Author Topic: Horace Grant says Michael Jordan lied in 'Last Dance,' calls him 'snitch'  (Read 7293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.

I agree with you on this somebody. There is also some validity to saying some players would have even more value than others in the modern era because of how the game evolved. Miller regularly shot over 40% from 3 in his career on very high volume for the time. I don't know why we can't easily admit he would be taking 7 or 8 more 3's a game in the modern NBA. His numbers would look very good if you did that (to say nothing of today's pace compared to some of Miller's career.
Miller was a catch and shoot player mostly.  He wasn't a great shot creator.  It is one of the reasons he assists numbers are very poor for a guy that was a #1 scorer for so long.  He had no where near the skill level of Harden (who you mentioned earlier), who has pretty strong ball skills.  And I'm sure Miller would shoot more today, but so would Mitch Richmond (who had the best shooting season of the two on similar volume) and Tim Hardaway and John Stockton and so on.  This notion that only Reggie would benefit from the increased focus on 3 point shooting today seems like a strange take and it doesn't mean he would actually get better (especially in comparison to the league).  Miller fit well in the era, I'm not so sure his weaker ball skills would actually make him a better player today at least in comparison to his peers.  It also has no bearing on how Reggie should be viewed historically.  Miller was a sometimes all star in his era, but he wasn't a consistent all star or consistently appeared on All NBA Teams for a reason, he just wasn't that type of player. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30936
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.

I agree with you on this somebody. There is also some validity to saying some players would have even more value than others in the modern era because of how the game evolved. Miller regularly shot over 40% from 3 in his career on very high volume for the time. I don't know why we can't easily admit he would be taking 7 or 8 more 3's a game in the modern NBA. His numbers would look very good if you did that (to say nothing of today's pace compared to some of Miller's career.

And how would that be any different than the impact Klay Thompson has? Or are we arguing Klay could actually be a lead dog?
I'm not sure how it could be argued that one could be & not the other in regards to Miller & Klay.
Simple, Klay simply wasn't as good as Miller offensively. I think their average impact on most teams would be pretty similar due to Klay's edge on defence, but Reggie can actually be the main guy on a championship winning offence with his incredibly resilient volume scoring.

I'm not seeing a helluva lot of difference between the two offensively.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.

I agree with you on this somebody. There is also some validity to saying some players would have even more value than others in the modern era because of how the game evolved. Miller regularly shot over 40% from 3 in his career on very high volume for the time. I don't know why we can't easily admit he would be taking 7 or 8 more 3's a game in the modern NBA. His numbers would look very good if you did that (to say nothing of today's pace compared to some of Miller's career.

And how would that be any different than the impact Klay Thompson has? Or are we arguing Klay could actually be a lead dog?
I'm not sure how it could be argued that one could be & not the other in regards to Miller & Klay.
Simple, Klay simply wasn't as good as Miller offensively. I think their average impact on most teams would be pretty similar due to Klay's edge on defence, but Reggie can actually be the main guy on a championship winning offence with his incredibly resilient volume scoring.

I'm not seeing a helluva lot of difference between the two offensively.
Klay Thompson is a better player than Reggie Miller was.  The chasm defensively is huge and I do think they are pretty similar offensive players.  Very similar styles and ability.  Miller was probably a bit better overall offensively, but close enough that he can't make up for Klay's massive defensive edge. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.
This is Reggie Miller's 96-97 season.  21.6 p, 3.5 r, 3.4 a, 0.9 s, 0.3 b - 45.6% (2PT), 42.7% (3PT), 88% (FT).

This is Mitch Richmond's 96-97 season.  25.9 p, 3.9 r, 4.2 a, 1.5 s, 0.3 b - 46.6% (2PT), 42.8% (3PT), 86.1% (FT).

Now you explain to me how Reggie Miller had a better statistical season than Mitch Richmond.  And to be clear, the Pacers won 39 games and didn't make the playoffs so you can't really use team winning as a criteria.

Tim Hardaway led a 61 win team to the ECF.  His stats that year 20.3 p, 3.4 r, 8.6 a, 1.9 s, 0.1 b - 46.9% (2PT), 34.4% (3PT), 79l9% (FT).  There is a reason his was 1st Team All NBA and finished 4th in MVP voting. 

Stockton is at least a little closer as he was never a great scorer and was at just 14.4 ppg that year, though still had 10.5 apg along with 2.8 r, 2.0 s, 0.2 b.  He shot 59.8% from 2 point range, 42.2% from 3, and 84.6% from the line and was also on 2nd Team All Defense.  The Jazz of course won 64 games and lost in the NBA Finals.  Stockton though was clearly the #2 guy on his squad.

