RealGM Top 100 List #40

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, I'm not seeing a big "Look at what he accomplished with that motley set of teammates" narrative for 'Nique.

For one thing, I suspect Doc Rivers was underrated.

[Doctor MJ]

Kevin McHale was a better player than Reggie Miller.

Again just comparing their first 13 seasons, they have comparable stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2000

But McHale was regarded as an excellent defender in his day, WITHOUT racking up big defensive stats. So it's safe to say the stats well undervalue him, while the same would not be true of Miller.

Just as I gave Howard the vote over McHale for being better defensively, despite being inferior in longevity, I'm going to give the nod to McHale over Miller in exactly the same way.

Well, do note that the similar scoring is a regular season thing. Miller's averages get a clear edge in the playoffs.

That said, I can't get worked up with someone picking McHale over Miller. I disagree, but I've got a ton of respect for McHale.

[Doctor MJ]

RE: Miller
That Stockton comparison doesn't work for me, mainly because I'm not sure if I'd be voting for Stockton right now. He was voted at 31, but I personally might not even have him at 41.

Reggie gets underrated...really underrated first step, drew fouls at the rim, pesky defender, and he passed well (especially with post-entry passes). He wasn't a one-trick pony like some claim. But...I don't know. He didn't take on the role- the valuable role- that Nique and A.I. did for their teams. Being an on-ball player- an effective one- is hard to do, and you can't replace it easily.

I'll have to think about this. It's Paul/Iverson/Nique/Reed/McHale/Reggie for me, in no order yet.

Ah, if you're not a Stock supporter, than my argument there wouldn't resonate with you.

I will once again mention that I think it's so easy to overrate the on-ball role. If I want to maximize my chance at getting a shot that goes in, I want my on-ball guy to be a distributor first and foremost. When you have a scorer in that role, he's essentially getting statistical credit for something where he's not adding any value over replacement, and that's wrong.

Now, I do understand the Larry Brown Iverson scenario where having such a ball dominant player allows you to really craft the rest of your team in terms of defense. That's good...but obviously, it's not actually that easy to pull off. It's far easier to craft a solid team with balance and a great off ball scorer than it is to really build the layers of defense to justify handing the ball on offense to one guy to essentially just tread water (i.e., mediocre offense at best).

Questions: Where is Nate Thurmond? Why the hell did Jerry Lucas get mentioned above Nate? Nate was clearly superior.

What about Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill? Were they that far below CP3?

James Worthy? He's been hotly debated in the past.

Is Kevin Durant top-100 yet?

If Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman are being brought up, Dave DeBusschere should be as well. I'd personally take Rodman out of all three, but DeBusschere was a great, great two-way player. Smart. A prototype for the tall, shooting forward today. I would have taken Dave over Rashard Lewis on the 2009 and 2010 Magic. Perfect fit next to Dwight Howard- at least in this era.

Chauncey Billups, Marques Johnson, Alex English, and Adrian Dantley are coming up for me as well. Sam Jones. Hal Greer shouldn't be forgotten. Ben Wallace and Deke were great as well. Bob Lanier was a monster with some big-time playoffs. Ray-Ray, Manu, Vince, K.J....

I love his dunks and attitude, and criticize his game a lot, but what about Shawn Kemp? Dude actually doesn't have bad longevity.

Horace Grant is probably making my top-100 as well. Perfect role player type. Yeah buddy!!

-Nate certainly is on my list before Lucas. Probably not before Zo tho.

-Penny & Grant vs Paul. Well, if you look at the advanced stats, Paul's kind of on another planet y'know? P & G are guys at the 25 PER level playing positions overrated by the stat. Paul's at the 30 level at a position underrated by the stat. Not that that's the end all be all, but there's ample evidence suggesting Paul's peak is well beyond those other guys.

