I cant believe some of yall dont believe reggie miller had a hall of fame career.are yall smoking crack?he was the only player who could toe to toe with michael jordan in the 90's.he was the leader in threes till ray allen just broke it.the only thing the man aint accomplish was win a ring.how da hell yall gone say lebron a hall of famer if he retired today but reggie miller aint?irs stupid.reggie miller aint have not one athletic bone in his body but the boy could shoot from anywhere on the court with hands in his face.good passer.good defense.i dont get it.if lebron has a 19 career and dont win not one ring he gone be a hall of famer so y not reggie?reggie deserved to be a hall of famer and im glad he is
I agree! Reggie is clearly an HOFer and he's rightfully going in. In terms of the great shooters who were great scorers along with it, U got guys like Reggie, West, Bird, Ray Allen, Peja, Ellis, Rice, Dirk, etc. I realize Reggie didn't have a ton of scoring seasons over 20 points a night. But I feel it was due to Indiana's offensive system and where Reggie was occupying the floor. He was EASILY capable of scoring 25 points a night for several seasons. He had the alpha dog gene BIG TIME when it was time take over the game. I just feel he didn't mind playing in the flow of the offense and taking over at the end.
But at the same time, Reggie's all around skills weren't nearly on the level of the other GOAT SG's. So that is a very valid point to bring up. But in terms of impact on a game when it comes to taking a game by the throat in big time moments, Reggie is an icon. And among guards, only MJ, Kobe, and Big O have more career points. With all of these factors, u gotta have Reg in the HOF. Men lie, women lie, but numbers don't!
I would put Bernard King at the top of the list of talents not in the HoF. He had an injury-shortened career, but his peak years were so much higher than anyone else not in the Hall.
Plus, he came back from a devastating leg injury to become an All-Star again.
Bernard should be in.
Awesome point! His peak was so tremendous that it can tilt it in his favor. At his best, he was the second best SF in the world after Bird. And this is during the greatest era of SF's ever in the L. King also came back strong after those injuries, became an All Star again, and put up 28 points per game at 34 years of age. He finished very close to 20,000 points finishing at 19,655 points for his career. If u combine his dominant college career at Tennessee, I think King should be in the HOF. His peak value was so great and he bascially has 20,000 points to back it up.
Really good post as usual, very accurate assessment of Zo's game, and that's remarkably high praise from Riley about Hardaway. The strongest argument for Zo's value to the team is that Miami won due to their defense first and foremost, and despite Tim leading them to an 11-4 record without Zo, their defense wasn't the same without him. So even though Riley's teams post-LA were usually very good defensively, he was still a huge key to it. But to back up your point about Zo essentially being the 1st option hurting Hardaway's offensive numbers, Tim averaged 24/9 with Zo out of the lineup. Zo was at his best in '99 and '00 as we've mentioned in the past. 2000 would be the absolute best I've seen him play, but Hardaway was older and really struggled with injuries, while Mashburn struggled to play up to his potential in that offense. It's too bad 2000 ended Zo's prime prematurely, they were set to be easily the most talented team in the East after acquiring Eddie Jones coming off his best season, Anthony Mason who made the '01 all-star game and Brian Grant who averaged 15/9 playing out of position at center. With names like that as well as Bruce Bowen emerging as a rotation player and stopper, they'd have an incredible defensive lineup if Zo was around coming off back to back DPOY awards. And Riley's teams were always good to great after LA as it is. They actually improved defensively in '01 finishing top 4, and they still won 50 games. I can't see them getting any worse adding Zo which would also move Brian Grant back to his natural position. Plus, it probably would've helped their rebounding and they were a poor rebounding team.
The worst example of Zo being rattled in the playoffs was the '96 1st round series vs Chicago. The last game made his numbers look better when it wasn't really competitive and he wasn't really dominating, but for a lot of the minutes he was on the floor, he didn't stand out as playing better than Luc Longley. He was constantly in foul trouble, and many of them were unnecessary. I like Zo, but it's remarkable how much he struggled in that series.
Back to Hardaway and Miami's offense, those are really good points. Miami's offense was one of the worst for putting up big numbers. They probably underachieved offensively with guys like Hardaway, Mourning, Mashburn ect.
Remember how much Mashburn was criticized for struggling in Miami's offense? I believe Riley planned to make him the 1st option in '97-'98, but I assume scrapped that idea. And look what happens when he leaves Miami, he becomes one of the best small forwards in Charlotte. Mashburn's "revenge" in the '01 playoffs was a big story that year.