Reggie Miller correctly did not make an All NBA Team that year.  He had a good season, but he was not a top 7 guard in the league.
Pulling up the basic slash line to make a point requires you to explain to me how is that convincing in terms of basketball statistics. And the Pacers had a considerably better point differential than the lowly Kings Richmond led (+1.49 SRS compared to -3.38), I can absolutely make a point on how Reggie impacted winning more than Richmond. Stockton was a fantastic complementary guy, but his RS box stats consistently overstate how good was (or just his box stats in general tbh). He had a lot of Rondo assists (which made him a very good rather than an elite passer like Magic/Nash) and was never a dangerous enough scoring threat to force defences to pick their poison when he was tasked to carry a heavy offensive load. The team results he had in the late 80s before Malone's ascension were telling: he dragged a poor Jazz offence to...slightly below average. He definitely had a defensive edge on Miller, but I never thought he was a huge defensive force like Walt Frazier or Jason Kidd to make up for Miller's advantage on offence.

Reggie Miller was wrongfully snubbed for the nth time for an All-NBA team in 1997, he had a great season and was definitely a top 6 guard in the league if not top 4.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.

I agree with you on this somebody. There is also some validity to saying some players would have even more value than others in the modern era because of how the game evolved. Miller regularly shot over 40% from 3 in his career on very high volume for the time. I don't know why we can't easily admit he would be taking 7 or 8 more 3's a game in the modern NBA. His numbers would look very good if you did that (to say nothing of today's pace compared to some of Miller's career.

And how would that be any different than the impact Klay Thompson has? Or are we arguing Klay could actually be a lead dog?
I'm not sure how it could be argued that one could be & not the other in regards to Miller & Klay.
Simple, Klay simply wasn't as good as Miller offensively. I think their average impact on most teams would be pretty similar due to Klay's edge on defence, but Reggie can actually be the main guy on a championship winning offence with his incredibly resilient volume scoring.

I'm not seeing a helluva lot of difference between the two offensively.
Klay Thompson is a better player than Reggie Miller was.  The chasm defensively is huge and I do think they are pretty similar offensive players.  Very similar styles and ability.  Miller was probably a bit better overall offensively, but close enough that he can't make up for Klay's massive defensive edge.
Getting past the basic slash lines will help massively towards realising how different they were offensively. Reggie was considerably better than Klay as an offensive player when you look at how he ramped up year after year in the playoffs. This was a guy who would average 27-28 points in the modern game (simple adjustment of pace to per 75 possessions to mimic the pace of the modern game) on +10% rTS as the main offensive star on a competitive playoff squad regardless of how tough defences were at his absolute best. Klay was never able to ramp up his production like that when Curry/Durant were off the court and he needed to carry a heavier offensive load - in fact his production tails off when he's the main scorer of the squad.

Obviously this isn't as huge of a gap between say Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant on offence, but this is pretty significant when you're comparing them against each other.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.
This is Reggie Miller's 96-97 season.  21.6 p, 3.5 r, 3.4 a, 0.9 s, 0.3 b - 45.6% (2PT), 42.7% (3PT), 88% (FT).

This is Mitch Richmond's 96-97 season.  25.9 p, 3.9 r, 4.2 a, 1.5 s, 0.3 b - 46.6% (2PT), 42.8% (3PT), 86.1% (FT).

Now you explain to me how Reggie Miller had a better statistical season than Mitch Richmond.  And to be clear, the Pacers won 39 games and didn't make the playoffs so you can't really use team winning as a criteria.

Tim Hardaway led a 61 win team to the ECF.  His stats that year 20.3 p, 3.4 r, 8.6 a, 1.9 s, 0.1 b - 46.9% (2PT), 34.4% (3PT), 79l9% (FT).  There is a reason his was 1st Team All NBA and finished 4th in MVP voting. 

Stockton is at least a little closer as he was never a great scorer and was at just 14.4 ppg that year, though still had 10.5 apg along with 2.8 r, 2.0 s, 0.2 b.  He shot 59.8% from 2 point range, 42.2% from 3, and 84.6% from the line and was also on 2nd Team All Defense.  The Jazz of course won 64 games and lost in the NBA Finals.  Stockton though was clearly the #2 guy on his squad.

Reggie Miller correctly did not make an All NBA Team that year.  He had a good season, but he was not a top 7 guard in the league.
Pulling up the basic slash line to make a point requires you to explain to me how is that convincing in terms of basketball statistics. And the Pacers had a considerably better point differential than the lowly Kings Richmond led, I can absolutely make a point on how Reggie impacted winning more than Richmond. Stockton was a fantastic complementary guy, but his RS box stats consistently overstate how good was (or just his box stats in general tbh). He had a lot of Rondo assists (which made him a very good rather than an elite passer like Magic/Nash) and was never a dangerous enough scoring threat to force defences to pick their poison when he was tasked to carry a heavy offensive load. The team results he had in the late 80s before Malone's ascension were telling: he dragged a poor Jazz offence to...slightly below average. He definitely had a defensive edge on Miller, but I never thought he was a huge defensive force like Walt Frazier or Jason Kidd to make up for Miller's advantage on offence.

Reggie Miller was wrongfully snubbed for the nth time for an All-NBA team in 1997, he had a great season and was definitely a top 6 guard in the league if not top 4.
were you even alive that season?  I mean that seriously.  I watched those seasons and Miller was never that good.  He certainly upped his game in the playoffs often, but he absolutely 100% did not deserve to be on an All NBA Team that season.  Heck he wasn't even an all star that year for a reason as well.  And for the record his on/off per 100 possession was -2.8 so the Pacers were actually better when he wasn't on the floor (Richmond was a +6.8).

