Reggie Miller playing differently... 1995 Playoffs Knicks vs Pacers Game 3

[Reggie43]

Highlights of his makes and misses with a lot of rare plays.


https://youtu.be/qbeNU0d7NUM

[Gudo]

Aggressive game by reggie. Good share. Not used to seeing this kind of defense now.

[Reggie43]

He was hitting the floor a lot because of that agressiveness and the amount of times he whines about perceived non calls was pretty funny and classic Reggie.

[DABIGSALSISHA]

Aggressive game by reggie. Good share. Not used to seeing this kind of defense now.

There is no Defense in the NBA today. Non-existent. I miss games that were played with that 90's intensity. Pure and true Rivalries.

[Kblaze8855]

Generally speaking aggressive Reggie is more effective. And it presents an obvious issue I cant figure out why the efficiency lovers never grasp. In the end....what does it matter how efficiently you score less points than the other team?

Theres this belief that any missed shot shouldnt have been taken and all shots that went in were good and its such a surface level glance...

I think Bird explained it best when he was coaching the pacers. Reggie was asked to be aggressive and said he was....but he was 5-15....and Bird told him if he was being aggressive hed be 5 of 25. All the time there were issues like this:



Asked yesterday if he ever deferred to Kevin McHale in that type of situation, the coach of the Indiana Pacers curtly said, ''Never.''
''I told him to get his behind out there and stand, and I'll go in the post for a while,'' he said. ''Jordan is the same way. Scottie could score 6 or 8 points, but when it came down to the last two minutes of the game, you knew who was going to have the ball.
''That's what we have to do with Reggie. Reggie's got to have the ball in his hands.''
On the day the Pacers were recovering psychologically from Larry Johnson's devastating 4-point play that stole Game 3, Bird challenged his best player to return to his clutch ways. His words were spare, his demeanor matter-of-fact. But the message was clear: from one superstar to another -- behave like one.





People see highlights of game winners and think Reggie was just taking over all these games late when he was often a spectator....and being called out for it from inside and outside the team. The idea Reggie would go get the ball and take over late is a pure revisionist fabrication. Shit like this was written all the time:



''Go get the ball,'' Bird said, referring to Indiana's last ill-fated possession that ended with Mark Jackson's fumbling in the lane and releasing a difficult turnaround jump shot that fell a few inches short. ''If you have to run out there and take it out of Mark's hands, go get the ball. That's the way it is. Superstars are supposed to go and get the basketball. Reggie didn't do it last night.''


Reggie would stand there while Jackson, Travis Best, and even Haywood Workman would be deciding games.


He was specifically told that just because they focus on you....that doesnt mean you let the role players decide the game:



''Sometimes, Reggie gets in this mind-set: 'Well, they're playing well, they're moving the ball well. I come off the pick, they're going to double-team me, so let's let them play and go ahead and finish this game out,' '' Bird said. ''But you don't do that.''


20 years later we have efficiency whores posting shooting numbers like 6/9 overall 2/3 from 3 and 4/4 from the line means you had an incredible game when your team had like 83 points and lost with you unable or unwilling to come get the ball for key baskets. Actual coach says:




''I can remember back when they were in the Eastern Conference finals, when I wasn't coaching,'' Bird said. ''I'd watch and look in the paper and say: 'Wow, Miller just shot 12 times. You can't win games with Miller shooting 12 times.' Well, now I'm in it and he's shooting 9. So it shows what I've done.''




Dudes posting ortg and TS acting like that makes a performance dominant.

Truth is....a Reggie who missed more shots might actually have been more effective.....but you have to think it through past the math and some just arent willing to do that.

Multiple coaches, teammates, and Reggie himself have talked about his lack of aggression costing them. Fans praise it like being unselfish counts on the scoreboard when youre deferring to guys not built to score under duress. Yea....guy is open....give him the ball. But Reggie wouldnt even have the ball to give. He might bail on a possession and stand still when the back pick didnt free him with 9 seconds on the clock. IF Smits isnt in now its some non scorer left to pound the ball for 6 seconds of confusion then hoist a bad shot Reggie would be more likely to make himself even if it being a bad shot....would over time lower his efficiency.

It both makes you more efficient...and the team worse.

Reggie didnt have the handles to be a guy you always played through....but he likely should have been more active at times. He wore people out running around but often to no result as hed bail on plays that didnt get him open as if he were Kyle Korver(who did have many plays run for him on the Hawks).

Stir like....a dash of AI/Kobe into Reggie....you get a better player with worse efficiency I think. He wasnt a Kobe type but his bag was deep enough to not chill out and let(relative) scrubs decide plays so often. Thats what older posters mean when we say hed go ghost. A well defended Reggie might not even make an effort to get involved. It does help your standing when nerds shift analysis to efficiency numbers only but it does not help Travis Best on an island one on one with the clock running down.