And perhaps an even bigger indictment is that Eddie Jones was coming off his best season in Charlotte in 2000 when he was imo, the 3rd best shooting guard behind Kobe and Iverson. But similar to Mashburn, I remember him being seen as a disappointment when he arrived in Miami.
I might take peak '03 Jason Kidd as well, a much better passer regardless of assists, better defender, could make a big impact on the boards and Kidd at his peak was a good scorer, though it didn't last long. That's why '03 Kidd stands out to me over his other seasons because it was before he lost some quickness and athleticism due to age and microfracture surgery plus it was around the time he was improving his shooting. His one flaw was that he still limited in the half court breaking down a defense off the dribble compared to Nash or Paul, but not as ball-dominant as well.
It's too bad we didn't see more of Kidd with the mix of his athleticism and his improved shooting, outside of the 3, he was also good at pulling up around the foul line.
How is he overrated?
I wouldn't call 5 or 6 years a short prime, but I guess by prime you mean elite years. But I'd take KJ over Mullin, and didn't have to think very hard about it, and I like Mullin.
He was a better player than just about all of them, except for perhaps King at his peak, but King's career was affected by injuries even more than KJ's, and most of those guys had less team success as the man on their teams.
Great post ShaqAttack. Agree on all the points you made about the Heat and I want to expand on them underachieving offensively in the playoffs for the talent they had. For one, I think Riley was trying to create a similar team to those Knicks he coached so he adopted a defensive mindset and a very slow pace (near the bottom of the league) so a lack of transition opportunities will naturally hurt your offense. The teams they were facing like the 1997 Knicks and Bulls were also tremendous defensive teams that could figure out and exploit the weaknesses of their offense with ease especially taking Zo out of ball games like the Bulls did in 1996 and 1997 like you mentioned.
Mashburn was also a terrible fit on the team and the touches he got in the post (albeit he was great on the block especially on the turnaround) often led to the offense stagnating and he rarely produced in the playoffs. I really wish they were able to ship his ass out and acquire Richmond before the 1998 trade deadline. Riley showed a lot of interest in him and Richmond would've been a much better fit + a reliable scorer which was lacking at times.
I agree with everything you said about the 2001 team. They're a lock to make the finals if Zo's healthy. I can't see the Sixers or Bucks really posing a major threat. Their defense would've had all the tools to slow AI and the Bucks offense.
Here's an article about Hardaway, can't get the full version since you have to subscribe but it does validate my point about how Tim had to battle against the shot clock so much and missing a few tough shots can impact your efficiency quite a bit. Also, I wasn't aware he put up 24/9 without Zo in the line up in 1997. They had a pretty damn good record without Zo in 1998 as well (16-8). I'd imagine their defense was still solid albeit not dominant without him. The rest of the team had bought into Riley's defensive system and at times you can still have a good team defense without an anchor like the Bobcats with Larry Brown.
LAST (EVERY?) SHOT IS HARDAWAY'S
Author: GREG STODA
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Date: May 13, 1997
Publication: The Palm Beach Post Page Number: 9C
Word Count: 484
There is no time-of-possession statistic in basketball, but here's an unofficial barometer to use when the Miami Heat are on offense: The best guess is that Tim Hardaway has it.
Sure, he's the point guard, and a lot of NBA point guards control the ball because that's what they're paid to do.
But not many are asked to do as much as Hardaway, who invariably finds himself getting the ball back with a shot-clock ticking down and the Heat running out of options. Increasingly, it is Hardaway who is the primary choice make something happen. He attempted only 10 shots during Miami's game Monday night in Madison Square Garden, and the Heat went down to an unceremonious defeat to the New York Knicks 89-76.
As for Kidd vs KJ, the points you mentioned are valid although I'm not as high on Kidd's defense as you. He's definitely a better team defender (help defense + the boards) and overall defender as well but I might have to give individual defense to KJ depending on the match up. I'd prefer Kidd against 2s and 3s since his size offers versatility but I remember moments like when they had to switch Kidd off of Parker in the 2003 finals because he was getting torched and Kittles was able to keep Parker in check for the rest of the series. Kidd's defense has never been that great against dribble penetration. I actually think KJ is better in that regard. KJ did a decent job against Jordan's penetration in the finals when he switched onto him. Of course, Jordan still dominated and used his size in the post and to rise up for jumpshots but he actually commented on how great his foot speed was.
Kidd has the intangibles edge but KJ's edge in scoring is a bit too huge for me too ignore. He's just a lot better offensive player. Much better finisher around the rim, quicker in terms of first step and getting to the lane, better mid range game and took over more games in the playoffs.