Miller just wasn't the type of player you think he was.  He just wasn't. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.

I agree with you on this somebody. There is also some validity to saying some players would have even more value than others in the modern era because of how the game evolved. Miller regularly shot over 40% from 3 in his career on very high volume for the time. I don't know why we can't easily admit he would be taking 7 or 8 more 3's a game in the modern NBA. His numbers would look very good if you did that (to say nothing of today's pace compared to some of Miller's career.

And how would that be any different than the impact Klay Thompson has? Or are we arguing Klay could actually be a lead dog?

I'm not sure how it could be argued that one could be & not the other in regards to Miller & Klay.

This thread has so many different debates happening it is a little hard to follow them all. To answer your question though i do think Klay could probably be the lead dog on a team.
On a non-contender yes, but I really don't see the argument for Klay being the lead dog on a title winning team unless you have a really deep squad filled with All-Stars. His skillset is a bit more dependent - it's not a bad thing, but it does make building around him a bit more difficult (also not a death knell, I've gone to bat for great #2s over meh #1s but Miller is better as both a #2 and a #1 lol).
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.
This is Reggie Miller's 96-97 season.  21.6 p, 3.5 r, 3.4 a, 0.9 s, 0.3 b - 45.6% (2PT), 42.7% (3PT), 88% (FT).

This is Mitch Richmond's 96-97 season.  25.9 p, 3.9 r, 4.2 a, 1.5 s, 0.3 b - 46.6% (2PT), 42.8% (3PT), 86.1% (FT).

Now you explain to me how Reggie Miller had a better statistical season than Mitch Richmond.  And to be clear, the Pacers won 39 games and didn't make the playoffs so you can't really use team winning as a criteria.

Tim Hardaway led a 61 win team to the ECF.  His stats that year 20.3 p, 3.4 r, 8.6 a, 1.9 s, 0.1 b - 46.9% (2PT), 34.4% (3PT), 79l9% (FT).  There is a reason his was 1st Team All NBA and finished 4th in MVP voting. 

Stockton is at least a little closer as he was never a great scorer and was at just 14.4 ppg that year, though still had 10.5 apg along with 2.8 r, 2.0 s, 0.2 b.  He shot 59.8% from 2 point range, 42.2% from 3, and 84.6% from the line and was also on 2nd Team All Defense.  The Jazz of course won 64 games and lost in the NBA Finals.  Stockton though was clearly the #2 guy on his squad.

Reggie Miller correctly did not make an All NBA Team that year.  He had a good season, but he was not a top 7 guard in the league.
Pulling up the basic slash line to make a point requires you to explain to me how is that convincing in terms of basketball statistics. And the Pacers had a considerably better point differential than the lowly Kings Richmond led, I can absolutely make a point on how Reggie impacted winning more than Richmond. Stockton was a fantastic complementary guy, but his RS box stats consistently overstate how good was (or just his box stats in general tbh). He had a lot of Rondo assists (which made him a very good rather than an elite passer like Magic/Nash) and was never a dangerous enough scoring threat to force defences to pick their poison when he was tasked to carry a heavy offensive load. The team results he had in the late 80s before Malone's ascension were telling: he dragged a poor Jazz offence to...slightly below average. He definitely had a defensive edge on Miller, but I never thought he was a huge defensive force like Walt Frazier or Jason Kidd to make up for Miller's advantage on offence.

Reggie Miller was wrongfully snubbed for the nth time for an All-NBA team in 1997, he had a great season and was definitely a top 6 guard in the league if not top 4.
Were you even alive that season?  I mean that seriously.  I watched those seasons and Miller was never that good.  He certainly upped his game in the playoffs often, but he absolutely 100% did not deserve to be on an All NBA Team that season.  Heck he wasn't even an all star that year for a reason as well.  And for the record his on/off per 100 possession was -2.8 so the Pacers were actually better when he wasn't on the floor (Richmond was a +6.8).

Miller just wasn't the type of player you think he was.  He just wasn't.
Oh yes the "were you alive for that season" when the basic slash lines and "muh mediocre on-ball shot creators >>> off-ball savants" don't work :laugh:. You don't have to take my word for it, plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams. And raw on/off for 1 season is the best statistical joke you've pulled off so far when there is much better +/- data available :laugh:, Miller's scaled plus-minus data between 1996 and 2000 (excluding his 1994 and 1995 because those were his peak years statistically) generally trumps Richmond's with the exception of 1997's NPI data (NPI is super wonky for pure +/- metrics because it has no prior data to stabilise it), not by a lot but it's consistent enough to conclude that Miller has Richmond beat in that family of statistics. He also has Richmond beat in WOWY, that's a game-level +/- metric that's measured over multiple years to approximate the "value" of a player during his prime.

