was a better defender, at least not a minus defender, while Iverson was straight up garbage on defense. Iverson's help defense at 4 feet tall cmon now. The guy was a glorified Nate Robinson.

[HoopsNY]

Iverson was always a weak link on defense. Eric Snow was the OG defender in that backcourt. With Mutumbo guarding the rim at HOF level. And Larry Brown coaching the squad with the GM filling the team with goons like raja bell. For you to cite Allen Iverson's defense as some trump card shows you have no understanding of that side of the ball. He was an undersized gambler who put up negative splits everywhere he went. And in the playoffs, offensively, he bombed in Denver.

What else do you want?

Because the conversation isn't about Iverson relative to the NBA. The conversation is Iverson compared to Miller. Iverson wasn't a great on the ball defender. I agree with that. But Iverson was a far better help defender, and that alone is more than anything Miller brought to the table defensively.

Furthermore, I mentioned his defense in conjunction with a lot of other things. Tell me this, aside from shooting, what was Miller better at?

[HoopsNY]

Well, of course Iverson will average more assists when he played PG for third of his career and when he played SG he had ball in his hands 99% of the time, while Reggie was playing off ball most of the time. And, yes, Reggie was a better defender, at least not a minus defender, while Iverson was straight up garbage on defense. Iverson's help defense at 4 feet tall cmon now.

The difference is that Iverson was capable of playing point guard. Miller wasn't. See the difference?

And how was Reggie a better defender? Iverson was such a bad help defender yet he led the league in steals multiple times? C'mon.

[Nashty]

The difference is that Iverson was capable of playing point guard. Miller wasn't. See the difference?

And how was Reggie a better defender? Iverson was such a bad help defender yet he led the league in steals multiple times? C'mon.

The difference is Miller played 4 more ECF's, while Iverson could not go past 2nd round without DPOY Mutombo to carry him.

[HoopsNY]

Iverson led the league in steals three consecutive seasons (2000-03), yet he was a horrible help defender. Go figure. So the majority of those steals were on the ball? I guess that makes him a horrible on the ball defender, too?

[HoopsNY]

The difference is Miller played 4 more ECF's, while Iverson could not go past 2nd round without DPOY Mutombo to carry him.

But that's not what I previously mentioned. I mentioned he was a better playmaker - which he most definitely was. Anyone who watched Iverson play for his entire career and also watched Reggie for his knows that. Reggie could barely dribble, let alone create shots. How is this so hard to accept?

Iverson may have had great defensive help, but what did Reggie have in the Davis boys and Aaron Mckey? Manikins?

[Nashty]

Iverson led the league in steals three consecutive seasons (2000-03), yet he was a horrible help defender. Go figure. So the majority of those steals were on the ball? I guess that makes him a horrible on the ball defender, too?

The man was literally gambling to get steals on every possesion. How many + DBPM seasons he had?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I agree with you on this point. One thing about Iverson is that he was a cancer to a team. If Reggie played alongside another great, I think he could co-exist. AI is a different case to me in that he didn't even want to "practice."

Yup.

Had Iverson done more in Denver I'd have a different opinion. They made the WCF swapping Iverson with Billups basically. Now if you aren't pairing these dudes with much offense? You gotta roll with AI. He could at least take your team to the playoffs. Not efficiently but he and a good defense could absolutely get you there.

[Phoenix]

Reggie had a 107 defensive rating on the 2000 Pacers, worst on the entire team. He was 5th in D. Win shares.

AI on the 2001 Sixers team had a 99 defensive rating, equal to Hill, Lynch, Mckie, and higher than Snow's 101. Mutumbo and Ratliff were better at 95 and 96, as you'd expect. He lead the team in D.winshares, but had he been there the entire year Mutombo would have. So that bumps Iverson to 2nd in the worst case.

Now.....seeing as there's a running thread about defensive players and DRtg, I'm just curious as whether these numbers mean anything. What does this say about Reggie and AI defense relative to their teammates here? I make no conclusions, I'm just presenting the numbers.

[Roundball_Rock]

Iverson was a playmaker, could create his own shot, was faster, a better passer, and a better defender. Reggie was clutch and obviously a better shooter (by a mile). But other than that, he doesn't have a case.

Their respective impacts aren't even close.

If you take the sterling Miller name brand off and posted "Iverson vs. Ray Allen" or "Iverson vs. Klay", Iverson would win in a walk. The "30 for 30", Spike Lee, media hype, etc. elevate Miller to places his historical comps would be laughed at. Even the Miller people will diminish those other guys.

[fourkicks44]

Anyone who says Iverson was a terrible defender is exaggerating or didn't see him play much.

He wasn't an elite on ball defender, but it wasn't like he just sat down on the court when his opponents were in possession they way people with anti Iverson agendas make it sound.

His problem WAS his height and size and he did get targeted by opposition.

But this was an issue because the Sixers backcourt particular in their most successful times, was so small because they also had a small PG playing with. He was underside for a "Shooting Guard" in a time when positions mattered more and playing small ball didn't really exist.

People use try and use they argument he was a defensive liability, but this is just isn't the whole truth, as it was circumstancial.

The 2001 Sixers were a great defensive team and Allen was a key cog within it. He had great off ball instincts and he obviously played the passing lanes and got deflections at high rate hence is steal numbers. This fuled the teams transition and his own damaging fast break offense.

This is an old clip, that is not long. But obviously highlights Allen's ability to knuckle down and defend players (PGs) of similar size.

Jackson was obviously slower than Allen, but much stronger and his ability to run offense and dribble with is back to the basket is as good as any player in NBA history.


https://youtu.be/AtfglC2qUoI

[Reggie43]

Didnt really want to post again in this thread but showing Iverson trying to guard a 35 year old Mark Jackson to somehow highlight his defense is a bad idea. He was considered a slow player at his peak imagine him 13 years later. No offense to the one who posted it.

[fourkicks44]

Didnt really want to post again in this thread but showing Iverson trying to guard a 35 year old Mark Jackson to somehow highlight his defense is a bad idea. He was considered a slow player at his peak imagine him 13 years later. No offense to the one who posted it.

I guess Oakley couldn't lay a pick either then?

35 year old Mark Jackson was useless?

But if you read the posts above 35 year old Reggie is one of the greatest SG ever?

It was just a quick example I found easily to give some visual context of an in game play from Allen.

Visual context is something I feel is clearly lacking in this thread with hapless advanced stats being thrown out that mean little.

I'm just here trying to call out the straight up bullshit.

[Roundball_Rock]

I guess Oakley couldn't lay a pick either then?

35 year old Mark Jackson was useless?

But if you read the posts above 35 year old Reggie is one of the greatest SG ever?

It was just a quick example I found easily to give some visual context of an in game play from Allen.

Visual context is something I feel is clearly lacking in this thread with hapless advanced stats being thrown out that mean little.

I'm just here trying to call out the straight up bullshit.

Good post.

They are selective with the advanced stats they use too.

Peak VORP rank: Iverson 4th, Miller 8th
Peak BPM rank: Iverson 6th, Miller 8th
Peak WS rank: Miller 6th, Iverson 10th (4th if he played 82 games in 01')
Peak PER rank: Iverson 7th, Miller 18th

It's nearly a clean sweep for Iverson (the resume comparison is a clean sweep). The one area Iverson trails is because he missed 11 games in 01' (can't get win shares if you don't play).

This is with Iverson taking a big hit in efficiency because he had a 33.4% prime usage--Miller was at 23.2%. Iverson operated on 44% higher volume than Miller. Iverson led the league in usage 5 times; Miller never even led his own team in usage. Comparing these two in shooting percentage is an apples to oranges comparison given the canyon in volume.

[Phoenix]

I'm just waiting for a reply to the post I laid out earlier showing their respective Drtg ratings and defensive winshares on their finals teams. Prior arguments painted Iverson as a really weak defender and a liability. Posters who usually refer to things like ORtg and DRtg and then craft arguments around that, surely these posters would have dropped these numbers in the thread if they favoured Reggie. Or do they not count now?

[Nashty]

No one cares for regular season numbers. Is KAT one of the best centers ever because he is averaging like 25-13-5 in the regular season, but then gets outplayed in the playoffs by Clint Capela?

Prime playoff stats:

Miller 21 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .194 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 5.9 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

[Reggie43]

I guess Oakley couldn't lay a pick either then?

