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
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.