Miller just was that killer you vehemently don't believe he was. He just was. The team results prove it when you look past the W/L column and his individual body of work was honestly outstanding. Was he Jordan or Kobe? No, but you don't have to be the two best shooting guards who've ever lived to be on All-NBA teams consistently.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 12:58:41 PM by Somebody »
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.
This is Reggie Miller's 96-97 season.  21.6 p, 3.5 r, 3.4 a, 0.9 s, 0.3 b - 45.6% (2PT), 42.7% (3PT), 88% (FT).

This is Mitch Richmond's 96-97 season.  25.9 p, 3.9 r, 4.2 a, 1.5 s, 0.3 b - 46.6% (2PT), 42.8% (3PT), 86.1% (FT).

Now you explain to me how Reggie Miller had a better statistical season than Mitch Richmond.  And to be clear, the Pacers won 39 games and didn't make the playoffs so you can't really use team winning as a criteria.

Tim Hardaway led a 61 win team to the ECF.  His stats that year 20.3 p, 3.4 r, 8.6 a, 1.9 s, 0.1 b - 46.9% (2PT), 34.4% (3PT), 79l9% (FT).  There is a reason his was 1st Team All NBA and finished 4th in MVP voting. 

Stockton is at least a little closer as he was never a great scorer and was at just 14.4 ppg that year, though still had 10.5 apg along with 2.8 r, 2.0 s, 0.2 b.  He shot 59.8% from 2 point range, 42.2% from 3, and 84.6% from the line and was also on 2nd Team All Defense.  The Jazz of course won 64 games and lost in the NBA Finals.  Stockton though was clearly the #2 guy on his squad.

Reggie Miller correctly did not make an All NBA Team that year.  He had a good season, but he was not a top 7 guard in the league.
Pulling up the basic slash line to make a point requires you to explain to me how is that convincing in terms of basketball statistics. And the Pacers had a considerably better point differential than the lowly Kings Richmond led, I can absolutely make a point on how Reggie impacted winning more than Richmond. Stockton was a fantastic complementary guy, but his RS box stats consistently overstate how good was (or just his box stats in general tbh). He had a lot of Rondo assists (which made him a very good rather than an elite passer like Magic/Nash) and was never a dangerous enough scoring threat to force defences to pick their poison when he was tasked to carry a heavy offensive load. The team results he had in the late 80s before Malone's ascension were telling: he dragged a poor Jazz offence to...slightly below average. He definitely had a defensive edge on Miller, but I never thought he was a huge defensive force like Walt Frazier or Jason Kidd to make up for Miller's advantage on offence.

Reggie Miller was wrongfully snubbed for the nth time for an All-NBA team in 1997, he had a great season and was definitely a top 6 guard in the league if not top 4.
were you even alive that season?  I mean that seriously.  I watched those seasons and Miller was never that good.  He certainly upped his game in the playoffs often, but he absolutely 100% did not deserve to be on an All NBA Team that season.  Heck he wasn't even an all star that year for a reason as well.  And for the record his on/off per 100 possession was -2.8 so the Pacers were actually better when he wasn't on the floor (Richmond was a +6.8).

Miller just wasn't the type of player you think he was.  He just wasn't.

It is weird to question whether somebody else was alive when the season you are discussing you were, what, a sophmore in high school? Generally if you have to try to go after a person's age in a debate it is not going well for you. It is particularly strange when said season you were not an adult yourself. i think you are underrating Miller a bit whether or not you clearly remember a season from 23 years ago.

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I think it is just a bit silly to bag on these guys from past eras that were in many cases flying around coach airplaces and dealing with way less accomplished medical teams and procedures, amentities and resources than the players of today. Do you think McHale is playing on a broken foot in 2020? Do we think Michael Jordan only access to a sketchy pizza place the night before a finals game (I don't really think he was poisoned and think the story was actually embellished but it is really hard for me to imagine Jayson Tatum only having the choice of a sketch pizza place for his meal the night before a playoff game). These guys, how they look and perform would be wildly different if they had access to the thing today's players do. Even if we want to think about that Pacers team. Is Reggie Miller considered a much better player if he is taking 13 3 pointers a game (like Harden today) instead of the 5 he took? How many points would he have averaged?
Reggie made 3 3rd Team All NBA squads.  You don't have to account for era, just look at his era.  He had 3 top 15 seasons in his career.  He made just 5 all star games.  He was a poor defender and rebounder.  I'm not going to call him a blackhole, but he wasn't exactly a prolific passer.  Miller was a very good player, but he was no where near an elite level player.  He was probably a slightly lesser version of Paul Pierce.  Which is a fine player, HOFer even, but is no where near a top historical player. 
Yeah, Reggie was great, but he's much more of a Klay Thompson type than a Steph Curry type, in terms of offensive skill set and impact.  Reggie wasn't a 'lead dog', he didn't have that ability.
Reggie probably had that ability offensively, Klay is only really close to him in terms of overall impact because there's a significant defensive gap between the two (Reggie was slightly above average while Klay is a very good defender). The accolades do underrate Reggie quite a bit as well, he should've been an All-NBA mainstay during the 90s. Not everyone has to be an offensive GOAT to be the main figurehead of a title winning offence :laugh:
No he shouldn't have been.  He was a good, but not great, player.  I mean take 97, which guard are you taking off of the All NBA squads to put Miller on.  Jordan, T. Hardaway, Richmond, Payton, A. Hardaway, or Stockton.  Those guys were all better players than Miller that season and had better statistical seasons on top of it.