35 year old Mark Jackson was useless?

But if you read the posts above 35 year old Reggie is one of the greatest SG ever?

It was just a quick example I found easily to give some visual context of an in game play from Allen.

Visual context is something I feel is clearly lacking in this thread with hapless advanced stats being thrown out that mean little.

I'm just here trying to call out the straight up bullshit.

Got it. As I said I actually like AI from way back so carry on.

[HoopsNY]

Reggie had a 107 defensive rating on the 2000 Pacers, worst on the entire team. He was 5th in D. Win shares.

AI on the 2001 Sixers team had a 99 defensive rating, equal to Hill, Lynch, Mckie, and higher than Snow's 101. Mutumbo and Ratliff were better at 95 and 96, as you'd expect. He lead the team in D.winshares, but had he been there the entire year Mutombo would have. So that bumps Iverson to 2nd in the worst case.

Now.....seeing as there's a running thread about defensive players and DRtg, I'm just curious as whether these numbers mean anything. What does this say about Reggie and AI defense relative to their teammates here? I make no conclusions, I'm just presenting the numbers.

I just don't understand why others are taking aim at my saying that as if it's something far fetched. Even if we delete that and say they were even, then Iverson was still a better passer, ball handler, faster, more athletic, better scorer, better playmaker. Reggie was more clutch and the better shooter. Overall as a player, it goes to Iverson.

The question itself doesn't have an absolute answer. I think in some scenarios, you want to have AI over Reggie. But if you have another scorer, like a Kobe Bryant, then you want Reggie alongside him. In some cases, Reggie's ability to play off the ball and not be ball dominant is an advantage. In some cases, it's a disadvantage.

[HoopsNY]

No one cares for regular season numbers. Is KAT one of the best centers ever because he is averaging like 25-13-5 in the regular season, but then gets outplayed in the playoffs by Clint Capela?

Prime playoff stats:

Miller 21 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .194 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 5.9 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

But the thread isn't about head to head matchups, only. Surely using just three series can't define a player's ability for their entire career? That's an odd way of looking at it.

[Phoenix]

I just don't understand why others are taking aim at my saying that as if it's something far fetched. Even if we delete that and say they were even, then Iverson was still a better passer, ball handler, faster, more athletic, better scorer, better playmaker. Reggie was more clutch and the better shooter. Overall as a player, it goes to Iverson.

The question itself doesn't have an absolute answer. I think in some scenarios, you want to have AI over Reggie. But if you have another scorer, like a Kobe Bryant, then you want Reggie alongside him. In some cases, Reggie's ability to play off the ball and not be ball dominant is an advantage. In some cases, it's a disadvantage.

What do you mean? Others are taking aim at you saying what?

In general I agree with you. Iversons style doesnt seamlessly fit on any team which is why some would take Reggie depending on team makeup. I think Iverson as a singular force can better carry an offense devoid of other options. That 2001 Sixer squad was putrid offensively. Yes they had a strong defensive identity but a nice Ortg on low usage and shot volume wasn't getting that team to the finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

Iversons style doesnt seamlessly fit on any team which is why some would take Reggie depending on team makeup. I think Iverson as a singular force can better carry an offense devoid of other options.

Agreed. When I'm comparing players I come with the premise of a player being the first pick for a random team. In that scenario, AI all day. Now, if you are talking specific team contexts Miller could fit in more places than Iverson. Just look at the other finals teams of that team. Miller fits in better with the Lakers, Nets than Iverson; Iverson is the answer for the Sixers.


Reggie was more clutch

Iverson went 36/6/4 in the finals. I don't know much more clutch Iverson is supposed to be. I don't recall Miller ever coming close to that in a major series.

[Nashty]

But the thread isn't about head to head matchups, only. Surely using just three series can't define a player's ability for their entire career? That's an odd way of looking at it.

I am not talking only about these h2h matchups, these are their playoff numbers. Prime playoff stats:

Miller 21.2 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .198 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 6.1 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Reggie also played 39 games more, because he had longer prime.

Reggie played 22 playoff series from 1990 to 2002, in which he had highest GmSc on both teams 10 times. Iverson from 14 series he played in had highest GmSc only 4 times.

Reggie had at least 2nd best GmSc in 17 of 22 series. Iverson had at least 2nd best GmSc in 9 of 14 series.

Reggie had better team success with 4 conference finals more, while Iverson reached Finals once where he did not have highest GmSc in any of the 4 series, while in the Pacers Finals run, Reggie had highest GmSc in 2 of the 4 series.

[Roundball_Rock]

Their team's playoff success comports with what a lot of people are saying about both. Miller could never do what Iverson did and carry a team the way Iverson did in 01'--but Iverson had so many flaws it was hard to build a consistent contender around him. I can't think of any team that Miller would not easily fit in on. So the Pacers were able to build a perennial contender around him (a credit to him).

Let's not oversell the playoff stuff (Miller has the clear overall edge), though. Both players reached the finals once and lost. We aren't comparing a 3x champ to T Mac or something here.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No one cares for regular season numbers. Is KAT one of the best centers ever because he is averaging like 25-13-5 in the regular season, but then gets outplayed in the playoffs by Clint Capela?

Prime playoff stats:

Miller 21 PER Iverson 22 PER
Miller .194 WS/48 Iverson .119 WS/48
Miller 5.9 BPM Iverson 5.3 BPM

Iverson vs Miller H2H in the playoffs

1999: Iverson 15.7 GmSc, Miller 17.7 GmSc
2000: Iverson 14.6 GmSc, Miller 19.9 GmSc
2001: Iverson 21.2 GmSc, 35 year old Miller 21.4 GmSc

If no one cared about the regular-season, there wouldn't be teams jockeying for home court and seeding. Every year.

I'll give you there H2H playoff stats. Its not everything but its something we don't ignore either. Miller had very good longevity.

[Phoenix]

What do you think about A.I on the Pacers? Obviously it's a different dynamic than with Reggie. But the Pacers had a strong defensive team around Reggie. A.I didnt work great with other perimeter scorers like Stackhouse early in his career and he and Melo were pretty redundant at the end of his prime. Smits is a good low post scoring option but hes not going to demand the ball to a degree that steps on Iversons toes. You had the Davis Boys and Mckey( basically your Ratliff, Hill and Lynch blue collar defenders) and a pass first PG in Jackson alleviating the shooting guard of any facilitating responsibility. What does a lineup of Jackson,A.I, Rose, Davis and Smits do?

[Roundball_Rock]

What do you think about A.I on the Pacers? Obviously it's a different dynamic than with Reggie. But the Pacers had a strong defensive team around Reggie. A.I didnt work great with other perimeter scorers like Stackhouse early in his career and he and Melo were pretty redundant at the end of his prime. Smits is a good low post scoring option but hes not going to demand the ball to a degree that steps on Iversons toes. You had the Davis Boys and Mckey( basically your Ratliff, Hill and Lynch blue collar defenders) and a pass first PG in Jackson alleviating the shooting guard of any facilitating responsibility. What does a lineup of Jackson,A.I, Rose, David and Smits do?

That is intriguing. The type of team Iverson needed around him was a strong defensive team--which Indiana would have. Smits was a top 6-7 offensive center in his prime and a lot more reliable than Aaron McKie or Eric Snow. Jackson would be the primary ballhandler but Iverson had the skills to relieve him of that pressure and be a secondary playmaker if Jackson was being smothered (like the 98' ECF) versus Jackson being left on an island because their other guard couldn't handle the ball. Iverson's efficiency would increase with lower volume and better offensive players around him.

Iverson wouldn't be able to replicate the "spacing" effect Miller had but Iverson would take more defensive attention and in theory allow his teammates to become more efficient as a result.

Iverson had a higher ceiling than Miller. Miller's best shots at a ring were 98' and 99' and he went 17 PPG and 16 PPG in those ECF's. What if Iverson is there and scoring 28 and 30 instead?

In theory, this is the type of team well-suited to winning rings with Iverson. The one cause of skepticism is we saw Iverson go to better teams and not do much (although he proved to be past his prime in Detroit). How much of his stats come at the expense of the other players versus being additive?