-Worthy? Y'know I'll be curious to see where he goes. He's not someone really on my radar right now. I've been talking about how I don't really know where I'll have Ginobili for example because in some ways he's a limited-impact player, but Ginobili over Worthy seems pretty clear to me.

-I've got no problem with you adding DeBuss to the mix with someone like Bobby Jones. Love them both. Rodman may or may not separate out from these guys, still need to think a lot on him.

-Kemp? Not sure about him. Not really on my radar, but always like seeing a compelling argument.

-Ho Grant? Love guys like him, but we'll have to see how he really stacks up.

EDIT: Forgot to addresss: Is Durant top 100 yet? Probably. We'll see when the time comes, but two really great years counts for a lot toward the end of the list.

Now on the other hand, I doubt Rose gets a top 100 vote from me yet.

[ElGee]

vote: Reggie Miller
nominate: Alonzo Mourning

I think my biggest frustration with this whole project is probably people's own application of their unique criteria. I've tried to hammer this home from the start, starting with the Karl Malone points about his sustained excellence. Obviously, we all have different approaches, which is fine, but I feel like people sometimes get lost or hung up on a specific thing with one player when it was never an issue before.

Consider John Havlicek or John Stockton. Neither of these guys had high peaks. I think most of us agree on that. They were more like top-10 players for a very long time. Well, that's Reggie Miller. Except Miller has some of the most consistent longevity of any player EVER. That's why he's 11th all-time in Win Shares (not 14th Doc).

Ronny points out he didn't have the on-ball load/lifting of some of the other plausible candidates. But I think there is a built-in bias there -- we need to consider that a shooter of that quality who did as much as he did off the ball is *constantly* putting pressure on a defense. All he really needs is a Brevin Knight type PG or better to make fairly easy passes to (a) him or (b) teammates in great spots BECAUSE of him.

That was the Pacers offense.

And it was rarely ever stopped, despite playing the best defenses of any player we've looked at.

Then consider that most of the shooters we look at, like Dirk, Peja, Ray Ray, Michael Redd, Jason Terry, Rashard Lewis and even Vlad Radmanovic all provide huge boosts to offensive units across the +/- family. We know there is power in the effect of spacing and holding defenders, but in Miller's case there is also a relentless motor of curls and backcuts which opened up easier opportunities for all his teammates (especially the bigs IMO), along with a great ability to draw fouls. (Something the whole league has since mimicked on the perimeter). I've already noted how the Davis boys had FG% dips when they stopped playing with Miller.

That's what makes the team consistency so interesting. No, Reggie was never playing with garbage teammates. But he also never had a great second player around him, a great post scorer (Smits was OK) or great defensive anchors on the interior (the Davis' were good). Yet every year, regardless of the coach or the teammates, Reggie's running off screens like a madman and providing fairly high volume scoring himself at ridiculous efficiency.

The result? 8 times in 11 years Indiana was +3.0 or better in ORtg. And as I've mentioned, they improve every year Reggie plays in the postseason, despite ridiculously good defensive competition. The one year they didn't improve Reggie missed 4 of the 5 games against Atlanta. 6 times in 8 postseasons with Miller (1991-2000) Indiana was +6.9 or better in ORtg (relative to opp Drtg).

Finally, people might be hung up on his volume scoring numbers relative to someone like Wilkins. But consider the PS stats normalized to defensive environment:

Wilkins 27.4 ppg 49.8% TS 105 ORtg
Miller 24.0 ppg 62.0% TS 125 ORtg

Just How Much was Miller scoring?

Those numbers don't incorporate pace...which would bring their scoring rates even closer together. Wilkins best scoring rate in the PS was in 1988, at 30.4 pts.75 on -1.1% TS. Miller's was 1993 at 28.7 pts/75 on +15.1% TS against the GOAT Knicks defense. That was only one series though...in 95 it was 28.0 pts/75 on +8.9% TS. Hard to see a huge difference there...other than Miller's ridiculous efficiency edge.