Miller is one of those players that had some incredible playoff performances and people remember those and think he was better than he was.  I mean who can forget the 8 points in 9 seconds to win a playoff game.  Perhaps the greatest individual 9 seconds in NBA history.  People remember that and think man Reggie was so good, but that is more of an anomaly than reality where Miller is concerned.
T Hardaway and Richmond are incredibly easy choices without even bringing Stockton into the debate. I'm also not sure what statistics are you looking at if you think all of those players had more impressive campaigns than Miller in '97, only Jordan, Payton and Anfernee compared favourably to him and I'm not even really sure about Payton or Anfernee, they were likely around Miller's level (probably slightly better, but the gap isn't huge).

Miller is one of those guys who had incredible playoff performances throughout his career and people underrate how good he actually was by dismissing them as "some incredible playoff moments". He was a grade A scorer who went nuclear when the postseason rolled around time and time again, the only anomaly is the weird narrative that completely dismisses that resume because his entire body of work was apparently a fluke. He missed the '97 playoffs, but his RS work was still pretty exceptional: 23.9 points per 75 on +6.7% rTS while pulling a pretty bad Indy team that was marred by injuries and roster turnover to respectability deserves an All-NBA nod when he has a good track record of vaulting teams into the upper stratosphere when he has the right pieces around him.
This is Reggie Miller's 96-97 season.  21.6 p, 3.5 r, 3.4 a, 0.9 s, 0.3 b - 45.6% (2PT), 42.7% (3PT), 88% (FT).

This is Mitch Richmond's 96-97 season.  25.9 p, 3.9 r, 4.2 a, 1.5 s, 0.3 b - 46.6% (2PT), 42.8% (3PT), 86.1% (FT).

Now you explain to me how Reggie Miller had a better statistical season than Mitch Richmond.  And to be clear, the Pacers won 39 games and didn't make the playoffs so you can't really use team winning as a criteria.

Tim Hardaway led a 61 win team to the ECF.  His stats that year 20.3 p, 3.4 r, 8.6 a, 1.9 s, 0.1 b - 46.9% (2PT), 34.4% (3PT), 79l9% (FT).  There is a reason his was 1st Team All NBA and finished 4th in MVP voting. 

Stockton is at least a little closer as he was never a great scorer and was at just 14.4 ppg that year, though still had 10.5 apg along with 2.8 r, 2.0 s, 0.2 b.  He shot 59.8% from 2 point range, 42.2% from 3, and 84.6% from the line and was also on 2nd Team All Defense.  The Jazz of course won 64 games and lost in the NBA Finals.  Stockton though was clearly the #2 guy on his squad.

Reggie Miller correctly did not make an All NBA Team that year.  He had a good season, but he was not a top 7 guard in the league.
Pulling up the basic slash line to make a point requires you to explain to me how is that convincing in terms of basketball statistics. And the Pacers had a considerably better point differential than the lowly Kings Richmond led, I can absolutely make a point on how Reggie impacted winning more than Richmond. Stockton was a fantastic complementary guy, but his RS box stats consistently overstate how good was (or just his box stats in general tbh). He had a lot of Rondo assists (which made him a very good rather than an elite passer like Magic/Nash) and was never a dangerous enough scoring threat to force defences to pick their poison when he was tasked to carry a heavy offensive load. The team results he had in the late 80s before Malone's ascension were telling: he dragged a poor Jazz offence to...slightly below average. He definitely had a defensive edge on Miller, but I never thought he was a huge defensive force like Walt Frazier or Jason Kidd to make up for Miller's advantage on offence.

Reggie Miller was wrongfully snubbed for the nth time for an All-NBA team in 1997, he had a great season and was definitely a top 6 guard in the league if not top 4.
Were you even alive that season?  I mean that seriously.  I watched those seasons and Miller was never that good.  He certainly upped his game in the playoffs often, but he absolutely 100% did not deserve to be on an All NBA Team that season.  Heck he wasn't even an all star that year for a reason as well.  And for the record his on/off per 100 possession was -2.8 so the Pacers were actually better when he wasn't on the floor (Richmond was a +6.8).

Miller just wasn't the type of player you think he was.  He just wasn't.
Oh yes the "were you alive for that season" when the basic slash lines and "muh mediocre on-ball shot creators >>> off-ball savants" don't work :laugh:. You don't have to take my word for it, plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams. And raw on/off for 1 season is the best statistical joke you've pulled off so far when there is much better +/- data available :laugh:, Miller's scaled plus-minus data between 1996 and 2000 (excluding his 1994 and 1995 because those were his peak years statistically) generally trumps Richmond's with the exception of 1997's NPI data (NPI is super wonky for pure +/- metrics because it has no prior data to stabilise it), not by a lot but it's consistent enough to conclude that Miller has Richmond beat in that family of statistics. He also has Richmond beat in WOWY, that's a game-level +/- metric that's measured over multiple years to approximate the "value" of a player during his prime.