Still, teams that win rings have top 5/MVP level players almost all the time (04' Pistons, 14' Spurs a few rare exceptions). You don't see teams with top 15 players as their best guy winning rings. Iverson gives you a puncher's chance. Some of this is hindsight: we know the Pacers couldn't win with Miller but we don't know if they would with Iverson.

[Phoenix]

In A.Is second year he scored 22 on 46% shooting,( that's off the top of my head, too lazy to basketball reference that at the moment but some numbers I retain fairly well). It was that really tough defensive period where he was like 30+ and 40% shooting in that 2000-2003 space. Then post rule changes( as we discussed in your thread) he bumped up to 33 on 45%. Then he was like 26 on 45% shooting in Denver( again, off top of my head). I feel like there is some alternate reality where Iverson could have been like a 26-27ppg scorer on that Pacers team in that 99-2001 period on efficiency numbers that arent quite migraine inducing for the statnerds. Like you said I dont know if they win, but it would have been interesting. Then factor in that the Pacers eventually transition to that Jermaine Oneal-Artest team with Reggie being an elder statesman. I don't know if that team is still structured the same with AI there but they'd have Iversons best years in that 2000-2006 window with whatever they could put around him.

[Nashty]

No point in talking about what if scenarios. Maybe Reggie would score 30 on better efficiency on those Sixers team if he had green light. Maybe Wilt would win 11 if he was on the Celtics, maybe Iverson would win 3 with Shaq instead of Kobe, but we will never know that, but we do know that Miller was a better team player that could work in a system where he needed to share the ball with others, had longer prime, and was a better playoff performer. Iverson was an iso player with bad efficiency, could not co-exist with other offensive players, and played worse in the playoffs than the regular season.

[Phoenix]

Because it's no point *to you* to discuss hypotheticals doesn't mean there's no point just for the fun of speculation. We discuss 'what ifs' all the time. What if Tyson fought Ali prime for prime? What if the 96 Bulls played the 17 Warriors? How good would Wilt be today? Its common vernacular in sports discussion. You are under no obligation to partake if you find no value in that thread of discussion.

[Nashty]

Because it's no point *to you* to discuss hypotheticals doesn't mean there's no point just for the fun of speculation. We discuss 'what ifs' all the time. What if Tyson fought Ali prime for prime? What if the 96 Bulls played the 17 Warriors? How good would Wilt be today? Its common vernacular in sports discussion. You are under no obligation to partake if you find no value in that thread of discussion.

Ok, it's fun to discuss what if scenarios, but those are opinions, not facts. You can't just say Iverson was better because Miller had better teams. Then I can claim Devin Booker is better than Michael Jordan, because Booker had no Pippen to playmake, and guard best offensive players, or Rodman to grab every rebound, or Kukoc one of the greatest European players ever coming off the bench, or Phil Jackson one of the GOAT coaching him.

[tpols]

The sixers and pacers were very similarly built. Both defensive teams led by Larry Brown without any true star power outside AI and reggie. Thats about as close a transplant as you could get and miller outplayed iverson massively in the playoffs. and that was older reggie too smh. :facepalm

[Phoenix]

Ok, it's fun to discuss what if scenarios, but those are opinions, not facts. You can't just say Iverson was better because Miller had better teams. Then I can claim Devin Booker is better than Michael Jordan, because Booker had no Pippen to playmake, and guard best offensive players, or Rodman to grab every rebound, or Kukoc one of the greatest European players ever coming off the bench, or Phil Jackson one of the GOAT coaching him.

Obviously. You may be using certain facts, but the conclusions being reached are often opinion-based. I only asked what happens with Iverson in that lineup. That's a talking point I wanted to start. Again, if that's a pointless conversation for you, you aren't obliged to partake.

[Phoenix]

The sixers and pacers were very similarly built. Both defensive teams led by Larry Brown without any true star power outside AI and reggie. Thats about as close a transplant as you could get and miller outplayed iverson massively in the playoffs. and that was older reggie too smh. :facepalm

Any thoughts on my post from yesterday regarding their Drtgs for the finals teams they played on?

[Nashty]

Obviously. You may be using certain facts, but the conclusions being reached are often opinion-based. I only asked what happens with Iverson in that lineup. That's a talking point I wanted to start. Again, if that's a pointless conversation for you, you aren't obliged to partake.

Would Iverson an iso scorer run through screens, and play off ball like Reggie did? Would Iverson career 32.7% 3pt shooter space the floor for Smits and others like Reggie did? Who would guard opposing SG's in a backcourt with 6'0 and 6'1 players. People are forgetting that Iverson played SG, but had 6'5 Mckie and 6'3 Snow guarding opposing SG's. I personally think, that Pacers with Iverson would be not as good with Miller. We are talking about 4 ECF and 1 Finals here, and Sixers with Miller would basically be the same 1st or 2nd round exit team.

Also, one fun fact. Iverson actually played with more All NBA teammates than Miller. Iverson had Mutombo in 2001 and 2002 (also an All Defensive team in both years and DPOY in 2001), and Carmelo in 2007. Miller had only Jermaine O'Neal in 2002 which was Reggie's last year of prime.

[Phoenix]

Would Iverson an iso scorer run through screens, and play off ball like Reggie did? Would Iverson career 32.7% 3pt shooter space the floor for Smits and others like Reggie did? Who would guard opposing SG's in a backcourt with 6'0 and 6'1 players. People are forgetting that Iverson played SG, but had 6'5 Mckie and 6'3 Snow guarding opposing SG's. I personally think, that Pacers with Iverson would be not as good with Miller. We are talking about 4 ECF and 1 Finals here, and Sixers with Miller would basically be the same 1st or 2nd round exit team.

Also, one fun fact. Iverson actually played with more All NBA teammates than Miller. Iverson had Mutombo in 2001 and 2002 (also an All Defensive team in both years and DPOY in 2001), and Carmelo in 2007. Miller had only Jermaine O'Neal in 2002 which was Reggie's last year of prime.

I haven't drawn any conclusions about the hypothetical. I put it to the board for consideration. Neither one of them won a ring when in position to do so and you clearly slant towards Miller, so your opinions will always funnel towards Reggie coming out on top regardless of the scenario. Anyways, thanks for answering the question 3 posts later.

[tpols]

Any thoughts on my post from yesterday regarding their Drtgs for the finals teams they played on?

Why do you always do that bro? pick 1 series... pick 1 game... why cant we look at the total body of work?

Reggie is a 108 DRTG for 144 playoff games.

Iverson is a 109 DRTG for 71 playoff games.

Reggie has him beat when you judge it fairly.

[Roundball_Rock]

Maybe Reggie would score 30 on better efficiency on those Sixers team if he had green light.

The red light came from the same coach who gave Iverson the green light. Shouldn't that tell us something? Brown is a HOF coach and treated one as a superstar option and the other as a member of an ensemble cast.


The sixers and pacers were very similarly built. Both defensive teams led by Larry Brown without any true star power outside AI and reggie

This assumes the "star power" of an all-NBA 3rd team player and a MVP are the same. As noted above, they had the same coach and that coach didn't consider them equals.

[Phoenix]

Why do you always do that bro? pick 1 series... pick 1 game... why cant we look at the total body of work?

Reggie is a 108 DRTG for 144 playoff games.

Iverson is a 109 DRTG for 71 playoff games.

Reggie has him beat when you judge it fairly.

That's what you're calling a fair judgement? You can't compare Drtgs like that. First, it's wasn't a game or a series. It was for the entire season. You're dropping DRtg numbers over their entire playoff careers which were played across multiple teams and different versions of their teams, with different levels of defense season to season. You're hoping I don't know that's a wrong way to contextualise the numbers. The way to apply that rating 'fairly' would be to look at each of their playoff runs and see how their Drtgs compare to their teammates each playoff run. It's relative defensive value to their team, not just dropping two numbers in a vacuum and saying '108 is better than 109.'

Iversons 99 DRTg in 2001 and Reggies 107 in 2000 isn't saying '99 is better than 107' in a vacuum. Everyone on Reggie's team had a lower rating than 107, meaning he was the least valuable defender on his 2000 team. Iverson's 99 rating tied with Mckie, Hill and Lynch, and better than Snow(101) says that the value of his defense was par with several other players on the team. He *was not* the least valuable defender on the 2001 team. And that is in response to you painting a picture above that he was a liability.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why do you always do that bro? pick 1 series... pick 1 game... why cant we look at the total body of work?