If those scoring numbers don't sway you, we need to also remember Miller's scoring a % of his team's points for a number of playoff years at a share just below the% of points Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant scored for their teams.

So why did I start this with the issue of people being consistent with their own criteria? Because when someone says "well, Kevin McHale was just better than Miller," or "I can't see voting Miller over Reed (or Player X)," all they are speaking to is peak IMO. Then people bleed together peak and career by listing 13-year stats or things of that nature, which can totally warp the picture of each individual season. Also, who care what the hell a guy did in his rookie year or his 13th year if they weren't very good then?

Yet, we know from their own voting patterns that there is more to this than peak or career numbers. No, Reggie was never an MVP-level peak player. But if you think his peak was much different than Jason Kidd's or that it matters what happened when someone was a role player I'd say your smoking something I want. 12 or 13 years as an excellent, consistent offensive weapon adds up to something pretty good...

[ElGee]

Quick note about Mourning since he didn't get nominated last time. His SIO (Simple In/Out) is +4.7, which is very good. It means, in theory, he'd take a neutral team to +4.7 MOV on average (74 game sample). What's interesting is that sample mostly comes from Charlotte or from having Ike Austin back him up (Ike played super well one year in place of Zo). Yet he still sits right next to Kareem and Hakeem in SIO.

For me that's the first thing I've come around to with Mourning -- Larry Johnson probably wasn't as good as I thought in Charlotte and Zo was better than I thought. We talk about his health, but he made 4 consecutive AS games in the 90s and was a 21-10 player as a rookie. (24-10 in the PS) He had many good years in Charlotte.

The second thing is his peak in Miami. It was short. I still don't Love Love it, but the man was a legit top-5, just around MVP-level player in 99 and 00. That it happened to be 1999 - the nadir of all existence in Western Civ - and 2000 - the dawning of the New Age led by Shaq's overwhelming season - tends to mask what Mourning did. He was second and third in MVP voting in those 2 years and a deserving DPOY twice IMO.

re: Other players

I have Thurmond closer to 60...although I think his peak was awesome and I want to look closer at him. His one year of in/out I have is monstrous and I think he's worth a closer look. (Anyone feel free to browse newspaper articles and find missed games for players of interest )

Worthy is another guy I want to take a closer look at. In 1992, he missed 28 games and the Lakers were actually slightly better without him. But in 86 and 88 he missed 14 combined games and they were a +0.9 team without him (+7.4 with him). Really has me thinking about what his strengths are and how he fit in to that showtime team. I've always felt Wilkins was better, but he can't be *that* far off as a player from Wilkins I think.

I have Marques Johnson, Sam Jones, Bob McAdoo and Sidney Moncrief in a group, in that order right now. So I suppose it might be time for more Sam Jones discussion.

Chris Webber is an interesting case. A very interesting case...

David Thompson needs mentioning IMO.

I'm big on Hill and Penny, who had wonderful peaks, and have them coming up shortly (it's a good question, actually, who should go higher). Penny impressed the hell out of me in the RPOY and he was a guy I watched back at Memphis State.

[colts18]

If we are going to vote in McHale, we have to consider Gasol here for nomination because they are extremely close as players. Gasol was a much better rebounder, scored at a higher rate, light years better as a passer, worse efficiency (McHale's strong suit), and comparable defensively. Gasol also shown he can do the McHale 2nd banana role pretty well. He also had a strong impact on the 08 Lakers bringing them up from a 5.8 team (includes Bynum and Ariza games) to 11.6 team (w/o Bynum and Ariza). That was a major impact even if he slightly disappointed in the finals

[Doctor MJ]

LG, can you post your full set of SIO numbers again? Can't seem to find it in my spreadsheets.

[Doctor MJ]

If we are going to vote in McHale, we have to consider Gasol here for nomination because they are extremely close as players. Gasol was a much better rebounder, scored at a higher rate, light years better as a passer, worse efficiency (McHale's strong suit), and comparable defensively. Gasol also shown he can do the McHale 2nd banana role pretty well. He also had a strong impact on the 08 Lakers bringing them up from a 5.8 team (includes Bynum and Ariza games) to 11.6 team (w/o Bynum and Ariza). That was a major impact even if he slightly disappointed in the finals

Yup. Gasol's definitely on my mind.

[penbeast0]

RE: Miller
That Stockton comparison doesn't work for me, mainly because I'm not sure if I'd be voting for Stockton right now. He was voted at 31, but I personally might not even have him at 41.

Reggie gets underrated...really underrated first step, drew fouls at the rim, pesky defender, and he passed well (especially with post-entry passes). He wasn't a one-trick pony like some claim. But...I don't know. He didn't take on the role- the valuable role- that Nique and A.I. did for their teams. Being an on-ball player- an effective one- is hard to do, and you can't replace it easily.

I'll have to think about this. It's Paul/Iverson/Nique/Reed/McHale/Reggie for me, in no order yet.

Ah, if you're not a Stock supporter, than my argument there wouldn't resonate with you.

I will once again mention that I think it's so easy to overrate the on-ball role. If I want to maximize my chance at getting a shot that goes in, I want my on-ball guy to be a distributor first and foremost. When you have a scorer in that role, he's essentially getting statistical credit for something where he's not adding any value over replacement, and that's wrong.

Now, I do understand the Larry Brown Iverson scenario where having such a ball dominant player allows you to really craft the rest of your team in terms of defense. That's good...but obviously, it's not actually that easy to pull off. It's far easier to craft a solid team with balance and a great off ball scorer than it is to really build the layers of defense to justify handing the ball on offense to one guy to essentially just tread water (i.e., mediocre offense at best).

Questions: Where is Nate Thurmond? Why the hell did Jerry Lucas get mentioned above Nate? Nate was clearly superior.

What about Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill? Were they that far below CP3?

James Worthy? He's been hotly debated in the past.

Is Kevin Durant top-100 yet?

If Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman are being brought up, Dave DeBusschere should be as well. I'd personally take Rodman out of all three, but DeBusschere was a great, great two-way player. Smart. A prototype for the tall, shooting forward today. I would have taken Dave over Rashard Lewis on the 2009 and 2010 Magic. Perfect fit next to Dwight Howard- at least in this era.

Chauncey Billups, Marques Johnson, Alex English, and Adrian Dantley are coming up for me as well. Sam Jones. Hal Greer shouldn't be forgotten. Ben Wallace and Deke were great as well. Bob Lanier was a monster with some big-time playoffs. Ray-Ray, Manu, Vince, K.J....

I love his dunks and attitude, and criticize his game a lot, but what about Shawn Kemp? Dude actually doesn't have bad longevity.

Horace Grant is probably making my top-100 as well. Perfect role player type. Yeah buddy!!

-Nate certainly is on my list before Lucas. Probably not before Zo tho.

-Penny & Grant vs Paul. Well, if you look at the advanced stats, Paul's kind of on another planet y'know? P & G are guys at the 25 PER level playing positions overrated by the stat. Paul's at the 30 level at a position underrated by the stat. Not that that's the end all be all, but there's ample evidence suggesting Paul's peak is well beyond those other guys.

-Worthy? Y'know I'll be curious to see where he goes. He's not someone really on my radar right now. I've been talking about how I don't really know where I'll have Ginobili for example because in some ways he's a limited-impact player, but Ginobili over Worthy seems pretty clear to me.

-I've got no problem with you adding DeBuss to the mix with someone like Bobby Jones. Love them both. Rodman may or may not separate out from these guys, still need to think a lot on him.

-Kemp? Not sure about him. Not really on my radar, but always like seeing a compelling argument.

-Ho Grant? Love guys like him, but we'll have to see how he really stacks up.