Miller just was that killer you vehemently don't believe he was. He just was. The team results prove it when you look past the W/L column and his individual body of work was honestly outstanding. Was he Jordan or Kobe? No, but you don't have to be the two best shooting guards who've ever lived to be on All-NBA teams consistently.
of course not, but you do need to be a top 6 guard in the NBA and Miller, for much of his career, quite simply was not.  And here's the thing, if he could up his game in the post season, why did he never do it in the regular season?  Why give him a pass for what clearly must have been coasting?  And his defense was mediocre at best.  He was an excellent shooter (though did only have 1 season finishing in the top 5 in 3PT%), but he wasn't a shot creator, he wasn't a rebounder, he wasn't a passer, he wasn't a defender, etc.  He was a very good player, but he thrived by playing in the weakest decade in the sport's history.  The media, coaches, and fans didn't all get it wrong at the time.  Sure a season here or there sometimes they get things wrong, but not over the course of an entire decade+ when he had just 5 all star games, 3 All NBA selections, 2 seasons with MVP votes, etc.  Reggie Miller was basically a poor-mans Paul Pierce.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Online bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams.

Got to be careful with revisionist thinking though.

The fans who watched in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star
The coaches who coached in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star.
The media who covered the game in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be All-NBA.

The coaches and media, who were paid to cover the game at the time, didn't think Miller was worthy.  So what has changed since?

It's one thing if you think how we analyze the game has changed, and Miller had some underappreciated moneyball stat that is highly regarded today that was overlooked then, or if there was some media conspiracy against him (or for somebody else) that kept him out.  But I'm not seeing those arguments being made.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams.

Got to be careful with revisionist thinking though.

The fans who watched in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star
The coaches who coached in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star.
The media who covered the game in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be All-NBA.

The coaches and media, who were paid to cover the game at the time, didn't think Miller was worthy.  So what has changed since?

It's one thing if you think how we analyze the game has changed, and Miller had some underappreciated moneyball stat that is highly regarded today that was overlooked then, or if there was some media conspiracy against him (or for somebody else) that kept him out.  But I'm not seeing those arguments being made.
Hm I think I've articulated exactly that in my posts, but sure I'll summarise what I think regarding this.

1. We absolutely have been making massive improvements in analysing players and it's been largely positive imo, player analysis has really gotten spot on for high level analysts.

2. Miller was underappreciated for his time because of the fixation on the raw slash line and FG%. His TS% (especially when relative to the era he played in) was absolutely bonkers and his creation was understated because people had no idea on how to value off ball creation (here's a great video on how off ball movement is really valuable in basketball: https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w).

3. His scoring was also underrated because of the incredibly slow pace of the 90s, adjusting his playoff scoring rates to the modern game would make peak Reggie Miller a 27-28 "PPG" scorer on insanely high efficiency as noted above. What's also overlooked is the on-court aspect of his scoring: besides being highly portable and economical, his scoring game was also incredibly hard to stop because of how difficult it is to guard a person without the ball, which led to his consistently amazing playoff numbers as well as fantastic team playoff offences.

So there you have it: Reggie Miller was the rare high volume + efficiency scorer who didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective (which led to him meshing with almost everyone) and has a very good track record of leading high-end offences when it mattered the most regardless of how good the opposing defences were, but only got three All-NBA nods because people simply didn't analyse players that way at the time.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams.

Got to be careful with revisionist thinking though.

The fans who watched in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star
The coaches who coached in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star.
The media who covered the game in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be All-NBA.

The coaches and media, who were paid to cover the game at the time, didn't think Miller was worthy.  So what has changed since?

It's one thing if you think how we analyze the game has changed, and Miller had some underappreciated moneyball stat that is highly regarded today that was overlooked then, or if there was some media conspiracy against him (or for somebody else) that kept him out.  But I'm not seeing those arguments being made.
Hm I think I've articulated exactly that in my posts, but sure I'll summarise what I think regarding this.

1. We absolutely have been making massive improvements in analysing players and it's been largely positive imo, player analysis has really gotten spot on for high level analysts.

2. Miller was underappreciated for his time because of the fixation on the raw slash line and FG%. His TS% (especially when relative to the era he played in) was absolutely bonkers and his creation was understated because people had no idea on how to value off ball creation (here's a great video on how off ball movement is really valuable in basketball: https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w).

3. His scoring was also underrated because of the incredibly slow pace of the 90s, adjusting his playoff scoring rates to the modern game would make peak Reggie Miller a 27-28 "PPG" scorer on insanely high efficiency as noted above. What's also overlooked is the on-court aspect of his scoring: besides being highly portable and economical, his scoring game was also incredibly hard to stop because of how difficult it is to guard a person without the ball, which led to his consistently amazing playoff numbers as well as fantastic team playoff offences.