I've seen you do that with a number of players... :confusedshrug:

With Reggie you don't want to do that because you know his best PO moments came in the first round or Game 2's or Game 3's, not when the stakes were highest.

Even the 00' finals stuff. Yeah, Reggie scored 24--Iverson put up 36 against the same team the next year.

[Phoenix]

I've seen you do that with a number of players... :confusedshrug:

With Reggie you don't want to do that because you know his best PO moments came in the first round or Game 2's or Game 3's, not when the stakes were highest.

Even the 00' finals stuff. Yeah, Reggie scored 24--Iverson put up 36 against the same team the next year.

He's being disingenuous with the numbers. For someone who spends his days dropping ORtg 10 times a day he would ( or should) know that these rating numbers aren't intended to be 'apples to apples' comparing players on different teams. If your entire team is good defensively your rating is going to be good. The only question becomes how good your rating is within the context of the other players on your team. The 2001 Sixers had a 98.9 DRtg. Iverson was a 99. His defense was par within context of the teams overall defense. The 2000 Pacers had a 103.6 rating, Reggie was 107. His defense was below average within context of the teams overall defense. The only point I'm making is Iverson was painted as a liability defensively but how can this be when his rating was valued the same as guys like Mckie, Hill and Lynch, and better than Eric Snow?

[tpols]

I've seen you do that with a number of players... :confusedshrug:



I always do both tbh.

I use career impact (playoff specifically) for all comparisons. And then after career comes where I'll look at H2H's and specific contextual things. You guys totally ignore efficiency in all your analyses and you always cherrypick series, games and even quarters. :lol Or only looking at accolades which dont tell us anything about true impact its a voting contest.

Scottie Pippen for example grades out great defensively by everything I use and thats not a coincidence.

[Phoenix]

Let's look at the much discussed 98 season. The 98 Pacers rating was 101.6. Guess who was last in rating again? Reggie at 105. What does this say? The same thing it says about the 2000 Pacers. Compared to his other teammates, Reggie was the least valuable defensive contributor in terms of points allowed. But here's where people misuse the stat. Someone like Gary Payton has several Drtg years higher than Reggie's 105. Let's look at 1999. Payton has a 106 rating. So 99 Gary was a worse defender than Reggie in 98? Of course not. What was Seattle's Drtg in 99? 106, same as Gary's rating. What does that say now when we actually do the relative comparison of Gary defensively in the context of his team? We already know.

Here's Iverson's Drtg compared to his team from 97 to 08( team on the left, AI on right in bold)

1997 111.4 112
1998 105.4 106
1999 97.6 99
2000 100 102
2001 98.9 99
2002 100.3 100
2003 102.5 102
2004 101.4 102
2005 104.3 105
2006 108.1 110
2007 105.9 108
2008 106.3 109

Right up till about 2006 when he was 31( about the age guards start having to conserve their energies), Iversons own defensive rating was often right on par with the team. And that's in league with carrying Phillys offense for a decade. But based on comments above he was a pushover defensively? His size was a limitation but an outright liability?

[Phoenix]

I always do both tbh.

I use career impact (playoff specifically) for all comparisons. And then after career comes where I'll look at H2H's and specific contextual things. You guys totally ignore efficiency in all your analyses and you always cherrypick series, games and even quarters. :lol Or only looking at accolades which dont tell us anything about true impact its a voting contest.

Scottie Pippen for example grades out great defensively by everything I use and thats not a coincidence.

As he should. Scottie was a great defender on a great defensive team. 94 Bulls 102.7 rating. Scottie 97. He was far and way the most impactful individual defender within the context of his teams defense. He was in essence ahead of the team defensively. So Iverson doing a 99 rating in 2001 on a 98.9 team overall rating means his defense compared to the team was on par. Reggie doing 107 on a team rating of 103, his defense was below par to his teammates with lower ratings. Relative comparisons. No-one is manipulating the numbers. They say what they say. You just don't like what they say because it doesn't mesh with your opinon about Iverson's defense being a liability. How, based on the same DRtg you use to correctly value Scottie defensively?

[warriorfan]

If we are using dtrg for Iverson I would be careful of this. Iverson would play a lot of minutes, well over 40 a lot of the time. He’s in for 80 or 90% of his team’s possessions. So anyways if he plays on a team full of great defensive players...he’s going to be getting credit for them. You couldn’t really deduct one way or another if the Sixers were playing great defense BECAUSE of Iverson, or despite of Iverson when using this metric. His career Ortgs are relatively low and his career Dtrgs are surprisingly good. Was Iverson really not a great offensive player and a defensive juggernaut? That doesn’t really make sense. What makes more sense is that Iverson was able to create enough offense despite having a very defensive oriented team that was built around him, so that in turn drags his offensive rating down but does simultaneously improve his Drtg ratings.

That’s how I see it at least.

[tpols]

Iverson didn't do 99 in 2001. He did 106 for the whole 22 playoff game sample size.

Mutumbo was by far their best defender in the playoffs.

Now I see you were just using regular season... Iverson was 7 points worse in the playoffs. That is extremely telling because teams can strategize how to attack him in series.

[Phoenix]

The only purpose of dropping the Drtg here was to show that his teams defense didn't suffer due to his presence, not to say he's a defensive juggernaut. The numbers say what they say. How one interprets them to reach a conclusion will always be YMMV. For one thing, he didn't always have a Mutumbo level defender where you could say he was getting some of Deke's fumes defensively. The one thing I see that's consistent is that his own defensive rating was usually on par with the teams. The Sixers roster turned over a few times during his time there.

I mean, let's just take 2001. He had the same rating as Lynch and Hill (99), two other starters, and lower than Snow (101), who most people would say was a better solo defender. So what are the numbers telling us here? I figure this is an opportunity to put our heads together and not just oppose because we have a side to take.

[tpols]

If I remember correctly eric snow was the guy they sent at the stars. It's like Steph Curry and Klay. Often times youll see some defensive stats that say curry > klay, but thats just because he's taking the easier guard every single game.

Iverson didnt guard his cross match SG Kobe in 2001. They put him on Derek Fisher. While Kobe still picked up AI.

[Phoenix]

Iverson didn't do 99 in 2001. He did 106 for the whole 22 playoff game sample size.

Mutumbo was by far their best defender in the playoffs.

Now I see you were just using regular season... Iverson was 7 points worse in the playoffs. That is extremely telling because teams can strategize how to attack him in series.

I did say for the season. Even if you want to use the playoffs, at 106 he was still ahead of Hill Mckie, and Snow. Odd that you didn't mention that. Mutombo and Ratliff had lower ratings, but no shit. I'm willing to bet the Sixers playoff team Drtg was also close to 106 but I don't see that info on the page. Relatively speaking his defensive impact still wasn't below the team, in either the season on the playoffs that year. You said he was a liability. I'm trying to show he wasn't, not saying he was elite.

[Phoenix]

If I remember correctly eric snow was the guy they sent at the stars. It's like Steph Curry and Klay. Often times youll see some defensive stats that say curry > klay, but thats just because he's taking the easier guard every single game.

Iverson didnt guard his cross match SG Kobe in 2001. They put him on Derek Fisher.

Granted, but asides from the size issue......would you rather Iverson expend energy defending Kobe? Who's picking up the slack offensively? Snow? He was 12ppg on 41%, on the topic of efficiency.

[tpols]

Granted, but asides from the size issue......would you rather Iverson expend energy defending Kobe? Who's picking up the slack offensively? Snow? He was 12ppg on 41%, on the topic of efficiency.

i mean... kobe still took iverson... he didnt pass the buck onto fisher and guard eric snow. i do see what youre saying though because of his offensive load. either way this was a theme for his career. iverson was always put on the weakest option so he wouldn't be targeted. and it allowed him to focus on steals.

[Roundball_Rock]

Right up till about 2006 when he was 31( about the age guards start having to conserve their energies), Iversons own defensive rating was often right on par with the team. And that's in league with carrying Phillys offense for a decade. But based on comments above he was a pushover defensively? His size was a limitation but an outright liability?

This is with carrying an all-time level workload of 33% usage. If he had a much lower offensive workload he would have more energy for defense.


I use career impact (playoff specifically) for all comparisons. And then after career comes where I'll look at H2H's and specific contextual things.

