Reggie Miller Only Made Two Consecutive All-Star Appearances

[L.Kizzle]

Reggie Miller was a five time All-Star in his 18 year career but only two of those selections were in consecutive seasons. 1995 and 1996.

Reggie was also an All-Star the following seasons:
1990 All-Star
1998 All-Star
2000 All-Star

The 1994 All-Star game was the season that Michael Jordan was playing baseball.
This also might be the weakest selection of guards for the mid-season classic.

The East starting guards were two 1st timers in BJ Armstrong and Kenny Anderson. The reserves were a few regulars Mark Price and future Hall of Famer Joe Dumars. John Starks and Mookie Blaylock rounded out the guards for the East. How the hell did Reggie Miller not get selected as a guard for that season?

[tpols]

Because he was supremely underrated due to a non athletic game. Nerdy looking skinny loud mouth... not marketable back then and played in a nobody city.

If Reggie played for the Knicks in Madison Square with Ewing they'd have won chips and he'd have 10x more accolades.

The advanced playoff metrics don't lie.

[iamgine]

Reggie Miller was the Jamal Murray of his era. Decent in the regular season, turn into a beast in the playoff.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Reggie Miller was never a big time scorer. We remember him because he hit big shots in the postseason, especially against the Knicks. Got into it with Spike Lee. In 94 he was likely averaging around 20 points because through his prime that was the level he was generally around. He wasn't the clutch legend he became that a few years later. Him missing the all star game would be like a 22 ppg scorer missing it today, has a legit argument to be made but when you try and figure out which guard he's better than it's not a clear-cut argument.

[dankok8]

It's really puzzling. Reggie should have made about 10 all-star teams EASILY. He was a top 15 or so player from about 1990 to 2001.

Reggie put up much worse stats in the regular season most of his career and then exploded in the playoffs. There was no internet back in the day and his season numbers just didn't look impressive and so he was snubbed. That's my explanation.

[tpols]

Reggie Miller was the Jamal Murray of his era. Decent in the regular season, turn into a beast in the playoff.

This is another good reason. Reggie upped his game in the playoffs and had the highest points scored in the 90s playoffs only behind Hakeem, MJ, Barkley, and Malone. And on better efficiency than all of them besides Sir Charles and Jordan.

[tpols]

Reggie Miller was never a big time scorer.


:roll:

How does a clown become a mod?

[Phoenix]

Ah, the first of two annual Reggie threads that goes 10 pages with the same forces arguing over what he was and wasn't.

[ShawkFactory]

I mean its not that weird. In the early 90s guard spots you had Jordan, Isiah, Dumar, Mark Price, etc.

The Pacers weren't anything special as a team during that period. They were almost exactly .500 from 90-94. And it's not like Reggie was putting up crazy numbers warranting him to be on the team over more established guys on much better teams.

[Kblaze8855]

He didn’t make it often because coaches pick most all stars and coaches didn’t think he was as good as fans who don’t remember his prime assume. It’s really that simple. Coaches…especially then…liked do it all guys and defenders. They didn’t make Mookie Blaylock an all star over Reggie due to marketability. They did because he made it hell to run offense with his on ball pressure and playing passing lanes. They didn’t pick Alvin Robertson over Reggie because of a pretty game or who looked nerdy. They picked him because Alvin was a borderline DPOY for years and was one of the toughest and best all around guards of his era.

It’s just basketball. Reggie was not considered a top player by the people who watched all the film and coached every game. Off the top of my head 4 coaches had Derek McKey as the best player on the pacers when they turned it around in the mid 90s. Think maybe…it’s because he was an elite defender and all around player coaches always fall for?

It’s really not complicated. Coaches have never been as enamored as fans with the guy who scores but isn’t much of a defender and can’t really make plays. Coaches lean towards the total game and heavily towards defense. It isn’t much more than that. Old school coaches are only going to pick so many pure scorers at a time.

You might get Reggie or Michael Adams but usually not both. Dumars, Price, and Reggie Lewis gets those spots. They picked Detlef from the pacers one year and not Reggie. Many won’t know but Detlef was a really good do it all type. Coaches have always been enamored with that.

Most(though not quite all) the people picked by the coaches were just more well rounded players. Can’t expect a gathering of nba coaches not to lean towards D and all around basketball more than fans do.

[L.Kizzle]

Because he was supremely underrated due to a non athletic game. Nerdy looking skinny loud mouth... not marketable back then and played in a nobody city.

If Reggie played for the Knicks in Madison Square with Ewing they'd have won chips and he'd have 10x more accolades.

The advanced playoff metrics don't lie.
Not marketable? He was probably a guest star on more TV shows in the 90s than any current player at that time.

[L.Kizzle]

Reggie Miller was the Jamal Murray of his era. Decent in the regular season, turn into a beast in the playoff.

To be fair, Reggie was usually suiting up 75+ games a year. Jamal, not so much.

[SouBeachTalents]

The claim Reggie upped his playoff scoring significantly seems like a disingenuous argument to me when virtually all of these instances occurred in first round losses. If you want to argue the semantics that he still technically upped his scoring average, ok, but I don't read too much into 3-4 game sample sizes.

In playoff runs past the first round he averaged 23, 25.5, 20, 20 & 24, you average that out, it comes to 22.5 ppg. During his prime, let's say 1990-2000 to cover all his all-star seasons, he averaged 21 ppg. So as you can see, it's a very moderate increase at best. Even if you want to include all those first round L's, the sample size is so small that over that timeframe it only bumps the average up to 23 ppg.

[dankok8]

He didn’t make it often because coaches pick most all stars and coaches didn’t think he was as good as fans who don’t remember his prime assume. It’s really that simple. Coaches…especially then…liked do it all guys and defenders. They didn’t make Mookie Blaylock an all star over Reggie due to marketability. They did because he made it hell to run offense with his on ball pressure and playing passing lanes. They didn’t pick Alvin Robertson over Reggie because of a pretty game or who looked nerdy. They picked him because Alvin was a borderline DPOY for years and was one of the toughest and best all around guards of his era.

It’s just basketball. Reggie was not considered a top player by the people who watched all the film and coached every game. Off the top of my head 4 coaches had Derek McKey as the best player on the pacers when they turned it around in the mid 90s. Think maybe…it’s because he was an elite defender and all around player coaches always fall for?

It’s really not complicated. Coaches have never been as enamored as fans with the guy who scores but isn’t much of a defender and can’t really make plays. Coaches lean towards the total game and heavily towards defense. It isn’t much more than that. Old school coaches are only going to pick so many pure scorers at a time.

You might get Reggie or Michael Adams but usually not both. Dumars, Price, and Reggie Lewis gets those spots. They picked Detlef from the pacers one year and not Reggie. Many won’t know but Detlef was a really good do it all type. Coaches have always been enamored with that.

Most(though not quite all) the people picked by the coaches were just more well rounded players. Can’t expect a gathering of nba coaches not to lean towards D and all around basketball more than fans do.

Those coaches were wrong though. The likes of Derek McKey and Mookie Blaylock were not nearly as good as Reggie.

Reggie Miller was an unbelievable scorer. Low key one of the best scorers ever disguised in plain sight. Monster combo of volume and efficiency.

https://i.postimg.cc/G3g1TRp9/Reggie-Miller-Playoff-Scoring.jpg

[FultzNationRISE]

The claim Reggie upped his playoff scoring significantly seems like a disingenuous argument to me when virtually all of these instances occurred in first round losses. If you want to argue the semantics that he still technically upped his scoring average, ok, but I don't read too much into 3-4 game sample sizes.

In playoff runs past the first round he averaged 23, 25.5, 20, 20 & 24, you average that out, it comes to 22.5 ppg. During his prime, let's say 1990-2000 to cover all his all-star seasons, he averaged 21 ppg. So as you can see, it's a very moderate increase at best. Even if you want to include all those first round L's, the sample size is so small that over that timeframe it only bumps the average up to 23 ppg.

This is fair altho it’s also worth noting that competition is harder on average in the playoffs, so maintaining your exact stats does mathematically require at least a modest INCREASE of performance. Im not saying its significant but it’s something. And so to raise it by a couple in the playoffs could be akin to raising it by 3 or 4 in the regular season. I have no idea what the exact adjustment works out to but in theory there should be one.

[Kblaze8855]

You’re free to think that. If you’ve been a fan for any period of time you know coaches and fans simply don’t look at basketball the same. On average…not across the board…but on average…coaches care more about the total game than fans.

Coaches generally speaking care about basketball. Fans generally speaking care about scoring. They shouldn’t be expected to reach the same conclusions when they’re doing different math.

[dankok8]

This is fair altho it’s also worth noting that competition is harder on average in the playoffs, so maintaining your exact stats does mathematically require at least a modest INCREASE of performance. Im not saying its significant but it’s something. And so to raise it by a couple in the playoffs could be akin to raising it by 3 or 4 in the regular season. I have no idea what the exact adjustment works out to but in theory there should be one.

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

[tpols]

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

Doesn't count!

[ImKobe]

Reggie Miller was never a big time scorer. We remember him because he hit big shots in the postseason, especially against the Knicks. Got into it with Spike Lee. In 94 he was likely averaging around 20 points because through his prime that was the level he was generally around. He wasn't the clutch legend he became that a few years later. Him missing the all star game would be like a 22 ppg scorer missing it today, has a legit argument to be made but when you try and figure out which guard he's better than it's not a clear-cut argument.

He was 11th-12th in scoring in some of the years he missed the ASGs ('91, '97 for example), which would be the equivalent of averaging 26 ppg right now. He was also way up there in TS%, even leading the league at 65% when he wasn't an All-Star in '91.

He played in an era that did not understand advanced stats & efficiency and how volume 3-Point shooting could lead to a better offense. His raw numbers weren't flashy enough.

[tpols]

Those coaches were wrong though. The likes of Derek McKey and Mookie Blaylock were not nearly as good as Reggie.

Reggie Miller was an unbelievable scorer. Low key one of the best scorers ever disguised in plain sight. Monster combo of volume and efficiency.

https://i.postimg.cc/G3g1TRp9/Reggie-Miller-Playoff-Scoring.jpg

Kblazes M.O. is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Yup. Mookie Blaylock and John Starks were better than Reggie. God said so.

[L.Kizzle]

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

McGrady was averaging like 33 points in his first round exits. They only remember the exits tho and not that he led the playoffs in avg ppg, (in a first round exit at that.)

[Kblaze8855]

The claim Reggie upped his playoff scoring significantly seems like a disingenuous argument to me when virtually all of these instances occurred in first round losses. If you want to argue the semantics that he still technically upped his scoring average, ok, but I don't read too much into 3-4 game sample sizes.

In playoff runs past the first round he averaged 23, 25.5, 20, 20 & 24, you average that out, it comes to 22.5 ppg. During his prime, let's say 1990-2000 to cover all his all-star seasons, he averaged 21 ppg. So as you can see, it's a very moderate increase at best. Even if you want to include all those first round L's, the sample size is so small that over that timeframe it only bumps the average up to 23 ppg.


Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

[Phoenix]

I was just about to say, both of Reggies 30ppg playoff series he was playing 44 minutes. But eh whatever.....Reggie is one of those players I find really hard to discuss on this board.

[Kblaze8855]

Kblazes M.O. is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Yup. Mookie Blaylock and John Starks were better than Reggie. God said so.

Not my fault you don’t acknowledge that some people know more than you. You know absolutely nothing about Ricky Pierce, Alvin Robertson, or Mookie Blaylock. You couldn’t tell me without googling it Alvin was left handed or right. You know NOTHING about these people but maintain strong opinions that the people who do are wrong and call it a logical fallacy with a straight face.

You genuinely see no problem telling people you know know more than you they’re wrong about people you don’t even know and feel like I’m the one being ridiculous. You are constant comedy.

[tpols]

And yet nobody would agree guys like Starks were better than Reggie. Even when they got voted ahead of him by your Gods. It's a total joke and everybody here knows it.

[TeflonDonTrump]

Does this clown know he needs to be voted in as a guard in the East in the 90s?

[Kblaze8855]

90% of the people here weren’t even in the fourth grade when John Starks made the All-Star game. I care as much what you think about it as you care about the rankings being made right now by a kid born during the 2019 finals.

It isn’t unreasonable to think Reggie Miller should’ve been an All-Star over John or Alvin or whoever. He was an all star level player and there are always more players than spots. What is unreasonable is for somebody who doesn’t know what the **** they’re talking about at all to be calling out people who watched them up close and made the determination for themselves. You simply do not know what the **** you’re talking about on the issue of most of these players.


You do not know shit about Ricky Pierce. You don’t know about his defense. You don’t know if he could pass. You don’t know his go to moves or how he reacted to the double team. You are a complete ****ing blank slate of no knowledge about these people. You don’t see me arguing that the coaches in the 60s were wrong about Dick Van Arsdale being an all star over Geoff Pietrie or something.

I know I don’t know what the **** I’m talking about relative to them. It isn’t an appeal to authority. It’s not being too arrogant to acknowledge the truth.

on a lot of these subjects, you are simply a know nothing, know it all. I’m arrogant, but I don’t pretend to know shit that I don’t. If I don’t know, I say I don’t know. I’ll tell you I have no valid means of evaluating who should be on the 1977 All-Star team when compared to a ****ing coach in the 1977 NBA. you can’t do that because your ego doesn’t allow you to tell the truth about your lack of information.

I’d rather be real than bullshit my way through arguments.

I happily admit I know less than some people about some things. Those people have a better basis to make decisions on those subject than I do.

You not admitting that doesn’t make me illogical. It makes you dishonest.

[dankok8]

Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

Michael Redd did it once.

Reggie scored like a monster for 12 straight years in the playoffs. Including in later rounds. The Pacers made 5 Conference Finals during Reggie's prime.

Why is it so hard to admit that the coaches simply got it wrong? Even if Miller is "overrated" he STILL should have made like 10 all-star teams. It's not like Reggie didn't play defense either. He was solid. Passing he didn't do much of because he rarely had the ball in his hands. And again his scoring is historic. It's not like T-Mac that someone mentioned who scored high volume at league average efficiency. Reggie from 1992-1996 as per the graph scored at +11 efficiency and from 1998-2002 at +8. That kind of production flat out wins games.

[iamgine]

Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

I mean anyone can have one great series. If Redd did it lots of times people might care.

Reggie upped his game quite consistently in the playoff. iirc he's almost always the top 2 scoring SG in the 90s playoff.

[tpols]

Man you out here like Hopper from a Bug's Life trying to convince us Reggie was worse than Mookie or Starks or Pierce or whoever.


https://youtu.be/VLbWnJGlyMU?si=OTuR0kTWL5VpGY2O

Most slaves will believe what their masters told them even if it was all a lie.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He was 11th-12th in scoring in some of the years he missed the ASGs ('91, '97 for example), which would be the equivalent of averaging 26 ppg right now. He was also way up there in TS%, even leading the league at 65% when he wasn't an All-Star in '91.

He played in an era that did not understand advanced stats & efficiency and how volume 3-Point shooting could lead to a better offense. His raw numbers weren't flashy enough. His career high, 24.6, was hit once. Most of his career he averaged in the high teens. 12 out of 18 seasons under 20. His career average is 18.2. And when he was playing people didn't talk about things like TS% so it would be irrelevant to any kind of allstar discussion. He was generally a guy that could make the allstar game but if he missed it it wasn't going to be seen as some kind of outrage.

[dankok8]

^Good point on TS%. People back then used to just look at his FG% and didn't realize how insanely efficient Miller was scoring the ball.

[L.Kizzle]

He was 11th-12th in scoring in some of the years he missed the ASGs ('91, '97 for example), which would be the equivalent of averaging 26 ppg right now. He was also way up there in TS%, even leading the league at 65% when he wasn't an All-Star in '91.

He played in an era that did not understand advanced stats & efficiency and how volume 3-Point shooting could lead to a better offense. His raw numbers weren't flashy enough.

The 91 Pacers were 19-27 at the All-Star break. Hard to get in that way. East guards that season are Isiah, MJ, Pierce, Hawkins and Alvin Robinson.
In 97, the guards were MJ, Penny, Timmy and Terrell Brandon. Ewing and Zo were injured and replaced with Joe Dumars and Webber. He couldn't even get in as an injury replacement.

[ImKobe]

The 91 Pacers were 19-27 at the All-Star break. Hard to get in that way. East guards that season are Isiah, MJ, Pierce, Hawkins and Alvin Robinson.
In 97, the guards were MJ, Penny, Timmy and Terrell Brandon. Ewing and Zo were injured and replaced with Joe Dumars and Webber. He couldn't even get in as an injury replacement.

I get the team success part but he definitely deserved it over Robertson in '91.

[ImKobe]

His career high, 24.6, was hit once. Most of his career he averaged in the high teens. 12 out of 18 seasons under 20. His career average is 18.2. And when he was playing people didn't talk about things like TS% so it would be irrelevant to any kind of allstar discussion. He was generally a guy that could make the allstar game but if he missed it it wasn't going to be seen as some kind of outrage.

For sure. He was ahead of his time. He definitely translates to more than 22 ppg in today's era though, but we don't need to have the same Reggie discussion for the 100th time. He'd be crazy in today's era if he actually got to shoot the three 10 times a game man.. The 12 out of 18 stat sounds bad, but he was .1, .4 and .5 ppg off in 3 of his sub-20 ones.

[Real Men Wear Green]

For sure. He was ahead of his time. He definitely translates to more than 22 ppg in today's era though, but we don't need to have the same Reggie discussion for the 100th time. He'd be crazy in today's era if he actually got to shoot the three 10 times a game man.. The 12 out of 18 stat sounds bad, but he was .1, .4 and .5 ppg off in 3 of his sub-20 ones."22ppg" isn't my predicting of what he would average in modern times it's just me saying he wasn't an elite scorer. There were a lot of guys scoring at his level. As someone that actually watched the NBA back then I remember how he was viewed by the general public. A pretty good player, which lead to him being what he was, which was a borderline allstar. The shock some posters have at discovering that most years he didn't make the ASG is because of all the clutch shots he hit that rightfully get remembered. But the thing people should realize is that that was postseason and much of it happened after '94 ASG.

[L.Kizzle]

I get the team success part but he definitely deserved it over Robertson in '91.
Interesting stat, Bucks had two All-Stars that season Alvin and Ricky Pierce. Ricky was the 6th man. Ricky was traded after the All-Star break.

