Reggie Miller vs Klay Thompson

[Doctor MJ]

Hamilton didn't have NBA 3 point range. He had college 3 point range and there was nothing wrong with midrange shots in the 00s. Miller did not pioneer the come off screen game. Most shooting guards played that way traditionally. What he did was perfect it.

I don't think coming off set screens was the "Miller" part of the game. That happened to be sure, but Miller made other players on the court shields who had no intention to be shields. That also wasn't something that was invented, but I'm not aware of anyone who did this so aggressively, and certainly not with the intention of getting a 3.

Re: nothing wrong with midrange in the '00s. The interesting part is that the paradigm shifter came in the '90s and clearly people were not telling Rip. People thought it was fine even though the guy they thought Rip resembled was very specifically motivated based on getting 3's.

Re: college shooting range. I really struggle with the idea that guys who shoot well in general and shot the college 3 comfortably can't learn to take the pro 3 comfortably. I get it if you're an old vet, but the idea that you would make the 3 a part of your game in college and then just decide not to make it part of your game in college is a strange thing to me.

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

[Braggins]

Reggies volume scoring numbers during his prime are depressed due to the style of the era and specifically the teams he played on.

20-24ppg doesn't seem like anything to write home about for a number one option, but when you consider that his Indiana teams played a slow paced grit and grind style and he was putting up those numbers on 13-16 shot attempts per game while leading his teams to deep playoff runs, it actually is quite impressive.

In his most efficient season he averaged 22.6 points on only 14.2 shot attempts. He had multiple seasons where he averaged 20 points on less than 14 shot attempts. His highest ppg season was 24.6 point on 15.7 shot attempts. He is one of two guards that are in the top 10 for career true shooting percentage and the other is Steph Curry. Hes also 2nd all time in offensive rating behind Chris Paul. Factor in his stellar playoff performances during his prime and its pretty easy to see that he is actually a vastly underrated scorer (and player in general tbh). People have already mentioned his other stellar advanced metrics, so I won't bother rehashing those.

Reggie has 13 seasons where he had a better TS% than Klays career best (59.7%). From age 23 to 32 Reggie had 10 straight seasons over 60ts%. Klay being a 2nd/3rd option actually isn't a detriment in this comparison and only makes him look better than he actually is, as it actually theoretically helps his efficiency and he also consistently has averaged more shot attempts per game than Reggie ever did due to the much higher pace of the teams he played on, so in reality Klay gets more shots and of a higher quality for reasons that have nothing to do with his actual ability. Klay has averaged more shot attempts in each of the last five season than Reggies career high and the two season before that he averaged more attempts than all but a few of Reggies seasons. Reggie averaged around 14 shots per game in his prime years, whereas Klay has averaged around 17, which is considerably more tbh.

Although I think people often do exaggerate claims about how stars from past eras would average considerably more points in the modern era, there are plenty of cases where this is actually probably true and Reggie is honestly one of the best examples. Put Reggie in a high paced modern offense and give him 18+ shot attempts per game and he easily is a consistent 25+ per game scorer and could have some seasons where he hit 30 ppg.

[Nazrmohamed]

I don't think coming off set screens was the "Miller" part of the game. That happened to be sure, but Miller made other players on the court shields who had no intention to be shields. That also wasn't something that was invented, but I'm not aware of anyone who did this so aggressively, and certainly not with the intention of getting a 3.

Re: nothing wrong with midrange in the '00s. The interesting part is that the paradigm shifter came in the '90s and clearly people were not telling Rip. People thought it was fine even though the guy they thought Rip resembled was very specifically motivated based on getting 3's.

Re: college shooting range. I really struggle with the idea that guys who shoot well in general and shot the college 3 comfortably can't learn to take the pro 3 comfortably. I get it if you're an old vet, but the idea that you would make the 3 a part of your game in college and then just decide not to make it part of your game in college is a strange thing to me.