Reggie shouldnt have been an ISO attacker but he should have been more aggressive at what he could do. Reggie had 25 a night talent held to 19 or so due to unselfishness and occasionally showing its head in the playoffs when he should have been playoff Reggie(aggression wise) every night and stepped it up from there. Brown was right to stop him doing some of his early career 1 on 1 shit to focus on Smits more but when he transitioned to an off the ball guy....he didnt have to stop looking for his shot.

Not shooting isnt as helpful to a team with middling to low offensive talent as efficiency whores think it is.

[fourkicks44]

Generally speaking aggressive Reggie is more effective. And it presents an obvious issue I cant figure out why the efficiency lovers never grasp. In the end....what does it matter how efficiently you score less points than the other team?

Theres this belief that any missed shot shouldnt have been taken and all shots that went in were good and its such a surface level glance...

I think Bird explained it best when he was coaching the pacers. Reggie was asked to be aggressive and said he was....but he was 5-15....and Bird told him if he was being aggressive hed be 5 of 25. All the time there were issues like this:







People see highlights of game winners and think Reggie was just taking over all these games late when he was often a spectator....and being called out for it from inside and outside the team. The idea Reggie would go get the ball and take over late is a pure revisionist fabrication. Shit like this was written all the time:





Reggie would stand there while Jackson, Travis Best, and even Haywood Workman would be deciding games.


He was specifically told that just because they focus on you....that doesnt mean you let the role players decide the game:





20 years later we have efficiency whores posting shooting numbers like 6/9 overall 2/3 from 3 and 4/4 from the line means you had an incredible game when your team had like 83 points and lost with you unable or unwilling to come get the ball for key baskets. Actual coach says:







Dudes posting ortg and TS acting like that makes a performance dominant.

Truth is....a Reggie who missed more shots might actually have been more effective.....but you have to think it through past the math and some just arent willing to do that.

Multiple coaches, teammates, and Reggie himself have talked about his lack of aggression costing them. Fans praise it like being unselfish counts on the scoreboard when youre deferring to guys not built to score under duress. Yea....guy is open....give him the ball. But Reggie wouldnt even have the ball to give. He might bail on a possession and stand still when the back pick didnt free him with 9 seconds on the clock. IF Smits isnt in now its some non scorer left to pound the ball for 6 seconds of confusion then hoist a bad shot Reggie would be more likely to make himself even if it being a bad shot....would over time lower his efficiency.

It both makes you more efficient...and the team worse.

Reggie didnt have the handles to be a guy you always played through....but he likely should have been more active at times. He wore people out running around but often to no result as hed bail on plays that didnt get him open as if he were Kyle Korver(who did have many plays run for him on the Hawks).

Stir like....a dash of AI/Kobe into Reggie....you get a better player with worse efficiency I think. He wasnt a Kobe type but his bag was deep enough to not chill out and let(relative) scrubs decide plays so often. Thats what older posters mean when we say hed go ghost. A well defended Reggie might not even make an effort to get involved. It does help your standing when nerds shift analysis to efficiency numbers only but it does not help Travis Best on an island one on one with the clock running down.

Reggie shouldnt have been an ISO attacker but he should have been more aggressive at what he could do. Reggie had 25 a night talent held to 19 or so due to unselfishness and occasionally showing its head in the playoffs when he should have been playoff Reggie(aggression wise) every night and stepped it up from there. Brown was right to stop him doing some of his early career 1 on 1 shit to focus on Smits more but when he transitioned to an off the ball guy....he didnt have to stop looking for his shot.

Not shooting isnt as helpful to a team with middling to low offensive talent as efficiency whores think it is.

Bravo, Kblaze.:applause:

Well overdue take

[Kblaze8855]

Ive always felt it was pretty obvious but efficiency whores have been arguing shooting numbers here for 20 years without understanding. Doesnt matter if the subject is Jordan or a step down with Kobe or down to AI or Reggie or Ben Gordon....whoever it is. The bad shots they might take are often in place of bad shots taken by others who are even less likely to make them. Even a Jordan or Kobe might shoot 47% in a season...which counts dunks...layups...comfortable in rhythm one on one pullups they convert at a great rate. Obviously when they miss most shots overall a huge percentage of the "bad" shots must miss. But if Jordan misses 60% of them...Kobe 65....AI 69...the issue isnt those shots lowering their numbers. The issue is....what would Randy Brown, Smush Parker, or Eric Snow miss? 75-90%?

Volume scorers who get those shots up often shoot worse while preventing even less likely shots from being taken and theres no way to account for the value of a shot not being taken by someone worse. Over time....a lot of it....you put lesser guys in that position often enough they get better at it. Young guys especially. Established vets? Not so much. It just isnt everyones game. Give me AI taking an ugly pullup over Lue over Eric Snow trying to take Kobe one on one or George Lynch facing up to create something. AI will probably miss...Snow is nearly certain to...but how do you account for that when AI is 10-24 and Snow 2-6 when the alternative is AI 10-22 and Snow 2-8?

