Author Topic: Horace Grant says Michael Jordan lied in 'Last Dance,' calls him 'snitch'  (Read 7289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
I just binge watched the whole last dance show.  I have to say I like Jordan less than I did before I watched it.  He wasn't really about the team, he was about MJ, just like Kobe was.  He was obviously the greatest player of his generation, maybe any generation, but maybe not. 

As I was watching that series I was so turned off by what a jerk he was that I found myself rooting for the teams he was facing in the finals.  He faced maybe 1 or 2 great teams in the ECF during his whole run (Indy with Bird as coach, Reggie and that crew, maybe one of the knicks teams was pretty good).  The competition in the east was pretty poor after Detroit got old.  Watching this whole MJ history actually made me have less respect for Jordan.  I know double 3peats is incredible. 

It just makes me love the 2008 Celtics even more, with Doc, KG, PP, Rondo, Ray, JP, and that Ubuntu crew.
I'm sorry but that Indiana team wasn't that good and the Knicks were even worse.  I mean seriously look at that Pacers roster.  The starters were Mark Jackson, Reggie Miller, old Chris Mullin, Dale Davis, and Rik Smits.  Miller clearly the best player, but Miller as best players go isn't that good.  Other starters were all solid above average players, but nothing to write home about.  Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose, and Derrick McKey were solid bench players, but that is really what they were.  So it was a deep team, but one that lacked top end talent.  Because of that I'm not sure that team is actually better than a team like the 17 Wizards (Wall, Beal, Porter, Morris, Gortat, Bogdanovic, Oubre, Jennings, and Smith) or the Blazers of the last few years or the pre-Kawhi Raptors, etc.  All fine teams, but no one would ever mistake them for being great.  The Knicks had a better player at the top but were even worse overall.  I think they might have been the weakest team that's been in the finals in my lifetime (they certainly lost to the weakest champion of my lifetime).  I might take the 07 Cavs over them just given that Lebron (even then) was a superior player to Ewing.  The team talent in the 90's just doesn't measure up to pretty much every other decade (aside from the 70's).  That isn't to say the Bulls wouldn't have been a contender in any decade, they would have, but I'm not so sure the Bulls (even the better 2nd 3 peat) win a title in the 80's (as an example) as I think any of the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, or Sixers (during their prime seasons) were at least on par if not better than that 2nd 3-peat Bulls team (and they were all better than the 1st 3 peat team).

Agree, TP.

You are right on the money about that era. Hakeem's first title team featured Otis Smith as the second-best player. And who is Otis Smith? I don't even remember.

The 90's were a watered-down expansion era with the stars spread all over the place. Jordan never beat a juggernaut team in his career. The '08 Celtics defeating Kobe, Gasol, and Odom was a bigger victory than anything those Bulls teams did.

IMO Jordan also got a lot of help from the league and refs. They mugged opponents almost as egregiously as the Bad Boy Pistons before them. Whenever they faced a challenge they seemed to start hacking and grabbing and would always get away with it.
The point you guys are making is accurate but you don't remember Otis Smith because it was Otis Thorpe who was on the Rockets.  Otis Smith played for a few years as a journeyman but never on the Rockets. 


Also, just to respond to Moranis, chemistry matters.  Those Pacers would have crushed the 17 Wizards for that reason.

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I just binge watched the whole last dance show.  I have to say I like Jordan less than I did before I watched it.  He wasn't really about the team, he was about MJ, just like Kobe was.  He was obviously the greatest player of his generation, maybe any generation, but maybe not. 

As I was watching that series I was so turned off by what a jerk he was that I found myself rooting for the teams he was facing in the finals.  He faced maybe 1 or 2 great teams in the ECF during his whole run (Indy with Bird as coach, Reggie and that crew, maybe one of the knicks teams was pretty good).  The competition in the east was pretty poor after Detroit got old.  Watching this whole MJ history actually made me have less respect for Jordan.  I know double 3peats is incredible. 

It just makes me love the 2008 Celtics even more, with Doc, KG, PP, Rondo, Ray, JP, and that Ubuntu crew.
I'm sorry but that Indiana team wasn't that good and the Knicks were even worse.  I mean seriously look at that Pacers roster.  The starters were Mark Jackson, Reggie Miller, old Chris Mullin, Dale Davis, and Rik Smits.  Miller clearly the best player, but Miller as best players go isn't that good.  Other starters were all solid above average players, but nothing to write home about.  Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose, and Derrick McKey were solid bench players, but that is really what they were.  So it was a deep team, but one that lacked top end talent.  Because of that I'm not sure that team is actually better than a team like the 17 Wizards (Wall, Beal, Porter, Morris, Gortat, Bogdanovic, Oubre, Jennings, and Smith) or the Blazers of the last few years or the pre-Kawhi Raptors, etc.  All fine teams, but no one would ever mistake them for being great.  The Knicks had a better player at the top but were even worse overall.  I think they might have been the weakest team that's been in the finals in my lifetime (they certainly lost to the weakest champion of my lifetime).  I might take the 07 Cavs over them just given that Lebron (even then) was a superior player to Ewing.  The team talent in the 90's just doesn't measure up to pretty much every other decade (aside from the 70's).  That isn't to say the Bulls wouldn't have been a contender in any decade, they would have, but I'm not so sure the Bulls (even the better 2nd 3 peat) win a title in the 80's (as an example) as I think any of the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, or Sixers (during their prime seasons) were at least on par if not better than that 2nd 3-peat Bulls team (and they were all better than the 1st 3 peat team).

Agree, TP.

You are right on the money about that era. Hakeem's first title team featured Otis Smith as the second-best player. And who is Otis Smith? I don't even remember.

The 90's were a watered-down expansion era with the stars spread all over the place. Jordan never beat a juggernaut team in his career. The '08 Celtics defeating Kobe, Gasol, and Odom was a bigger victory than anything those Bulls teams did.

IMO Jordan also got a lot of help from the league and refs. They mugged opponents almost as egregiously as the Bad Boy Pistons before them. Whenever they faced a challenge they seemed to start hacking and grabbing and would always get away with it.
The point you guys are making is accurate but you don't remember Otis Smith because it was Otis Thorpe who was on the Rockets.  Otis Smith played for a few years as a journeyman but never on the Rockets. 


Also, just to respond to Moranis, chemistry matters.  Those Pacers would have crushed the 17 Wizards for that reason.
The 17 Wizards won 49 games and took the 1 seed to a game 7 in the ECS.  I think their chemistry was just fine.  They fell off a cliff when Wall got hurt, but before that they were looking like a pretty solid team.  Not a real contender, but a nice solid team.  Pretty much what the Pacers were.  I mean start going down the roster and I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that at those respective points Wall and Beal were the 2 best players as Miller had already started his decline (though I'd probably go 1 Wall, 2 Miller, 3 Beal).  Porter was still rising, but was already showing superb 3 point range (43.4%) and quality defense.  Gortat and Morris were in their primes.  They got Bojan at the trade deadline and he invigorated their bench.  Obviously different eras and different rules, but I'm taking the Wizards in a hypothetical playoff matchup of those two teams even with the coaching disadvantage (Bird was a significantly better coach than Brooks is). 
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
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?

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. 
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 KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
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.

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:
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.
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.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 10:30:40 AM 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.

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.

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
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?

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.
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: 30933
  • 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.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

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?
In terms of overall impact on both ends of the court he's not that much better than Klay, I don't disagree with that. But I do think that it's not very difficult to construct a contender with Reggie as its main figurehead on offence (or at least as its most prolific scorer), that was where my statement of "Reggie Miller can be a lead dog" came from.
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.

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.

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.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA