RealGM

I have combined the rankings of the best players of all-time from nine different publications to create a master list of the best players ever.

One comment that many people have made to me is that Reggie Miller is too high at number 60. What do Pacers fans think? I personally think 60th is about right. He lacks the personal accolades and never won a championship, but he had some of the most memorable moments in NBA history and was lethal from downtown.

Take a look at the rankings and let me know your thoughts...

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co ... story.html

60 – Reggie Miller
Awards: 3 x All-NBA 3rd Team, 5 x All-Star
Numbers: 18.2ppg, 3.0rpg, 3.0apg, .395 3P%
Words: “He authored the ultimate example of clutch: First round, ’95, Game 1, MSG. Eight straight points in 8.9 seconds. Pacers win. Damn” (Khalid Salaam).

Granted, I'm a little biased, but here's my thoughts.

On the surface, 60 might seem a little high to some people considering the under 20 ppg and 5 ASG's. On paper, sure, but then I look at the another big piece of evidence which is who is behind him and should any of them leapfrog over Reggie? And to me, the only guys behind him who halfway make a case for being ahead are Robert Parrish and Paul Pierce (and I'm not even a Celtics fan.)

However, when it comes to the personal accolades, this may seem like a cop-out but it's almost like I grant star players whose prime was in the 90s/Jordan era a partial mulligan. Jordan and the Bulls gobbled up the MVPs and NBA championships (specifically in the same conference as Indiana.) After all, had Jordan not retired in 1994-1995, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler and the Rockets might not even have their rings. It's very conceivable that the Bulls could have gone 8-for-8 between 1991 and 1998.

But Reggie was THE guy on some very good Pacers teams, was the team captain and even took them to the Finals once. And had Ron Artest flipped his lid during the Brawl, they may have gotten there again as they had won 61 games the year before and brought everybody back. Not to mention, he was the top 3-point shooter in league history until a year ago when Ray Allen passed him. But why is Allen not as thought as highly of? There's the clutch factor, plus Allen was never THE guy on consistently competitive teams like Reggie's Pacers were. Some of Allen's Milwaukee and Seattle teams were sub-par and he only became a lock for the post-season once he joined Boston where he was arguably 3rd of Boston's Big 3.

And while you can't define clutch on a stat-sheet, it should definitely carry some weight. Whether it's the 8 points in 9 seconds against the Knicks, the half-court heave against New Jersey or the 3 over Michael Jordan, Reggie was called upon time and time again and delivered. If Dennis Rodman can be ranked so high (which I still don't get) for being good at only one aspect of basketball (rebounding) while being such a clown and disrespecting the game off and sometimes on the court, Reggie's clutchness and shooting ability should put him high also.

Sorry. Kind of a long-winded answer, but yes, I think Reggie's ranking is in the general neighborhood of where he should be.

If you're gonna base the rankings on the per game numbers, 60th might be too high for Reggie. But it was not how many he scored. it was HOW he scored.
Here's a short, true story:
Back in 1995, nobody really liked Reggie from where i am from, not too many know him. I don't live in the states you know. Jordan, Shaq, and Barkley were the best sellers. Everybody talked about them and how they dominate games and how they can score at will. Everyday you can hear them talk about Jordan and everyday you can see them mimic Jordan with tongues sticking out. I am the only Reggie Miller card collector from my circle of friends. Somebody even traded his Miller for my Sean Elliott, another for a John Wallace shiny rookie card. Eastern Conference Semifinals 1995, everything changed.
"How in the hell can you score 8 points in 8.9 seconds? Shooting back to back threes, in the not so easiest ways? That man must have nerves of steel!" That was the VERY VERY first time i heard my friends talk about Reggie. And it left a mark in their minds, since then everytime we talk about Reggie and the Miller time, someone would always do a gesture of shooting a three, then getting a steal and shooting a turn-around. Years after, the clutch plays against the Nets were the confirmation of what Reggie really is.
Back to the Eastern Conference Semis of '95. If those eight points were his only points in that game, it was the best 8 point-effort a lot of us have seen. Again, It was not how many he scored.

in terms of individual moments, Reggie Miller is top 20 in the highlight era. As a player, he's underrated by those whose criteria relies more on hardware, underrated by guys who look at pure stats, but rated just fine by people who understand the game. For example, his TS% is great, and among shooters all time, he's only behind Steve Nash and Ray Allen in terms of efficiency.

Some fun Reggie Miller numbers:

Points scored, career: 17th (NBA and ABA combined stats)

3 pt. field goals, career: 2nd

Free throw pct., career: 9th

Offensive win shares: 7th

Win shares, per 48 minutes: 47th

True shooting pct., career: 6th (he led the league in this category twice and was in the top 5 eleven times)

Offensive rating (points produced per 100 possessions), career: 2nd (he led the league in this category four times and was in the top 5 eleven times)

That mix of counting stats and rate stats clearly demonstrates that Reggie Miller was one of the greatest scorers in history: he scored a lot of points, and he scored them very efficiently.

He also is in great company in some of those categories. One of my favorites is the offensive win shares. Here are the top-ten all-time in that category...tell me this is not a damned impressive list for Miller to be in:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Michael Jordan
5. John Stockton
6. Karl Malone
7. Reggie Miller
8. Jerry West
9. Charles Barkley
10. Moses Malone

Even though he was not noted for his defense, Reggie Miller's offense was so good that he still ranks #14 all-time in total win shares (which factors in defensive win shares as well as offensive ones).

There is plenty of evidence to support that 60th best player ever is not too high a ranking for Miller. As I said earlier this year, he should be a slam-dunk for the Hall of Fame, and for him to not even have made the list of HOF finalists was outrageous and stupid.

Miller openly admitted that throughout his career, during the regular season he would defer to his teammates quite frequently. It was very common to see Reggie score 21 pts off of 14 shots, today players average 25 off of 25 shots. His production always came within the framework of the team concept.

He also said that his time to become selfish was in the playoffs, a claim he backed every postseason. It was in the post season where a transformation occurred. Reggie was always in beast-mode when others wilted under the pressure.

Imagine if Kobe or Wade had to play during Jordan's era, in the same division. One thing is for certain, both would have been exposed as inferior to Jordan.

He is top 50 ...imo

It's probably about right in terms of general rankings, I guess. Doesn't phase me though, he's still the best player ever to me.

mizzoupacers wrote:He also is in great company in some of those categories. One of my favorites is the offensive win shares. Here are the top-ten all-time in that category...tell me this is not a damned impressive list for Miller to be in:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Michael Jordan
5. John Stockton
6. Karl Malone
7. Reggie Miller
8. Jerry West
9. Charles Barkley
10. Moses Malone

I found that really interesting. Thanks for sharing. It makes me feel much better about Reggie being 60th on my list. I think it's a fair ranking after reading the comments above.