You said Dirk>Duncan based on one series. You went a week going on and on about one series Pippen had against the #1 defense (while issuing free passes to Stockton, Malone for facing the #4 and #3 offenses). Etc. Your "criteria" shifts based on the agenda at a given moment.

We are using the same criteria and data for all analyses.


you guys totally ignore efficiency

We understand context. John Stockton is a prime example. His "efficiency" came via taking only the easiest shots. If he took tougher shots his "efficiency" would decrease but his team would benefit. You can't win a chip with your second option averaging 9.7 PPG, including a 2 point game on four shots. When Malone looked to his left, looked to his right for scoring help: there was no one there in two very winnable finals.


you always cherrypick series, games and even quarters

Miller's reputation is that he is clutch. We hear that in every Miller thread. It is only reasonable to ask where Miller was in the biggest games in the biggest series of his career. 8 points in 9 seconds? Great moment--but that was Game 2 or 3 in the second round.


Mutumbo was by far their best defender in the playoffs.

Using your logic of oRTG, Mutumbo also was by far their best offensive player too. If he is their best defender (which he was--DPOY) and their best offensive player, he must be their best player, period?

It is funny Mutumbo is a great defender again. In another thread you were saying Mutumbo was a soft match up for Shaq, despite being the DPOY.

[Phoenix]

i mean... kobe still took iverson... he didnt pass the buck onto fisher and guard eric snow.

Kobe has Shaq to help carry the scoring load. I'm sure you realize how much of a non-point that is. Iverson was guarded by Lue at times too, and he saw a little Fisher. We've all seen the clip 1000 times where he crossed Lue over in the corner then walks over him after hitting the jumper. That wasn't a one off defensive matchup.

[warriorfan]

The only purpose of dropping the Drtg here was to show that his teams defense didn't suffer due to his presence, not to say he's a defensive juggernaut. The numbers say what they say. How one interprets them to reach a conclusion will always be YMMV. For one thing, he didn't always have a Mutumbo level defender where you could say he was getting some of Deke's fumes defensively. The one thing I see that's consistent is that his own defensive rating was usually on par with the teams. The Sixers roster turned over a few times during his time there.

I mean, let's just take 2001. He had the same rating as Lynch and Hill (99), two other starters, and lower than Snow (101), who most people would say was a better solo defender. So what are the numbers telling us here? I figure this is an opportunity to put our heads together and not just oppose because we have a side to take.

I don’t think Iverson is as poor as a defender as people make him out to be but it’s hard for me to see him as a big needle mover on defense. I personally believe his good defensive ratings are primarily a function of playing heavy minutes with slow paced, defensive oriented teams. However it’s definitely worth noting how great he was creating with nothing much around him offensively. He wasn’t getting easy transition points or assisted buckets. He was grinding out tough possessions in half court with little offensive talent around him. That is also a reason why his efficiency isn’t amazing. He wasn’t really in a situation for that to be very possible. (Scoring efficiently that is.)

[Phoenix]

Another interesting point, on this very page Tpols says we cherrypick. But when I say Iverson's rating was 99 over a season, he retorts with 'but Iverson was 106 in the playoffs'. Now, not only did the entire teams rating get worse when you look at his teammates, hence his rating would also drop, but isn't 'but he did 106 in 22 playoff games' cherry-picking a smaller sample size than a season? And then saying 'Iverson dropped 7 points', but didn't mention that his other teammates did as well. Isn't this the very definition of cherry-picked information?

[tpols]

Kobe has Shaq to help carry the scoring load. I'm sure you realize how much of a non-point that is. Iverson was guarded by Lue at times too, and he saw a little Fisher. We've all seen the clip 1000 times where he crossed Lue over in the corner then walks over him after hitting the jumper. That wasn't a one off defensive matchup.

In the history of basketball there's never been a defender who guarded the same player for every possession. Kobe was the choice defender on Iverson from the start of the games. Yea sometimes he'd get picked off. Sometimes there'd be a transition or semi transition play. Sometimes Kobe would be out of the game and iverson in. Either way, one could guard the other and the other couldn't. Iverson was held to a paltry 103 ORTG in that series.

[Phoenix]

That comment above was supposed to be italics for those quotes, not bolded. Too lazy to change.

[tpols]

I don’t think Iverson is as poor as a defender as people make him out to be but it’s hard for me to see him as a big needle mover on defense. I personally believe his good defensive ratings are primarily a function of playing heavy minutes with slow paced, defensive oriented teams. However it’s definitely worth noting how great he was creating with nothing much around him offensively. He wasn’t getting easy transition points or assisted buckets. He was grinding out tough possessions in half court with little offensive talent around him. That is also a reason why his efficiency isn’t amazing. He wasn’t really in a situation for that to be very possible. (Scoring efficiently that is.)

What about Denver and the 2004 USA Olympic team?

He shot 34/90 in the Olympics. Took the most shots on the team. Are we really going to act like he didn't play with enough offensive talent there?

The thing about iverson is he demands possessions no matter what. Good team. Bad team whatever team he is going to be chucking more shots than anybody else on it. And across a massive sample size we see that he uses possessions poorly and at a rate of success that way below other stars. If he was gary payton on defense we might give some wiggle room but he's average there too. Overall we get a picture painted of a player that was hyped beyond his impact.

It's like a rapper that sells a shit load but sucks at rap. Lil B or something. Soulja boy. They sold a lot. Are filthy rich. They sucked at music.

Just the way it is...

[Phoenix]

In the history of basketball there's never been a defender who guarded the same player for every possession. Kobe was the choice defender on Iverson from the start of the games. Yea sometimes he'd get picked off. Sometimes there'd be a transition or semi transition play. Sometimes Kobe would be out of the game and iverson in. Either way, one could guard the other and the other couldn't. Iverson was held to a paltry 103 ORTG in that series.

Of course. You're the one who said Kobe defended AI. Obviously he wouldn't have been the solo defender but on this board I feel like I need to state the obvious. As far as Kobe defending AI. Kobe was quick enough laterally to at least make AI work to get open. He could also funnel him towards the interior where Shaq is waiting. Or he could sag off and play AI to shoot. And be quick enough to cover some ground and challenge the shot. Kobe was a really good defender in 01. We know this. It would be silly to think that AI would be able to offer the same defensive challenge just off size, never mind that Iverson has far more accountability for scoring without an elite scoring option on his team like Kobe did. They're not really equal scenarios.

[warriorfan]

What about Denver and the 2004 USA Olympic team?

He shot 34/90 in the Olympics. Took the most shots on the team. Are we really going to act like play with enough offensive talent there?

The thing about iverson is he demands possessions no matter what. Good team. Bad team whatever team he is going to be chucking as many shots as anybody else on it. And across a massive sample size we see that he uses possessions poorly and at a rate of success that way below other stars. If he was gary payton on defense we might give some wiggle room but he's average there too. Overall we get a picture painted of a player that was hyped beyond his impact.

It's like a rapper that sells a shit load but sucks at rap. Lil B or something. Soulja boy. They sold a lot. Are filthy rich. They sucked at music.

Just the way it is...

I think you are right and the sixers recognized it early also. They probably thought it would be a waste to stack offensive talent around Iverson with his style of play not being able to maximize it. Instead stack defense and let AI do his thing on the other side of the court. They obviously didn’t win a ring but all in all it worked pretty well I would say.

[Phoenix]

I don’t think Iverson is as poor as a defender as people make him out to be but it’s hard for me to see him as a big needle mover on defense. I personally believe his good defensive ratings are primarily a function of playing heavy minutes with slow paced, defensive oriented teams. However it’s definitely worth noting how great he was creating with nothing much around him offensively. He wasn’t getting easy transition points or assisted buckets. He was grinding out tough possessions in half court with little offensive talent around him. That is also a reason why his efficiency isn’t amazing. He wasn’t really in a situation for that to be very possible. (Scoring efficiently that is.)

At 5'11 it's really hard to be an impact defender beyond acting like a roamer or playing the passing lanes or picking off sloppy handles. I mean most of the guys he was playing at SG were Kobe's size or bigger. He wasn't a threat to block shots for sure. The only small guard I can think of in recent times whose considered a genuinely great defensive PG was prime CP3. But elite sub 6 foot defensive guards in general don't fall on trees.