Some people are built to score and some arent. And sure some role players cant find a way to help when they dont get the ball. They get disinterested and chill. Some move.....cut....pass...set screens....take the open ones when they have to. You have to know your roster. A scorer with a gang of guys comfortable chilling cant keep putting them in bad spots just because its personally efficient to pass up bad shots in favor of a teammates worse one.

There isnt one "right" way which is why Larry Brown....Mr "Play the right way" himself was yelling at AI to keep shooting when hed be 4-16 entering the 4th.

The right way is the shot most likely to have a good outcome....score...get fouled. Often a stars bad shot....is the right one compared to the other options. Its so clear even on lower levels. Theres always dudes who cant score being left open. The guy who can doesnt just give him the ball and hope he learns on the fly. You can call that being a ballhog but in real life....its not being an idiot.

Paul Pierce can miss the **** outta that 18 foot fadeaway. Walter Mccarty was gonna miss it anyway....Paul at least may have drawn a foul.

[Reggie43]

I dont really see anything wrong with how he plays especially in the playoffs where he is much more agressive compared to the regular season. When he was coached by Bird they had their deepest and best team ever so him trying to set up teammates to promote chemistry and teamball shouldnt be deemed as a negative because those are pretty good players in their own right and Miller himself is already a few steps out of his prime at 32-33 iirc.

[Kblaze8855]

There was nothing “wrong” in how Reggie played. He’s in the hall of fame. There’s nothing inherently wrong in how anyone great manages to get to being great. These right and wrong things are what the issue is to me. It’s too absolute. There are degrees. Aspects of Reggies approach would help some and aspects of others would help Reggie.

It isn’t as simple as him or a Kobe type being right or wrong. They are all great to begin with. Starting there....it’s more of an issue of finding a sweet spot for specific situations and teams. And being too unselfish can hinder teams just as much as being too aggressive.

Steve Nash is probably another one. He’s said so himself. He was too good a shooter to shoot so little even if his efficiency was otherworldly. It happens.

Reggies teams were gonna lose anyway usually and they had plenty of good but largely irrelevant runs(Like the Celtics recently who have made 3 ecf trips nobody cares about). So it’s not like I’m saying if he took more shots they win 2 rings. I’m saying him not taking shots obviously wasn’t getting them over the hump when often offense was the issue. I’m saying when you’re Reggie Miller and the other guy is Haywood Workman maybe you go get the ball when the play didn’t spring you.

Im not saying doing one thing makes the team a dynasty...I’m saying doing the other thing isn’t always right either. It just makes numbers look good for people who decide to value them. I’m saying efficiently scoring less points than needed doesn’t really....matter. When there’s nobody to pick up the slack when you aren’t involved maybe....stay involved. Even at the cost of some misses someone else was probably gonna miss anyway.

[Reggie43]

What would have been the perfect approach for him? Any specific player? Would the team really have been more successful if he took away shots from Smits, Davis Bros, Mckey etc? Its not as if he refuses to shoot to protect his efficiency its just how he really plays.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t know why you even mentioned the Davis brothers or Mckey. Mckey specifically had an even worse case of too unselfish than Reggie. He would absolutely chill for like....4 games at a time. I’m sure you recall. And of course Reggie wasn’t doing it to protect his efficiency. Next to nobody cared about nonsense like that back then. It was just his nature. And no they wouldn’t win anyway. I say what I say for the same reason Bird did. You don’t let teams remove you from plays because you aren’t open. Saying “Sometimes the superstar needs to go get the ball” doesn’t mean their teams would win titles if they do. It means it isn’t the best basketball to watch worse players in a bad position just because it isn’t your nature to attack.

No matter what anyone does all but one team will lose and most of the great players won’t play a single game that matters the whole season.

But the approach can still be refined. Even hopeless teams should look for ways to do better with every situation likely to present itself.

[Kblaze8855]

Let me alter my take on Mckey actually. He would chill for long periods of time....as a scorer. He was exactly the kinda player who didn’t need or care to score and wouldn’t let it change his effort level. He’d do everything well on the floor....on both ends...and just not shoot.

Didnt wanna throw dirt on his name like he wasn’t trying....he just didn’t choose to score....though he could. He played the “right” way....to a fault.

[Reggie43]

I dont really see how giving the ball to Smits to exploit a better matchup is a bad idea or giving the ball to Dale/Antonio Davis when they are covered by someone like Kukoc. He is still in the play by spacing the floor for those guys to prevent the double team.

Would the Pacers have been competitive against the Bulls in that one playoff series if they relied too much on one player to be their "superstar"? Miller was hobbled by an ankle injury mid series and without the strong play of Smits, the Davis boys etc. they would probably have lost early but those guys gave the Pacers a chance to win.

Miller would probably turn Smits into Ilgauskas if he had a different approach to the game.

[3ball]

.
95' Miller vs Magic...'... 25.9 on 52%
95' Pippen vs Magic.... 19.0 on 40%

94' Miller vs Knicks...'... 24.7 on 44%
94' Pippen vs Knicks.... 21.7 on 40%

00' Miller vs Lakers...'... 24.3 on 41%
00' Pippen vs Lakers.... 15.1 on 41%


MJ and Curry, I mean Miller would've been unbeatable.