[Kblaze8855]

Michael Redd did it once.

Reggie scored like a monster for 12 straight years in the playoffs. Including in later rounds. The Pacers made 5 Conference Finals during Reggie's prime.


reggie never scored like a monster. Luca scores like a monster. Reggie scored like the borderline All-Star he was. Thats was 23-24ppg is. There is literally no other person in history who has that level of production called monstrous because nobody gives a shit about it.


Why is it so hard to admit that the coaches simply got it wrong? Even if Miller is "overrated" he STILL should have made like 10 all-star teams. It's not like Reggie didn't play defense either. He was solid. Passing he didn't do much of because he rarely had the ball in his hands. And again his scoring is historic. It's not like T-Mac that someone mentioned who scored high volume at league average efficiency. Reggie from 1992-1996 as per the graph scored at +11 efficiency and from 1998-2002 at +8. That kind of production flat out wins games.


There is no reason to believe they got it wrong. I’m talking to people about players they don’t even remember, but still feel necessary to judge. Fans and coaches are simply not looking at the same thing. That’s just how it is. Very few of the people with a strong opinion can actually break down Joe Dumars game to me. None of them can break down Alvin. These are just names to the people complaining. The people making the decision factually know more than these people do. Fans having a problem admitting their ignorance doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I’m talking to people who don’t even dispute that they don’t know anything about the players in question. Why exactly should I care about what somebody who was 7 at the time thinks about Terrell Brandon versus Reggie Miller? If I have to talk to somebody about it, I’ll talk to somebody who might have a clue.

Like me who very very clearly remembers 1997 don’t remember it as well as the coaches in the league in 1997 knew it at the time.

You don’t have to agree to acknowledge when you’re on the less informed end of a discussion. The refusal to acknowledge it is sheer immaturity on the parts of many people.

Yeah, I was around in 1982 with basketball on in front of me. Do I specifically know how well everybody was playing as well as the coaches who were sitting 10 feet away watching the ****ing games? Of course not. Why are we playing so stupid?

Not knowing what you’re talking about used to be a reason to shut the **** up. I think that ended when the Internet gained prominence. Everybody is free to disagree with anybody’s opinion. But almost every single person talking is factually less informed on this issue.

I was a grown ass man at the time and I can’t tell you with any certainty how well everyone was playing in February 1996. I can Google some numbers, but that isn’t close to the same thing. Feel free to disagree with the selections they made, but acting like they don’t know more than you do about the situation is just being dishonest.

Dudes act like “I don’t know” is the worst thing they can say when it’s actually one of the most honest.

[Kblaze8855]

Man you out here like Hopper from a Bug's Life trying to convince us Reggie was worse than Mookie or Starks or Pierce or whoever.


https://youtu.be/VLbWnJGlyMU?si=OTuR0kTWL5VpGY2O

Most slaves will believe what their masters told them even if it was all a lie.


tell me, Ricky Pierces go to the move. If you feel confident you should have an opinion about how good he was at basketball. You should know that. Tell me something about how he played without googling it.

Did Alvin have a floater?

Could Detlef in Indiana shoot off the dribble or only drive?


Why do you feel so comfortable having a strong opinion about shit you know absolutely nothing about? Tell me that. It’s established you don’t know shit about the people we’re talking about. Why do you have such a strong opinion about how good they must’ve been?

[ImKobe]

"22ppg" isn't my predicting of what he would average in modern times it's just me saying he wasn't an elite scorer. There were a lot of guys scoring at his level. As someone that actually watched the NBA back then I remember how he was viewed by the general public. A pretty good player, which lead to him being what he was, which was a borderline allstar. The shock some posters have at discovering that most years he didn't make the ASG is because of all the clutch shots he hit that rightfully get remembered. But the thing people should realize is that that was postseason and much of it happened after '94 ASG.

There were a lot of guys putting up a similar or better scoring averages, but his efficiency was on a different level in comparison to most of them. You can look at PER, WS, BPM & VORP numbers and Reggie was top 10-15 in most (if not all) of them in his prime. I've gone through that a bunch of times but he was much better than his raw averages would suggest. Not enough volume though like you said so that's why he didn't make more ASGs. Simple as that.

[dankok8]

reggie never scored like a monster. Luca scores like a monster. Reggie scored like the borderline All-Star he was. Thats was 23-24ppg is. There is literally no other person in history who has that level of production called monstrous because nobody gives a shit about it.




There is no reason to believe they got it wrong. I’m talking to people about players they don’t even remember, but still feel necessary to judge. Fans and coaches are simply not looking at the same thing. That’s just how it is. Very few of the people with a strong opinion can actually break down Joe Dumars game to me. None of them can break down Alvin. These are just names to the people complaining. The people making the decision factually know more than these people do. Fans having a problem admitting their ignorance doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I’m talking to people who don’t even dispute that they don’t know anything about the players in question. Why exactly should I care about what somebody who was 7 at the time thinks about Terrell Brandon versus Reggie Miller? If I have to talk to somebody about it, I’ll talk to somebody who might have a clue.

Like me who very very clearly remembers 1997 don’t remember it as well as the coaches in the league in 1997 knew it at the time.

You don’t have to agree to acknowledge when you’re on the less informed end of a discussion. The refusal to acknowledge it is sheer immaturity on the parts of many people.

Yeah, I was around in 1982 with basketball on in front of me. Do I specifically know how well everybody was playing as well as the coaches who were sitting 10 feet away watching the ****ing games? Of course not. Why are we playing so stupid?

Not knowing what you’re talking about used to be a reason to shut the **** up. I think that ended when the Internet gained prominence. Everybody is free to disagree with anybody’s opinion. But almost every single person talking is factually less informed on this issue.

I was a grown ass man at the time and I can’t tell you with any certainty how well everyone was playing in February 1996. I can Google some numbers, but that isn’t close to the same thing. Feel free to disagree with the selections they made, but acting like they don’t know more than you do about the situation is just being dishonest.

Dudes act like “I don’t know” is the worst thing they can say when it’s actually one of the most honest.

Ok I commend you for your post but I have two points of contention.

The first is you dismissing Reggie's production. Look at that chart I posted. From 1994-1996 he's at a pace adjusted 29 points on +11 efficiency. It's utterly ridiculous. People who don't give a shit about it don't know any better. From 1998-2002 he's at a much more human but still impressive 26 points on +8 efficiency. For the record, except for peak MJ who was at 34 points on +7 efficiency, no other scorer was even doing way more volume than Miller and pretty much no one except Kareem touched his efficiency. Mller's 5-year playoff scoring is literally one of the most impressive ever. EVER!!

The second point of contention is assuming I don't know about Miller because I was young when he played. I was 10 years old in 1997 when I started watching the NBA but I've watched hundreds of 90's games as an adult in the last few years. I've watched at least a hundred Reggie Miller games as an adult and dozens of games of Mookie Blaylock, Terrell Brandon etc. I actually know how these guys play and I don't see them as anywhere near the level of Reggie. Even commentators during those playoff games, if you go back and watch, they constantly rave about how Miller is underrated.

The general sentiment of people not knowing what they are talking about and still talking, I agree with but my opinion regarding Reggie is with all due respect not one of those instances.

[tontoz]

In the 90/91 season, which Miller didn't make the AS game, he averaged 22.6 ppg which was 12th in the league. Of the guys scoring more than him only Barkley had a higher EFG. The only guard within 5% of his EFG was Jordan.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991_per_game.html#per_game_stats::pts_per_g

[Kblaze8855]

For the record I didn’t mean you. I have no idea of your history. I’m talking about who I was talking to. Now…you being 4-7 when he was “snubbed” many times would apply but I wasn’t specifically referring to you as I didn’t know it at the time. I’m actually even talking about myself. I was old enough to have a somewhat informed opinion at the time but nobody honest can say they remember February 1990 nba details as well as the people coaching it in 1990. It’s just a weird thing to take so serious when every one of us are on the short end of the stick knowledge wise.

I know 1992 nba ball. Do I know it as well today as Don Nelson knew it in 1992?

Of course not.

So why am I supposed to call him out on his take?

I can disagree. I don’t have to act like I know better.

[dankok8]

For the record I didn’t mean you. I have no idea of your history. I’m talking about who I was talking to. Now…you being 4-7 when he was “snubbed” many times would apply but I wasn’t specifically referring to you as I didn’t know it at the time. I’m actually even talking about myself. I was old enough to have a somewhat informed opinion at the time but nobody honest can say they remember February 1990 nba details as well as the people coaching it in 1990. It’s just a weird thing to take so serious when every one of us are on the short end of the stick knowledge wise.

I know 1992 nba ball. Do I know it as well today as Don Nelson knew it in 1992?

Of course not.

So why am I supposed to call him out on his take?

I can disagree. I don’t have to act like I know better.

Well sometimes people have a "good" take at the time but with hindsight it turns out to be a bad take. But we don't have to go back in time and pretend that the take was good. It being justifiable doesn't mean it was good.

[Kblaze8855]

Facts don’t change in retrospect. Feelings do. Often feelings mixed with irrelevant future info. He became a bigger name. Doesn’t change the validity of any opinion from before it. 1992 didn’t change because of 1999.

[dankok8]

Facts don’t change in retrospect. Feelings do. Often feelings mixed with irrelevant future info. He became a bigger name. Doesn’t change the validity of any opinion from before it. 1992 didn’t change because of 1999.

Any person choosing Terrell Brandon over Reggie Miller in 1997 ignored the facts about Miller completely dominating the playoffs from 1992-1996 though.

[tpols]

Any person choosing Terrell Brandon over Reggie Miller in 1997 ignored the facts about Miller completely dominating the playoffs from 1992-1996 though.

Guys like Westbrook were voted MVP over peak prime Curry, Lebron, and Durant in 2017.

We all watched 2017. The appeal to authority bullshit just doesn't fly whether we were adults or not for the time period.

***Big newsflash kblaze*** People can be wrong even if they were present for whatever the topic is. People are right. People are wrong. All the time. We don't have to pretend to be idiots and cling to the opinion John Starks > Reggie Miller because coaches said so 30 years ago in a poll.

[Reggie43]

He didnt make it in 1994 but he lead the Pacers in the Conference Finals proving his worth. He didnt make it in 97 because they had a bad record because of injuries to Smits and Mckey and trading away Jackson then bringing him back too late. 99 had no allstar game but he probably would have made it with his team having one of the best records in the East.

He realistically could have made 7 straight allstar games (1994-2000) but like what others have said his true worth is seen in the playoffs where he plays more agressively.

Taking out his high scoring games in the first round is kind of dumb when you factor in that he scored that much against a higher seeded opponent that usually had the best defense in the league (Knicks, Pistons, Sixers, Nets)

[ShawkFactory]

Guys like Westbrook were voted MVP over peak prime Curry, Lebron, and Durant in 2017.

We all watched 2017. The appeal to authority bullshit just doesn't fly whether we were adults or not for the time period.

***Big newsflash kblaze*** People can be wrong even if they were present for whatever the topic is. People are right. People are wrong. All the time. We don't have to pretend to be idiots and cling to the opinion John Starks > Reggie Miller because coaches said so 30 years ago in a poll.

Westbrook winning the MVP in 2017 wasn't the wrong choice. You purport to be this big "context guy"..KD had just left and he went all out everything game, won the scoring title while putting up the first triple double average in 50 years or whatever, and led a very mediocre team to 47 wins in that West.

He wasn't a better player at the end of the day than Bron, Curry, or KD. And he couldn't be trusted at the end of games, particularly in the playoffs.

But that MVP was deserved and I don't think really anyone had any qualms with him winning. Especially since the 3 guys mentioned all somewhat coasted in the regular season. If anything, Kawhi was the only other with a truly legitimate argument there.

This argument is kind of the same thing. No one here has said that John Starks was a better player than Reggie Miller. That's just typical you twisting words and inventing an argument from someone else. But general thoughts when these things occur matter when determining why something happened.

[tontoz]

All Star snubs are a pretty routine thing. When there are only 12 spots in each conference there will be deserving guys who don't get in. Reggie made it 5 times. You could make the case for 2-3 more but i don't think it is a big deal.

[ArbitraryWater]

Because he was supremely underrated due to a non athletic game. Nerdy looking skinny loud mouth... not marketable back then and played in a nobody city.

If Reggie played for the Knicks in Madison Square with Ewing they'd have won chips and he'd have 10x more accolades.

The advanced playoff metrics don't lie.


He was hella marketable gtfoh

[Real Men Wear Green]

There were a lot of guys putting up a similar or better scoring averages, but his efficiency was on a different level in comparison to most of them. You can look at PER, WS, BPM & VORP numbers and Reggie was top 10-15 in most (if not all) of them in his prime. I've gone through that a bunch of times but he was much better than his raw averages would suggest. Not enough volume though like you said so that's why he didn't make more ASGs. Simple as that. You mention a bunch of advanced stats that no one talked about in the 90s. These numbers you find so important didn't even exist back then. Hollinger's first Pro Basketball Prospectus was not published until 2002. So no one would be analyzing the game that way to be making an argument for Miller to begin with .

[Reggie43]

The guy he had to beat in 94 was BJ Armstrong averaging 14.8ppg. In 97 it was 33 year old Joe Dumars averaging 14.5 ppg.

Obviously the Allstar game is a popularity contest and which players had the best narratives at that time and I guess being a sidekick on 50+win teams was enough to get you in.

[StrongLurk]

Guys like Westbrook were voted MVP over peak prime Curry, Lebron, and Durant in 2017.

We all watched 2017. The appeal to authority bullshit just doesn't fly whether we were adults or not for the time period.

***Big newsflash kblaze*** People can be wrong even if they were present for whatever the topic is. People are right. People are wrong. All the time. We don't have to pretend to be idiots and cling to the opinion John Starks > Reggie Miller because coaches said so 30 years ago in a poll.

Westbrook 100% deserved that 2017 MVP. It was his peak season by a LONG shot when you factor in it was his best jumpshooting year AND most clutch year of his career. Add onto the context of his superstar partner in crime KD backtstabbing Westbrook to go join the team they lost to AND Westbrook being the first to avg a trip-dub since Oscar...yeah 2017 was all Westbrook. He was never that good again after 2017.

Also Reggie was clearly underrated and undervalued in the era he played it.

Teams in the 90's did not play "smart" basketball, and it was the weakest era since the 3 point line existed when you factor in the expansion teams and all the 80's superstars retiring in the early 90's. It's long been known now, and there is no more hiding behind "nostalgia". It was a great era for superstars and the explosion of NBA popularity, plus MJ the GOAT. Loved it as a kid growing up with that era, but damn I can't even watch 90's games anymore because of the massive lack of shooting and bad game planning.

[HoopsNY]

As a Knicks fan, we were terrified of Reggie's scoring. We knew what he was capable of and he's grossly underrated, irrespective of what some coaches may have thought at the time. Now, that might be my bias speaking because he always torched us, but his playoff performances speak for themselves (which doesn't only include series against the Knicks).

[HoopsNY]

reggie never scored like a monster. Luca scores like a monster. Reggie scored like the borderline All-Star he was. Thats was 23-24ppg is. There is literally no other person in history who has that level of production called monstrous because nobody gives a shit about it.


I think there's an in between in all of this. When Reggie got hot, he got going. You remember the 8 points in 9 seconds game as much as I do I'm sure. That was nuts.

From '92-'96, he was 6th amongst playoff scorers in PPG, where he was ahead of guys like Ewing, Shaq, Robinson, and KJ. The other guys who were ahead of him don't need an introduction. He averaged nearly 26 PPG during that stretch. For what it's worth, it's esteemed company.

I remember Reggie as being a legit threat, but also as someone who didn't always look for the ball. The two can be true at the same time.

[tontoz]

I remember Steve Smith being interviewed and was asked who was the toughest guy to guard. The expected answer was MJ but he said Reggie, because it was so hard chasing him around screens. People talk now about the off ball movement of Steph and Klay but they are just jogging compared to Reggie.

Reggie was asked about how he handled being guarded by Bruce Bowen, the toughest perimeter defender at the time and a bit dirty. He was know for holding, amongst other things. Reggies response was that he can't hold what he can't catch.

[BarberSchool]

Reggie was a good player, but Knicks fans make him out to be some all time great top 50-ish player. He was absolutely not that.

He’s also the most obvious as$-kissing company man amongst NBA commentators. MF misses ANY shot, or turns it over, it’s ALWAYS great defense, every bucket, it’s both a great shot and a great pass.

Son sucks so much metaphorical **** it’s disgusting. Reggie is every bit as fake as Van Gundy is real.

[BarberSchool]

I remember Steve Smith being interviewed and was asked who was the toughest guy to guard. The expected answer was MJ but he said Reggie, because it was so hard chasing him around screens.Dale Davis & Antonio Davis screens ain’t no joke.

[Kblaze8855]

Any person choosing Terrell Brandon over Reggie Miller in 1997 ignored the facts about Miller completely dominating the playoffs from 1992-1996 though.

At age 32(1998)Reggie had won 4 playoff series total in 10 seasons. He had scored 25ppg in precisely one series that wasn’t the first round(generally being destroyed in them). When you call that absolute nothing “Completely dominating” what do you call what Jordan and Hakeem did? Totally, ultra, super, mega dominating?

This is one of the issues with him. People wanna make shit that means nothing into a big deal and ignore it leaves no room for what actual dominant players did.

Reggie had some good…but not all time great…scoring runs. That’s literally all. He certainly wasn’t dominant. The team he’s remembered “killing” knocked him out of the playoffs 3 times to 2. It’s just puff piece nothing.

Reggie didn’t do anything that has ever been called dominant when anyone else did it. The real greats get clowned for a Reggie level playoff run. An efficient 22-24 while your team needs scoring does absolutely nothing that matters and isn’t noteworthy for stars. It’s noteworthy when you’re a Duncan or some other total game changing type who leads teams and is holding down a defense. Not when scoring is all you’re there for.

A guy who doesn’t do anything but score scoring an efficient 22 of 88 while the other team scores 99 is barely worth talking about in an all time context.

It’s nice for a Reggie. Or a Rip Hamilton.

Its being a no show for the elites.

[Kblaze8855]

Guys like Westbrook were voted MVP over peak prime Curry, Lebron, and Durant in 2017.

We all watched 2017. The appeal to authority bullshit just doesn't fly whether we were adults or not for the time period.