So there you have it: Reggie Miller was the rare high volume + efficiency scorer who didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective (which led to him meshing with almost everyone) and has a very good track record of leading high-end offences when it mattered the most regardless of how good the opposing defences were, but only got three All-NBA nods because people simply didn't analyse players that way at the time.
The thing is most of those arguments would apply to the other players of those seasons also.  Would Mitch Richmond not have benefited from the increased pace and larger focus on outside shooting of today?  I mean Richmond shot basically 43% on 6 3 point attempts in 97 while Miller shot basically 43% on 6.5 attempts.  Wouldn't all of those increases and improvements based on a modern game also apply to Richmond?  Or Tim Hardaway, or John Stockton, or Penny or Jordan or Payton.  And whose to say that if Miller actually shot more he would shoot at the same efficiency.  Maybe if he had 4 more shots a game (like Richmond) his efficiency would have dropped even more.  A lot of times real #1 scorers, especially on bad teams, lose efficiency because they are forced to take a lot bad shots.  Miller picked his shots a lot better, which certainly makes him more efficient, but also docks him points as a #1 option. 

And I agree that Miller had an excellent TS% (even in the season being discussed at 60.3%, good for 10th that year) because he was such a prolific and quality 3 point shooter.  Of course Stockton was 2nd in the league at 65.6% that year so is he not underrated based on that same analysis?  This is the problem with trying to use stats to undo what everyone in the world knew at the time i.e. Miller was a very good but not great player.  The fans, coaches, and media were not wrong on this one.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams.

Got to be careful with revisionist thinking though.

The fans who watched in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star
The coaches who coached in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star.
The media who covered the game in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be All-NBA.

The coaches and media, who were paid to cover the game at the time, didn't think Miller was worthy.  So what has changed since?

It's one thing if you think how we analyze the game has changed, and Miller had some underappreciated moneyball stat that is highly regarded today that was overlooked then, or if there was some media conspiracy against him (or for somebody else) that kept him out.  But I'm not seeing those arguments being made.
Hm I think I've articulated exactly that in my posts, but sure I'll summarise what I think regarding this.

1. We absolutely have been making massive improvements in analysing players and it's been largely positive imo, player analysis has really gotten spot on for high level analysts.

2. Miller was underappreciated for his time because of the fixation on the raw slash line and FG%. His TS% (especially when relative to the era he played in) was absolutely bonkers and his creation was understated because people had no idea on how to value off ball creation (here's a great video on how off ball movement is really valuable in basketball: https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w).

3. His scoring was also underrated because of the incredibly slow pace of the 90s, adjusting his playoff scoring rates to the modern game would make peak Reggie Miller a 27-28 "PPG" scorer on insanely high efficiency as noted above. What's also overlooked is the on-court aspect of his scoring: besides being highly portable and economical, his scoring game was also incredibly hard to stop because of how difficult it is to guard a person without the ball, which led to his consistently amazing playoff numbers as well as fantastic team playoff offences.

So there you have it: Reggie Miller was the rare high volume + efficiency scorer who didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective (which led to him meshing with almost everyone) and has a very good track record of leading high-end offences when it mattered the most regardless of how good the opposing defences were, but only got three All-NBA nods because people simply didn't analyse players that way at the time.
The thing is most of those arguments would apply to the other players of those seasons also.  Would Mitch Richmond not have benefited from the increased pace and larger focus on outside shooting of today?  I mean Richmond shot basically 43% on 6 3 point attempts in 97 while Miller shot basically 43% on 6.5 attempts.  Wouldn't all of those increases and improvements based on a modern game also apply to Richmond?  Or Tim Hardaway, or John Stockton, or Penny or Jordan or Payton.  And whose to say that if Miller actually shot more he would shoot at the same efficiency.  Maybe if he had 4 more shots a game (like Richmond) his efficiency would have dropped even more.  A lot of times real #1 scorers, especially on bad teams, lose efficiency because they are forced to take a lot bad shots.  Miller picked his shots a lot better, which certainly makes him more efficient, but also docks him points as a #1 option. 

And I agree that Miller had an excellent TS% (even in the season being discussed at 60.3%, good for 10th that year) because he was such a prolific and quality 3 point shooter.  Of course Stockton was 2nd in the league at 65.6% that year so is he not underrated based on that same analysis?  This is the problem with trying to use stats to undo what everyone in the world knew at the time i.e. Miller was a very good but not great player.  The fans, coaches, and media were not wrong on this one.

I think we can probably do a bit better than just saying they would all improve/be regarded equally. Penny Hardaway never really developed as a three point shooter throughout his career. His attempts and makes peaked in his 4th year and he never got to be a respectable percentage either. I don't know if he is magically a great shooter if he shoots 3's. The comparison between Stockton and Miller is also pretty interesting. John Stockton was 6-7 inches smaller than Miller and certainly would have a harder time getting shots off coming off screens compared to miller. I believe you also mentioned that Stockton was a pretty reluctant shooter in general earlier in the thread. Do we have any reasonable reason to think Stockton would be able to get way more shots off if he played in today's era? Payton on the other hand is probably the very unusual player that managed to take too many three point attempts in an era when very few were accused of doing that. In two seasons between 97-99 he was launching almost 6 a game at an average of 32%. Miller was only shooting 5 a game at above 40% a game.