Miller routinely averaged 27 and 29 against the Celtics and all the best teams in the playoffs.. with goat efficiency and clutch..

[tpols]

.
95' Miller vs Magic...'... 25.9 on 52%
95' Pippen vs Magic.... 19.0 on 40%

94' Miller vs Knicks...'... 24.7 on 44%
94' Pippen vs Knicks.... 21.7 on 40%

00' Miller vs Lakers...'... 24.3 on 41%
00' Pippen vs Lakers.... 15.1 on 41%


MJ and Curry, I mean Miller would've been unbeatable.

Miller routinely averaged 27 and 29 against the Celtics and all the best teams in the playoffs.. with goat efficiency and clutch..

You're not really giving Reggie his due though because of how good his 3pt and FT shooting were. Can't just use FG% for somebody whose so prolific scoring outside 2 pt shots. His umbrella efficiency and volume blow Pippen's away... which is why it's funny people complain he didn't score more. 24 PPG in a low scoring era for over a decade in the playoffs is no joke... Pippen couldn't even peak at Reggie's averages over 100+ game sample size.

[999Guy]

I dont really see how giving the ball to Smits to exploit a better matchup is a bad idea or giving the ball to Dale/Antonio Davis when they are covered by someone like Kukoc. He is still in the play by spacing the floor for those guys to prevent the double team.

Would the Pacers have been competitive against the Bulls in that one playoff series if they relied too much on one player to be their "superstar"? Miller was hobbled by an ankle injury mid series and without the strong play of Smits, the Davis boys etc. they would probably have lost early but those guys gave the Pacers a chance to win.

Miller would probably turn Smits into Ilgauskas if he had a different approach to the game.

Which people don’t understand.



Iverson got more efficient on less volume when he played next to Carmelo, but it would only make sense to do so.
Reggie has the ideal game for actually winning. Which is why his teams overachieved quite often.

Reggie’s IMPACT was better than his stats. The idea that a guy with that much off-ball gravity didn’t matter for any possessions except the ones he shot the ball or drew a foul is stupid.

Reggie was the Shaq of guards with how much stress he put on defenses without the ball and made his teammates way better than if he played like current Devin Booker.

But this is fundamentally different ideas about basketball we are talking about. I’m arguing against thirty or so years of PPG worship, with some Jordan and AND1 era propaganda thrown in there.

I mean think about it practically. If you had two Iverson’s on one team, you’re in deep shit. Neither is gonna play their best next to each other.

Somebody’s gonna suffer. Role players will suffer.

If you had two prime Reggie Miller’s? You are in coaching and scheming heaven in every single era of basketball, literally.

You have an offensive cheat code. And their games would mesh and have synergy for the whole roster. Two Reggie’s at the 2 and 3 with traditional guys like Jackson and Smits rounding out the roster? You are gonna be despicable in half court sets. And in today’s game, absolute hell in transition too.

Think about why all that is true, and that would answer any questions on how and why Reggie was underrated, is high-as-hell on impact, and is ideal for actually winning in any level.

[tpols]

Reggie’s IMPACT was better than his stats.

And his stats are already GOAT for his position. And he contextually used to hit the big shots. Play unselfishly, and with extreme competitive fire. Just an unbelievably underrated player because most people are dumb and only think what you do dribbling the ball matters, or how cool your game looks mattering more than effectiveness.

[Kblaze8855]

For one....the team took 50 shots a game outside Smits and Reggie at the time in question so I don’t know how you reach the conclusion that Reggie taking a few has to come from Smits....

Not to mention better duos than that have been fine with both taking more shots than either ever did. Plus Smits played like 25 minutes a game. None of Reggies teammates between Person and peak Rose would be any hindrance to him being a more consistently aggressive scorer. He just didn’t choose to do it. And that’s fine.

Nash didn’t either. Not everyone does. But his inability or hesitation was remarked upon but multiple coaches he had. Brown and Bird at least. But the very same quality....absolutely helped his efficiency. Overall point being that not everything that makes your scoring more statistically efficient is the right thing to do or more effective short term or long.

Not shooting when you aren’t open is correct....till nobody is open and someone has to do it anyway. There’s a time and place for everything and he often left something on the table when his team wasn’t scoring.

He was too good to be taking 10-11 shots in a close loss....but it wasn’t shocking to see. He just wasn’t prone to chasing it. And like I said...that’s great. Right up to the moment it isn’t.

[Kblaze8855]

And his stats are already GOAT for his position. And he contextually used to hit the big shots. Play unselfishly, and with extreme competitive fire. Just an unbelievably underrated player because most people are dumb and only think what you do dribbling the ball matters, or how cool your game looks mattering more than effectiveness.


And Professor and Hot sauce are genius players while Giannis is bad at basketball. Keep talking about substance though.