***Big newsflash kblaze*** People can be wrong even if they were present for whatever the topic is. People are right. People are wrong. All the time. We don't have to pretend to be idiots and cling to the opinion John Starks > Reggie Miller because coaches said so 30 years ago in a poll.


And you still don’t know a single thing about the people they chose. Nothing. At all.

You just have a strong opinion anyway because you don’t care about knowing what you’re talking about. Total non issue for you. It must be a comfort. To not even worry about…knowing things before you speak. Good lane if you have the irrational self confidence to pull it off.

I can barely even imagine being such a person.

Just out here ranking guys basketball ability with absolute certainty and don’t even know if they can shoot or…are athletic. Dont know if they could defend. Just…nothing. Zip. Zero. No information at all except that the people judging them got it wrong. And call it an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that they exist only as names on Google to you and you have no basketball knowledge at all relative to people who…coach their teams.

You need to go into politics. The steadfast refusal to acknowledge an inarguable lack of knowledge in favor of getting loud about how you feeeeel?

You could be president.

[iamgine]

It’s nice for a Reggie. Or a Rip Hamilton.



Isn't that what we're talking about? I mean compared to Jordan, Hakeem would be pretty mediocre. Compared to Bill Russell, Dwight Howard was a speck of dust.

But it's nice for a Hakeem to get 2 chips. It's nice for a Dwight to get DPOYs.

[ImKobe]

You mention a bunch of advanced stats that no one talked about in the 90s. These numbers you find so important didn't even exist back then. Hollinger's first Pro Basketball Prospectus was not published until 2002. So no one would be analyzing the game that way to be making an argument for Miller to begin with .

That's the point. He was well better than the raw stats but obviously the league wasn't on that at the time. He was definitely better and more efficient at scoring than the guys near his scoring average, that's for sure. There's a huge gap between his and Pippen's scoring ability for example.

[tontoz]

That's the point. He was well better than the raw stats but obviously the league wasn't on that at the time. He was definitely better and more efficient at scoring than the guys near his scoring average, that's for sure. There's a huge gap between his and Pippen's scoring ability for example.


To your point Reggie led the league in TS at 65% while being 12th in scoring during the 90/91 season. Of course nobody was talking about TS back then.

[juju151111]

At age 32(1998)Reggie had won 4 playoff series total in 10 seasons. He had scored 25ppg in precisely one series that wasn’t the first round(generally being destroyed in them). When you call that absolute nothing “Completely dominating” what do you call what Jordan and Hakeem did? Totally, ultra, super, mega dominating?

This is one of the issues with him. People wanna make shit that means nothing into a big deal and ignore it leaves no room for what actual dominant players did.

Reggie had some good…but not all time great…scoring runs. That’s literally all. He certainly wasn’t dominant. The team he’s remembered “killing” knocked him out of the playoffs 3 times to 2. It’s just puff piece nothing.

Reggie didn’t do anything that has ever been called dominant when anyone else did it. The real greats get clowned for a Reggie level playoff run. An efficient 22-24 while your team needs scoring does absolutely nothing that matters and isn’t noteworthy for stars. It’s noteworthy when you’re a Duncan or some other total game changing type who leads teams and is holding down a defense. Not when scoring is all you’re there for.

A guy who doesn’t do anything but score scoring an efficient 22 of 88 while the other team scores 99 is barely worth talking about in an all time context.

It’s nice for a Reggie. Or a Rip Hamilton.

Its being a no show for the elites.

What makes John starks and those others better than Reggie miller lmao. You sound like a idiot ngl

[RogueBorg]

Reggie Miller couldn't play defense, couldn't pass, couldn't rebound, didn't get blocks, didn't get steals, couldn't do anything great but one thing...run along the baseline using picks to get his shot. Not even the best player in his family.

[Real Men Wear Green]

That's the point. He was well better than the raw stats but obviously the league wasn't on that at the time. He was definitely better and more efficient at scoring than the guys near his scoring average, that's for sure. There's a huge gap between his and Pippen's scoring ability for example.
Pippen did a lot of things beyond scoring. Also Pippen was better at creating offense with the ball in his hands, both for himself and others. There are a lot of lineups that would be better off with Pippen just for offense and just about every team would be better off with Pippen overall.

[ImKobe]

To your point Reggie led the league in TS at 65% while being 12th in scoring during the 90/91 season. Of course nobody was talking about TS back then.

Yeah, and he averaged 24.6 ppg (8th) on 64.5%TS (3rd) the year before. Can't believe they never fully unlocked his potential in the RS. He was always healthy too. You'd think he'd have gotten up more shots on those mediocre 40-win teams.

[Overdrive]

Yeah, and he averaged 24.6 ppg (8th) on 64.5%TS (3rd) the year before. Can't believe they never fully unlocked his potential in the RS. He was always healthy too. You'd think he'd have gotten up more shots on those mediocre 40-win teams.

That's exactly what blaze tries to adress. The teams were mediocre , because the way Reggie played and he couldn't be "unlocked" he was a passive scorer in a way. Not like standing in a corner waiting, but the shots he to be dished to him and he only took the shots that could be created.

While it resulted in good TS it also meant that one game he'd score 28 and 17 the next one for no other reason that he didn't get his looks. He wasn't an iso-player/creator so he was highly dependent on his whole team.

[dankok8]

At age 32(1998)Reggie had won 4 playoff series total in 10 seasons. He had scored 25ppg in precisely one series that wasn’t the first round(generally being destroyed in them). When you call that absolute nothing “Completely dominating” what do you call what Jordan and Hakeem did? Totally, ultra, super, mega dominating?

This is one of the issues with him. People wanna make shit that means nothing into a big deal and ignore it leaves no room for what actual dominant players did.

Reggie had some good…but not all time great…scoring runs. That’s literally all. He certainly wasn’t dominant. The team he’s remembered “killing” knocked him out of the playoffs 3 times to 2. It’s just puff piece nothing.

Reggie didn’t do anything that has ever been called dominant when anyone else did it. The real greats get clowned for a Reggie level playoff run. An efficient 22-24 while your team needs scoring does absolutely nothing that matters and isn’t noteworthy for stars. It’s noteworthy when you’re a Duncan or some other total game changing type who leads teams and is holding down a defense. Not when scoring is all you’re there for.

A guy who doesn’t do anything but score scoring an efficient 22 of 88 while the other team scores 99 is barely worth talking about in an all time context.

It’s nice for a Reggie. Or a Rip Hamilton.

Its being a no show for the elites.

We are not comparing Reggie to MJ and Hakeem. Those guys were obviously a lot better than him. And why would you exclude 1st round series when Reggie was often the 7th or 8th seed facing behemoths... It's not like he had easy 1st round opponents. And you keep saying 22 ppg. Reggie from 1992-1996 was scoring 25.4 ppg on an aforementioned +11 efficiency.

We're comparing him to Terrell Brandon, Mookie Blaylock, old Joe Dumars, and BJ Armstrong. Those are some of the guys that were making all-star teams over Reggie and it's pretty damn hard to justify.

[Kblaze8855]

What makes John starks and those others better than Reggie miller lmao. You sound like a idiot ngl

What I sound like to people who don’t even know the people he’s being compared to means nothing to me. I don’t give a shit what somebody born in 1991 thinks about who should’ve been in All-Star in 1992. Not relative to the people who know a hell of a lot more than I do. He was a roughly All-Star level player for like 13 years but people who know more than I do weren’t always that impressed. You can be upset about it. You can’t change it. Nor can you make a genuine argument that you know the recent events of 30 years ago more than the people who were around 30 years ago.

it just pains people to flatly admit they know they don’t know what they’re talking about but they still think they’re right. They know how stupid it sounds so none of you can say it, but you’re content to defend the position. I know more about these people than almost anybody in here talking about it, but it sounds like I’m the only one being honest about knowing less than the people who made the decision.

I’ve seen prom, Reggie Miller play in person. In fact, I’ve seen him playing in person in two different cities. I watched him as a rookie, and I saw his retirement. I watched all these people and I’m talking to people who don’t even know Basic aspects of the peoples game. Talking to a bunch of people about Michael Adams who don’t remember the double behind the back passes, don’t remember Ricky Pierce at all, don’t remember Alvin’s defense. Don’t remember point forward Detlef. Nothing.

I’m talking to people who know almost nothing.

And I…who watched it all closely… am openly admitting I don’t have enough information to credibly argue with the people who made the decision at the time because I don’t have specific month-to-month memories of the gameplay that decided it.

I’m talking to people who in some cases I could’ve been bottlefeeding at the time as a grown man, and admitting my own ignorance to them who act like they know better than people who know 10 times what I know.

It’s really just…beautiful.

It’s beautiful internetting.

I don’t care if you think Reggie was better than whoever. I know for a fact you are less informed than the people who said he wasn’t. Of all the things to be called an idiot for this is one I will wear proudly. Admitting to my inferior knowledge of a situation while people who have inferior knowledge to me refuse to acknowledge it even matters.

everyone’s free to think what they want. But for most people complaining the most about this are factually less informed than the people who decided it. I barely remember details of Indiana Detlef and I watched him play. But people who don’t even remember him in Seattle act like they know he shouldn’t be the pacers only all star.

Reggie might be the most “These people are ****ing clueless” player who gets talked about on here. I barely know what I’m talking about on month to month specifics about 1990 but people born in 1998 wanna fight with me about what ****ing nba coaches had to say about a league they were in at the time. Sports are just so weird. Fans insisting on their own expertise that obviously doesn’t exist and calling out people who admit to their own ignorance.

As few specifics as I remember about 1991 I have to hear about who shouldn’t be an all star when the people talking wouldn’t even recognize a head shot of the players they’re shitting on….

It really is near hopeless.

[Kblaze8855]

We are not comparing Reggie to MJ and Hakeem. Those guys were obviously a lot better than him. And why would you exclude 1st round series when Reggie was often the 7th or 8th seed facing behemoths... It's not like he had easy 1st round opponents. And you keep saying 22 ppg. Reggie from 1992-1996 was scoring 25.4 ppg on an aforementioned +11 efficiency.

We're comparing him to Terrell Brandon, Mookie Blaylock, old Joe Dumars, and BJ Armstrong. Those are some of the guys that were making all-star teams over Reggie and it's pretty damn hard to justify.

BJ Armstrong is hard to justify…which is normal for a fan vote. Fans barely know what they’re seeing at the time and even fewer care in a popularity contest. A guy like Alvin or Joe Dumars being chosen by coaches is just a basketball evaluation.

[tpols]

Has anybody seen the basketball evaluation that has starks, Brandon, Mookie and BJ ahead of Reggie? I've seen no discussion on that topic whatsoever in a technical specific matter.

[RogueBorg]

What makes John starks and those others better than Reggie miller lmao. You sound like a idiot ngl

The reason you don't understand is because you're looking at 1994 through 2024 glasses. You have the benefit of knowing how their careers turned out. Coach Lenny Wilkens didn't have that luxury at the time. What you're incapable of doing is putting yourself in 1994 and looking at how things were at the time.

At the time of the 1994 All-Star game, the Pacers had been bounced out of the first round of the playoffs the 4 previous years while the Knicks lost a tough Eastern Conference Finals the year before and pushed the Bulls to 7 games in '92. In '93-'94 Starks was averaging the same amount of points as Miller playing better defense. Starks was coming off an All-Defensive selection in 1993. The Knicks had beaten Indiana 3-1 in the '93 playoffs and were in the midst of capturing the top spot in the East for the second year in a row.

Coach Lenny Wilkens, who I think was a pretty darn good coach took Starks over Miller. Starks averaged more rebounds, more assists, more steals, played better defense and scored the same.

My question for you is, at the time, what justification was there for selecting Reggie Miller over John Starks in the 1994 All-Star Game?

[RogueBorg]

Has anybody seen the basketball evaluation that has starks, Brandon, Mookie and BJ ahead of Reggie? I've seen no discussion on that topic whatsoever in a technical specific matter.

If you jumped back to 1994 without having the benefit of seeing the future, it would be easier to understand. Few people are capable of doing that. Reggie Miller had a better career than all of them. But in early '94, it wasn't so cut and dried.

[Norcaliblunt]

Appealing to authority is what the Reggie stans are doing.

Of course because “the authorities” changed the rules Reggie would be even better today. Lol.

We all know Reggie is a media whore always in commercials, all over TNT, and has his highlights constantly being replayed so he stays relevant.

He’s the ultimate old player propped up just because of personality and exposure.

That said he would have been really freaking good as a third option.

[tpols]

If you jumped back to 1994 without having the benefit of seeing the future, it would be easier to understand. Few people are capable of doing that. Reggie Miller had a better career than all of them. But in early '94, it wasn't so cut and dried.


That last sentence says it all.

That like a top tier investment banker analyst investing in a premium stock in the moment... that looked great... and then it bombed.

And then coming back and trying to rationalize why they picked Linux over Apple.


"But they were experts!!!"

"Yea but they ended up being wrong. They robbed millions of people and some of them went to prison."

"But they were on Wall Street and saw everything 1st hand they had more knowledgeee!"

That's the argument I see against Reggie in this thread. :lol

[Norcaliblunt]

Only reason Miller had a better career is because he’s a media hoe.

If he wasn’t out there doing his on court antics attracting media attention, or had he disappeared after his playing career and not plastered his face and personality all over advertising and NBA media, he would just be another dude from that era.

[ShawkFactory]

That last sentence says it all.

That like a top tier investment banker analyst investing in a premium stock in the moment... that looked great... and then it bombed.

And then coming back and trying to rationalize why they picked Linux over Apple.



That's the argument I see against Reggie in this thread. :lol

What would be wrong with that?

[Norcaliblunt]

Seriously if Reggie never did the choke sign to Spike Lee, if his sister wasn’t Cheryl Miller, and if he never had a broadcasting career he wouldn’t be remembered anymore than Starks, Marjerle, Chapman, Hornacek, etc.

[tontoz]

Seriously if Reggie never did the choke sign to Spike Lee, if his sister wasn’t Cheryl Miller, and if he never had a broadcasting career he wouldn’t be remembered anymore than Starks, Marjerle, Chapman, Hornacek, etc.


Nonsense. Reggie made as many All-Star games as those 4 combined. His career playoff average was 20.6 ppg. Those guys couldn't sniff that.

Reggie was the all time leader in made 3s when he retired. What records did those guys have?

[Kblaze8855]

That like a top tier investment banker analyst investing in a premium stock in the moment... that looked great... and then it bombed.

And then coming back and trying to rationalize why they picked Linux over Apple.




And here we hit the point of just being stupid. You pick stocks for the future. How good someone is at basketball is in no way altered by how good they are any other time. Nothing about 1997 matters when the question is Detlef or Reggie in 1992. It’s like you’re setting out to make less sense every time you speak.

[dankok8]

I guess it's understandable why Reggie was not rated highly by professional evaluators back then including coaches. His box score impact was one-dimensional.. a scorer who wasn't a volume playmaker (3 apg..) , average defender etc. Measuring efficiency in terms of raw FG% and not understanding what a unicorn Reggie was in terms of scoring efficiency was definitely part of it. All that makes sense. But people today many years later who have supposedly watched basketball calling Reggie a borderline all star, a third option... that kind of blasphemy I cannot grasp. Just because he didn't always create his own shots off the dribble doesn't mean he didn't create those shots. He shook the defender to get open and his teammate often had to make an easy pass to Reggie, a pass anyone can make and he would splash in a 3-pointer. He shot >40% from 3pt range over 12 postseasons. And when he did catch the ball with no space and someone was open, Reggie did find them. And he did draw defenders to him like a magnet opening up the lane for his teammates in an era when the lane was super clogged. People defending him couldn't feel their legs in the 4th quarter. Oh and if you needed to make a shot down 2 with 3 seconds left, you gave it to Reggie freaking Miller. Heck Miller is one of those rare guys that actually should have shot the ball more than he did.

Just watch this video.


https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE?si=kgN3qhMB83jGEBjK

I understand kblaze and I agree with the general sentiment about clueless fans on the internet but now looking at it with hindsight, it's obvious that Reggie Miller was insanely underrated. There are things that we understand now that people back then, including coaches, did not.

Isaac Newton to me is the greatest physicist in history for all the contributions he made. That still doesn't change the fact that every 2nd year engineering student today actually understands more physics concepts than he did.

Just like every student of the game today should understand that Reggie Miller should have made a lot more than just 5 all-star teams.

[Kblaze8855]

If New York didn’t exist neither Reggie, nor John Starks would be central figures in ESPN specials that’s for sure. But Reggie would still be remembered more than people like Rex Chapman. He was consistently a roughly All-Star level player. I’m not sure who the non fame equivalent is.

I would take Reggie over those 4. Id take him over Mookie though with coaches all being defense lovers I get the argument at times. I wouldn’t even think of taking him over Dumars. He was obviously better than BJ who got in on the fan vote. He was the worst total basketball player than Terrell Brandon by skills but that wouldn’t necessarily make him less useful. Depends on the setting.

Reggie would be much better today but if you drop him on the Cavs that year Brandon had them better than they should be? They don’t get better with Reggie there. He won like 48 games with Bobby Philly and Danny Ferry.

all those guys are in the mix and you could go this way or that depending on the situation. Put him in the freedom of movement era and encourage him to take 13 threes a game Reggie would be better than any of them but that’s an entirely different question.

[Kblaze8855]

I guess it's understandable why Reggie was not rated highly by professional evaluators back then including coaches. His box score impact was one-dimensional.. a scorer who wasn't a volume playmaker (3 apg..) , average defender etc. Measuring efficiency in terms of raw FG% and not understanding what a unicorn Reggie was in terms of scoring efficiency was definitely part of it. All that makes sense. But people today many years later who have supposedly watched basketball calling Reggie a borderline all star, a third option... that kind of blasphemy I cannot grasp. Just because he didn't always create his own shots off the dribble doesn't mean he didn't create those shots. He shook the defender to get open and his teammate often had to make an easy pass to Reggie, a pass anyone can make and he would splash in a 3-pointer. He shot >40% from 3pt range over 12 postseasons. And when he did catch the ball with no space and someone was open, Reggie did find them. And he did draw defenders to him like a magnet opening up the lane for his teammates in an era when the lane was super clogged. People defending him couldn't feel their legs in the 4th quarter. Oh and if you needed to make a shot down 2 with 3 seconds left, you gave it to Reggie freaking Miller. Heck Miller is one of those rare guys that actually should have shot the ball more than he did.