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

I'm not here to beat you up or insult your intelligence bro. In fact I believe I liked your post. I'm just saying part of those analytics include 3py shots. And yes I brought analytics up cuz most analytics give higher values for 3pt shots. I believe the very basis of the analytic must be also adjusted for the fact that 3pointers were frowned upon.

At the end of the day Rip Hamilton playing like Rip Hamilton won him a title. It did not win Reggie a title, that is a fact. So I'm sure that while he and Brown stare at thier trophy wall, whether or not fans provide stats to show who was more impactful is arbitrary to them. And its not like he barely touched the ball. He had the highest usage on a team that won a title.

I watched Miller, I know he was better. You don't have to sell me on that. I knew he was better on the eye test. Again, I'm just saying that if he was coached by someone who encouraged deeper shots that I believe Rip wouldve been able to adjust, and maybe the increase in 3pters vs 3pters would've changed his analytical outlook.

[Nazrmohamed]

I've never been scared of anyone like I was scared of Miller though as a knick fan. In a weird way you just knew you weren't gonna stop Jordan and he had a package of moves that were unstoppable so most times he'd do the same thing over and over and you'd defend it as best you could but it was all on ball defense and bullying up everyone else. He gets past that man and you'd double instantly.

With Reggie you'd watch him slowly trot up and then the assassination began, he'd be all over that halfcourt, dodging, shifting, he'd make screens out of no screens and as your team is getting lost on picks hed emerge. You knew it was coming at home and he could get hot on command. AND HE WAS ANGRY!!!! Total nightmare of a player. Allan Houston was the Knicks answer for Reggie and whats crazy is Reggie outlasted him in the NBA. Had Artest not gotten into that fight....

[picc]

Im seeing there is actual discussion of Miller vs James Harden itt. We’ve reached a critical point with this.

As devils advocate, would anyone consider taking Miller over Harden to start a playoff run? Before scoffing, recall that:

1. Regular season Harden and playoff Harden have typically been two different classes of player. Miller vs regular season Harden isnt worth discussion, but since the point of basketball is winning the playoffs, im curious if anyone thinks Miller’s playoff form could be more reliable than Harden’s. Especially considering—

2. They are polar opposites in terms of ball domination. Harden is completely useless off ball and monopolizes it in the half court to a historical degree, while Reggie doesnt need it at all. If there is an advantage this could afford you in team building, it could be considered here.

Reggie was clearly better than Klay so this piques my curiosity as to the board temperature much more.

[Nazrmohamed]

Im seeing there is actual discussion of Miller vs James Harden itt. We’ve reached a critical point with this.

As devils advocate, would anyone consider taking Miller over Harden to start a playoff run? Before scoffing, recall that:

1. Regular season Harden and playoff Harden have typically been two different classes of player. Miller vs regular season Harden isnt worth discussion, but since the point of basketball is winning the playoffs, im curious if anyone thinks Miller’s playoff form could be more reliable than Harden’s. Especially considering—

2. They are polar opposites in terms of ball domination. Harden is completely useless off ball and monopolizes it in the half court to a historical degree, while Reggie doesnt need it at all. If there is an advantage this could afford you in team building, it could be considered here.

Reggie was clearly better than Klay so this piques my curiosity as to the board temperature much more.

Read my post above yours. I don't care if Reggie averaged 10points in the regular season. When he showd up in the playoffs he showed up ANGRY. I never seen a player in my life play so angry and be as villainous as Reggie Miller.

I mean, obviously my POV was vs the Knicks but I can't think of another word except horror. I hated Reggie Miller for a good decade. So much so that I had to really go back and watch film to appreciate him again and it was hard to watch. Brought back memories of hate.

Reggie was always better in the playoffs. Hardens my favorite player. I'm not a fan of how he gets treated in the playoffs. My view is either call games like you always call them or don't give him those fouls during the season. One or the other. But to pull the rug like that is just nuts cuz I don't think Harden shows up playing worse. But whatever the case if you asked me eho I'd rather face it wont be Miller. Dude will show up and ruin all your plans.