EDIT: Forgot to addresss: Is Durant top 100 yet? Probably. We'll see when the time comes, but two really great years counts for a lot toward the end of the list.

Now on the other hand, I doubt Rose gets a top 100 vote from me yet.

And yet no love for Jerry Lucas, the Dirk Nowitzki of the 60s . . . 20/15 guy who was the other main constant on a lot of great offensive Cinncinnati teams then became the low stat roleplaying center (replacing Willis Reed) on the 73 Knicks champions . . . smart off ball player who could draw the bigs of the day out and be a catch and shoot scorer while still being the best rebounding 4 of his generation. If Oscar gets respect for Cincinnati's offense without being overly penalized for its defense, Jerry Lucas should too.

Not my choice here or anything but just responding to some comments by ElGee.

[Doctor MJ]

And yet no love for Jerry Lucas, the Dirk Nowitzki of the 60s . . . 20/15 guy who was the other main constant on a lot of great offensive Cinncinnati teams then became the low stat roleplaying center (replacing Willis Reed) on the 73 Knicks champions . . . smart off ball player who could draw the bigs of the day out and be a catch and shoot scorer while still being the best rebounding 4 of his generation. If Oscar gets respect for Cincinnati's offense without being overly penalized for its defense, Jerry Lucas should too.

Not my choice here or anything but just responding to some comments by ElGee.

Ah, good for me to get a chance to chime in on Lucas.

I use to be more of a pro-Lucas, anti-Oscar guy. Not that I thought Lucas was the better player, but Lucas was an absolute prodigy before the NBA, he never lived up to the hype in the pros, and there are ample quotes about he and Oscar having issues. Given Cincy's struggles as winning, this all added up to me as a situation where Lucas probably could have done more if Oscar was more reasonable.

Thing is though, when we actually break down offensive rating, Cincy was a great offensive team before Lucas arrived. When you then remember that in Milwaukee Oscar again created a great offense this time willingly deferring to a greater talent in Kareem, it recasts the situation. Lucas probably could have done more if he'd been able to be the star of his own team, but literally the Royals were already solid on offense, and Lucas wasn't able to provide a lot of further lift on that front in a way that frankly someone like Dirk Nowitzki almost certainly would have.

Let's also note that for a "Dirk of the 60s" to typically score less than 20 PPG while playing in a mega-pace league doesn't make a lot of sense. "Kevin Love of the 60s" seems a more apt comparison.

[Doctor MJ]

Guys, I'd love to see an argument against Zo here. He seems to me to have a very compelling case, am I missing something?

[therealbig3]

Well Zo had an 8-year prime, in which he was a legit 20/10 defensive force. But my problem is not only is that not that long of a run (at least, outside of his prime, he was only a role player), he was injured for a big chunk of that time. He only had 4 seasons in his prime in which he played 70+ games, and he's not really playing big time minutes either.

It's been said that Ginobili is a great per minute player, but the fact that he doesn't play that much has to count against him...I think the same can be said for Mourning.

Also, his playoff stats go down across the board, especially when you look at it on a per 36 basis:

93-00, Reg. season, per 36: 21.3 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 1.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .587 TS%

93-00, Playoffs, per 36: 19.4 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 1.2 apg, 2.7 bpg, 3.3 TOpg, .552 TS%

I get that as competition gets better in the playoffs, your stats are expected to go down...but those seem like legit dropoffs, and it's in every category.

With regards specifically to Mourning vs KJ, I think KJ is an obviously better offensive player, while Mourning is an obviously better defensive player. I usually go with the offensive player in a comparison like that. And it's not like Mourning has more longevity or durability than KJ.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm thinking about Reggie here, but I have to admit, while we aren't supposed to care about these things, the sheer lack of accolades for him does unnerve me. Players who beat him for the ASG:

91 - Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce
92 - Michael Adams, not his 26/10 year
93 - Terry Porter. The most unnerving thing about 93 for Miller though is that the Pacers had an all-star... and it wasn't him - it was Detlef Schrempf
94 - John Starks, Kenny Anderson, BJ Armstrong, Mookie Blaylock
97 - Old 15ppg Joe Dumars

On top of that, on the All-NBA teams he gets beat by every good/healthy Hardaway and Price season, Richmond makes 2nd team 3x over him, Strickland and Marbury get him once each

That's pretty bad. Not exactly a Deron Williams getting beat by Kobe, Paul, Nash, Roy situation. I mean we like to talk about the lack of accolades for Stockton, but he was a complete ASG lock, 2nd to 1st team All-NBA guy and getting fractional MVP votes every single year which is miles ahead of Reggie, and with Stockton you can make the case that Karl was always going to deflate his MVP support

I don't even have that big of a problem with someone saying "Well, they were just wrong" here since Reggie passes the eye test as as player ready to go at this point. But it's a pretty damn huge gap in reputation at the time between Iverson, Wilkins, Cowens, Reed and Reggie. Like Dirk respect to Joe Johnson respect type huge. As with someone who may argue "WTF are you talking about, Carmelo Anthony and Paul Pierce were MUCH better than Kevin Martin at scoring" or "2011 Kobe wasn't close to his 08 prime in 2011" in 2030, while the stats may end up going against that argument, they'd be dead right in putting that gap there. There aren't may MVP, All-NBA, ASG votes that I disagree with that vehemently, enough to make the difference between a player not making the ASG over B players in his statistical prime vs guys winning MVPs

[Doctor MJ]

I'm thinking about Reggie here, but I have to admit, while we aren't supposed to care about these things, the sheer lack of accolades for him does unnerve me. Players who beat him for the ASG:

91 - Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce
92 - Michael Adams, not his 26/10 year
93 - Terry Porter. The most unnerving thing about 93 for Miller though is that the Pacers had an all-star... and it wasn't him - it was Detlef Schrempf
94 - John Starks, Kenny Anderson, BJ Armstrong, Mookie Blaylock
97 - Old 15ppg Joe Dumars

On top of that, on the All-NBA teams he gets beat by every good/healthy Hardaway and Price season, Richmond makes 2nd team 3x over him, Strickland and Marbury get him once each

That's pretty bad. Not exactly a Deron Williams getting beat by Kobe, Paul, Nash, Roy situation. I mean we like to talk about the lack of accolades for Stockton, but he was a complete ASG lock, 2nd to 1st team All-NBA guy and getting fractional MVP votes every single year which is miles ahead of Reggie, and with Stockton you can make the case that Karl was always going to deflate his MVP support

I don't even have that big of a problem with someone saying "Well, they were just wrong" here since Reggie passes the eye test as as player ready to go at this point. But it's a pretty damn huge gap in reputation at the time between Iverson, Wilkins, Cowens, Reed and Reggie. Like Dirk respect to Joe Johnson respect type huge. As with someone who may argue "WTF are you talking about, Carmelo Anthony and Paul Pierce were MUCH better than Kevin Martin at scoring" or "2011 Kobe wasn't close to his 08 prime in 2011" in 2030, while the stats may end up going against that argument, they'd be dead right in putting that gap there. There aren't may MVP, All-NBA, ASG votes that I disagree with that vehemently, enough to make the difference between a player not making the ASG over B players in his statistical prime vs guys winning MVPs

I think the key thing here is that we have a very clear explanation for what happened. This isn't a situation where someone doesn't understand Adrian Dantley's issues and wonders why he's not a Top 10 all-time player. Miller got accoladed like he did because he didn't rack up the big stats. Simple as that. It's not some kind of intangible issue (everyone agrees his intangibles are actually a huge positive).

So this makes the whole thing simply a matter of how each of us sees the game. If your perspective happens to agree with all-star voters, cool. (I think you're crazy for siding with the BJ Armstrong lovers, but at least you're consistent) However, if agree with us that off ball guys provide a value not recorded in the box score and thus get underrated, then don't let the accolades unnerve you.

I always say: You should never go against the opinions of contemporary observers without reason, but the person who never disagrees with contemporary observers isn't someone who has their own coherent basketball worldview. Figure out what you agree with and disagree with generally, and then apply it knowing sometimes that's going to lead to uncommon opinions. Don't let that close your mind to others' arguments along the way, but don't let the mere fact that others disagree with you lead you espouse an opinion that isn't based on your own thought.

[Doctor MJ]

Well Zo had an 8-year prime, in which he was a legit 20/10 defensive force. But my problem is not only is that not that long of a run (at least, outside of his prime, he was only a role player), he was injured for a big chunk of that time. He only had 4 seasons in his prime in which he played 70+ games, and he's not really playing big time minutes either.

It's been said that Ginobili is a great per minute player, but the fact that he doesn't play that much has to count against him...I think the same can be said for Mourning.

Also, his playoff stats go down across the board, especially when you look at it on a per 36 basis:

93-00, Reg. season, per 36: 21.3 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 1.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .587 TS%

93-00, Playoffs, per 36: 19.4 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 1.2 apg, 2.7 bpg, 3.3 TOpg, .552 TS%

I get that as competition gets better in the playoffs, your stats are expected to go down...but those seem like legit dropoffs, and it's in every category.

With regards specifically to Mourning vs KJ, I think KJ is an obviously better offensive player, while Mourning is an obviously better defensive player. I usually go with the offensive player in a comparison like that. And it's not like Mourning has more longevity or durability than KJ.

Good response realbig. Thanks.

[ElGee]

Lot of really good points here I can't pass up before Saturday Night calls...

Jerry Lucas - good point Beast. Doc hinted at the difference though, which is that while I think we should respect Jerry Lucas' offensive game and not deride him for being a jump-shooting big, digging deeper always showed Oscar being the major catalyst. Oscar's in/out data that we have looks like it's reflected mostly in offense (as we would expect). On top of that, there is the whole trade with New York and SF that doesn't seem to produce big results...although I don't have his in/out from SF and I think that's worth looking into.

Accolades: Fortunately, I lived through that time as a fairly obsessive NBA kid and can easily explain away the accolades:

Certain players are just misunderstood and underrated. It's rare, but it happens. And Reggie fits the bill: He played in a smaaaaaall market in Indiana, didn't have eye-popping raw stats, came across as a one-tricky pony and was generally seen early on as some sort of feisty, almost petulant figure.

I don't think there were many people who thought Ricky Pierce was better than Miller in 1991. I think Miller's decline in raw scoring (22.4 ppg at the break) and Indiana's coaching transition/bad record (19-27 at the break) turned off people to voting for him. Yet Indiana still finished with the 7th-ranked offense that year, but that's something we STILL don't see accolade-voters differentiate well (see Rose, Derek, 2011 MVP) so it's understandable that they didn't think "that shooter dude on the crappy Indy team who is playing worse than last year should make it."

In 92 his scoring went down AGAIN. This is not to suggest he wasn't good -- IMO he kept getting better through these years -- but simply that voters will be voters will be voters and they again probably turned to that raw scoring number and saw it down at 20. Again, that team was 19-29 at the break, so he received the same treatment. But note that Indy finished with the 6th-best offense in the league...something voters were again probably oblivious too.

In 93 they are 22-24 at the break...and Schrempf earns the nod not Reggie (still around 21 ppg). Again, they finished 5th in offense, but remember that Detlef was a SMOY legend at that point averaging 17 and 9 off the bench the previous year. When he started starting and pumped his numbers to 20-10-6 (!), well, people loved it. Terry Porter did not make the team over Miller he was on the West. Detlef beat out, Grant and Coleman whereas Reggie lost to Isiah, peak Mark Price, Dumars and MIchael Jordan (and again, they weren't putting 2 AS on from an unestablished team in Indiana.)