Just watch this video.


https://youtu.be/jxO9KsZPelE?si=kgN3qhMB83jGEBjK

I understand kblaze and I agree with the general sentiment about clueless fans on the internet but now looking at it with hindsight, it's obvious that Reggie Miller was insanely underrated. There are things that we understand now that people back then, including coaches, did not.

Isaac Newton to me is the greatest physicist in history for all the contributions he made. That still doesn't change the fact that every 2nd year engineering student today actually understands more physics concepts than he did.

Just like every student of the game today should understand that Reggie Miller should have made a lot more than just 5 all-star teams.



I watched every level of Reggie Miller’s career. I promise I don’t need to watch videos on it now. I’ve made several of them. I made this one some of which was footage I personally took from old recordings 10 years ago to show people how he actually scored


https://youtu.be/GXFF-TXxoSw?si=3hmYXnTE6ECe2Vjn


not only did I watch him play his whole career I compiled hours and hours of clips and full games because I’m just a weirdo like that. I love the era and he is one of the cleaners I was fascinated by. I’ve watched full games of Reggie Miller recently. I used to sit around, watching old games, coast to coast, removing individual clips of people like Reggie and Mark Jackson for my own archives. I once hunted down all 14 go ahead shots Reggie hit in a single season just to make a topic about it here.

Ill just…put on the 95 playoffs as background viewing while I’m washing dishes.

I strongly suspect I have seen more of Reggie Miller play since he retired than anybody in this topic talking to me about Reggie Miller. I remember individual 1 foot step back jumpers versus the magic that I would set aside. A guy on here once showed me him crossing up Michael Jordan not realizing that footage wasn’t even on the Internet before I put it there in like 2005. I watched the man for 20 years then spent 15 years obsessively keeping up with every noteworthy clip of pretty much everybody who played in the era as I made 200+ videos on them in my spare time.

there is absolutely nothing for me to learn about Reggie Miller or his skill set. The primary difference between me and some of the people so enamored with him is, I did the same thing for a lot of other people they completely ignore. There are several people here who have an informed opinion about Reggie based on the effort they put in. And I commend it. But learning about Reggie and researching numbers doesn’t help in a comparison to a bunch of people you don’t give a shit about.

The outside interest in him is how he became overrated. People investigate and are rightly impressed by what he did. But that tells him nothing about a bunch of people they then say he was better than without doing that work for them. Rep Reggie all you like. Say he should have been this or that.

But don’t do it if when questioned about the other people involved, you can’t even tell me basic aspects of their game. That isn’t being informed. That’s just being a fan.

[ShawkFactory]

Just looked something up, and Reggie Miller actually only received a total of 3 MVP votes in his entire career. 2 in 1998 (which put him tied for 16th) and 1 in 2000 (tied for 13th).

Any given year 15-20 guys will get at least 1.

[dankok8]

If New York didn’t exist neither Reggie, nor John Starks would be central figures in ESPN specials that’s for sure. But Reggie would still be remembered more than people like Rex Chapman. He was consistently a roughly All-Star level player. I’m not sure who the non fame equivalent is.

I would take Reggie over those 4. Id take him over Mookie though with coaches all being defense lovers I get the argument at times. I wouldn’t even think of taking him over Dumars. He was obviously better than BJ who got in on the fan vote. He was the worst total basketball player than Terrell Brandon by skills but that wouldn’t necessarily make him less useful. Depends on the setting.

Reggie would be much better today but if you drop him on the Cavs that year Brandon had them better than they should be? They don’t get better with Reggie there. He won like 48 games with Bobby Philly and Danny Ferry.

all those guys are in the mix and you could go this way or that depending on the situation. Put him in the freedom of movement era and encourage him to take 13 threes a game Reggie would be better than any of them but that’s an entirely different question.

Of the guys you mentioned only prime Joe Dumars (not 1997...) would give me pause. And I'd probably still take Reggie.

[Kblaze8855]

Of the guys you mentioned only prime Joe Dumars (not 1997...) would give me pause. And I'd probably still take Reggie.


And that’s fine. I don’t think anyone being discussed right now was better by such a margin you would have to be an idiot to take Reggie. It’s a valid selection. My problem is this….


I remember all these people vividly. I watched Terrell Brandon when he was the kid trying to get minutes behind Mark Price. I watched him in his prime. I watched him in Minnesota. I then spent well over a decade, accumulating footage on pretty much every good player from his era and several before. I had a little folder of his footage. NBA action segments. All the shit I would generally compile in case I ever wanted a video on somebody. So I saw him live, and I saw a tremendous amount of footage after he retired.

And you know what?

I don’t know his game that well. I can give you the broad strokes, and because I know how to frame an argument I’m sure I could give someone the impression he was very good. I know his basic skill set and all. I remember plenty of plays, and what people said about him. But I was watching him 30 years ago.

Thirty. Years.

do you know how many other pick and rolls I’ve seen since then? I remember things that could be 1993 or 1997 and the only way to differentiate it in my mind is the color of the uniform.

but I can come on here, and somebody can tell me without a shadow of a doubt they know who he is, and is not better than despite people at the time having the opposite opinion. It just makes me wonder how people got so comfortable not knowing what the **** they’re talking about when they speak. I hate not knowing what I’m talking about. I’ll make some slip up and miss attribute some quote or think something happened one year and it was the other and I will remember that shit all day feeling stupid.

But people are comfortable telling me how good Terrell Brandon was when they were one and a half years old when I was a grown man watching it and even I’m shaky on the specifics. The only place you can really get an informed opinion on how he was playing in 1996 is from people giving evaluations and opinions in 1996. The same people wouldn’t even remember it as clearly right now. I remember 1996. Have me talk about it, with the version of me in 1996 I would be totally out of touch.

but people will get on the Internet and not only give a take, but defend it passionately like the people they have to know are better equipped to answer the question must’ve been idiots.

seriously. How the **** would I look telling Hubie Brown in 1978 How good a player was in 1978 because I saw a clip and read about it? If Hubbie is talking right now? OK. It was over 40 years ago so maybe it’s all blending together. But I’m gonna call out the version of him watching it all live?

disagree. Fine. We should all be mature enough to admit when we disagree with something while being factually less informed. It just feels so undermining we don’t like to say so. But it’s true. None of us actually think we know the sports of 30 years ago better than the people who were living it 30 years ago, right? can we all agree on that as a start and then acknowledge that just because they know better doesn’t necessarily make them correct?

[RogueBorg]

Of the guys you mentioned only prime Joe Dumars (not 1997...) would give me pause. And I'd probably still take Reggie.

Joe Dumars
2x champion, ok it's a team accomplishment.
5x All-Defense
1x Finals MVP
1x All-Rookie
3x All-NBA
6x All-Star

Reggie Miller
3x All-NBA
5x All-Star
75th Anniversary Team

Are you picking Reggie because of his selection to the Anniversary Team? Because Dumars has done everything Miller did and much more.

I'm taking Joe Dumars.

[Kblaze8855]

I’d take Joe but no so much for the accolades(which are definitely superior). Guy was just better at the sport. Not only could he go score 17 in a row in a finals game…at the end of that very game he can basically seal the title making clutch defensive plays


https://youtu.be/lVxvuFOZ6bM?si=8HEHBXG2FtjV3dZy



https://youtu.be/cUgbf4lnswI?si=Dy0kTf8RhDs334S9

and nobody even remembers it happened because fans don’t really count defense. That’s a bigger play than Reggie made his entire career, and it lives in complete anonymity because fans ignore defense. The ones who want to sound informed will pretend they care but in the end they pretty much always lean offense. And in this case, it’s leaning offense, when the better defender is a better total offensive player as well. I’m gonna get like 20 or 25 points it doesn’t matter how efficiently you score it when the other guy is going to score about 20 but he can actually handle the ball and make plays for others. A more efficient limited skill set 22 vs the other guys 20 and playing the total game on offense and being an elite defender?

Not like Reggie was ever a give him the ball, and get out of the way scorer. He just has that reputation to 28-year-olds who don’t remember a defining aspect of that team being Reggie Miller going ghost because he couldn’t create offense for himself.

Dumars not only had handles and the ability to break down even great man to man defenders he was a hell of a combo guard. You never see highlights of his passing but…

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2403080222570365.gif

It was there.

He had face up and run plays handles and playmaking. Not rudimentary just a basics handle like Reggie. The guy was just a better basketball player. I’d say it’s only coincidence he won more. I’m sure Reggie could win on a team with five All-Stars(Though he was on some that didn’t).

Reggie could win on the Pistons as well if things fall right. The winning isn’t why he’s better. He’s better, because he’s better. He just happened to win more at the same time.

but everyone reading this has seen Reggie taunt spike Lee 200 times in a series his team lost, and that Joe Dumas block and save in the finals May well have never been on TV in the 30 years since it happened. That’s how you build the legend of some while crushing it for others.

Storytelling. A good story outlasts a good player every time.

[tontoz]

I would take prime Dumars over Reggie as well. He was an elite defender who could score on anyone when he wanted to.

My greatest accomplishment on ISH was getting 3ball to concede defeat in an argument about Dumars vs MJ.:oldlol:


tontoz, I'll give you credit for winning this battle... just the balls to say Dumars outplayed Jordan and then actually provide some proof so that it isn't a ridiculous troll like say 8ball or And1AllDay's useless posts... kudos... you win this one via effort and resourcefulness. 8ball can learn from you... I had a big advantage but you found a way to mitigate it, a little bit


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?496203-Which-games-was-Michael-Jordan-outplayed-by-an-opposing-player

[tpols]

Joe Dumars
2x champion, ok it's a team accomplishment.
5x All-Defense
1x Finals MVP
1x All-Rookie
3x All-NBA
6x All-Star

Reggie Miller
3x All-NBA
5x All-Star
75th Anniversary Team

Are you picking Reggie because of his selection to the Anniversary Team? Because Dumars has done everything Miller did and much more.

I'm taking Joe Dumars.

I don't think anybody cares if somebody ranks Joe Dumars over Reggie because he was obviously a HOF player.

The issue that has come into question is all the secondary guys who literally never did Jack shit in the playoffs being considered better than Reggie because of coaches regular season votes.

If that's who they voted for based on their anecdotal front row experience as being better? That means they ****ed up. Because it's not even close when we revisit the success not only on an individual basis from every angle but from a team success basis as well.

[dankok8]

I watched every level of Reggie Miller’s career. I promise I don’t need to watch videos on it now. I’ve made several of them. I made this one some of which was footage I personally took from old recordings 10 years ago to show people how he actually scored


https://youtu.be/GXFF-TXxoSw?si=3hmYXnTE6ECe2Vjn


not only did I watch him play his whole career I compiled hours and hours of clips and full games because I’m just a weirdo like that. I love the era and he is one of the cleaners I was fascinated by. I’ve watched full games of Reggie Miller recently. I used to sit around, watching old games, coast to coast, removing individual clips of people like Reggie and Mark Jackson for my own archives. I once hunted down all 14 go ahead shots Reggie hit in a single season just to make a topic about it here.

Ill just…put on the 95 playoffs as background viewing while I’m washing dishes.

I strongly suspect I have seen more of Reggie Miller play since he retired than anybody in this topic talking to me about Reggie Miller. I remember individual 1 foot step back jumpers versus the magic that I would set aside. A guy on here once showed me him crossing up Michael Jordan not realizing that footage wasn’t even on the Internet before I put it there in like 2005. I watched the man for 20 years then spent 15 years obsessively keeping up with every noteworthy clip of pretty much everybody who played in the era as I made 200+ videos on them in my spare time.

there is absolutely nothing for me to learn about Reggie Miller or his skill set. The primary difference between me and some of the people so enamored with him is, I did the same thing for a lot of other people they completely ignore. There are several people here who have an informed opinion about Reggie based on the effort they put in. And I commend it. But learning about Reggie and researching numbers doesn’t help in a comparison to a bunch of people you don’t give a shit about.

The outside interest in him is how he became overrated. People investigate and are rightly impressed by what he did. But that tells him nothing about a bunch of people they then say he was better than without doing that work for them. Rep Reggie all you like. Say he should have been this or that.

But don’t do it if when questioned about the other people involved, you can’t even tell me basic aspects of their game. That isn’t being informed. That’s just being a fan.

The video wasn't directed at you. I know you've seen Reggie. Although you can't go wrong with a Ben Taylor video. It's really the best basketball content out there.

It was aimed at people calling Reggie a borderline all-star and 3rd option on a title team.

Anyways I think you and I mostly agree. I'm probably higher on Miller than you are though. I think he was a superstar hiding in plain sight. When you look at those Pacers teams, they were quite good offensively despite not having what you would call super talented casts and Miller was a huge reason why.

The Terrell Brandon Cavs were 10th and 23rd on defense in the years he made the ASG. Even ignoring the box score, he didn't have the same kind of impact Miller did.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't think anybody cares if somebody ranks Joe Dumars over Reggie because he was obviously a HOF player.

The issue that has come into question is all the secondary guys who literally never did Jack shit in the playoffs being considered better than Reggie because of coaches regular season votes.

If that's who they voted for based on their anecdotal front row experience as being better? That means they ****ed up. Because it's not even close when we revisit the success not only on an individual basis from every angle but from a team success basis as well.


Minus the context clues from this topic you wouldn’t even know who this is


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2403080302460354.jpeg



Hell, you might not know right now. Your firm belief in opinions based on zero knowledge is a level of confidence I hope to one day reach.

[Kblaze8855]

The video wasn't directed at you. I know you've seen Reggie. Although you can't go wrong with a Ben Taylor video. It's really the best basketball content out there.

It was aimed at people calling Reggie a borderline all-star and 3rd option on a title team.

Anyways I think you and I mostly agree. I'm probably higher on Miller than you are though. I think he was a superstar hiding in plain sight. When you look at those Pacers teams, they were quite good offensively despite not having what you would call super talented casts and Miller was a huge reason why.

The Terrell Brandon Cavs were 10th and 23rd on defense in the years he made the ASG. Even ignoring the box score, he didn't have the same kind of impact Miller did.


i’m fine with most of that. The borderline All-Star part I don’t see the issue with. What do you call somebody who made five All-Star games in 18 years of relative health and consistency? Him not consistently being considered an all-star isn’t really a hot take as much as acknowledging the truth. I would say he was an All-Star level player For a good 12 years, but low in All-Star level players are borderline all stars. Sometimes they make it. Sometimes they don’t. Like Reggie. Or Marc Gasol. Sprewell.

It’s not exactly an insult. He wasn’t a no brainer guy.

[tpols]

You might be right.

Is that your uncle or something? :lol

[Phoenix]

Reggie was pretty much....nobody was gonna complain if he did or didn't make the all-star team. I don't know what the closest modern equivalent would be? Jimmy Butler?

[Kblaze8855]

You might be right.

Is that your uncle or something? :lol


https://youtu.be/FLbE2GYwYNg?si=hp184cspA0urOJz5


Its him. And that’s his 4th 30 point game in a row. He had 29 the game before the streak…24 the next game…and 35 the game after that vs the Knicks.

Wasnt his all star year either. Those few years the bucks were better than the Pacers, despite the Pacers, having three or four All-Star caliber talents. Reggie, Detlef, Chuck person and Rik Smits were on the same team at prime ages(all 25-28) winning 40 games and shit while Ricky was on a Bucks team playing better than it should have. They were on like a 50 win pace at the All-Star break with him the leading scorer with like 23 a game, despite coming off the bench.

he was a bucket. I’m not even saying he was better than Reggie either. I’m just saying it would be nice if the people saying he isn’t even knew who he was. Is that unreasonable?

[Reggie43]

Dumars and Reggie is a good argument but you cant tell me with a straight face that Reggie couldnt have won with that Pistons team behind him?

[Kblaze8855]

I’d say they would have been worse with Reggie, but not enough worse that they wouldn’t have won at least one of them if they got the same lucky breaks injury wise along the way. He definitely wasn’t ruined the team worse. But they would’ve missed Joe as another ball handler and definitely would’ve been worse defensively and that was their calling card. He was a better perimeter defender than Rodman for some matchups.

[tpols]

I get what you're saying there are a lot of unknown guys who were great.

[Reggie43]

They basically gain a more explosive scorer and Miller is a much much better defender than given credit for especially if he has those guys behind him. Pacers were a good defensive team in the mid 90s partly because of Reggie not despite of him.

[Kblaze8855]

I get what you're saying there are a lot of unknown guys who were great.

there were. And I’m not necessarily saying all of them were greater than Reggie. But there are so many guys who were reasonably ranked around his tier who due entirely to being unknown, get laughed at like they didn’t earn respect. Pierce wasn’t some legend but it’s not just insane to reward him with a back end spot when he’s lighting it up for a 50 win team that should win 30 and Reggie wins 40 on this team

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2403080427000370.jpeg


Hell Ricky outscored Reggie before the all star break on his better team with less talent.

The coaches didn’t just pull his name out of a hat. No disrespect to give him a nod.

[dankok8]

Reggie was pretty much....nobody was gonna complain if he did or didn't make the all-star team. I don't know what the closest modern equivalent would be? Jimmy Butler?

It's actually a good comparison. Obviously they are not similar at all in terms of style but in terms of coming up big in the playoffs, Butler since the bubble is exactly like Reggie. Butler often misses the all-star team but people acknowledge that he's a top 15 player minimum the last 4-5 years.

[Phoenix]

It's actually a good comparison. Obviously they are not similar at all in terms of style but in terms of coming up big in the playoffs, Butler since the bubble is exactly like Reggie. Butler often misses the all-star team but people acknowledge that he's a top 15 player minimum the last 4-5 years.

Yeah. And not just the performance jump from season to playoff, if you note both of them have very consistent statistical outputs for both of their primes, a few outliner seasons of higher input, but generally were doing the same production year in, year out. And whether or not it resulted in an all star selection seemed to be about what some other players may have been doing in a given season. But when Reggie got in....cool. When he didn't....no biggie. Same for Butler, we just in the context of a given season accept that they either made it or didn't and the world won't burn either way.. But I bet 15 years from now people will be saying Butler should have 12 allstar selections and the conversation may be similar to what we see with Reggie now.