[SweetTouch]

Lol Reggie horrible defensive player to lockdown defender

[prophet_of_rage]

I don't think coming off set screens was the "Miller" part of the game. That happened to be sure, but Miller made other players on the court shields who had no intention to be shields. That also wasn't something that was invented, but I'm not aware of anyone who did this so aggressively, and certainly not with the intention of getting a 3.

Re: nothing wrong with midrange in the '00s. The interesting part is that the paradigm shifter came in the '90s and clearly people were not telling Rip. People thought it was fine even though the guy they thought Rip resembled was very specifically motivated based on getting 3's.

Re: college shooting range. I really struggle with the idea that guys who shoot well in general and shot the college 3 comfortably can't learn to take the pro 3 comfortably. I get it if you're an old vet, but the idea that you would make the 3 a part of your game in college and then just decide not to make it part of your game in college is a strange thing to me.

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

Except Rip won a championship as leading scorer on his team. Reggie did not. Reggie had the rep of the 3 point shot and the publicity of going up against Jordan and Ewing. Hamilton was beating Kobe.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

I'm not here to beat you up or insult your intelligence bro. In fact I believe I liked your post. I'm just saying part of those analytics include 3py shots. And yes I brought analytics up cuz most analytics give higher values for 3pt shots. I believe the very basis of the analytic must be also adjusted for the fact that 3pointers were frowned upon.

At the end of the day Rip Hamilton playing like Rip Hamilton won him a title. It did not win Reggie a title, that is a fact. So I'm sure that while he and Brown stare at thier trophy wall, whether or not fans provide stats to show who was more impactful is arbitrary to them. And its not like he barely touched the ball. He had the highest usage on a team that won a title.

I watched Miller, I know he was better. You don't have to sell me on that. I knew he was better on the eye test. Again, I'm just saying that if he was coached by someone who encouraged deeper shots that I believe Rip wouldve been able to adjust, and maybe the increase in 3pters vs 3pters would've changed his analytical outlook.

Miller actually wasn't better. He just shot the 3 better and played a little longer. Their numbers are nearly identical.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

I'm not here to beat you up or insult your intelligence bro. In fact I believe I liked your post. I'm just saying part of those analytics include 3py shots. And yes I brought analytics up cuz most analytics give higher values for 3pt shots. I believe the very basis of the analytic must be also adjusted for the fact that 3pointers were frowned upon.

At the end of the day Rip Hamilton playing like Rip Hamilton won him a title. It did not win Reggie a title, that is a fact. So I'm sure that while he and Brown stare at thier trophy wall, whether or not fans provide stats to show who was more impactful is arbitrary to them. And its not like he barely touched the ball. He had the highest usage on a team that won a title.

I watched Miller, I know he was better. You don't have to sell me on that. I knew he was better on the eye test. Again, I'm just saying that if he was coached by someone who encouraged deeper shots that I believe Rip wouldve been able to adjust, and maybe the increase in 3pters vs 3pters would've changed his analytical outlook.

Miller actually wasn't better. He just shot the 3 better and played longer, but their career averages are pretty much identical. Hamilton is very underrated.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

Except Rip won a championship as leading scorer on his team. Reggie did not. Reggie had the rep of the 3 point shot and the publicity of going up against Jordan and Ewing. Hamilton was beating Kobe.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Basketball is a team sport. I'm literally telling you I think Hamilton was the least effective of the 5 Pistons starters. I'm sure you'd agree that we shouldn't rank all 5 Pistons ahead of Miller just because they won a title together.

[21/20/10/8]

Why have a players comparison board if we keep having threads like this.

[rtiff68]

Why have a players comparison board if we keep having threads like this.

Is it really something worth complaining about?