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
plenty of people who've watched those games while living through the 90s, including some people who're actually paid to analyse basketball as solo artists (so they aren't hacks like Stephen A Smith, they actually have to produce quality content to attract people) have raved about how underrated Miller was and how he deserved to be on All-NBA teams.

Got to be careful with revisionist thinking though.

The fans who watched in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star
The coaches who coached in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be an All-Star.
The media who covered the game in '97 didn't vote for Miller to be All-NBA.

The coaches and media, who were paid to cover the game at the time, didn't think Miller was worthy.  So what has changed since?

It's one thing if you think how we analyze the game has changed, and Miller had some underappreciated moneyball stat that is highly regarded today that was overlooked then, or if there was some media conspiracy against him (or for somebody else) that kept him out.  But I'm not seeing those arguments being made.
Hm I think I've articulated exactly that in my posts, but sure I'll summarise what I think regarding this.

1. We absolutely have been making massive improvements in analysing players and it's been largely positive imo, player analysis has really gotten spot on for high level analysts.

2. Miller was underappreciated for his time because of the fixation on the raw slash line and FG%. His TS% (especially when relative to the era he played in) was absolutely bonkers and his creation was understated because people had no idea on how to value off ball creation (here's a great video on how off ball movement is really valuable in basketball: https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w).

3. His scoring was also underrated because of the incredibly slow pace of the 90s, adjusting his playoff scoring rates to the modern game would make peak Reggie Miller a 27-28 "PPG" scorer on insanely high efficiency as noted above. What's also overlooked is the on-court aspect of his scoring: besides being highly portable and economical, his scoring game was also incredibly hard to stop because of how difficult it is to guard a person without the ball, which led to his consistently amazing playoff numbers as well as fantastic team playoff offences.

So there you have it: Reggie Miller was the rare high volume + efficiency scorer who didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective (which led to him meshing with almost everyone) and has a very good track record of leading high-end offences when it mattered the most regardless of how good the opposing defences were, but only got three All-NBA nods because people simply didn't analyse players that way at the time.
The thing is most of those arguments would apply to the other players of those seasons also.  Would Mitch Richmond not have benefited from the increased pace and larger focus on outside shooting of today?  I mean Richmond shot basically 43% on 6 3 point attempts in 97 while Miller shot basically 43% on 6.5 attempts.  Wouldn't all of those increases and improvements based on a modern game also apply to Richmond?  Or Tim Hardaway, or John Stockton, or Penny or Jordan or Payton.  And whose to say that if Miller actually shot more he would shoot at the same efficiency.  Maybe if he had 4 more shots a game (like Richmond) his efficiency would have dropped even more.  A lot of times real #1 scorers, especially on bad teams, lose efficiency because they are forced to take a lot bad shots.  Miller picked his shots a lot better, which certainly makes him more efficient, but also docks him points as a #1 option. 

And I agree that Miller had an excellent TS% (even in the season being discussed at 60.3%, good for 10th that year) because he was such a prolific and quality 3 point shooter.  Of course Stockton was 2nd in the league at 65.6% that year so is he not underrated based on that same analysis?  This is the problem with trying to use stats to undo what everyone in the world knew at the time i.e. Miller was a very good but not great player.  The fans, coaches, and media were not wrong on this one.

I think we can probably do a bit better than just saying they would all improve/be regarded equally. Penny Hardaway never really developed as a three point shooter throughout his career. His attempts and makes peaked in his 4th year and he never got to be a respectable percentage either. I don't know if he is magically a great shooter if he shoots 3's. The comparison between Stockton and Miller is also pretty interesting. John Stockton was 6-7 inches smaller than Miller and certainly would have a harder time getting shots off coming off screens compared to miller. I believe you also mentioned that Stockton was a pretty reluctant shooter in general earlier in the thread. Do we have any reasonable reason to think Stockton would be able to get way more shots off if he played in today's era? Payton on the other hand is probably the very unusual player that managed to take too many three point attempts in an era when very few were accused of doing that. In two seasons between 97-99 he was launching almost 6 a game at an average of 32%. Miller was only shooting 5 a game at above 40% a game.
I absolutely think the increased pace, spacing, etc. would have benefited all of those players.  Perhaps in different ways, but certainly would have benefited.  Imagine Stockton in an era where you basically couldn't touch a player.  His size is much less an issue if no one can hand check.  He'd probably average 15 assists a game with an increased pace as well given just how good he was at the pick-n-role and how much easier it is to utilize that in the modern game.  Payton would have developed an outside shot better.  He wouldn't be a 40% shooter but absolutely could be a Harden type shooter.  Plus he would get a ton of foul shots. 

My point is, all of those guys were better than Miller in the 90's (at least certain seasons with some, like Richmond in 97) and they'd be better than him today.  You also can't apply modern rules to the actual era in which the player played.  In the 90's, Reggie Miller wasn't snubbed those years.  Reggie Miller was a very good player, but he wasn't a consistent All NBA player for a reason.  He just wasn't that type of player over his career and the fact that the Pacers were as good as they were is a testament to the weakness of the era not to MIller's ability. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip