How good would Reggie Miller be in today NBA

[HomoSapien]

Reggie was always an interesting player. His stats didn't quit suggest he was a superstar, but he had this uncanny ability of just rising for the big occasions and becoming the most dangerous guy on the floor. I think he'd always be that type of player.

[pillwenney]

He certainly was no primary creator, but he could do a lot more with the ball than Klay for instance while being a similarly all-time elite shooter.

Also disagree with whoever said his efficiency would suffer by ratcheting up his attempts from 3. I don't recall Reggie ever showing signs of anything but outstanding conditioning, as evidence by his number of clutch performances.

[dhsilv2]

I'd say a top 20/25 player. I voted for the 2nd option in the poll, but I think a better option would be something between the 2nd and the 3rd option. Poll could be more diversified IMO, there are large gaps between the 3 options.

Miller was excellent in some aspects of the game, namely shooting... and good in others, like defense.

But, he couldn't create for others, couldn't rebound, and was average in terms of ballhandling.

That would put a cap on his performance, related to other top, more versatile players.

He created for others all the time. He did it however much like Curry does through his gravity and off ball movement. In that area he might actually be better than Curry in that Miller is bigger and stronger and more capable of creating chaos with off ball screens in a motion offense. First second whatever options aside. He'd be a top 5 offensive impact type player at his apex.

Create for others means for some reason "run the pick and roll." Then there are some that deminish creating for others from isolation ability. What you are talking about is rocket science...

Sorry I don't follow what you're saying here.

[dhsilv2]

Reggie was always an interesting player. His stats didn't quit suggest he was a superstar, but he had this uncanny ability of just rising for the big occasions and becoming the most dangerous guy on the floor. I think he'd always be that type of player.

Where do you define superstar? He had 7 top 15 (all nba level) VORP seasons and 11 top 15 WS seasons. Ending his career 22nd in VORP and 18th in WS. And we know today that guys who can play off ball and shoot like that have much more impact than their stats indicate.

So if you feel a superstar is only a top 3-5 MVP, 100% agree he would not be that. But if you mean a guy who can be an all nba level player for around a decade, he'd still be that.

[SelfishPlayer]

He created for others all the time. He did it however much like Curry does through his gravity and off ball movement. In that area he might actually be better than Curry in that Miller is bigger and stronger and more capable of creating chaos with off ball screens in a motion offense. First second whatever options aside. He'd be a top 5 offensive impact type player at his apex.

Create for others means for some reason "run the pick and roll." Then there are some that deminish creating for others from isolation ability. What you are talking about is rocket science...

Sorry I don't follow what you're saying here.

Oh

[thamadkant]

He'd be a better Khris Middleton who is more consistent in scoring outburst and defense.

Top 7 player... an MVP candidate and All NBA teamer. Young fans today don't realise how favorable the rules and coaching schemes are today for shooters.

Reggie Miller would be green lighted to shoot 8 3pt shots a game and he will hit over 3 per average. I project 26-28ppg.

Basically a wiry bodied, more in your face version of current Booker.. with higher ceiling defensively.

[Schiltzenberger]

Klay Thompson without the defense.

[ropjhk]

He could be a top 5 scorer. Miller is one of the greatest off ball movers in NBA history and one of the greatest catch and shoot players of all time. He could fit very well into a modern NBA team.

[magicman1978]

Klay Thompson without the defense.

Playoff careers:

Miller (including all his post prime seasons) - 119ortg, 5.0obpm, 60.1%TS, 30.5pts/100poss
Thompson - 107ortg, 1.2obpm, 56.0%TS, 25.8pts/100poss

These two are not in the same realm offensively.

In fact, Miller's numbers, looking at prime years, are much more comparable to Curry.

Miller (up to age 35) - 122ortg, 6.1bpm, 62%TS, 32.9pts/100poss
Curry - 116ortg, 6.4bpm, 61%TS, 34.8pts/100poss

[HomoSapien]

Reggie was always an interesting player. His stats didn't quit suggest he was a superstar, but he had this uncanny ability of just rising for the big occasions and becoming the most dangerous guy on the floor. I think he'd always be that type of player.

Where do you define superstar? He had 7 top 15 (all nba level) VORP seasons and 11 top 15 WS seasons. Ending his career 22nd in VORP and 18th in WS. And we know today that guys who can play off ball and shoot like that have much more impact than their stats indicate.

So if you feel a superstar is only a top 3-5 MVP, 100% agree he would not be that. But if you mean a guy who can be an all nba level player for around a decade, he'd still be that.

He's got great advanced stats and I absolutely consider him to have had a super-star/HOF career on the whole, but I guess I would elaborate on my original point by saying: he was only a top ten scorer once in his career, he didn't get many assists or rebounds, he was a good but not elite defender, he wasn't the greatest at getting to the basket, he never was a serious MVP candidate, at no point in the 90s was he ever a top 5 (maybe even 10) player that you'd want to start your franchise and build around.

Reggie Miller's superpower was that he was one of the most clutch players in the history of the game. He never backed down from the big moments. He somehow always managed to become the most dangerous player on the court during the final two minutes of a game, even if he was rarely the best player on the floor. He overachieved and outplayed his athleticism, his skills, etc.