[AdagioPace]

Why have a players comparison board if we keep having threads like this.

because in the player comparison board this joke of a "fight" would be resolved in a couple minutes with hard data
The general board at least gives a bit of fake-life to the fight and makes it more interesting.

[-TheDocOfDenial]

Reggie Miller is way better lmao ib4 excel sheet. Having watched both, Reggie is a legit team leader and a #1 scoring option on a championship caliber team.

[prophet_of_rage]

"hold it against him"? I'm not saying he's a bad person. On the other hand, it's just reality that Hamilton wasn't that valuable of a player, and if he'd actually played like Miller, he'd likely have been considerably more valuable, and so the fact you're trying to use this as an opportunity to tee off on analytics feels silly to me. Analytics guys are not the reason why Hamilton was a lot less valuable than Miller. The fact that I can come across and explain in more detail why value was lesser making use of what you describe as analytics should only make you think, "Oh, that's useful.", not make you think we're trying to use revisionist history.

Re: It's not about players not understanding, coaches didn't understand. It's about everyone not understanding, and about highlighting the spearheads who figured something out. When someone figures something out, it's a good thing and an interesting thing. When someone figures something out and even the next generation patterning themselves after him misses a key ingredient, that makes it VERY interesting.

Re: Larry Brown. Definitely not looking to defend him on this. He had Miller before Hamilton. He should have recognized what Miller gave him and encouraged Hamilton to do the same.

Of course the other side of that is: Miller shot 3's with Brown in a way Hamilton did not. If Brown didn't stop Miller from taking 3's, how much sense does it make to blame Brown for Hamilton not taking them? Well and good to say that Hamilton probably adapts to the modern way of thinking well if his coach tells him to, but also noteworthy that Miller played modern basketball while having to deal with the Browns of the world.

But in general let me try to convey this:

1. We're mostly talking about Reggie here, not Rip, because this is a thread about Reggie.
2. Part of what we're talking about is that Reggie had a game from the future and we can't actually point to anyone else who he got his game from (or at least, I have not seen the argument made).
3. We cannot help but then note that Reggie was so far ahead of his time that even the guy who followed him missed a crucial part of his game.
4. And to the extent we need to focus on "proof in the pudding", emphasizing how much more impactful Reggie was than Rip further cements that when we speak to the phenomenon of Reggie we're talking about something so much more than "a Rip like guy".
5. But while this can't help but make Rip look worse in juxtaposition, the point is not to say that Rip was backward but that Reggie was forward.

Except Rip won a championship as leading scorer on his team. Reggie did not. Reggie had the rep of the 3 point shot and the publicity of going up against Jordan and Ewing. Hamilton was beating Kobe.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Basketball is a team sport. I'm literally telling you I think Hamilton was the least effective of the 5 Pistons starters. I'm sure you'd agree that we shouldn't rank all 5 Pistons ahead of Miller just because they won a title together.

Rip was not the least effective of the Pistons starting five. I will accept the argument that Miller is very overrated and not much better than Hamilton, if at all, and definitely worse than Klay.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Sixerscan]

Hamilton didn't have NBA 3 point range. He had college 3 point range and there was nothing wrong with midrange shots in the 00s. Miller did not pioneer the come off screen game. Most shooting guards played that way traditionally. What he did was perfect it.

I don't think coming off set screens was the "Miller" part of the game. That happened to be sure, but Miller made other players on the court shields who had no intention to be shields. That also wasn't something that was invented, but I'm not aware of anyone who did this so aggressively, and certainly not with the intention of getting a 3.

Re: nothing wrong with midrange in the '00s. The interesting part is that the paradigm shifter came in the '90s and clearly people were not telling Rip. People thought it was fine even though the guy they thought Rip resembled was very specifically motivated based on getting 3's.