[HoopsNY]

Dunno if I agree with Kblaze here. Between '92-'96, Reggie was amongst the league's best in playoff scoring and was in esteemed company. Not only that, he consistently went pound for pound against some of the best guards and for someone who has so many negatives, somehow he managed to give them all a run for their money.

And we're not talking about just anyone; we're talking about the likes of

Penny
Houston
AI
Kobe
Lewis
Dumars
Allen

Reggie didn't always guard these guys and these guys didn't always guard him, but it did happen sometimes and overall, he was right there with them most of the time. If that doesn't speak volumes given it was done on the biggest stage (the playoffs), then I don't know what else you want from this guy.

For some reason, when Indy won, it was because Reggie was on a great team, but when they lost, it's because of his unwillingness to score or inability to create shots?

I don't remember that being the case at all.

[RogueBorg]

Dumars and Reggie is a good argument but you cant tell me with a straight face that Reggie couldnt have won with that Pistons team behind him?

Reggie didn't play defense.

[RogueBorg]

They basically gain a more explosive scorer and Miller is a much much better defender than given credit for especially if he has those guys behind him. Pacers were a good defensive team in the mid 90s partly because of Reggie not despite of him.

BS

Reggie was not a good defender.

[tpols]

Dunno if I agree with Kblaze here. Between '92-'96, Reggie was amongst the league's best in playoff scoring and was in esteemed company. Not only that, he consistently went pound for pound against some of the best guards and for someone who has so many negatives, somehow he managed to give them all a run for their money.

And we're not talking about just anyone; we're talking about the likes of

Penny
Houston
AI
Kobe
Lewis
Dumars
Allen

Reggie didn't always guard these guys and these guys didn't always guard him, but it did happen sometimes and overall, he was right there with them most of the time. If that doesn't speak volumes given it was done on the biggest stage (the playoffs), then I don't know what else you want from this guy.

For some reason, when Indy won, it was because Reggie was on a great team, but when they lost, it's because of his unwillingness to score or inability to create shots?

I don't remember that being the case at all.


And the crazy thing is Reggie never even had the help his peers had.

So Shaq had Penny and Kobe, MJ had Pippen, Malone had Stockton, Hakeem had Clyde, Barkley had KJ, Payton had Kemp, etc.

Who did Reggie have? Rik Smits? Jalen Rose later on? Not saying they aren't pretty good but they're no where near as good as the aforementioned list.

Reggie and Pat Ewing really got screwed by not ever having a true star teammate on their squads. Yet they still led deep playoff teams.

[ImKobe]

Dunno if I agree with Kblaze here. Between '92-'96, Reggie was amongst the league's best in playoff scoring and was in esteemed company. Not only that, he consistently went pound for pound against some of the best guards and for someone who has so many negatives, somehow he managed to give them all a run for their money.

And we're not talking about just anyone; we're talking about the likes of

Penny
Houston
AI
Kobe
Lewis
Dumars
Allen

Reggie didn't always guard these guys and these guys didn't always guard him, but it did happen sometimes and overall, he was right there with them most of the time. If that doesn't speak volumes given it was done on the biggest stage (the playoffs), then I don't know what else you want from this guy.

For some reason, when Indy won, it was because Reggie was on a great team, but when they lost, it's because of his unwillingness to score or inability to create shots?

I don't remember that being the case at all.

All true. He averaged 24 ppg on ~60%TS for a Finals run at age 34. The average TS% that season was 52. The Jimmy Butler comparisons make sense tbh. He simply did not take as many shots in the RS which is why he has less accolades than a player of his caliber should, but he definitely was a big time scorer for that era.

[RogueBorg]

And the crazy thing is Reggie never even had the help his peers had.

So Shaq had Penny and Kobe, MJ had Pippen, Malone had Stockton, Hakeem had Clyde, Barkley had KJ, Payton had Kemp, etc.

Who did Reggie have? Rik Smits? Jalen Rose later on? Not saying they aren't pretty good but they're no where near as good as the aforementioned list.

Reggie and Pat Ewing really got screwed by not ever having a true star teammate on their squads. Yet they still led deep playoff teams.

Detlef Schrempf was a really good ball player. He could score, shoot from 3, rebound, pass for assists, he was very good.

[tpols]

Detlef Schrempf was a really good ball player. He could score, shoot from 3, rebound, pass for assists, he was very good.

Was he as good as Kobe, Penny, Stockton, Clyde, Pippen, Kemp, and KJ?

[HoopsNY]

All true. He averaged 24 ppg on ~60%TS for a Finals run at age 34. The average TS% that season was 52. The Jimmy Butler comparisons make sense tbh. He simply did not take as many shots in the RS which is why he has less accolades than a player of his caliber should, but he definitely was a big time scorer for that era.

Yea stats aside, no one can seriously say they watched Reggie for his playoff career and that he didn't go toe to toe with the best of the best (the only exception would probably be his series against MJ in '98).

He was as competitive as his opponents and was giving them fits when it came to defending him due to his ability to move off the ball.

If the argument is, "well, Reggie only made it to the finals once", then I'd ask why are his performances hinging on him alone? Suddenly the standards are risen sky high for Reggie and a lot of other guys get let off the hook.

Fact remain is was toe to toe in the playoffs against the best guards in the league and almost always faired just as well. What does that tell us? Because reading Kblaze's comments, you'd think he was just above average. At least, that's what I'm gathering.

[RogueBorg]

Was he as good as Kobe, Penny, Stockton, Clyde, Pippen, Kemp, and KJ?

Of course he wasn't on Kobe's level but he was close to Penny and KJ. The point is, he was a very good player.

[Kblaze8855]

Was he as good as Kobe, Penny, Stockton, Clyde, Pippen, Kemp, and KJ?

You couldn’t have traded Reggie for any of those players. Why would you expect anyone else on his team to be that level?

The Pacers were never a team of superstars. They were always a group of several low, end stars and Reggie was one of them. Sometimes he was the most productive one, and sometimes he wasn’t. Reggie was in his prime, playing with dead Lyft person, and Smith and winning 40 games. I realize fans who don’t remember them probably think those weren’t particularly good players, but they were. That was all NBA when he was past his prime in Seattle. he was on the pacers doing like 19 10 and six to Reggie’s 21/3/3. He wasn’t some other guy. He was comfortably the most productive player on the team. Some years Reggie was the best in the playoffs. Some years he wasn’t. Person did 26 a game on 53/55/81(taking 6 threes a game) vs the Celtics as they lost. Year before it was 21/4/2 for Reggie and 20/7/2 for Detlef with Reggie shooting 57/42. Be a game he’s got 20, Chuck had 33, Detlef had 19/16.

None of which even acknowledges Smits who would often be the first option when he was in the games.

A bunch of people having small names has really thrown fans who don’t remember them off in their perception of the Pacers. It was never Reggie and some guys. Reggie was one of the guys. There is just a misconception he was doing everything. Even in the clutch. You go back and watch those games there are times Reggie is standing, literally with his hand on his hips while Rick Smits and Dale Davis are posting up on big possessions. You watch it and it wouldn’t even make sense with modern eyes. But it happened all the time. Guys you never heard of taking the game winner. Mark Jackson, throwing up foul line floaters because Reggie wouldn’t go get the ball. it wasn’t even unusual.

you could certainly attribute it to unselfishness if you want to but if you go watch those Pacers play at any point from the late 80s to the late 90s you will see a team. Not Reggie Miller and some misfits trying to keep up with him. Half the time you watch, he would take 12 shots. Detlef would be doing dribble hand offs like Sabonis, posting up, facing up, rebounding, running the floor.

You wouldn’t at a glance know he wasn’t the best player on that team if you didn’t know who anyone was. And many people thought he was. It’s just hard for people to accept because of their built in assumptions.

The Pacers being talented, but not doing shit was the theme for years. He didn’t win a playoff series till he was three years older than Luka is now. People who were around at the time really don’t remember the untalented team fans now seem to think they were.

They were less talented when they were winning more under Larry Brown who literally told Reggie he couldn’t win as a traditional star and they had to win with toughness, defense, and teamwork. Larry kind of broke him too much.

By the time they were serious he needed to be able to go back to 90 Reggie but so often he wouldn’t. Bird was begging for it and he was too far gone into the “Play the right way” Larry brown approach.

he never seemed to accept the same thing A lot of numbers people can’t accept. Efficiently scoring less points than the other team it’s just a loss. Your worse teammates don’t automatically score because you don’t shoot. Often it just leads to a worse player taking a tough shot, when you as the star are more likely to make it.

its one of those things where you have to put aside the numbers and actually think it through and so many people aren’t willing to do it. There were a lot of situations the pacers would’ve been better if Reggie missed more shots because if he took seven or eight of the bad shots his teammates had to take because he wouldn’t “force the issue” he would make more of them than they did, even though his percentage would drop a little.

I think guys like Jordan and Kobe realized that. Bird certainly did. And he tried to get Reggie to understand it but he just wouldn’t. So now we’re on here talking about shooting numbers and efficiency after games you can look up the interview and both Reggie and his coach talk about how he should’ve been more aggressive as they lost a game late while he wasn’t shooting. 20 years later it’s an unbelievable game. In real time he’s apologizing for it because he didn’t do his job. It contributes heavily to the disconnect between people who were there and people who just read numbers and there is very little to be done about it now.

So much of the discussion isn’t truly about basketball Because too many of the people talking weren’t watching the games. So I can’t really say they should know better than they do but it would be nice.

[tpols]

You couldn’t have traded Reggie for any of those players. Why would you expect anyone else on his team to be that level?


Um... because all the other MVP talents had that star power for help...?

It's bad enough you think Reggie is trash or mid or whatever. But then you expect him to take down guys like MJ and Shaq with less help when he himself wasn't as good as them to begin with?

That's a double jeopardy ****ing.

Put prime Penny or Kobe on the Pacers they win a ring. And Reggie would be the leading scorer and FMVP over Penny, and maybe even over Kobe.

[Kblaze8855]

Fact remain is was toe to toe in the playoffs against the best guards in the league and almost always faired just as well. What does that tell us? Because reading Kblaze's comments, you'd think he was just above average. At least, that's what I'm gathering.



if you gather that I think he’s above average from me, saying he was a roughly All-Star level player for 12 years in a row I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s just the modern culture of extremes not letting people see the middle. Not being as good as a group of people who almost to a man weren’t watching him at his peak think he was is a long way from being average or even above. Morris Peterson was above average. Reggie scored 25,000 points and is in the Hall of Fame. Being a low end, Hall of Famer is a long way from being a little above average. There being a lot of people of a relatively low level of fame who were comparable is the main problem.

People were mad I said Dennis Johnson was better at one point. Dennis Johnson was something like a seven time all star 10 time all d finals MVP who between winning championships with Seattle and Boston had like a 55 or so win suns team and was putting up like 20/8 for whole playoffs and hitting finals game winners past his prime.

It’s not unreasonable to rank him over Reggie. But he’s such an unknown today people look at me like I compared him to Howard Eisley.

He was a great player, who was no better than a lot of great players who simply aren’t well-known. Doesn’t make him average. In some cases it does make him overrated. But overrated players are still great. Average players barely even get a rating. If someone sits down to make all overrated team, there would probably be five Hall of Famers on the 12 man roster.

Someone thinking you’re overrated and thinking you aren’t notable shouldn’t be considered the same thing.

If I had a Hall of Fame vote, I would’ve voted for Reggie. Doesn’t mean he was as good as Joe Dumars. But 95% of fans don’t know shit about Joe Dumars game which contributes to him being underrated and Reggie being overrated.

It’s damn near impossible to be a basketball fan and not know Reggie Miller. Hes just about the worst player you can say that of. His fame is elite. His level of play was a consistent maybe or maybe not all star. There’s a pretty good separation between those two things.

Doesn’t make him average. It often does make him overrated.

[Kblaze8855]

Um... because all the other MVP talents had that star power for help...?


reggie wasn’t an MVP caliber player himself, so why would you be listing superstars as his potential help? Reggie Miller was of the level to be the help for an MVP caliber player.

He is the other guy for a Hakeem. He’s not the guy who makes a superstar his other guy.


It's bad enough you think Reggie is trash or mid or whatever. But then you expect him to take down guys like MJ and Shaq with less help when he himself wasn't as good as them to begin with?

That's a double jeopardy ****ing.

Put prime Penny or Kobe on the Pacers they win a ring. And Reggie would be the leading scorer and FMVP over Penny, and maybe even over Kobe.


go take a ****ing nap. You’re obviously fussy and irritable.

[HoopsNY]

if you gather that I think he’s above average from me, saying he was a roughly All-Star level player for 12 years in a row I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s just the modern culture of extremes not letting people see the middle. Not being as good as a group of people who almost to a man weren’t watching him at his peak. Think he was is a long way from being average or even above. Morris Peterson was above average. Reggie scored 25,000 points and is in the Hall of Fame. Being a low end, Hall of Famer is a long way from being a little above average. They’re being a lot of people of a relatively low level of fame who were comparable is the main problem.

People were mad I said Dennis Johnson was better at one point. Dennis Johnson was something like a seven time all star 10 time all d finals MVP who between winning championships with Seattle and Boston had like a 55 or so win suns team and was putting up like 20/8 for whole playoffs and hitting finals game winners past his prime.

It’s not unreasonable to rank him over Reggie. But he’s such an unknown today people look at me like I compared him to Howard Eisley.

He was a great player, who was no better than a lot of great players who simply aren’t well-known. Doesn’t make him average. In some cases it does make him overrated. But overrated players are still great. Average players barely even get a rating. If someone sits down to make all overrated team, there would probably be five Hall of Famers on the 12 man roster.

Someone thinking you’re overrated and thinking you aren’t notable shouldn’t be considered the same thing.

If I had a Hall of Fame vote, I would’ve voted for Reggie. Doesn’t mean he was as good as Joe Dumars. But 95% of fans don’t know shit about Joe Dumars game which contributes to him being underrated and Reggie being overrated.

It’s damn near impossible to be a basketball fan and not know Reggie Miller. Hes just about the worst player you can say that of. His fame is elite. His level of play was a consistent maybe or maybe not all star. There’s a pretty good separation between those two things.

Doesn’t make him average. It often does make him overrated.

I don't think he's overrated. I also don't think he was better than Joe Dumars. My point is, we can't look at the body of work that was a full 12 years in the playoffs, against some of the best guards of all time, where he went toe to toe, and say he's overrated.

How does that make sense? Yea, he didn't get very far, but still and all, his performances were what they were, and I honestly have never seen anyone overrate them.

Now, I do admit, I am biased being a Knicks fan, so there's that. But I also saw him against most of the other teams (not including his matchups against Lewis and Dumars). Reggie was putting in work. And by no means could you watch him and say he was overrated in most of those series.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't think he's overrated. I also don't think he was better than Joe Dumars. My point is, we can't look at the body of work that was a full 12 years in the playoffs, against some of the best guards of all time, where he went toe to toe, and say he's overrated.

How does that make sense? Yea, he didn't get very far, but still and all, his performances were what they were, and I honestly have never seen anyone overrate them.

Now, I do admit, I am biased being a Knicks fan, so there's that. But I also saw him against most of the other teams (not including his matchups against Lewis and Dumars). Reggie was putting in work. And by no means could you watch him and say he was overrated in most of those series.


this is pretty simple. You don’t think he’s better than Dumars. If I pull up a poll and got 10 million votes online who do you think wins?

being overrated or not Isn’t an issue of if you “Put in work” Versus anybody or who you went to toe with. The issue is where you are rated in comparison to others. We can play the “Toe to toe” Game and find a huge number of people with more impressive total accomplishments than Reggie Miller, who aren’t 1/20 as highly regarded. Gus Williams knocked Kareem out of the playoffs a couple of times(At least the way Reggie fans look at it) and was out there scoring 30 a game while he did it. Nobody gives a ****. Nobody. I’m not sure I’ve ever so much has seen his face on TV Since he retired.

The list of people with accomplishments and gains that dwarf Reggie with names, his name dwarfs the entire Issue. He is more famous than he was. He is rated higher than a lot of people who were better than him. People who were better players, and a lot of people who are more accomplished. That’s what being overrated is. Going to toe with whoever only matters when he isn’t being compared to people who did the same thing and more with nobody giving a shit. Going toe to toe with such and such matters if I’m comparing him to David Wesley Not George Garvin and others.

All of these people were going to with legends. But a tremendous number of them we’re doing it and better and nobody knows who the **** they are.

They are rated and regarded much lower than their ability to play the game. Reggie Miller is a giant name being talked about all the time while people like Dave Cowens win MVPs and multiple titles and 99% of basketball fans wouldn’t know his headshot. Reggie is a result of coming along at the right time as the media blew up and having a rivalry that got a bunch of ESPN specials made about series he mostly lost. He isn’t an elite player. He has an elite name and a low end legend game.

Him being overrated isn’t about him. It’s about the disregard considerably better and more accomplished players get purely by circumstance.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't think he's overrated. I also don't think he was better than Joe Dumars. My point is, we can't look at the body of work that was a full 12 years in the playoffs, against some of the best guards of all time, where he went toe to toe, and say he's overrated.

How does that make sense? Yea, he didn't get very far, but still and all, his performances were what they were, and I honestly have never seen anyone overrate them.

Now, I do admit, I am biased being a Knicks fan, so there's that. But I also saw him against most of the other teams (not including his matchups against Lewis and Dumars). Reggie was putting in work. And by no means could you watch him and say he was overrated in most of those series.


this is pretty simple. You don’t think he’s better than Dumars. If I pull up a poll and got 10 million votes online who do you think wins?

being overrated or not Isn’t an issue of if you “Put in work” Versus anybody or who you went to toe with. The issue is where you are rated in comparison to others. We can play the “Toe to toe” Game and find a huge number of people with more impressive total accomplishments than Reggie Miller, who aren’t 1/20 as highly regarded. Gus Williams knocked Kareem out of the playoffs a couple of times(At least the way Reggie fans look at it) and was out there scoring 30 a game while he did it. Nobody gives a ****. Nobody. I’m not sure I’ve ever so much has seen his face on TV Since he retired.

The list of people with accomplishments and games that dwarf Reggie with names his name dwarfs is the entire Issue. He is more famous than he was great. He is rated higher than a lot of people who were better than him. People who were better players, and a lot of people who are more accomplished. That’s what being overrated is. Going to toe with whoever only matters when he isn’t being compared to people who did the same thing and more with nobody giving a shit. Going toe to toe with such and such matters if I’m comparing him to David Wesley Not George Garvin and others.

All of these people were going toe to toe with legends. But a tremendous number of them were doing it and better and nobody knows who the **** they are. Rick Barry will get smoked in a poll versus Reggie Miller. Nobody knows or gives a **** about Rick Barry today.

It’s that way with dozens of people.

They are rated and regarded much lower than their ability to play the game. Reggie Miller is a giant name being talked about all the time while people like Dave Cowens win MVPs and multiple titles and 99% of basketball fans wouldn’t know his headshot. Reggie is a result of coming along at the right time as the media blew up and having a rivalry that got a bunch of ESPN specials made about series he mostly lost. He isn’t an elite player. He has an elite name and a low end legend game.

Him being overrated isn’t about him. It’s about the disregard considerably better and more accomplished players get purely by circumstance.

[L.Kizzle]

this is pretty simple. You don’t think he’s better than Dumars. If I pull up a poll and got 10 million votes online who do you think wins?

being overrated or not Isn’t an issue of if you “Put in work” Versus anybody or who you went to toe with. The issue is where you are rated in comparison to others. We can play the “Toe to toe” Game and find a huge number of people with more impressive total accomplishments than Reggie Miller, who aren’t 1/20 as highly regarded. Gus Williams knocked Kareem out of the playoffs a couple of times(At least the way Reggie fans look at it) and was out there scoring 30 a game while he did it. Nobody gives a ****. Nobody. I’m not sure I’ve ever so much has seen his face on TV Since he retired.

The list of people with accomplishments and games that dwarf Reggie with names his name dwarfs is the entire Issue. He is more famous than he was great. He is rated higher than a lot of people who were better than him. People who were better players, and a lot of people who are more accomplished. That’s what being overrated is. Going to toe with whoever only matters when he isn’t being compared to people who did the same thing and more with nobody giving a shit. Going toe to toe with such and such matters if I’m comparing him to David Wesley Not George Garvin and others.

All of these people were going toe to toe with legends. But a tremendous number of them were doing it and better and nobody knows who the **** they are. Rick Barry will get smoked in a poll versus Reggie Miller. Nobody knows or gives a **** about Rick Barry today.

It’s that way with dozens of people.

They are rated and regarded much lower than their ability to play the game. Reggie Miller is a giant name being talked about all the time while people like Dave Cowens win MVPs and multiple titles and 99% of basketball fans wouldn’t know his headshot. Reggie is a result of coming along at the right time as the media blew up and having a rivalry that got a bunch of ESPN specials made about series he mostly lost. He isn’t an elite player. He has an elite name and a low end legend game.

Him being overrated isn’t about him. It’s about the disregard considerably better and more accomplished players get purely by circumstance.
I seen an All-Time earlier this week that had listed Reggie Miller as thr 35th greatest player of All-Time. He's closer to a top 35 guard them a top 35 player ever.

[SouBeachTalents]

The biggest revisionist history is him being ranked ahead of Drexler on some of these lists when absolutely nobody considered him better when they were in the league together.

[RogueBorg]

The biggest revisionist history is him being ranked ahead of Drexler on some of these lists when absolutely nobody considered him better when they were in the league together.

This 100% true.

[tpols]

Drexler had a better peak and was a way better athlete but Reggie was far more skilled and honestly had a truly cut throat mentality that a laid back Clyde didn't have. They're pretty much opposites and equals at the same time. Both all time great guards.

[HoopsNY]

this is pretty simple. You don’t think he’s better than Dumars. If I pull up a poll and got 10 million votes online who do you think wins?

Probably Reggie....but maybe that's not so much of an issue with Reggie supposedly being overrated and more of an issue of Dumars being underrated?


being overrated or not Isn’t an issue of if you “Put in work” Versus anybody or who you went to toe with. The issue is where you are rated in comparison to others. We can play the “Toe to toe” Game and find a huge number of people with more impressive total accomplishments than Reggie Miller, who aren’t 1/20 as highly regarded. Gus Williams knocked Kareem out of the playoffs a couple of times(At least the way Reggie fans look at it) and was out there scoring 30 a game while he did it. Nobody gives a ****. Nobody. I’m not sure I’ve ever so much has seen his face on TV Since he retired.

I don't see the relevance of your example. Gus Williams was a PG whereas Kareem was a C. Your comparison is more apples to oranges than it is apples to apples.

The 90s was an era of defined roles based on positions, unlike today's positionless era. Reggie went toe-to-toe with peers. If he's doing so against the likes of AI, Dumars, Lewish, Houston, Allen, and Kobe, then what does that say about his value? That's my point.


The list of people with accomplishments and games that dwarf Reggie with names his name dwarfs is the entire Issue. He is more famous than he was great. He is rated higher than a lot of people who were better than him. People who were better players, and a lot of people who are more accomplished. That’s what being overrated is. Going to toe with whoever only matters when he isn’t being compared to people who did the same thing and more with nobody giving a shit. Going toe to toe with such and such matters if I’m comparing him to David Wesley Not George Garvin and others.


Yea. There is an argument to be made for the way he's looked at vs. other guys on the all time list. I just generally don't see it and even if we do, I think it's more of an issue of the other player being underrated rather than Reggie being overrated.

If you're going to tell me that Reggie going toe to toe or even at times flat out outplaying his competition who were big stars doesn't matter, then I will disagree. I think 12 years of consistently doing that the majority of the time with guys who were all seen as being better really does matter.

To compare the analogy to Wesley and Gervin is absurd. You can't seriously tell me with a straight face that the gap between Wesley and Gervin is as wide as Reggie to Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Reggie Lewis, or Ray Allen. Maybe AI or Penny, but the other guys weren't light years ahead of him.


All of these people were going toe to toe with legends. But a tremendous number of them were doing it and better and nobody knows who the **** they are. Rick Barry will get smoked in a poll versus Reggie Miller. Nobody knows or gives a **** about Rick Barry today.


I doubt it.


They are rated and regarded much lower than their ability to play the game. Reggie Miller is a giant name being talked about all the time while people like Dave Cowens win MVPs and multiple titles and 99% of basketball fans wouldn’t know his headshot. Reggie is a result of coming along at the right time as the media blew up and having a rivalry that got a bunch of ESPN specials made about series he mostly lost. He isn’t an elite player. He has an elite name and a low end legend game.


Well, that's just recency bias. It doesn't make Reggie any less of a player because people forgot about Cowens who played in the 70s. I mean, should we not recognize how great Reggie was in the playoffs because people forgot about George Mikan?

No one said he's an elite player. The premise of this thread is the All-Star selections. And nobody cares if you're mad that teenagers or 20 something year olds, or millennials, don't remember someone like Cowens. It's irrelevant. What IS relevant is what he actually did when it mattered the most. You seem to think it wasn't anything special. Fair enough.


Him being overrated isn’t about him. It’s about the disregard considerably better and more accomplished players get purely by circumstance.


Okay cool. That's a different argument, though. I'm sure there are many players who fit that script.

[tpols]

I've tried to explain and show the individual productions and team success to Kblaze and others a million times.

Hoops go look up the Iverson vs Reggie playoff battles and results. Reggie absolutely ethered AI. No if, ands, or buts about it. And people still refuse to accept the reality.

Kblaze would argue AI >>> Reggie til he dies even after seeing the latter whoop the formers ass H2H with the highest stakes on the line.

[HoopsNY]

I've tried to explain and show the individual productions and team success to Kblaze and others a million times.

Hoops go look up the Iverson vs Reggie playoff battles and results. Reggie absolutely ethered AI. No if, ands, or buts about it. And people still refuse to accept the reality.

Kblaze would argue AI >>> Reggie til he dies even after seeing the latter whoop the formers ass H2H with the highest stakes on the line.

Yea I'm aware. We all witnessed it. The point is that it wasn't Reggie doing this for a year, two, or three. Reggie did this for his entire career. And he did it on the biggest stage. That matters.

[L.Kizzle]

Drexler had a better peak and was a way better athlete but Reggie was far more skilled and honestly had a truly cut throat mentality that a laid back Clyde didn't have. They're pretty much opposites and equals at the same time. Both all time great guards.
That's is one of the truest statements ever said. Not one year when they played together 87-98 was Reggie better. Maybe I'll give him 98, but that's it.

Of the mid 80s to mid Hof SGs.
Think Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Reggie and Mitch (and if you'd like to include Sidney Moncrief, sure.) Who's The most accomplished and who's the least accomplished?

[tpols]

That's is one of the truest statements ever said.


I agree.

[ShawkFactory]

Comparing Reggie Miller to Drexler is like comparing Miller to Starks, Brandon, or these other guys mentioned.

[L.Kizzle]

Comparing Reggie Miller to Drexler is like comparing Miller to Starks, Brandon, or these other guys mentioned.

It's like comparing Oscar Robertson to Sam Jones really.

[Kblaze8855]

You’re kinda all over the place but I think it boils down to this part





No one said he's an elite player. The premise of this thread is the All-Star selections. And nobody cares if you're mad that teenagers or 20 something year olds, or millennials, don't remember someone like Cowens. It's irrelevant. What IS relevant is what he actually did when it mattered the most.



people absolutely do call him elite. There are people in this topic who do. And what he does in the playoffs(lose and not be very productive though you all are willing to pretend otherwise) is completely irrelevant to the matter of all star selections. Whatever he does in the playoffs in 1998 in no way factors in when the issue is if he should’ve been an all-star 7 years before that over a guy who was scoring more than he was(at the break) on a 50 win pace team, that was less talented than the team Reggie was on that won 40 games.

People Calling out coaches for picking 22 1/2 points on a 50 win team over 22 1/2 points on a .500 win team that also had Person, Detlef, and Smits on it. And doing it using evidence from playoff victories years later.

Guy won between 40 and 42 games 4 years in a row from age 23-27 and also missed the asg when Mark Jackson was traded and they won 39 games.

he was a poor all around scoring only guard of middling production, missing the All-Star game on a bunch of average ass teams, several of which had more talent than wins.

Terrell Brandon had Chris Mills and Danny Ferry over 500. 25-21. The Pacers were under 500 when the all star lineups were voted on.

Why would they put Reggie in? Dumars was on a 54 win pistons team and still an all D guy who was better all around. Hardaway on a 61 win Heat team and all nba first team. He wasn’t taking Jordan or Pennys spot. He wasn’t terribly productive. But we need to fight that he should just be granted a spot.

he was an injury replacement level potential All-Star. Some years he made it out right. A lot of years he didn’t, and shouldn’t have. Nothing he did in the playoffs in different years should factor in at all. And that’s if you care about an efficient 23 points and losing to begin with. And rest assured…I don’t. It appears the coaches didn’t either and I’m not seeing much reason they should have.

and you’re free to not care what I think about where he’s rated. But the fact is where he’s rated compared to a huge number of more accomplished, and better players is exactly what determines if he is under appropriately or overrated. When he is rated higher than a bunch of them that makes him overrated. Feel free to ignore it. You arent about to make a good case he’s better than Dave Cowens or any number of less respected but flat out better and more accomplished people.

that is exactly what overrated means. His ratio of ability to the regard he is held in, is incredibly uneven. He’s pretty much the definition of overrated. he’s not the only one, but the inescapable result of a bunch of people being criminally underrated is people who come out overrated. He is one of them. It’s part recency bias. It’s part ability. It’s part fame and media. But it’s accurate to say it.

[Kblaze8855]

I've tried to explain and show the individual productions and team success to Kblaze and others a million times.

Hoops go look up the Iverson vs Reggie playoff battles and results. Reggie absolutely ethered AI. No if, ands, or buts about it. And people still refuse to accept the reality.

Kblaze would argue AI >>> Reggie til he dies even after seeing the latter whoop the formers ass H2H with the highest stakes on the line.


on this issue, the line between you and me is pretty simple. I am far far far more informed about the people we’re talking about than you are. It just doesn’t bother you to not know what you’re talking about. I don’t get into those discussions. I don’t have an informed opinion about Sengun so you don’t see me in that topic about him. I either know what I’m talking about or I shut the **** up. Shutting the **** up isn’t an option for you. So you will talk about how many All-Star games he should have when you admit to not even recognizing some of the people chosen over him. It’s certainly a lane. And not an uncommon one in this day. but it’s not my lane.

I just have a soft spot for it and indulge you because I was you in the 80s and early 90s arguing with my uncle and his friend who was actually in the NBA briefly about shit I thought I knew. and to this day I still think dude had a weird take on Elvin Hayes but who the **** am I to tell somebody who guarded Elvin Hayes and someone who was an obsessive basketball fan in the 60s and 70s how good Elvin Hayes was? I saw Elvin Hayes the Rockets. A little. I should have shut the **** up. But I was very hesitant to do it, so I can’t really get on you that much right now.

to my credit, you’re a lot older now than I was then. I had grown out of it before I got anywhere near your current age.

[RRR3]

on this issue, the line between you and me is pretty simple. I am far far far more informed about the people we’re talking about than you are. It just doesn’t bother you to not know what you’re talking about. I don’t get into those discussions. I don’t have an informed opinion about Sengun so you don’t see me in that topic about him. I either know what I’m talking about or I shut the **** up. Shutting the **** up isn’t an option for you. So you will talk about how many All-Star games he should have when you admit to not even recognizing some of the people chosen over him. It’s certainly a lane. And not an uncommon one in this day. but it’s not my lane.

I just have a soft spot for it and indulge you because I was you in the 80s and early 90s arguing with my uncle and his friend who was actually in the NBA briefly about shit I thought I knew. and to this day I still think dude had a weird take on Elvin Hayes but who the **** am I to tell somebody who guarded Elvin Hayes and someone who was an obsessive basketball fan in the 60s and 70s how good Elvin Hayes was? I saw Elvin Hayes the Rockets. A little. I should have shut the **** up. But I was very hesitant to do it, so I can’t really get on you that much right now.

to my credit, you’re a lot older now than I was then. I had grown out of it before I got anywhere near your current age.
I swear I've seen you shit on Elvin Hayes before :lol

[L.Kizzle]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)

[RRR3]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)
tpols meltdown incoming

[Kblaze8855]

I swear I've seen you shit on Elvin Hayes before :lol

i’m sure you have. He was famously an asshole and there are a lot of hilarious stories and quotes relating to it. But imagine young me fighting with a guy who was in the NBA in the late 70s about Elvin Hayes versus Kareem. It makes me cringe to think back on it. I remember some of the arguments I had with my stepdad who actually watched Elgin Baylor play live. Elgin Baylor was an almanac entry to me for the most part and I was arguing with somebody who watched him play in person.

Stuff like that stays on my mind, but you grow out of it. It’s just annoying to think about like when you realize some of the girls in your youth wanted to ****, but you didn’t have the wherewithal to recognize the signs.

You just feel like a moron in retrospect. And even now I don’t necessarily think what I was saying was wrong. I had no real leg to stand on and I can’t imagine how I looked. Just a little know nothing know it all. He should have told me so but he never did. He was too nice. I would light little me up in an argument.

[Kblaze8855]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)

Relative to the league each of them played in he was probably the least highly regarded, but point-blank basketball ability? He’s not the worst on that list. Then you have guys who made it partially off of strong careers on other levels like Calvin Murphy. Reggie better than Calvin Murphy was. He’s low end Hall of Fame not absolute bottom.

[L.Kizzle]

Relative to the league each of them played in he was probably the least highly regarded, but point-blank basketball ability? He’s not the worst on that list. Then you have guys who made it partially off of strong careers on other levels like Calvin Murphy. Reggie better than Calvin Murphy was. He’s low end Hall of Fame not absolute bottom.

Calvin Murphy is the shortest person in the Hall. Cut him some slack.
I'm looking at Lou Hudson right now, and he seems kind of solid.
20/4/3 regular season stats
21/5/3 playoff stats

[ELITEpower23]

Reggie Miller is the most overrated player in NBA history.

[Reggie43]

Reggie didn't play defense.

A lot of his peers, coaches, opponents has praised his defense through the years especially during the times they were making deep playoff runs.

Pacers were a strong defensive minded team partly because of his ability on that side of the ball or should we give credit to Mark lol.


“I don’t really dislike anybody in the league, but playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts,” Jordan told ESPN‘s Rick Telander at the time. “It’s like chicken-fighting with a woman. His game is all this flopping-type thing. He weighs only 185 pounds, so you have to be careful, don’t touch him, or it’s a foul. On offense, I use all my 215 pounds and just move him out. But he has his hands on you all the time, like a woman holding your waist. I just want to beat his hands off because it’s illegal. It irritates me.”

If Jordan hates the way you play defense you must be doing something right.

[L.Kizzle]

A lot of his peers, coaches, opponents has praised his defense through the years especially during the times they were making deep playoff runs.

Pacers were a strong defensive minded team partly because of his ability on that side of the ball or should we give credit to Mark lol.



If Jordan hates the way you play defense you must be doing something right.
Jordan literally said he's flops and holds like a woman. Not a good compliment lol.

[Reggie43]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)

He is arguably better than Ray, Mitch, Joe D but they are on the same tier. He is better than Manu regardless if the latter was more skilled. Ai was better but would rather have Miller easy.

[Reggie43]

Jordan literally said he's flops and holds like a woman. Not a good compliment lol.

Then look at the results and numbers then. A bad defender woukdnt last against the Goat yet in 1998 he was the primary defender on Jordan for the Pacers helping push the series to the limit.

Game 7 Bulls vs Pacers Jordan was 9/25 from the floor good for 36%fg guess who was his primary defender?

[tpols]

I either know what I’m talking about or I shut the **** up. Shutting the **** up isn’t an option for you.

You're damn straight I won't shut the **** up if somebody is spouting nonsense and then using the "I'm 20 years older than you!" as their only defense.

We were both adults watching Westbrook and you still said he was an MVP talent while I didn't and look how that turned out? Appeal to authority didn't work then huh?

Reggie did this to Iverson in the 90s.

https://i.postimg.cc/SxSkrLMP/Screenshot-20240308-171840-Chrome.jpg

And the previous year he got swept by Reggie.

:oldlol:

And we've all STILL yet to hear an argument to how Miller was worse than everybody else. Just hearsay from coaches who are apparently upper level dieties.

[Kblaze8855]

You're damn straight I won't shut the **** up if somebody is spouting nonsense and then using the "I'm 20 years older than you!" as their only defense.

We were both adults watching Westbrook and you still said he was an MVP talent while I didn't and look how that turned out? Appeal to authority didn't work then huh?

Reggie did this to Iverson in the 90s.

https://i.postimg.cc/SxSkrLMP/Screenshot-20240308-171840-Chrome.jpg

And the previous year he got swept by Reggie.

:oldlol:

And we've all STILL yet to hear an argument to how Miller was worse than everybody else. Just hearsay from coaches who are apparently upper level dieties.

when you were talking about who should be an all-star and you literally don’t know who some of the people are who made it yes you being too young is a factor. You quite literally learned who somebody was in this topic after complaining about them making it. An argument about somebody in the current NBA obviously wouldn’t apply. There comes a point when you just have no idea who the people you’re talking about are or how they really were playing at the time. Despite your love of him, you really don’t know half what I know about Reggie Miller. You just don’t. You do not know what you are talking about. There are fans of him here who do. Two in this topic. You aren’t one of them. Reggie43 knows what he’s talking about. Tontoz knows this subject matter. Both are fans of heels. I may or may not agree with them, but I can tell they know the subject matter. You just don’t.

And your example of what he “did” Does nothing but show the incredibly low standards you hold him to. Nobody points out 25/3/2 on good shooting for a week as some epic performance. Great players mop the floor with the examples people use of Reggie being dominant, and nobody even brings it up because they do such things so often it isn’t even noteworthy. You might as well be talking about what Ben Gordon did to Wade. Swept him, outscored him, and was vastly more efficient.

But when we’re talking about 26/6/5 it’s not really living in history as some great performance even in sweeping the defending champs.

do you know who talks up performances like that later? Really good role players. Guys like Troy Hudson who have a great series. We would talk about Troy Hudson having a hot week of 23-25 or whatever. The real monsters? Guys like Hakeem have 50/25/6 block elimination games you never even heard of.

guys you only vaguely know existed have stretches outplaying anything Reggie ever did with nobody caring. And there’s no real reason to care because it doesn’t matter. Not on these levels. You stay posting the most mundane stat lines that don’t stand out in any way and you hold them up like you just drew Excalibur from the stone. And I’m trying to tell you…Excalibur wouldn’t be 25/3/2 on good shooting. You pulled out a 40 degree day.


https://youtu.be/Rp1ExC52BOc?si=XQTK-G90db6nqkUU



if you could find your history of posting random Stat lines, thinking it impresses people and list the ones you post for Reggie and the ones you post for anybody else? I guarantee you Reggies are the most mundane. Nobody is out here telling stories about how they got lit up for an efficient 24 by somebody in the Hall of Fame for no reason but his scoring ability. If John Stockton gives you 24 or 25 you might leave in awe because he probably also had 17 assists and five steals, and made you feel like you didn’t know how to play basketball. Reggie? A guy who serves no purpose but to put points on the board? Nah.

If you can’t do anything but score….score. His wild “outbursts” in the playoffs tend to get his series average up to what people he’s compared to average for entire seasons. And generally when he does it, it’s a losing cause playing 45 minutes. A “dominant” Reggie scores 27 efficient points. Game of his life Reggie gives you 40 in the playoffs then never does it again.

That level of ball simply doesn’t get talked about for most. It’s shit Terry Porter does in total anonymity. It’s Kevin Johnson twice in one series. Vince Carter has 30/8/6 For the series vs Indiana, it will literally never be brought up for as long as you live, because of nobody gives a **** about performances like that from a star. You stay acting like he’s scorching the earth when in reality…


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2403090429320333.gif






You posting 40 degree days.

Its ok for winter.

Its not legendary. Reggie might have six or seven games in 20 years that are “Gaaaaaaa damn….” performances. He goes crazy and has 34/3/1. And you will talk about it 30 years later. Gorgeous just wasn’t doing very much. He was a slow and steady wins the race type. Except he lost the race every year. He would slowly steadily finish the race, at least. That guy would get across the finish line. In ninth place. But he would gradually finish.

[Phoenix]

Ah, the first of two annual Reggie threads that goes 10 pages with the same forces arguing over what he was and wasn't.

We did it! :rockon:

[dankok8]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)

Peak for peak, the only guys on that list better than Reggie to me are Drexler and Iverson. There's cases for a few others but it can be argued both ways. Guys like Ray Ray, Pistol Pete, Dumars... they are roughly on Reggie's level.

And career wise for those who care about longevity, Reggie has most of those guys beat. There's no way he's the worst SG in the HOF. That's a very bad take.

[tpols]

Ray Allen and Reggie were both way better than Iverson.

I've never seen somebody get their ass kicked over and over and still have people say theyre better. Substance > style.

You ain't sexy when you're getting knocked out cold.

[Norcaliblunt]

Peak Kevin Johnson was better than Reggie Miller and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame.

Reggie was good, but just because the league changed the rules to favor his style of play doesn’t make him any better in regards to the era he actually played. Lmao.

His resume speaks for itself. A good career with some good highlights who achieved about the same amount of success as 50 other good NBA players.

[Reggie43]

Peak Kevin Johnson was better than Reggie Miller and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame.

Reggie was good, but just because the league changed the rules to favor his style of play doesn’t make him any better in regards to the era he actually played. Lmao.

His resume speaks for itself. A good career with some good highlights who achieved about the same amount of success as 50 other good NBA players.

Peak Kevin Johnson was better than a ton of guys in the HoF. Him not being there is not because of lack of basketball ability.

[L.Kizzle]

Peak Kevin Johnson was better than a ton of guys in the HoF. Him not being there is not because of lack of basketball ability.

He'll make it. It's guys playing in the 60s and 70s who just recently made it.

[John8204]

Reggie might be the worst shooting guard in the Hall of Fame.

Is he better than any of these guys:
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Manu
Mitch
Joe D
Drexler
Moncrief
Dennis Johnson
Earl Monroe
Pistol Pete
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman (maybe)
Sweet Lou Hudson (maybe)

Ray Allen - absolutely, Ray was only successful as a third option shouldn't be a top 75 player in my opinion.

Allen Iverson - AI is better than Ray, AI has a scoring title and made the finals with a terrible team

Manu - Reggie is better than a Sixth Man has over 10,000 more points

Mitch Richmond - Underrated but 1 ring as a bench guy vs 6 trips to the conference and finas

Joe Dumars - love the Pistons but I can't grade any ot them over Reggie

Clyde Drexler - this is the closest debate because Clyde is more well rounded...I prefer the better shooter but I can see the arguement for Clyde

Moncrief - defensive specialist but yeah Reggie was more successful and has twice the points

DJ - mentally not on the same level as Reggie

Monroe - Like Ray Allen he was a third option tough to pick him over Reggie when you have a HOF at every position on your team

Maravich - Scoring champ trumps Reggie's accomplishments, Pete didn't have a three point line had he had that he's #4 all-time at SG

Greer - solid guy great second option wouldn't put him over Reggie

Jones/Sharrman - Hard to have two shooters on the same team as a better shooter (Hondo)

Hudson - never made a finals appearence

Here's the thing about Reggie he 6 proper playoff runs, he's in the 25K club, he's Olympic level...and he played for a long time on a small market team. I can understand people not liking Reggie but much like John Stockton 30 years later we're still trying to contextualize his career.

[Phoenix]

Here's the thing about Reggie he 6 proper playoff runs, he's in the 25K club, he's Olympic level...and he played for a long time on a small market team. I can understand people not liking Reggie but much like John Stockton 30 years later we're still trying to contextualize his career.

Nobody is trying to contextualize Stockton's career. He's the career leader in assists and steals.10 time all-star. 11 time all-nba.5 time all D. He's quite comfortably a top 5 level PG ever. I don't see anyone around here overrating or underrating what he was in his day. Reggie didn't have that level of accolades ( 5 time all star, 3 time all-nba), so we annually have long threads with zealots arguing him vs 2nd tier guys who have more accolades in the same era but less notoriety ( like Dumars or maybe a Mitch Richmond).

[tpols]

Allen Iverson - AI is better than Ray, AI has a scoring title and made the finals with a terrible team


This is what Iverson put up to make the Finals.

https://i.postimg.cc/g2PRHq4X/2024-03-10-10-06-51.jpg

34% shooting. Trash.

While Mutumbo put up 17/16 with DPOY defense. Dikembe is the reason Philly was winning. And Larry Brown's defensive coaching.

Ray Allen destroyed Iverson in that series and lost because his team didn't play defense.

[tpols]

Nobody is trying to contextualize Stockton's career. He's the career leader in assists and steals.10 time all-star. 11 time all-nba.5 time all D. He's quite comfortably a top 5 level PG ever. I don't see anyone around here overrating or underrating what he was in his day. Reggie didn't have that level of accolades ( 5 time all star, 3 time all-nba), so we annually have long threads with zealots arguing him vs 2nd tier guys who have more accolades in the same era but less notoriety ( like Dumars or maybe a Mitch Richmond).

Reggie never played with anybody remotely as good as Karl Malone and he had the same amount of playoff success as Stockton. If Miller had somebody as good as Malone he would've won championships.

[Hey Yo]

Reggie never played with anybody remotely as good as Karl Malone and he had the same amount of playoff success as Stockton. If Miller had somebody as good as Malone he would've won championships.

Stockton's better than Miller..... yet he didn't win with Malone. So we're suppose to believe Miller would have won with Malone?

[tpols]

Stockton's better than Miller..... yet he didn't win with Malone. So we're suppose to believe Miller would have won with Malone?

Stockton shit the bed vs the Bulls worse than Reggie did. There's not a crazy difference between them but I believe Miller was better. Both great players.

The crazy thing is Stockton doesn't get half the disrespect Reggie does despite having no more success than he had and playing with better help.

[Hey Yo]

Stockton shit the bed vs the Bulls worse than Reggie did. There's not a crazy difference between them but I believe Miller was better. Both great players.

The crazy thing is Stockton doesn't get half the disrespect Reggie does despite having no more success than he had and playing with better help.

Indiana's bench was always loaded. Miller definitely had more help over the years than Stockton did.

[Phoenix]

Reggie never played with anybody remotely as good as Karl Malone and he had the same amount of playoff success as Stockton. If Miller had somebody as good as Malone he would've won championships.

Mitch Richmond was getting voted 2nd team all-NBA on 28 win Kings squads while Reggie wasn't even making 3rd team on 47 win Pacers squads getting to the ECFs. If Stockton was only getting more accolades than Reggie because he played with Mailman, then why does Mitch have more all-NBA/All-star nods between 93 and 98 when he didn't even have anyone as good as Rik Smits?

To your last point, if Reggie had Malone on his team the end result would have been the same, ain't getting past the Bulls.

[SouBeachTalents]

Don't let the irony be lost on anybody tpols was arguing that another player (Bosh) was a surefire top 10 player based solely on his MVP standing/All-NBA voting, while here, a guy who literally received 3 MVP votes in 18 seasons in the league, never finishing higher than 13th, and never made an All-NBA 2nd Team should be considered better than far more decorated players despite the lack of accolades he deemed so vital in the other thread.

[tpols]

Indiana's bench was always loaded. Miller definitely had more help over the years than Stockton did.

Total Bullshit. Karl Malone won MVP over MJ. He was a superstar. Better than Reggie and Stockton. Stockton was a sidekick. And the Jazz were loaded outside their duo. Jeff Hornacek was as good as anybody Reggie played with in the 90s. Indiana won playoff series because they had great coaching Bird + Larry Brown, a lot of goons, and Reggie Miller carrying the offense with Supreme efficiency.

[HoopsNY]

You’re kinda all over the place but I think it boils down to this part

people absolutely do call him elite. There are people in this topic who do. And what he does in the playoffs(lose and not be very productive though you all are willing to pretend otherwise) is completely irrelevant to the matter of all star selections. Whatever he does in the playoffs in 1998 in no way factors in when the issue is if he should’ve been an all-star 7 years before that over a guy who was scoring more than he was(at the break) on a 50 win pace team, that was less talented than the team Reggie was on that won 40 games.

Well, I'm not saying he deserved all of those all star selections, but I do think he did over Dumars or BJ. I think we can agree on that much.

If you think Reggie wasn't productive in the playoffs, then idk what to tell you. That clearly wasn't the case. You can dance around it all you'd like but he definitely was. If the metric is to compare him to the likes of MJ, Hakeem, or Shaq, then yea, he wasn't as productive, but relative to his peers at the guard position not named MJ? He most definitely was.

Just look at the guards from 1990-02 and their PPG on average during the playoffs:

MJ: 32.9
AI: 30.3
Allen: 24.2
Lewis: 23.9
Robertson: 23.6
Reggie: 23.5
Finley: 21.9
Penny: 21.5
Clyde: 21.0
Kobe: 20.8

There's some nuance to that list given Kobe's age and Clyde retiring in '98, as well as Robertson only playing in 2 series. But you get the point, Reggie's production was on par with most of these guys and he did it for a much longer amount of time.


People Calling out coaches for picking 22 1/2 points on a 50 win team over 22 1/2 points on a .500 win team that also had Person, Detlef, and Smits on it. And doing it using evidence from playoff victories years later.

I think most here don't have an issue with that.


Guy won between 40 and 42 games 4 years in a row from age 23-27 and also missed the asg when Mark Jackson was traded and they won 39 games.

Right, but I'm not arguing against this. I never said all of those years that he was ASG worthy.


he was a poor all around scoring only guard of middling production, missing the All-Star game on a bunch of average ass teams, several of which had more talent than wins.

Terrell Brandon had Chris Mills and Danny Ferry over 500. 25-21. The Pacers were under 500 when the all star lineups were voted on.

Cleveland was 8th up to that point and IND was 9th. IND was 23-23 and CLE was 25-22. Not to mention, Mark Jackson wasn't traded to IND yet and Smits missed the first 30 games of the season. Jalen Rose hadn't emerged as a solid player yet, Mullin doesn't arrive until '98, and then Jackson doesn't arrive until post ASG.

There was too much happening with that '97 team and tbh, it's surprising they even won 39 games. McKey played 75 games and was All-Defensive 2nd Team in '96. In '97 he misses 32 games (most of the second half).

But somehow you're pinning everything on Reggie?


Why would they put Reggie in? Dumars was on a 54 win pistons team and still an all D guy who was better all around. Hardaway on a 61 win Heat team and all nba first team. He wasn’t taking Jordan or Pennys spot. He wasn’t terribly productive. But we need to fight that he should just be granted a spot.

Then we agree to disagree about Dumars. Sounds like Khris Middleton getting selected by Giannis all them years is justified given him playing on a consistent championship contender, only this is worse.

Dumars up to the ASG was putting up something like 14/3/4/1 on 58% TS% compared to Reggie's 22/4/3/1 on 61% TS%.


he was an injury replacement level potential All-Star. Some years he made it out right. A lot of years he didn’t, and shouldn’t have. Nothing he did in the playoffs in different years should factor in at all. And that’s if you care about an efficient 23 points and losing to begin with. And rest assured…I don’t. It appears the coaches didn’t either and I’m not seeing much reason they should have.

I pointed out his playoff production because you seem to think they don't matter in relation to his value. I don't care what coaches think matter. I don't think coaches are always right, or players for that matter. If you do, then that's you.

But the irony of it is that Indiana's playoff woes seemed to only boil down to Reggie, yet you speak so highly of their cast like his team was utterly outstanding. So when they won it's because they had a great team but when they lost it was because of Reggie. Got it.


and you’re free to not care what I think about where he’s rated. But the fact is where he’s rated compared to a huge number of more accomplished, and better players is exactly what determines if he is under appropriately or overrated. When he is rated higher than a bunch of them that makes him overrated. Feel free to ignore it. You arent about to make a good case he’s better than Dave Cowens or any number of less respected but flat out better and more accomplished people.

I'm ignoring it because it boils down to recency bias. You're old enough to know and understand that. Guys today don't know nor care for Cowens, and they haven't for a long time. It's not because of overrating/underrating as much as it is players being forgotten as the decades roll by.

No one considers Mikan now. Heck, they didn't when I was a kid.

[tpols]

Don't let the irony be lost on anybody tpols was arguing that another player (Bosh) was a surefire top 10 player based solely on his MVP standing/All-NBA voting, while here, a guy who literally received 3 MVP votes in 18 seasons in the league, never finishing higher than 13th, and never made an All-NBA 2nd Team should be considered better than far more decorated players despite the lack of accolades he deemed so vital in the other thread.

Yes. Reggie Miller was underrated accolade wise. His advanced stats and production were super elite. Chris Bosh also had elite advanced stats but for whatever reason got more accolades. There's nothing contradictory about the facts. Bosh was properly rated and Miller was underrated.

[HoopsNY]

Ray Allen and Reggie were both way better than Iverson.

I've never seen somebody get their ass kicked over and over and still have people say theyre better. Substance > style.

You ain't sexy when you're getting knocked out cold.

100% I'm taking Reggie over Iverson. I remember 2001, Reggie was like 36 years old or something, matching AI in scoring on WAY better efficiency in the playoffs. Philly won the series but that series spoke volumes about how crazy Reggie was in the playoffs.

[Phoenix]

Yes. Reggie Miller was underrated accolade wise. His advanced stats and production were super elite. Chris Bosh also had elite advanced stats but for whatever reason got more accolades. There's nothing contradictory about the facts. Bosh was properly rated and Miller was underrated.

So to my above point, why was Mitch getting voted all-nba over Reggie on losing teams? Both of them were in small markets. Both were 'the other shooting guards' after MJ and a healthy Drexler at one point or another. Mitch pretty much flew under the radar. Why was Reggie underrated? Are you saying the coaches/media determining accolades back then were getting it wrong? You had MJ, Dream, Robinson, Mailman, Barkley, Shaq etc who were all annual selections. Nobody would question the validity of those selections but their ability to assess what they were seeing back then just fell short with Reggie for whatever reason?

[tpols]

Because Reggie did way more in the playoffs than Mitch. Like way way way more. He did have better teams but not by a ton. The best player he ever played with back then was Rik Smits. He never played with a single superstar.

[Phoenix]

Because Reggie did way more in the playoffs than Mitch. Like way way way more. He did have better teams but not by a ton. The best player he ever played with back then was Rik Smits. He never played with a single superstar.

Reggie doing more in the playoffs doesn't address why Mitch has more season accolades though. Their primes and positions intersected perfectly to make that comparison.