So that's essentially a long-winded way of saying that I don't think he'd be a top 8 player in this era (or that he was a top 8 player in the 90s for that matter), but that he was so unique and amazing that he still was a legend.

[dhsilv2]

Reggie was always an interesting player. His stats didn't quit suggest he was a superstar, but he had this uncanny ability of just rising for the big occasions and becoming the most dangerous guy on the floor. I think he'd always be that type of player.

Where do you define superstar? He had 7 top 15 (all nba level) VORP seasons and 11 top 15 WS seasons. Ending his career 22nd in VORP and 18th in WS. And we know today that guys who can play off ball and shoot like that have much more impact than their stats indicate.

So if you feel a superstar is only a top 3-5 MVP, 100% agree he would not be that. But if you mean a guy who can be an all nba level player for around a decade, he'd still be that.

He's got great advanced stats and I absolutely consider him to have had a super-star/HOF career on the whole, but I guess I would elaborate on my original point by saying: he was only a top ten scorer once in his career, he didn't get many assists or rebounds, he was a good but not elite defender, he wasn't the greatest at getting to the basket, he never was a serious MVP candidate, at no point in the 90s was he ever a top 5 (maybe even 10) player that you'd want to start your franchise and build around.

Reggie Miller's superpower was that he was one of the most clutch players in the history of the game. He never backed down from the big moments. He somehow always managed to become the most dangerous player on the court during the final two minutes of a game, even if he was rarely the best player on the floor. He overachieved and outplayed his athleticism, his skills, etc.

So that's essentially a long-winded way of saying that I don't think he'd be a top 8 player in this era (or that he was a top 8 player in the 90s for that matter), but that he was so unique and amazing that he still was a legend.

Let me open with, I intend this as a discussion of miller and perhaps stats vs some kind of hostile debate. I think your statement is perfectly reasonable and well thought out.

I think the term "advanced" stats is misleading. The two metrics I mentioned are pure box score metrics. You're right of course, in the 90's I thought Miller's hype was all based on his jawing with spike lee, but looking back...MY lord that man was efficient. He also didn't turn the ball over! He also didn't really dominate the ball either. Also you mentioned clutch, but he was more than clutch. He literally just stepped it up in the playoffs. If you take his prime years he was about 3 points per game better in the playoffs while his drop off in TS% was maybe 2%. (I used 90-01). BPM jumped from 4.0 to 5.9, PER and WS/48 jumped too. He increased his scoring by about 3 points a game and even reduced his already low turnovers.

Now hot takes for a second...over his prime, he might have been a top 8 player while MAYBE never being a top 8 player in a season. To be fair I think he was right there in the 7-10 range at his peak.

Where I think things get rough for me is that he was never an MVP level guy per the voters in that era. Simply put, they were WRONG! Sure he wasn't a top 3 guy, but he absolutely should have gotten more love there! But explaining the nuance of off ball play making and creation in 2005 was nearly impossible, let alone in 1990! So I get it. But I don't think him not getting MVP consideration given how ahead of his time his play style was is a good argument.

Miller I think we'd both agree was underrated by his allstar selections and all nba selections. For the love of god, BJ armstrong beat him out for an allstar selection!

[hauntedcomputer]

. But that's what he was in the 90's.

Yup. Kinda be the same thing he was.

[OdomFan]

Individually he'd bring a lot to a team, but what he brings also depends on who he has around him.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Miller was criminally under valued in his era. Today people would see him as much more a mix of Curry and Thompson. Elite tall shooter who could destroy teams off ball with his gravity. He still wouldn't have the handle of a booker let alone curry nor the passing of curry, but he'd be a serious off ball weopon and with the right coach absolutely could be a top 10 guy in terms of impact. But that's what he was in the 90's.

Perfectly stated

He could go years single-handedly anchoring top ranked offenses today while flying under the radar of All-NBA consideration, but like you said, his impact would still be massive and elite. Just like in the 90s

[HMFFL]

Miller was criminally under valued in his era. Today people would see him as much more a mix of Curry and Thompson. Elite tall shooter who could destroy teams off ball with his gravity. He still wouldn't have the handle of a booker let alone curry nor the passing of curry, but he'd be a serious off ball weopon and with the right coach absolutely could be a top 10 guy in terms of impact. But that's what he was in the 90's.

I agree. Reggie just never had the #2 guy he needed to win and obviously Jordan was the main problem.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Patches Perry]

Klay is the best comp across the board, so 2nd/3rd option on a 1 title team, or 3rd/4th option on multiple titles team.

[BK_2020]

Where the good role player option?
He'd be defended a lot better today and defenses will force him to drive which he sucked at. Also you'd have to shave off at least 2 FTA per game since his BS foulbaiting moves are long since banned.

[DroseReturnChi]

what curry is doing now. just hoist 20 3s a game and see what happens.

[og15]

what curry is doing now. just hoist 20 3s a game and see what happens.

Curry from 15-16 to this season has averaged 11.2 3PA and shot 42.0% 3PT and he's shot 55.3% 2PT. So what has happened for Curry is making 42% of his 3PT shots and 55% of his 2PT shots over 410 games. I guess that's a pretty good plan then

[GregOden]

Better than Klay Thompson

Kind of a low bar given where hes at right now...