[Roundball_Rock]

Another interesting point, on this very page Tpols says we cherrypick. But when I say Iverson's rating was 99 over a season, he retorts with 'but Iverson was 106 in the playoffs'. Now, not only did the entire teams rating get worse when you look at his teammates, hence his rating would also drop, but isn't 'but he did 106 in 22 playoff games' cherry-picking a smaller sample size than a season? And then saying 'Iverson dropped 7 points', but didn't mention that his other teammates did as well. Isn't this the very definition of cherry-picked information?

:lol

I also like how looking at the very series people cite as evidence of a player's greatness is "cherry picking." It was Miller advocates, whose case revolves around Miller as a scorer, who cited things like the 98' ECF for him. I believe they were the ones who brought it up first--we just looked under the hood. Miller's best chances at a ring were 98' and 99' and he didn't show up in the ECF. (2000 they were a sacrificial lamb--no one from the East could compete with LA with peak Shaq and prime Kobe. 94', 95' they were a 47 and 52 win team who got to the ECF because of bracket luck.)

[RRR3]

As I’ve said before, almost all of Tpols’ opinions can be explained by his psychotic love for Kobe Bryant. He still resents Iverson for daring to be a rival to his hero two decades before. Same reason he still throws tantrums over Tracy McGrady and of course LeBron James.

[tpols]

I literally talk ball across all spectrums. Jason Kidd, Duncan, Garnett, reggie miller, pat ewing, rodman, vince carter, chef curry, and many many more. Very little of what i say has to do with Kobe. I'm a basketball fan. You? Juwanaman. Reggie Miller was competitive against Kobe. I would never hate on him because he's actually really ****ing good.

:lol

Not everything boils down to one thing.

[Roundball_Rock]

As I’ve said before, almost all of Tpols’ opinions can be explained by his psychotic love for Kobe Bryant. He still resents Iverson for daring to be a rival to his hero two decades before. Same reason he still throws tantrums over Tracy McGrady and of course LeBron James.

Love of Kobe, hate for LeBron (which also manifests itself with being pro-MJ, pro every player MJ every played against, etc.). I see what you are saying. There is a clear thread in his agendas on these particular grounds. The guy said Dirk>Duncan--Duncan, Kobe's big rival for the best player of the 2000's.

[tpols]

On one hand I'm a Jordan stan and on the other I'm "pro every player MJ ever played against".

Word.

[RRR3]

Love of Kobe, hate for LeBron (which also manifests itself with being pro-MJ, pro every player MJ every played against, etc.). I see what you are saying. There is a clear thread in his agendas on these particular grounds. The guy said Dirk>Duncan--Duncan, Kobe's big rival for the best player of the 2000's.
Also Dirk swept Kobe, so he feels the need to overrate Dirk.

[Roundball_Rock]

Also Dirk swept Kobe, so he feels the need to overrate Dirk.

Good catch.


On one hand I'm a Jordan stan and on the other I'm "pro every player MJ ever played against".

Yup, that is the MJ stan gimmick (even if you are pro-MJ simply due to LeBron hate): hype every 90's star as 10 feet tall (to make those chips look even more impressive in the MJ stan mind*)--except You Know Who (with you in all of those threads :lol ), who is earmarked to be torn down. :oldlol:

*No one disputes MJ played great players. What people say is he played lesser teams compared to his super team. This nuance is lost on most MJ fans so they hype every 90's star in response--while not addressing the point about the Bulls "super team."

[72-10]

just to give a different take on it, in one-on-one Iverson would soundly beat Reggie even with Reg's huge size advantage when you consider both AI's one-on-one skills are second to none and Reggie isn't a good defender, of course when Reggie gets the ball he will be knocking down some threes.

Being this skilled allowed 6 foot tall Iverson to score 30 points a night on players with 6 inches on him which is amazing considering he didn't even have a fadeaway.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The conspiracy theorists are out in full force tonight. Where do you guys buy your tinfoil hats? Homemade? :lol

[Reggie43]

just to give a different take on it, in one-on-one Iverson would soundly beat Reggie even with Reg's huge size advantage when you consider both AI's one-on-one skills are second to none and Reggie isn't a good defender, of course when Reggie gets the ball he will be knocking down some threes.

Being this skilled allowed 6 foot tall Iverson to score 30 points a night on players with 6 inches on him which is amazing considering he didn't even have a fadeaway.

I know this is all speculation but how is a player generously listed at 6 feet going to stop a 6'7" guy from scoring one on one? And you think Ai soundly beats Miller in this setting? I wont impose that Miller beats him easily because they are too many other intangible factors in these type of games but that height advantage is too hard to ignore. He will just probably protect the ball and back him down all day for a sure basket.

[72-10]

I know this is all speculation but how is a player generously listed at 6 feet going to stop a 6'7" guy from scoring one on one? And you think Ai soundly beats Miller in this setting? I wont impose that Miller beats him easily because they are too many other intangible factors in these type of games but that height advantage is too hard to ignore. He will just probably protect the ball and back him down all day for a sure basket.

if he's so good at protecting the ball why did he routinely come off screens and minimize dribbles in order to choose his shot selection

[Reggie43]

if he's so good at protecting the ball why did he routinely come off screens and minimize dribbles in order to choose his shot selection

Are we not talking about a hypothetical one on one matchup?

Protecting the ball while backing down your man is not that hard one on one wherein you dont have help defense to worry about. Thats the reason there is a recent thread in here where they think somebody like Boban can win a one on one tournament off sheer size.

Add in the fact that Miller when he was younger used his iso game more and was also posting up defenders at times and was pretty effective at it. This is against guys his size, imagine what he does to someone generously listed at 6 feet.

Like I said there are too many factors in a one on one game different from what you see in a regular game so just because one player is a better scorer in an nba setting it automatically means he wins that one on one matchup.

[Roundball_Rock]

if he's so good at protecting the ball why did he routinely come off screens and minimize dribbles in order to choose his shot selection

Have to keep that oRTG high--avoid those turnovers! :lol

He couldn't handle the rock. That's why when Mark Jackson was being suffocating they couldn't turn to Reggie to help--they only had one starting guard who could bring the ball up. A huge weakness that the Bulls brutally exposed by putting the GOAT perimeter defender on Jackson.

Think of the opposite scenario with the Bulls. They had Pippen, Jordan, Harper as starters who could bring the ball up plus Kukoc who often was on the floor with starters. The Pacers had Jackson, Best--one per unit.

[Phoenix]

Like many one on ones between different sized players it's going to come down to rules. Is it winners or losers out? Who starts with the ball? Iverson is quick-footed enough to stay in front of Reggie and get into his space, so Reggie is mostly going to shoot over the top or back-dribble him down into a short range situation. I can see Iverson picking his pocket if he tried to do too much with the dribble. On the other side, if Iverson gets the ball top of the key 9/10 times he's gonna drive on him and get to the basket. Reggie was never much of an on-ball defender and simply wouldn't be able to keep peak Iverson from driving on him repeatedly.

[tpols]

iverson on reggie 1v1 is a joke. Watch the tape.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2_SpkGu1o

They wouldn't even let iverson guard miller. They put him on mark jackson.

Reggie averaged 22 ppg on 50/40/90 %'s and 133 ORTG. Every game ended in the 80s or 90s. Just absolute fire. Mfer was hotter than the sun. Iverson took almost DOUBLE the amount of shots... 115 to miller's 60... shot 38% and his team got SWEPT.

:roll:

But tell me more how he's better because he chucked with a horrible success rate.

[Phoenix]

Tpols, nobody gives a shit about ORTg in that situation FFS. How the hell does that apply whatsoever in this? In a 5 on 5 setting, you can talk about the strategy of defensive matchups. how Reggie plays against the Sixers D and A.I against the Pacers. This is a one on one with no-one else on the court:

I mean, tape can be used a few ways:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPh37wygbLk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZWah0mlRA

A.Is gonna get shot over, and Reggie is gonna get crossed up. Who starts with the ball? Who gets the most stops? Who leverages their advantages the best? This isn't an OFTG, DFTG, VORP, Winshares, BPM conversation.

