RealGM

Too young to watch him in his prime so, only documentaries and highlights I can watch. Based on what I've seen, I think Reggie MIller could of be Devin Booker Plus in today NBA. So consistent top 8 player in NBA.

Modern nba obviously fits reggie like a glove but top 8 is a stretch, so all star sounds fine

He would never be a teams #1 option. He'd be a great #2 and amazing #3.

He definitely wouldn't be better than any of the legit #1 hyper athletic sky high IQ players. But he'd be hovering in that lower All NBA-top 25 tier easily.

very

Better than Klay Thompson

10-14 range. reggie taking 11 3s a game is a very potent and efficent scorer, especially given his height and release point.

It's hard to measure across eras. His 3 point percentage and volume stood out for his time.

Devin Booker

are we gonna give him a modern skillset or are we gonna literally plop 90s Reggie into today? if its just throwing 90s Reggie into a modern game I think you'd just have an all around solidly worse Klay Thompson. Reggie used a ton of energy to get the shots he got, I think his %s would drop significantly if you suddenly tried to get 30% more attempts per game out of him like a normal star 2 guard would be expected of today. and guys are expected to take harder shots more often than Reggie did back then

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.

all star with almost no superstar moments. he'd be consistent high level player and still hit big shots but hitting big 3s don't stand out much anymore.

I'm thinking a mix of Booker and Thompson, with more size and a much higher release point. Reggie always played smart and within his abilities and that would definitely be the case today. Given how teams often fall into a zone, I would see Miller abusing that on the regular.

Godymas wrote:He would never be a teams #1 option. He'd be a great #2 and amazing #3.

He definitely wouldn't be better than any of the legit #1 hyper athletic sky high IQ players. But he'd be hovering in that lower All NBA-top 25 tier easily.

Well that's just not true at all. He was responsible for all of the Pacers ECF runs when he was playing and he was without a doubt their number 1 option. Even if you plopped 90s Reggie into the modern game, he'd still be the #1 option for multiple teams. If you make it so he has grown up with modern styles/training/etc, he'd be the #1 option for most teams.

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.

My Main Man wrote:

Godymas wrote:He would never be a teams #1 option. He'd be a great #2 and amazing #3.

He definitely wouldn't be better than any of the legit #1 hyper athletic sky high IQ players. But he'd be hovering in that lower All NBA-top 25 tier easily.

Well that's just not true at all. He was responsible for all of the Pacers ECF runs when he was playing and he was without a doubt their number 1 option. Even if you plopped 90s Reggie into the modern game, he'd still be the #1 option for multiple teams. If you make it so he has grown up with modern styles/training/etc, he'd be the #1 option for most teams.

and it's not like we have 24 teams with hyper athletic sky-high IQ #1 players now. that's like saying reggie would be worse than lebron just like he was worse than MJ at the time.

GSWFan1994 wrote: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.

Probably top 20-25.
His game fits better now than before.

He also took MJ Scottie and Dennis to game 7, as the only "star" on the Pacers. That's gotta say something about him.

Desmone Bane averages 18 PPG and Hield averaged 20 ppg in this era. Tyler Herro is coming off the bench averaging 21 PPG so Reggie would probably be a walking 30 ppg.

dhsilv2 wrote:

GSWFan1994 wrote: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...

Godymas wrote:He would never be a teams #1 option. He'd be a great #2 and amazing #3.

He definitely wouldn't be better than any of the legit #1 hyper athletic sky high IQ players. But he'd be hovering in that lower All NBA-top 25 tier easily.

Better, more intense version of Kris Middleton.

Top 20 player.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk