Btw was Miller really the problem in Indiana? The Pacer offences he led were consistently elite throughout his prime, and they were incredibly tough outs no matter what round they were ousted. He also improved in the playoffs throughout his career, driving up his volume and efficiency against elite defences when his team needed him the most:
Miller’s three-year peak scoring is a level below Allen Iverson and George Gervin, but their efficiency pales in comparison to Reggie’s. Fittingly, Ray Allen, the player most historically linked with Miller, matches Miller’s efficiency with nearly an identical shape.
However, something remarkable happened in the playoffs. In the Second Season, most stars see a slight decline in their numbers, the result of facing harder defenses that game plan for them. But Miller shows (perhaps) the greatest improvement from regular season to postseason of any notable player in history. His scoring spikes with no drop in his efficiency. So, despite more modest regular season numbers, Miller’s prime scoring rates in the playoffs were in the 97th percentile, comparable to rates from prime Kareem Adbul-Jabbar, Julius Erving and Larry Bird, all while maintaining his elite efficiency.
https://backpicks.com/2018/01/18/backpicks-goat-29-reggie-miller/
I get that he wasn't a wizard on the ball like Jordan and Bird, but imo his dynamic off ball movement was so difficult to defend when he ramped up his aggressiveness come playoff time that any problems with the team not winning titles was more [dang]ing on his supporting cast rather than him as a player. He wasn't an offensive juggernaut due to his passing limitations and poor handle (which does give credence to your point that Indy lacked a guy who can create offence for his teammates on the ball, he certainly couldn't do that), but he could definitely provide elite crunch time scoring when his team needed a bucket in the clutch - he just needed a decent passer who could make a wide open pass after he created an opening with his off-ball movement and I think a good number of players (eg. Isiah Thomas) have mentioned how good he was in crunch time to save his Pacer squads if you want more anecdotal evidence from people who knew the game back then. Here's the Thinking Basketball video on off-ball movement, which raises the idea that dynamic off-ball movement combined with incredible shot making (basically Miller's scoring package) might be just as hard to guard as excellent on-ball scoring. https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w
It wasn't that Reggie was the problem.
It was (1) the question of him being a legit #1 option on a title contender or not. There were a lot of doubts about him because his game was so dependent on off-ball actions and they were fair question marks.
And (2) that his limitations meant his team needed to get more help around him which Indiana consistently failed to do throughout the 90s. So team composition. What does Reggie need alongside him to win a ring? Will he still be the best player on that team or not?
Both interesting debates / though exercises of that time.
----------------------
Anyway, I'd look at Reggie as more of a #2 or #3 scoring option. He could be a #1 guy on a team like the 2004 Pistons but on most contenders I do not see him as a #1 offensive option or best overall player.
Ah alright. I think the first question is overblown, he could definitely be a #1 option on a title contender. His Pacer teams throughout his prime ('90-'00) had multiple deep playoff runs powered by elite playoff offences, and he was the figurehead of those attacks. Obviously he lacked the on-ball prowess to be a traditional #1 option, but his ability to score oodles of points on sky-high efficiency no matter how strong the defences he was facing should be a fair answer to those doubts.
Also I'm not too sure if Reggie really needed more help than a regular top 10-15 player needed to win a championship. His Pacer squads weren't stacked like Jordan's Bulls (Pippen was a fringe MVP candidate for most of those title runs, and the Bulls consistently filled Jordan's supporting cast with good role players who could play off of Jordan) and they still made 4 ECFs and 1 finals in a 11 year stretch from '90 to '00. Obviously he wasn't an MVP calibre player like Jordan/Hakeem/Robinson/Shaq/young Ewing/Barkley/Malone, but he drove his teams to considerable playoff success without a ton of help and in some situations was a step or two away from title glory.
Hm I agree that Reggie is best as a second or third option, but I think there are a fair number of title winning teams besides the '04 Pistons ('89 and '90 Pistons, '94 and '95 Rockets, '99, '03, '05, '14 Spurs) that could've had him be the first offensive option. He obviously wouldn't be the best overall player on those squads, but his overall impact was just so scoring centric that I think that he can be the go-to guy on a title winning squad.
Topic: Thinking Basketball Podcast: The best off-ball players of the 3 point era (Read 4487 times)