[tpols]

ORTG makes it easy for you guys to understand. But i gave the breakdown numbers too. 50/40/90. The gold standard of shotmaking. While Iverson shoots 38% from the floor. You could sag off AI and just let him shoot tbh... he's not even close to being a marksman shooter. Reggie? I mean its a bucket every time. 5'11 dude on a long armed 6'7 GOAT shooter. He wouldnt even have to put the ball on the floor.

and look at your first video... the announcer literally says "miller guards him well". I mean... look at the play. He didn't get crossed up at all. Iverson hit an extremely difficult shot with minimal separation that was well defended. Thats probably why he shot what he did. Now show the misses at 62% clip.

[Reggie43]

6'7" vs 5'11"

Have you guys ever played one on one? To think the 5'11" guy soundly beats the 6'7" scorer? Both would be hard to stop on their turn on offense but I would take the bigger guy but thats just me.

[Reggie43]

A lockdown defender like Eric Snow cant prevent a 35 year old Miller from averaging 31ppg on 45% on that 2001 series. What makes you guys think Iverson does any better on a Peak Miller that was still using his iso game a ton on a one on one setting?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Keep telling posters to relax on "ORTG!!!" This is a team stat, and while it does include scoring/asissts/efficiency etc, it doesn't isolate a players impact.

Miller comes out looking impressive with individual stats too. OBPM/PER/TS% all favor him pretty well.

[Phoenix]

ORTG makes it easy for you guys to understand. But i gave the breakdown numbers too. 50/40/90. The gold standard of shotmaking. While Iverson shoots 38% from the floor. You could sag off AI and just let him shoot tbh... he's not even close to being a marksman shooter. Reggie? I mean its a bucket every time. 5'11 dude on a long armed 6'7 GOAT shooter. He wouldnt even have to put the ball on the floor.

and look at your first video... the announcer literally says "miller guards him well". I mean... look at the play. He didn't get crossed up at all. Iverson hit an extremely difficult shot with minimal separation that was well defended. Thats probably why he shot what he did. Now show the misses at 62% clip.

But again, it has zero relevance to a one on one topic. You drop ORtg every 5 minutes because you think every aspect of basketball comes down to a spreadsheet. I'm not even joking, just about every damn thing you argue on references it. We could be arguing about who has the best team jerserys and you'll find a way to drop ORtg in there. Stop it.

There's only 3 different iso situations in those clips. One of them Reggie played him tough and A.I made the jumper over him. Another A.I does a stepback and hits the 3, Reggie doesn't even contest that one with his arms. In the 2nd vid he straight crossed him, got to the lane for a finger roll finish. In a 5 on 5, both the offensive and defensive player has to be concerned about others on the floor. In one on one it's just one guy vs another. What A.I shoots from the field in a 5 on 5 for an 82 game season is irrelevant. It's Reggie on an island trying to stop A.I isoing him. Or It's A.I trying his best to play Reggie up close and get into his space since Reggie has a decisive height edge and can shoot over the top. Who leverages their advantages the best? You're trying to incorporate shit that factors into team play, in a one on one. I'm only surprised you didn't try to drop Drtg in there too. I mean why not?

As it is, and this applies to Reggie43's comment, I never said A.I wins this. I said often one on one comes down to rules. If one player gets it and the other player cannot consistently stop him in a winners out, it's gonna be difficult for the other guy to mount an offensive. That's going to apply if Reggie is guarding A.I, or vice versa. You're so deep into your stanning of Reggie that you just can't help going off on your advanced stat tangent. None of that shit matters mano a mano.

[tpols]

Keep telling posters to relax on "ORTG!!!" This is a team stat, and while it does include scoring/asissts/efficiency etc, it doesn't isolate a players impact.

Miller comes out looking impressive with individual stats too. OBPM/PER/TS% all favor him pretty well.

Any efficiency stat you want to use favors reggie massively. We could pick one out of a hat. :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Any efficiency stat you want to use favors reggie massively. We could pick one out of a hat. :lol

You're not wrong.

I posted Millers' OBPM in another thread, and he rated up there. Backpicks is a website posted frequently on here as "sources!!!" and even they paint Miller in a good light. Efficiency and things like BPM are regular measures in how they evaluate a player.

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/pGLo47YV_ok

Miller shoots over him for the game winner while stopping him on the other end to seal the deal.

In a one on one setting both are hard to guard but im counting on the 6'7" guy to get enough stops to win the game against the 5'11" one. But anything can happen in a one on one game lets just not make it clear cut that Iverson wins this.

[Roundball_Rock]

Miller was always going to be very efficient (Ray Allen has the same splits and no one talks about him) but some of the players you rag have their efficiency numbers brought down by being the guy who often took an end of quarter heave from 40 feet or a bailout shot with the shot clock winding down. If a player takes 14 shots a game and has one of these shots every other game, that brings their FG % down 3.6% if they miss each (when you factor in the random makes it probably is more like -3.3% or -3.4%). Iverson took a lot of these shots.

[Phoenix]

https://youtu.be/pGLo47YV_ok

Miller shoots over him for the game winner while stopping him on the other end to seal the deal.

In a one on one setting both are hard to guard but im counting on the 6'7" guy to get enough stops to win the game against the 5'11" one. But anything can happen in a one on one game lets just not make it clear cut that Iverson wins this.

72-10 is the only poster I've seen say Iverson beats him. Who else is making that argument? All I said was what factors into a one on one is different. Reggie, you said this yourself so as far as I can tell we have the same basic understanding that one on one dynamics differ. Tpol rolls in beating the ORTg drum and this 'obviously' means Reggie MUST win. My position is neutral.

[Reggie43]

Miller is not going to face him up and dribble in front of him, he will carefully back down the ball till he gets deep enough for the easy score.

[Phoenix]

And how do you see A.I playing him offensively?

[Reggie43]

Phoenix my replies are not adressed to you just to clear it up.

[Phoenix]

It's cool but I'm just asking in general how you see it playing out when each guy has the ball.

[Reggie43]

It's cool but I'm just asking in general how you see it playing out when each guy has the ball.

He defends him for his drive and baits him to shoot long jumpers.

All im saying is that there is no clear winner here especially the fact that we dont know how they play in a one on one setting.

[tpols]

https://youtu.be/pGLo47YV_ok

Miller shoots over him for the game winner while stopping him on the other end to seal the deal.

In a one on one setting both are hard to guard but im counting on the 6'7" guy to get enough stops to win the game against the 5'11" one. But anything can happen in a one on one game lets just not make it clear cut that Iverson wins this.

damn... miller completely locked him up. anticipated his drive, cut him off and made him flop.

I always hear reggie is a non factor on defense, yet all the tape i watch he's guarding MJ, he's guarding iverson... and holding his own very well. Why are they putting such a scrub defender on AI on the most important possession? He must've volunteered it.

Bill Walton's commentary is GOAT. While iverson screams jumps and cries for a foul... Bill keeps it real. "if anything it was an offensive foul... reggie is backing up with his hand in the air"

[Roundball_Rock]

Are you going to put 6'1" Mark Jackson on 6'6" MJ instead of 6'7" Miller?

You love advanced stats...his prime OBPM is +4.5, his prime DBPM is -0.3 (in the negative 7 of 10 years). He wasn't Steve Nash but he wasn't Gary Payton either.

[Phoenix]

damn... miller completely locked him up. anticipated his drive, cut him off and made him flop.

I always hear reggie is a non factor on defense, yet all the tape i watch he's guarding MJ, he's guarding iverson... and holding his own very well. Why are they putting such a scrub defender on AI on the most important possession? He must've volunteered it.

So for someone who always talks about people cherry-picking, a single example of Reggie anticipating which way AI was going to go and does like a 'pull out the chair' move which causes Iverson to stumble. Never mind the fact that AI is at the half-court with 3 seconds left to get the ball over and into position for a shot. This is a perfectly fine analogy to you, for how a one on one plays out where A.I has the ball at the top of the key with time to size up and plan his offensive attack. You think ^ represents the norm in a one on one context between the two.

That's the thing with video clips. We've both used them and you can spin any narrative you want. We've seen Iverson cross him over once. We've seen him shoot over him twice. We've seen Reggie get the above stop. We've seen Reggie coming off a screen and hitting a 3 with A.I trailing and unable to close on time( and probably wouldn't have mattered any way given the height dispartiy). What does any of it mean in terms of one on one? Not a lot, but if you have a vested interest in one side coming out on top, and it's clear who that applies to here, there's no limit to what you'll present as 'evidence', right down to ORTg. Whatever gets you to the 'Reggie wins' finish-line.