I find it interesting that Reggie didn't make a single all-NBA team until 95, the year after he was throwing up choke signs at Spike Lee. He had been producing like or better than his 95 season for five years at that point.

[tpols]

Reggie doing more in the playoffs doesn't address why Mitch has more season accolades though. Their primes and positions intersected perfectly to make that comparison.

But that's the point. Reggie didn't care about accolades. He coasted during the regular season and then went nuts in the playoffs.

That's the point of this thread. Read the title and OP. Reggie was worth far more than his regular season accolades.

[Phoenix]

But that's the point. Reggie didn't care about accolades. He coasted during the regular season and then went nuts in the playoffs.

That's the point of this thread. Read the title and OP. Reggie was worth far more than his regular season accolades.

I'm aware of the thread premise. Reggie pretty much did the same thing in 94, or 93, that he did in 95. One season he got noticed for it, the others he didn't because other players were considered more deserving. Whether or not he cared about any of it doesn't factor into voting, and is just a hand-wave excuse.

[tpols]

It's not a hand waved excuse when Reggie is leading his team to the ECFs in 1994 averaging 25 ppg in the playoffs while Mitch Richmond has been going to Disney for 3 years straight.

You know what that's called? Bullshit.

[Hey Yo]

Yes. Reggie Miller was underrated accolade wise. His advanced stats and production were super elite. Chris Bosh also had elite advanced stats but for whatever reason got more accolades. There's nothing contradictory about the facts. Bosh was properly rated and Miller was underrated.

Bosh barely got any recognition outside of Toronto until he signed with Miami. Then when James signed, Bosh was all of a sudden considered a superstar.

[Phoenix]

It's not a hand waved excuse when Reggie is leading his team to the ECFs in 1994 averaging 25 ppg in the playoffs while Mitch Richmond has been going to Disney for 3 years straight.

You know what that's called? Bullshit.

It is a hand-waved excuse because you have no clue how much or how little Reggie cared relative to the other players being discussed. What makes you think Stockton cared about accolades?

Reggie ain't doing shit with Walt Williams as his running mate. Mitch would be doing damage with Smits/Jackson/Rose/Davis Boys/ Mckey. You waffling back and forth on the degree teammate quality plays into accolades and team success is the only bullshit on this page.

[tpols]

Bosh barely got any recognition outside of Toronto until he signed with Miami. Then when James signed, Bosh was all of a sudden considered a superstar.

Chris Bosh literally made his only All NBA team when he was playing with bums in Toronto.

Miami actually downgraded him which is absurd because guys on winning teams usually get more accolades.

[Hey Yo]

Chris Bosh literally made his only All NBA team when he was playing with bums in Toronto.

Miami actually downgraded him which is absurd because guys on winning teams usually get more accolades.
Hence the word "barely" in my previous post.

[tpols]

It is a hand-waved excuse because you have no clue how much or how little Reggie cared relative to the other players being discussed. What makes you think Stockton cared about accolades?

Reggie ain't doing shit with Walt Williams as his running mate. Mitch would be doing damage with Smits/Jackson/Rose/Davis Boys/ Mckey. You waffling back and forth on the degree teammate quality plays into accolades and team success is the only bullshit on this page.

Derrick Mckey averaged 9 ppg when the Pacers lost in the 1994 ECFs. 9 points per game man.

Antonio and Dale Davis did 7 a piece. Reggie did 25. Mark Jackson wasn't even on the team and Jalen Rose was a teenager in college.

The **** you talking about? You making me look older than kblaze. :lol

[Norcaliblunt]

If Reggie’s supporting cast was so bad, build a fantasy team that could actually win a championship with Reggie Miller as the absolute best player?

[Hey Yo]

Derrick Mckey averaged 9 ppg when the Pacers lost in the 1994 ECFs. 9 points per game man.

Antonio and Dale Davis did 7 a piece. Reggie did 25. Mark Jackson wasn't even on the team and Jalen Rose was a teenager in college.

The **** you talking about? You making me look older than kblaze. :lol

McKey avg the same as Kevin Love in the 2016 Finals but he's considered (by you and many others) the player who made the Cavs superteam complete....:oldlol:

[Phoenix]

Derrick Mckey averaged 9 ppg when the Pacers lost in the 1994 ECFs. 9 points per game man.

Antonio and Dale Davis did 7 a piece. Reggie did 25. Mark Jackson wasn't even on the team and Jalen Rose was a teenager in college.

The **** you talking about? You making me look older than kblaze. :lol

You look younger than the eggs swimming in Kblazes sack at the time if you contribute the Davis boys contributions by their PPG, same for Mckey who was a stand out defender. You specifying Reggie dropping 25 like it was some all-timer, on 43% shooting, 3 rebounds and 2 assists. And where was I specifying the 94 team in particular for that matter? Usual on-brand cherry-picking. The 98 team had everyone I listed, plus Chris Mullin. The 97 team had Rickey Pierce and Eddie Johnson off the bench, former 20ppg guys. Travis Best was a good back-up. Deep rosters filled with good role players, veteran talent, tough defenders, former all-stars. Now compare that to the starting lineup of the 96 Kings Mitch took to the playoffs: Walt Williams, Tyus Edny, Olden Polynice and Brian Grant... a team full of never weres.....and tell me they were only a 'little bit worse' than what Reggie had. Absolute joke. The point is you couldn't come up with a notable name on any of Mitch's Kings squads...maybe Abdul-Rauf who fell off after he left Denver. You sure as hell couldn't come up with two names on the team with him in any given season. And again, nobody remotely close to Smits. I wasn't going down Kblazes ' you don't know' path but...yeah. Jesus H. Christ.

[tpols]

You look younger than the eggs swimming in Kblazes sack at the time


Eggs don't swim in nut sacks. Sperm do. If you're gonna insult me come correct.

I mentioned 1994 and the mid 90s in general because you explicilty asked me why Mitch made more accolades over Reggie in that time period.

And then you name dropped a handful of fellas that weren't even on the Pacers in the mid 1990s. Which is why I called you out.

[Phoenix]

Eggs don't swim in nut sacks. Sperm do. If you're gonna insult me come correct.

I mentioned 1994 and the mid 90s in general because you explicilty asked me why Mitch made more accolades over Reggie in that time period.

And then you name dropped a handful of fellas that weren't even on the Pacers in the mid 1990s. Which is why I called you out.

Whatever. Talking to you can kill brain cells.

I explicitly said 93-98:


Mitch Richmond was getting voted 2nd team all-NBA on 28 win Kings squads while Reggie wasn't even making 3rd team on 47 win Pacers squads getting to the ECFs. If Stockton was only getting more accolades than Reggie because he played with Mailman, then why does Mitch have more all-NBA/All-star nods between 93 and 98 when he didn't even have anyone as good as Rik Smits?

To your last point, if Reggie had Malone on his team the end result would have been the same, ain't getting past the Bulls.

If you're going to call me out, come correct.

[Norcaliblunt]

What other star from that era who Reggie is better than could you pair him up with to win a chip?

I’d really like to know.

[Hey Yo]

McKey avg the same as Kevin Love in the 2016 Finals but he's considered (by you and many others) the player who made the Cavs superteam complete....:oldlol:

Didn't think he'd touch this ownage.

[dankok8]

There's only about 25 first options in league history that you could win a title around. Since when is that the measuring stick? Indeed it's not easy to make a team that wins a title with Miller as the first option. That just means Reggie is not top 25 all time which anyone reasonable would concede. There is a big gap between that and making just 5 all-star teams though.

Glad someone mentioned Bosh. Reggie was a better player relative to league and in absolute sense than Bosh was. And yet Bosh made 12 all-star teams and Miller made 5... That's the crux of the issue debated in this thread. Not that Miller is better than guys who led their teams to championships. Come on.. some of y'all can do better!

[tpols]

Reggie and Pat Ewing would've made a dynasty. And they were about equals. Shame they always had to go to war vs each other.

[Phoenix]

What other star from that era who Reggie is better than could you pair him up with to win a chip?

I’d really like to know.

I don't know about star, but the type of team to put around Reggie if he's your featured player would be like the 2004 Pistons. Him in place of Rip would definitely be a championship formula.

[tpols]

"There is a time to play and there is a time to win".




https://youtu.be/YoCpMguR4cQ?si=EYoB75B1DRHMMJaG

@1:10.

GOAT ****ing quote.

[Norcaliblunt]

There's only about 25 first options in league history that you could win a title around. Since when is that the measuring stick? Ineed it's not easy to make a team that wins a title with Miller as the first option. That just means Reggie is not top 25 all time which anyone reasonable would concede. There is a big gap between that and making just 5 all-star teams though.

Glad someone mentioned Bosh. Reggie was a better player relative to league and in absolute sense than Bosh was. And yet Bosh made 12 all-star teams and Miller made 5... That's the crux of the issue debated in this thread. Not that Miller is better than guys who led their teams to championships. Come on.. some of y'all can do better!


The crux of the issue is “it's not easy to make a team that wins a title with Miller as the first option”, so why are we acting like he’s something he’s not?

He’s a glorified role player. One of the best ever. As second or third option on a great team he probably would have more All Star appearances.

[Norcaliblunt]

I don't know about star, but the type of team to put around Reggie if he's your featured player would be like the 2004 Pistons. Him in place of Rip would definitely be a championship formula.

That would be the team and just like Detroit with Rip it would be debatable who the most important player was.

[Phoenix]

That would be the team and just like Detroit with Rip it would be debatable who the most important player was.

Pretty much. The Pistons were a group of really good players with no stand-out MVP level player, and all the bases would be covered for what Reggie didnt do( facilitating, rebound, lock down defense).

[dankok8]

The crux of the issue is “it's not easy to make a team that wins a title with Miller as the first option”, so why are we acting like he’s something he’s not?

He’s a glorified role player. One of the best ever. As second or third option on a great team he probably would have more All Star appearances.

If you could easily make a team with Reggie as the first option, he'd be a top 25 player of all time. You get that right?

No one defending Reggie in this thread is claiming that. We're just saying that him making just 5 all-star teams is way too little given his level of play.

[Phoenix]

If you could easily make a team with Reggie as the first option, he'd be a top 25 player of all time. You get that right?

No one defending Reggie in this thread is claiming that. We're just saying that him making just 5 all-star teams is way too little given his level of play.

The most glaringly obvious omission would be like 94 when BJ, Mookie and Starks made it over him. But that's really weird that he would be excluded in what would be a weak year for backcourt players when you look at it in historical context.

Otherwise which years should he have made the all-star teams and didnt? Or better, since the all-star game is a popularly vote( hence BJ being a starter) which year should he have been All-NBA? Because all-star is kind of whatever, but All-NBA indicates you're one of the 6 best guards in any given season.

[Norcaliblunt]

If you could easily make a team with Reggie as the first option, he'd be a top 25 player of all time. You get that right?

No one defending Reggie in this thread is claiming that. We're just saying that him making just 5 all-star teams is way too little given his level of play.

What regular season level of play? All star selections are regular season accomplishments based upon individual play and team success midway through a season.

When did Reggie or his team ever have some spectacular regular season? When were Reggie or Indiana ever really cooking going into the all star break? They never were so other guys swooped in and stole his spot. Simple as that.

Maybe if he played for the 90’s Jazz, Knicks, or Sonics, not as the undisputed best player on his team, he could have had more team success and all star selections. But he put up average star numbers on average to below average teams, that’s why he only made 5 all star games and not 10.

This really isn’t that hard to figure out. Lol.

[dankok8]

The most glaringly obvious omission would be like 94 when BJ, Mookie and Starks made it over him. But that's really weird that he would be excluded in what would be a weak year for backcourt players when you look at it in historical context.

Otherwise which years should he have made the all-star teams and didnt? Or better, since the all-star game is a popularly vote( hence BJ being a starter) which year should he have been All-NBA? Because all-star is kind of whatever, but All-NBA indicates you're one of the 6 best guards in any given season.

Yea 94 is pretty crazy. In 91, Alvin Robertson, Hersey Hawkins and Ricky Pierce were chosen over him. Alvin in particular was a bad selection. In 92, Michael Adams and Reggie Lewis. 97 was crazy when Terrell Brandon and an old Joe Dumars made it over him. 99 there was no ASG because of lockout. On 01, he lost out to Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell both of whom had no more impressive seasons statistically and never came close to a playoff run Miller had just had in 2000. None of those names I mentioned ever came close to what Reggie did in the postseason. People knew he raises his game every spring and snubbed him.

All in all, Reggie should have made every all-star game from 1990-2001 except maybe 1993 when he didn't have a great regular season and the East guards that got ahead of him... MJ, Isiah, Dumars and Mark Price were really good.

So all in all, he should have 11 all-star selections. Minimum 10 if you dispute one of those years I mentioned.

As for All-NBA teams, I would have given him a few 2nd Teams over Richmond in 95 and 96 and over Stockton in 97. And probably a couple of more 3rd team selections.

[Phoenix]

Yea 94 is pretty crazy. In 91, Alvin Robertson, Hersey Hawkins and Ricky Pierce were chosen over him. Alvin in particular was a bad selection. In 92, Michael Adams and Reggie Lewis. 97 was crazy when Terrell Brandon and an old Joe Dumars made it over him. 99 there was no ASG because of lockout. On 01, he lost out to Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell both of whom had no more impressive seasons statistically and never came close to a playoff run Miller had just had in 2000. None of those names I mentioned ever came close to what Reggie did in the postseason. People knew he raises his game every spring and snubbed him.

All in all, Reggie should have made every all-star game from 1990-2001 except maybe 1993 when he didn't have a great regular season and the East guards that got ahead of him... MJ, Isiah, Dumars and Mark Price were really good.

So all in all, he should have 11 all-star selections. Minimum 10 if you dispute one of those years I mentioned.

As for All-NBA teams, I would have given him a few 2nd Teams over Richmond in 95 and 96 and over Stockton in 97. And probably a couple of more 3rd team selections.

And what's your theory for why these things occurred? I believe enough in your posting to come up with better than 'he didn't care about accolades'. I think Reggie was more highly regarded towards the backend of the decade and that's where most of his all-nba/star selections occurred. Early 90's, just didn't seem like he was any higher regarded than someone like Reggie Lewis, Dumars, Price, Hawkins when they were voted over him. He just didn't stand out in a way that made it obvious vs those names in those seasons. Basically what this thread is arguing is that the voting media got all of this wrong 30 years ago.

[Reggie43]

Its a waste of time arguing about guys on the same tier because its hard to prove one is clearly better than the other. Guys like Mitch, Reggie, Joe, Ray etc. there is basically no wrong answer if you prefer one over the other because each player had his own strengths.

[dankok8]

And what's your theory for why these things occurred? I believe enough in your posting to come up with better than 'he didn't care about accolades'. I think Reggie was more highly regarded towards the backend of the decade and that's where most of his all-nba/star selections occurred. Early 90's, just didn't seem like he was any higher regarded than someone like Reggie Lewis, Dumars, Price, Hawkins when they were voted over him. He just didn't stand out in a way that made it obvious vs those names in those seasons. Basically what this thread is arguing is that the voting media got all of this wrong 30 years ago.

My theory is a combination of factors:

1) Accolades like All-Star selections are based on the regular season. Reggie is one of those guys that raised his game in the playoffs by a very large degree.

2) Using FG% instead of TS% means that most people didn't understand how insanely efficient Reggie was. This is probably the biggest reason he was so underrated. Fan or coach sees 7-15 shooting and says "meh". But when four of those makes are threes and he's also 5-5 from the free throw line, it's actually a ridiculously efficient shooting night ~66.9 %TS.

3) His box score stats didn't jump out of the page. Particularly his assist numbers were low because he played mostly off-ball.

4) His teams generally didn't have great regular season records. They had a seasons of 58, 56, 52 and 52 wins and the rest of his prime hovered around .500. Now looking at it, his teams also played at below average pace so they didn't put up high point totals. Thus the Pacers were perceived as a defensive team because back then we didn't have ORtg and DRtg. In reality, the Pacers were very much an offensive team.

[John8204]

Wasn't it mostly a fan vote during Reggie's time...and didn't the G spots normally go to big markets.

[L.Kizzle]

Wasn't it mostly a fan vote during Reggie's time...and didn't the G spots normally go to big markets.

Early 90s, Jordan and Thomas
Late 90s, Jordan and Penny
94, BJ Armstrong and Kenny Anderson (lol)
95, Penny and Miller

[eliteballer]

Reggie would probably average 30 ppg today.

[90sgoat]

I get it, Reggie played a lot like a role player, someone like Chris Mullins or Glen Rice.

People probably didn't understand the value of having Reggie destroy defenses like that. Particularly against MJ, forcing MJ to run around screens or if Pippen, taking Pippen out of his role as help defender.

[Xiao Yao You]

Wasn't it mostly a fan vote during Reggie's time...and didn't the G spots normally go to big markets.

fans voted for starters. Coaches for reserves.

[kawhileonard2]

Reggie Miller was a five time All-Star in his 18 year career but only two of those selections were in consecutive seasons. 1995 and 1996.

Reggie was also an All-Star the following seasons:
1990 All-Star
1998 All-Star
2000 All-Star

The 1994 All-Star game was the season that Michael Jordan was playing baseball.
This also might be the weakest selection of guards for the mid-season classic.

The East starting guards were two 1st timers in BJ Armstrong and Kenny Anderson. The reserves were a few regulars Mark Price and future Hall of Famer Joe Dumars. John Starks and Mookie Blaylock rounded out the guards for the East. How the hell did Reggie Miller not get selected as a guard for that season?

Goes to show how stacked the 90's were.

[L.Kizzle]

I get it, Reggie played a lot like a role player, someone like Chris Mullins or Glen Rice.
Chris Mullin - five straight seasons of 25+ ppg, All-NBA 1st, two All-NBA 2nd teams, a 3rd team and member of original Dream Team.

Reggie ans Glen probably more similar.

[90sgoat]

Chris Mullin - five straight seasons of 25+ ppg, All-NBA 1st, two All-NBA 2nd teams, a 3rd team and member of original Dream Team.

Reggie ans Glen probably more similar.

Yeah, but Mullin fell off a cliff in the 90s and basically was a role player for most of that time.

[L.Kizzle]

Yeah, but Mullin fell off a cliff in the 90s and basically was a role player for most of that time.
He got injured, he didn't just decline out of the blue.