In 94 Indy was 23-23 at the break. Person and Schrempf were gone, the offense was slightly worse because of it (still 11th) and the team obviously went to the ECF...but no one noticed at the break because they were again a middling team with Miller averaging 20-3-3. He was tagged as one-dimensional, and if you look like Allan Houston on paper and no one understands how valuable your offense and you are .500, you probably aren't getting voted in.

All that overlooks that Miller clearly had an inherent style/ability that was almost impervious to any defense thrown at home, aka he was a playoff monster relative to other stars. People are still unaware of that, and it wasn't on voters minds *until he became established in the 1994 PS.*

I actually have no issue trying to understand these accolades here. But there is absolutely no plausible way even a non-basketball fan could watch the 1994 Knicks-Pacers and think Starks is even close to Reggie Miller as a player, without understanding any of the advanced stuff Miller is providing. Starks was selected because he was (a) from New York and (b) the team was 34-14 at the break and "deserving" of a second AS.

1997 was a snub and I remember it being discussed at the time (I wonder if we can find old articles discussing it). 97 was the year his house was burned down and there was just a lot of negativity around the whole situation, with Indiana going from a 52-win team .500 (23-23) at the break. Smits missed the first 30 games (they started Erick Dampier!), McKey missed 32 games, second-year guard Travis Best started 46 games because Mark Jackson missed 52 games...but I don't see much evidence to suggest it was really a bad year from Miller.

(Note that 97 was sandwiched around Miller's 3 all-nba seasons). 1999 he clearly would have been an AS again -- there was no game. Indeed, Miller may have been all-nba again but they only put 5 guards on the team that season (AI, Kidd, Bug, Payton and Kobe). Miller was better than 99 Kobe IMO. EDIT: Stockton was the 6th guard. Oops. If you think 99 Stock is better than 99 Miller, so be it. I find that to be a bit much.)

In 2000 I also have him as better than Iverson, Marbury and probably Eddie Jones. But remember what the voters will look at:

Iverson 28.4 ppg 4.7 apg
Carter 25.7 ppg 5.8 rpg 3.9 apg
Marbury 22.2 ppg 8.4 apg
Jones 20.1 ppg 4.8 rpg 4.2 apg
Miller 18.1 ppg 3.9 rpg 2.3 apg

He just didn't stack up statistically, and since he was perpetually underrated his whole career, why would expect voters to suddenly overlook that? BUT, how do you think those all-nba teams would look if they were voted on after the PS?

Iverson 26.2 ppg (38.4% FG) 4.5 apg 4.0 rpg
Miller 24.0 ppg (45.2% FG) 2.7 apg 2.4 rpg
Carter 19.3 ppg (30.0% FG) 6.3 apg 6.0 rpg
Jones 17.0 ppg (37.9% FG) 4.8 apg 5.0 rpg
Marbury DNQ

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

Nominate: Alonzo Mourning

Tentative vote for 'Nique. Glad Zo is getting attention now.

[Fencer reregistered]

Well, do note that the similar scoring is a regular season thing. Miller's averages get a clear edge in the playoffs.

That said, I can't get worked up with someone picking McHale over Miller. I disagree, but I've got a ton of respect for McHale.

Fair enough.

I don't pay much attention to the precise details of how much a guy scores. Too much of that has to do with team design.

[ThaRegul8r]

1997 was a snub and I remember it being discussed at the time (I wonder if we can find old articles discussing it).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pc ... 46,2650314
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yM ... 14,4947854
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ul ... 84,2269853

[Fencer reregistered]

Gasol was a much better rebounder, scored at a higher rate, light years better as a passer, worse efficiency (McHale's strong suit), and comparable defensively.

Interesting theories. Am I correct in assuming that favor stats over eye test in judging rebounding, but eye test over stats in judging passing, and eye test over accolades in judging defense?