Re: college shooting range. I really struggle with the idea that guys who shoot well in general and shot the college 3 comfortably can't learn to take the pro 3 comfortably. I get it if you're an old vet, but the idea that you would make the 3 a part of your game in college and then just decide not to make it part of your game in college is a strange thing to me.

Well his coach didn't read the memo so I don't think we can hold it against him. I argue this point when analytics guys argue over historical numbers. Pace alone can't account for everything. Physicality played a part although I think people point to only one aspect (handchecking) in error. But there's a third aspect which just isn't accounted for.

Its not about players being dumb or not understanding. Coaches didn't understand. Larry Brown especially. If you were a scoring guard his brain simply couldn't imagine that player being a PG or else Iverson wouldn't have been played at SG. And even then as a SG he didn't want you taking anywhere near the amount of 3s that guards do today or else you could find yourself a seat next to him.

"Play the right way"

Remember that? Forget getting a shot before the defense set. You had to wait until everyone set cuz the only good 3 was with your best shooter (1 guy) and it better be in the last 5 seconds of the 24 shot clock with both bigs set to rebound.

Its the twighlight zone compared to today. So my belief is that if given the green light to do so, Rip wouldve done it and I think he would've become great at it with practice of course. But fans often underrate players of old ability to adapt. Brook Lopez shoots 3s folks. Maybe not Reggie level but he's the closest to Reggie I've ever seen in terms of his approach to taking a shot. The shifting and ability to get open.

Rip played for Brown for 2 years out of his 14 year NBA career. He had already had a big time run a UConn and 4 years in the league before Brown showed up. Brown isn't the reason he developed the style he did.

And yeah he didn't come up now but he was still considered a throwback player during his career in terms of living in the midrange. He was in a backcourt with Chauncey Billups after all. 2004 was the summer everyone was screaming bloody murder at US Basketball for not having Michael Redd on the Olympic team. Rip took fewer threes per minute than virtually every regular on that 04 Pistons team besides Ben and Corliss Williamson.

[Doctor MJ]

Except Rip won a championship as leading scorer on his team. Reggie did not. Reggie had the rep of the 3 point shot and the publicity of going up against Jordan and Ewing. Hamilton was beating Kobe.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Basketball is a team sport. I'm literally telling you I think Hamilton was the least effective of the 5 Pistons starters. I'm sure you'd agree that we shouldn't rank all 5 Pistons ahead of Miller just because they won a title together.

Rip was not the least effective of the Pistons starting five. I will accept the argument that Miller is very overrated and not much better than Hamilton, if at all, and definitely worse than Klay.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Okay, but now we're going back and forth over something I made clear my opinion on in my prior posts.

[NeoWarriors]

There's literally nothing Reggie Miller does better than Klay Thompson. Reggie played in the most watered down era of NBA basketball. It's Klay all day.

Sent from my Golden State Warriors Protoast Elite toaster using RealGM mobile app

[Kabookalu]

It's funny for me looking back at Reggie's career. During his playing days I actually hated him and thought he was garbage, but garbage in a trash talking, macho way. My idea of star play was based on how well players destroyed defenses in single coverage. Seeing this skinny twig running around the court and refusing to face his defenders and beat them one on one (most of the time), while even pushing off of them and never getting called for it, went against how I viewed basketball at the time. I thought his brand of basketball was a coward's way of playing the game, that he couldn't play the game the "real" way, so he resorted to a gimmick like running away from his man to get an open shot.

Of course as I learned and better understood the game more, I appreciated what he did for basketball, and now I'm kind of obsessed with breaking down and analyzing his game. I don't think anyone mentioned this (that well written article went briefly over it), but Miller was a great passer. His career 3apg says the opposite, but for an off the ball 1st option he was limited in how many times he could utilize his passing skills. His post entry passing was elite, and partly why I think Rik Smits looked as good as he did. He was great at quickly whipping the ball to open shooters if defenses overcommitted to him. In a modern offense he could easily average 5 or more assists a game while not being ball dominant.