[DoctorP]

Highlights of his makes and misses with a lot of rare plays.


https://youtu.be/qbeNU0d7NUM

This is some sloppy, ugly basketball. Am I watching Rugby? I'd much rather watch 2000's basketball. Glad they opened the game up even if it has gotten a little over the top.

Miller was nothing special. Ray Allen was so much better with his 3ball.

[3ball]

.

Miller was nothing special.





It's hard for a shooter like Miller to be special at 4 to 5 three-point attempts per game

Curry wasn't shit at that volume either - he was a 19 ppg scorer for 3 straight years until the league format changed to a 3-point contest, thereby doubling his three-point volume and stats

Otoh, Miller didn't have a league format that fit his style, yet he still increased his scoring to 24 ppg in the playoffs with many deep, legendary runs (despite never having any star help)

[mehyaM24]

anyone who thinks iverson was better than miller needs their head examined. back then i could understand it. but NOW with stats at your disposal, playoff results and valued impact? no excuse for that buffoonery.

[DoctorP]

It's hard for a shooter like Miller to be special at 4 to 5 three-point attempts per game

Curry wasn't shit at that volume either - he was a 19 ppg scorer for 3 straight years until the league format changed to a 3-point contest, thereby doubling his three-point volume and stats

Otoh, Miller didn't have a league format that fit his style, yet he still increased his scoring to 24 ppg in the playoffs with many deep, legendary runs (despite never having any star help)

Pacers were a well oiled defensive machine. Rik Smits was a star and the Davis boys were tough. Meh. Not a Miller fan. He had his moments, the 3s at the last minute against the Knicks were amazing. Hell yeah Iverson was much better than Miller.

[mehyaM24]

miller outplayed iverson in their playoff matchups too. iverson averaged 28 to millers 26, but reggie shot 49/43/93 from the field compared to iverson's 39/21/78 :oldlol: most importantly though, millers teams went 9-4 in their h2h's.

[Rysio]

anyone who thinks iverson was better than miller needs their head examined. back then i could understand it. but NOW with stats at your disposal, playoff results and valued impact? no excuse for that buffoonery.

Iverson probably had more 40 point games in 1 season than reggie Miller did his entire career. Reggie Miller is now better than iverson lol only a dumb stat nerd would think that.

[mehyaM24]

Iverson probably had more 40 point games in 1 season than reggie Miller did his entire career. Reggie Miller is now better than iverson lol only a dumb stat nerd would think that.

miller was the best shooter of his era, a better defender & outproduced iverson in their playoff matchups.

you're a clown.

[DoctorP]

miller outplayed iverson in their playoff matchups too. iverson averaged 28 to millers 26, but reggie shot 49/43/93 from the field compared to iverson's 39/21/78 :oldlol: most importantly though, millers teams went 9-4 in their h2h's.

Iversons FG % was always shit, he was a volume shooter and had a worse team around him. Still a better player though and he wasn't even in his prime when he went vs Miller.

[3ball]

Pacers were a well oiled defensive machine. Rik Smits was a star and the Davis boys were tough. Meh. Not a Miller fan. He had his moments, the 3s at the last minute against the Knicks were amazing. Hell yeah Iverson was much better than Miller.


^^^ For anyone else, that's considered garbage help

The reality is that 3-point shooters like Miller or Curry don't need much help because getting an extra point on shots yields an effective brand of ball.. Klay/Dray certainly isn't 70-win help, but they're sufficient if you have a strategy edge on the league.

[mehyaM24]

Iversons FG % was always shit, he was a volume shooter and had a worse team around him. Still a better player though and he wasn't even in his prime when he went vs Miller.

based on what? miller had better raw numbers in the playoffs & better impact numbers across the board. because of his shooting & off-ball ability. basically miller's game was more valuable.

miller's teams also have a winning record against iversons teams. and no, you're wrong. iverson WAS in his prime. miller outplayed him in 2000 & 2001. that's PEAK iverson.

[DoctorP]

based on what? miller had better raw numbers in the playoffs & better impact numbers across the board. because of his shooting & off-ball ability. basically miller's game was more valuable.

miller's teams also have a winning record against iversons teams. and no, you're wrong. iverson WAS in his prime. miller outplayed him in 2000 & 2001. that's PEAK iverson.

Miller was on a better team and had to do less so it doesnt shock me that he had better efficiency numbers. I saw plenty of Iverson and know without looking at the numbers that he was a better player. Call it the eye test. I respectfully disagree. Agree to disagree. I will never take Miller over Iverson if given the chance. Maybe in a 3 point competition but that's it.

[999Guy]

Iversons FG % was always shit, he was a volume shooter and had a worse team around him. Still a better player though and he wasn't even in his prime when he went vs Miller.

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

[DoctorP]

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

Care to post any vids of this so called domination for us non stat nerds?

[mehyaM24]

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

https://media.tenor.com/images/c3d1320cc434373ed81d20f7a115f52f/tenor.gif

[999Guy]

Care to post any vids of this so called domination for us non stat nerds?

Is this your way of questioning that it happened? How could my getting the highlight videos ITT change the fact that you said the lousiest argument phrase ever, ‘agree to disagree’, and said the eye test is what you go by? Which is to say we both know you won’t accept any evidence showing Miller outplaying Iverson.

[DoctorP]

Is this your way of questioning that it happened? How could my getting the highlight videos ITT change the fact that you said the lousiest argument phrase ever, ‘agree to disagree’, and said the eye test is what you go by? Which is to say we both know you won’t accept any evidence showing Miller outplaying Iverson.

because I concede the technical argument, have no time or will to research any stats and want to watch the videos. Can you not understand that? I would take the video evidence as is.

[DoctorP]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/9SIXFu7bIUYHhFc19G/giphy.gif

[999Guy]

because I concede the technical argument, have no time or will to research any stats and want to watch the videos. Can you not understand that? I would take the video evidence as is.

Why would a highlight video give you more information than stats?

We’re not even talking a game.

If Iverson shoots 47 TS% while another guy does 67 TS% on more volume it’s up to you to tell me how that could possibly mislead anyone on who had a better series.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2000-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-76ers-vs-pacers.html

[DoctorP]

Why would a highlight video give you more information than stats?

We’re not even talking a game.

If Iverson shooting 47 TS% while another guy does 67 TS% on more volume it’s up to you to tell me how that could possibly mislead anyone.

let me know if you find a full game. i want to dissect it.

[Reggie43]

Yeah there is no denying that he should have shot more especially in the regular season but I think he had a pretty good balance in the playoffs even if there would be years he would leave a lot in the table for being unselfish/not agressive enough but he would usually make up for it the next year by playing at a higher intensity.

He may not have had the perfect approach but he had decent success with it outside of winning a ring and would prefer that style of play compared to similar level guys gunning for 20+ shots a night with their teammates reduced to spectators resulting in bad team chemistry.

[90sgoat]

The reason people put Iverson so high, is because watching him play told you way more, than looking at the stats.

Iverson was just a phenom, a relentless attacker, so difficult to plan for and warrior.

His issue was quite simple: shot selection.

He made Kobe look like Stockton. Iverson would just take the worst shots at all times. Long 2s mostly early in the shot clock.

It's why they moved him to shooting guard and then he'd play great off ball in the first half, but would want to take over in the second and begin just bombing away long 2s in the second half.

Had he played today, he would the biggest name, no doubt. 40ppg, easy.

[tpols]

And Professor and Hot sauce are genius players while Giannis is bad at basketball. Keep talking about substance though.

I might've said they had genius skill... which they do. They do things with the ball that take stupid creativity and skill... dribbling, passing etc. I never said they'd be more more effective NBA players. Giannis is like 7 foot 245 lbs of pure muscle and can run like a deer. He's good because of his rare athleticism... not his basketball skill. Which is what I called bad btw... you took that out of context.

You simply underrate Reggie for some reason and the Iverson analysis is the most obvious example of how badly the media brainwashed you into thinking Iverson was better, when Reggie scored the same amount of points basically on way, way, way higher efficiency. If Iverson is missing an extra 7 shots a game, even if his teammates suck and shoot like shit.. 2/7 ~ 28%, that's an extra 4 or 6 points. And that could be the difference in the game. I mean... it's not even close. And unlike Giannis you cant point to defense and rebounding. All he was is entertainment and money. His game sold, it wasn't nearly as effective.

[Kblaze8855]

The exact words you said:


he is the perfect example of nba marketing making a player greater than he seems...

like imagine this dude under all different types of rule sets, ones where for instance no 3 seconds in the lane which is a blatant money grab rule to make athletic players appear good at basketball..

analyze his skillset in a vacuum, hes not even really good at basketball.



Entirely in context. Entire post.



He would be dikembe mutumbo in past eras which is still nice, but he's gotten a huge boost from today's era of spacing, monopolizing, and palming.


Giannis in the 80s west that ran like they do today only played less defense.....would be mutombo. A guy literally gliding entirely over defenders dunking alleys is gonna be stiff ass Dikembe(as if Mutombo were bad himself....but of course you dont acknowledge defense despite considering yourself a serious fan).



You make jackass points that disregard the total game all day everyday because you break down the game like a child. So And 1 players who specialize in fancy illegal moves for a show while routinely getting eaten by dudes from the Y(ive seen and 1 in person) have genius skill. Throwing the ball in a circle under your jersey and dribbling with your feet may be amusing sideshow skills....but they arent basketball ones any more than kicking the ball in which ive seen some do as well. Either it can apply to a game or it cant. The ref/announcer yelling "No holding!" to embarrass defenders into not playing any serious defense so guys can do fancy moves doesnt make you good no matter how spectacular your are in selected clips of it working. Those guys dribbled out of bounds all the time. Couldnt shoot. Would get guys playing D pulled from the game for ruining the show. Saw some of them at the absolute height of that nonsense. Theres a reason they sold mixtapes and not full games. Half the shit didnt work. THey toured all over with the real and post breakup teams and after 5 minutes you realize its garbage to impress 12 year olds. And you. They were not the harlem globetrotters...who beat the lakers in a real game. They were a circus.

But thats how you evaluate basketball skill at times. Fancy moves over effective total game....then turn around and talk about the media making people think AI was good as if every player and coach didnt reach the same conclusion.

You pretty much troll in whatever direction needed at the moment. You ignore whatever skills are needed to advance the trolling of the day. Praise and 1 dudes as having genius skill one day then act like Mr purity the next almost always ignoring defense entirely unless you need to lean on it to troll the other way. The one thing I can count on from you is taking the most extreme approach to whatever point youre trying to make at the expense of all fairness.

[Kblaze8855]

Miller was on a better team and had to do less so it doesnt shock me that he had better efficiency numbers.


One weird thing to me....the insistance by many that Reggie didnt have really good teams. Especially when its so often coming from people who harp on how not everything is ppg.

For a few years there Reggie had the prime version of like 5 all stars.....none of which were the guy 3 HOF coaches from the time said was the teams best player. The team in the OP had 5 people who played in all star games and Reggie was the oldest of them. The youngest was 25. So ALL of these people were prime ages. Reggie had a whole squad of low end all stars/very good players most of them playing a game that suited him perfectly. Hes out there with the guy who retired with the second most assists ever, not one, not 2, but 3 low end all star centers, a guy I believe was second in 6th man of the year voting as like...the 8th man....and Mckey who the coach of the team, Phi Jackson, and George Karl all called the best player on the team.

Derrick Mckey was like 6'9'' and could guard the entire NBA. Hed press guards full court on the Sonics, turned around and guarded Hakeem and Barkley types, could pass better than many guards(Reggie among them)....multiple time all D guy.

Nobody even knows who that is.

He and 4 others who were low end all star level were out there with Reggie getting absolutely no recognition for the same reason people on here think Reggie is underrated now....fans not seeing how PPG isnt everything.

You would figure people saying shit like:


But this is fundamentally different ideas about basketball we are talking about. I’m arguing against thirty or so years of PPG worship, with some Jordan and AND1 era propaganda thrown in there.




Would be repping the entire Pacers squad.

Being better than your PPG could be said of like....the 8 best players on every Pacers team from maybe 94-01. Bunch of hard working guys who specialized in non ppg contributions other than Smits who simply didnt have the body to be played big minutes when he had so much help in the frontcourt anyway.

The pacers had some of the deepest squads in the NBA they just didnt have guys with eye popping point totals.

Vince Carter at his peak was trying to get by with Reggies former 7th man as his all star sidekick years past his prime.

By the standards of the late 90s Reggie had a more than solid squad. None of them washed up or young up and comers. Straight prime veterans who could all play and proved they could contribute at a high level. That was among the better constructed teams in the nba. Theres a reason they nearly knocked off the Bulls with Reggie barely showing up. They came at you a lot of ways no matter what Reggie did. Smits was out there playing Ewing like a straight up equal at times. Hell he doubled Ewings scoring in the game OP posted.

That was a total team and at the time the person getting the most credit for it was Larry Brown. Things just morph a lot in retrospect and the big names get bigger and the guys doing the little things get lost in the shuffle. But there were no one year wonders on those teams. No has beens or one days. All long term good veteran players who knew how to win. The pacers were as far from Reggie and some guys as it gets. It was some guys....and Reggie was one of them. The most historically prominent because only scoring gets ESPN specials....but he was more of a first among equals than some kinda straight up leader of those teams. Im not sure Mark Jackson being swapped for an average numbskull point wouldnt hurt them as much as swapping out Reggie some of those years. Prime mark was more than his 10/9 or whatever he might average.

That team minus Reggie, Jackson, or Smits wouldnt have been worth following many of those years.

[Reggie43]

I dont wholeheartedly agree but its nice to see someone giving the other Pacers players their due.

I would rather have guys criticize Millers game than people overly praising him too much while trashing his teammates in the process.

[tpols]

Entirely in context. Entire post.


So you go out of your way to find a post to disprove where I said it was about his skill... and your evidence has me directly saying it was about his skill lmao.

And nah... Reggie's help historically was nothing special. The best player he ever played with was Rik Smits. People just don't win championships with only Rik Smits as their 2nd best player historically. You can count the years down, it would be a rare event.

[72-10]

Reggie the "Knick Killer" lit up the Knicks nightly in playoff bouts like he lit up the league, nightly. From long mid-range and threes mostly coming off double picks in an offensive system with him as the pivotal player. I agree there has rarely been a star player with as little help as Reg. And most 30 point playoff games against the Knicks this side of MJ. The only shooters on Reggie's level are a guy given the green light Stephen Curry and maybe Ray Allen, who often played alongside another stellar shooter such as Glenn Robinson or Rashard Lewis. And Reggie, like MJ, was clearly one of the best off the ball. Always knew how to get square with the basket. All whilst going through an army of the game's best perimeter defenders - Payton, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Dumars, Thomas, Mason. He's one of the few guys that could take out a team, and it was with shooting, what is clearly the hardest skill.

But how can you say Reggie's game had no flaws? He was a known flopper, he wasn't brilliant at creating scoring opportunities off the dribble with the ball, and he didn't play much defense. He needed that system to do as well as he did, but I don't think I've ever seen a player thrive as well by a system, and I don't think any other player could do what he did on the court.

[Reggie43]

For those who dont understand what type of team those Pacers were they are basically an earlier version of the 2004 Pistons with better offense but not as good defensively. They had great depth and excellent chemistry on both ends. Judging a team like that based on only two players (Miller/Smits) is like calling those Pistons Ben and Chauncey's team when Rip and Rasheed deserve as much credit for their success. While there would be years that Miller and Smits would look better it is hard to overlook the contributions of Dale/Antonio, Mckey, Jackson and even Jalen Rose at the end of their run.

[Reggie43]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4231bab898f19090f4206de44d206225/tenor.gif?itemid=21290078

Just another rare play from the same series in 1995 grabbed off Maxamillion17's new Miller video

[Lebron23]

Generally speaking aggressive Reggie is more effective. And it presents an obvious issue I cant figure out why the efficiency lovers never grasp. In the end....what does it matter how efficiently you score less points than the other team?

Theres this belief that any missed shot shouldnt have been taken and all shots that went in were good and its such a surface level glance...

I think Bird explained it best when he was coaching the pacers. Reggie was asked to be aggressive and said he was....but he was 5-15....and Bird told him if he was being aggressive hed be 5 of 25. All the time there were issues like this:





People see highlights of game winners and think Reggie was just taking over all these games late when he was often a spectator....and being called out for it from inside and outside the team. The idea Reggie would go get the ball and take over late is a pure revisionist fabrication. Shit like this was written all the time:





Reggie would stand there while Jackson, Travis Best, and even Haywood Workman would be deciding games.


He was specifically told that just because they focus on you....that doesnt mean you let the role players decide the game:





20 years later we have efficiency whores posting shooting numbers like 6/9 overall 2/3 from 3 and 4/4 from the line means you had an incredible game when your team had like 83 points and lost with you unable or unwilling to come get the ball for key baskets. Actual coach says:







Dudes posting ortg and TS acting like that makes a performance dominant.

Truth is....a Reggie who missed more shots might actually have been more effective.....but you have to think it through past the math and some just arent willing to do that.

Multiple coaches, teammates, and Reggie himself have talked about his lack of aggression costing them. Fans praise it like being unselfish counts on the scoreboard when youre deferring to guys not built to score under duress. Yea....guy is open....give him the ball. But Reggie wouldnt even have the ball to give. He might bail on a possession and stand still when the back pick didnt free him with 9 seconds on the clock. IF Smits isnt in now its some non scorer left to pound the ball for 6 seconds of confusion then hoist a bad shot Reggie would be more likely to make himself even if it being a bad shot....would over time lower his efficiency.

It both makes you more efficient...and the team worse.

Reggie didnt have the handles to be a guy you always played through....but he likely should have been more active at times. He wore people out running around but often to no result as hed bail on plays that didnt get him open as if he were Kyle Korver(who did have many plays run for him on the Hawks).

Stir like....a dash of AI/Kobe into Reggie....you get a better player with worse efficiency I think. He wasnt a Kobe type but his bag was deep enough to not chill out and let(relative) scrubs decide plays so often. Thats what older posters mean when we say hed go ghost. A well defended Reggie might not even make an effort to get involved. It does help your standing when nerds shift analysis to efficiency numbers only but it does not help Travis Best on an island one on one with the clock running down.

Reggie shouldnt have been an ISO attacker but he should have been more aggressive at what he could do. Reggie had 25 a night talent held to 19 or so due to unselfishness and occasionally showing its head in the playoffs when he should have been playoff Reggie(aggression wise) every night and stepped it up from there. Brown was right to stop him doing some of his early career 1 on 1 shit to focus on Smits more but when he transitioned to an off the ball guy....he didnt have to stop looking for his shot.

Not shooting isnt as helpful to a team with middling to low offensive talent as efficiency whores think it is.

I agree. Anyway Reggie Miller was one of my favorite players in NBA live 1998 to 2001. I traded him to the Sixers to pair him with Allen Iverson

[PerkinsFor3]

It really helps preception to have huge games against the Knicks.

[TheGoatest]

For those who dont understand what type of team those Pacers were they are basically an earlier version of the 2004 Pistons with better offense but not as good defensively.

:roll:

This dude was basically Schwarzenegger with more height but not as much muscle mass:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/shawn-bradley-of-the-philadelphia-76ers-looks-on-against-the-kings-picture-id457598386?s=612x612

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/C0SnfL14p98?si=RzvtYO8-8A8mtxWg