[tpols]

Yes height matters in basketball. It always has.

[RRR3]

If Miller is able to post up like AT ALL (I assume he was if I ever saw him play it was late in his career though), Iverson would get waxed by Miller 1 on 1. Y’all have no idea how one on one works if you think otherwise. Even if he couldn’t post up he’s just gonna shoot right over him every time.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes height matters in basketball. It always has.

Which makes it odd that prime Miller averaged only 3 RPG as a 6'7" player. He peaked at 3.9. Richmond average 4 for his prime, peaked at 5.9 at 6'5". Prime Allen before averaged 5, also 6'5". Drexler was the same height and position as Miller and averaged 7 in his prime (peak of 7.9).

Rebounding may not matter for "oRTG" but you can't begin offense until you get the ball...

[tpols]

Miller's teams had plenty of goons to rebound the ball. I'm not even going to put the effort into looking what their rebounding rank was but i assume off eye test it was elite. They didn't need him wasting energy westbrook'ing defensive rebounds that could be got by those whose sole job was to get them.

[Phoenix]

This board is very long on extreme takes and short on nuance. Height absolutely plays a factor in one on one. So does speed and quickness. So does isolation skills. Put it in a blender and who leverages it best comes out on top. MJ has one of the best scoring skillsets ever. In one on one with Shaq and Shaq starts off with the ball? He'd get killed. 6-7 inches in height difference and 100 plus pounds to back him down every time. It would be like that video Kblaze dropped with Boban playing Luka. That's a physics equation.

Iverson and Reggie? 6-7 inches in height and like 20 pounds in weight. Reggie isn't 'Shaqing' AI down to within 2 feet. He obviously has the height edge to back down, spin and shoot over the top from 15 feet. He'll probably hit that 7 out of 10 times if he gets that many attempts. Or he'll face up and shoot over the top. AI will play him for the jumpshot with his hands positioned to try and disrupt his shooting space. Reggie will get his shots off, if he's on it's a long day for AI. If he's off or having an average day, it's daylight for AI. Reggie's gonna play Iverson for the drive obviously. Reggie was light and quick for a 6'7 guy. There is still a speed and quickness chasm in terms of how many times he's going to keep Iverson away from the basket. Maybe on 10 attempts he stops outright penetration 3 times and forces 3 long jumpers. Iverson wasn't a 'shooter' but he's a shotmaker. The same principles of whether his shot is on and whether he can create the separation on those 3 times he can't get past Reggie is a factor. Few players in the league historically have the footspeed to hang with 25 year old Iverson on the perimeter. Not when there's no defense behind you and you can shade him towards a spot on the floor where the defense can help. It's an island. If you have to meet a daily quota of dropping ORTg references at least do so in a situation that warrants it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Miller's teams had plenty of goons to rebound the ball. I'm not even going to put the effort into looking what their rebounding rank was but i assume off eye test it was elite. They didn't need him wasting energy westbrook'ing defensive rebounds that could be got by those whose sole job was to get them.

As if those other teams didn't have rebounders? It just is extra value when your SG is pulling down 7 instead of 3 on top of what your frontcourt is doing.

They lost a chip because, on a team that had Rodman, the opposing SG outrebounded Miller 9-0 on the glass and 5-0 on offensive boards. It isn't "wasting energy"--it is championship basketball. Your "goons" (the two Davises and Smits) had 23 boards, the opposing SF and SG had 21 themselves (not counting either of Rodman or Longley). The "goons" needed help--got 0.

[tpols]

They lost to Michael Jordan and the dynasty Bulls. In a razor thin game 7 series.

Again... if the standard for being a winner is not losing to MJ and the Bulls, everybody is a loser. It's a flimsy argument.

[Roundball_Rock]

You don't get it. If Miller grabbed 2, maybe even 1, of those boards the result is different. It was a 4 point game with about 30 seconds left. A possession here and there changes the outcome, not to mention momentum.

The go ahead FG came with Miller fumbling a ball that fell in his hands, then the guy who he was on (the guy who took the rebound from Reggie) shook him loose to nail it. Drexler would have retained that ball. Maybe Indiana scores instead of Chicago then.

Your oRTG doesn't capture any of this--the W-L column does.

"Jordan" is a convenient excuse for a lot of these guys (as if any of them won when MJ was retired). The chip was right there for the taking for other teams in 92' (Knicks, Blazers), 93' (Knicks, Suns), 97' (Jazz), 98' (Jazz, Pacers). Jordan holding up his end of the bargain doesn't mean the other team's players were forced not to.

[insidious301]

You are a good poster tpol. Why would anyone call Reggie Miller a loser when the Bulls dominated the decade. Why would Larry Brown and Larry Bird want a rail thin Miller rebounding when Rik Smits and the Davis brothers could manage. These are questions that I have not seen explained.

[Phoenix]

I mean, if Reggie had the physical make-up to board better it would have improved the teams overall rebounding and then, who knows. In the 98 series Reggie averaged 1.6 rebounds a game. If you're an NBA starter regardless of position 2 rebounds should practically drop in your lap. 'Well he lost to the GOAT' doesn't really cover how bad that is when your 6'1 PG with a 3 inch vertical can manage 4 boards.

[Roundball_Rock]

I mean, if Reggie had the physical make-up to board better it would have improved the teams overall rebounding and then, who knows. In the 98 series Reggie averaged 1.6 rebounds a game. If you're an NBA starter regardless of position 2 rebounds should practically drop in your lap. 'Well he lost to the GOAT' doesn't really cover how bad that is when your 6'1 PG with a 3 inch vertical can manage 4 boards.

It is just weird since he was 6'7". How many guards were that tall in his era?

It mattered because Chicago won the offensive glass battle 112-68. "Jordan" accounted for only 12 of those, although 12 crushed Miller's 1. Miller had the lowest rebounding percentage (2.5%) of any player in the series. Even Kerr was at 4.0%.

It is "one series" but it also was the best Indiana team, the chip was there for the taking (the Bulls were on fumes--the "percentages" for the entire team dipped compared to 97') and Miller goes 17.4/1.6/2.0--this a guy whose legacy is based on being clutch and how his team made 5 ECF's (but we aren't supposed to ask what happened in said ECF's).

[Phoenix]

I made a thread a few months ago about 98 Pacers and Jazz in the finals. I don't recall what the majority opinion was but I think that's a winnable series for Indiana. The 2000 team had nothing for peak Shaq but against Utah? That's a good series that could have gone either way.

As for other guards of the era. At the SG position it was Clyde at 6'7. And Penny if you wanted to include him. I just don't see how someone plays 40 mins in a NBA game and doesn't trip into a rebound.

[insidious301]

I mean, if Reggie had the physical make-up to board better it would have improved the teams overall rebounding and then, who knows. In the 98 series Reggie averaged 1.6 rebounds a game. If you're an NBA starter regardless of position 2 rebounds should practically drop in your lap. 'Well he lost to the GOAT' doesn't really cover how bad that is when your 6'1 PG with a 3 inch vertical can manage 4 boards.

Very fair. I don't think coaches would've asked him to rebound because of his physique, and the big players who were already around him, but a player like him can always do more.

[Roundball_Rock]

I think Indiana would have won in 98', Utah in 97'. Often people say if MJ didn't exist the Jazz would have 2 rings. I don't think so. Indiana was better than Utah that year. In 97', it is arguable if the Heat were even better than the Knicks. The Knicks were up 3-1 in the ECSF before everyone got suspended.

Yeah, and Clyde, Penny were getting a lot more boards than Miller.

[tpols]

Think about that bros... If not for the GOAT Bulls in the way, imagine Reggie winning a ring or two and undoubtedly FMVP since they 99% of the time hand it to the highest scorer on the winning team. Utah's defense was middle rank... 17th last i checked. Which for a playoff team is awful. In contrast to the Bulls defense (and rebounding) which was GOAT. Just a couple turns of the tide, shot here shot there... Reggie could've had his 2011 Dirk Nowitzki moment. All Dirk did was score, and that run made his legacy.

Nobody would ever dare compare Iverson to Dirk after 2011 but before it was fair game.

Right?

:confusedshrug: