Highest reasonable ranking for Reggie Miller?

[Colbinii]

Over Wade and West? Really?

If you value more recent players and believe in the a time machine methodologies then Miller has a good case over West. West also never had a perimeter player of the same position as Jordans as a contemporary [Oscar is close but didn't have the post-season success Jordan did].

Wade has terrible longevity and isn't the maximized in the modern era as a mediocre shooter.

Seeing arguments comes with being open minded.

I mean I argue with your last point, but I just think Wade's peak was so much higher than Reggie's. Much better defender too at their respective peaks. Much better playmaker, finisher... Reggie gets longevity and shooting, which are valuable, but Wade covers a significant number of other skills in the game and dominated them in ways very few guards have.

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me--these aren't necessarily my takes.

[RCM88x]

Probably 15-20, if you do blind comparison between some of his data and other plays historically considered in that range he stacks up pretty well. Would I have him there? Probably not, but...

I think there's probably no player in NBA history who was undervalued more during his era due to the neanderthalic thinking of the time. It's interesting people didn't realize it at the time, like how in the world was Indiana so successful with that roster during his career? Was it just magic? Their second best offensive player was Rik Smits for gods sake. I wonder if Indiana playing mostly at a snails pace offensively really tanked his perception since it reduced their PPG numbers and resulted in people attributing their success more to their defense than offense. At the time there was probably a very small number of people who actually looked at things like points per possession or offensive/defensive ratings, and maybe only a handful of people looked at things like +/-. Even in the decade after he played when PER and adjusted +/- just started to creep into the fringe communities, those stats either didn't paint him as elite or didn't yet exist for his prime years.

With Miller there's also probably a factor here where he didn't fit the perception of what was considered a superstar franchise player at the time, people had just never seen a guy who's primary game is off-ball shooting be the best player on a great team. Since he didn't fit the preconceived stereotype at the time and never "proved it", aka, winning a title as the best player, it never was considered a valid method. It wouldn't be until Curry, in just the last decade, till a player proved that method to be valid, and as a result Millers archetype is suddenly validated posthumously. Now that that's happened people take the data we have more seriously and actually can bear considering him an elite all time player, despite at the time no one (outside of Indiana and maybe New York) thinking that.

[PistolPeteJR]

If you value more recent players and believe in the a time machine methodologies then Miller has a good case over West. West also never had a perimeter player of the same position as Jordans as a contemporary [Oscar is close but didn't have the post-season success Jordan did].

Wade has terrible longevity and isn't the maximized in the modern era as a mediocre shooter.

Seeing arguments comes with being open minded.

I mean I argue with your last point, but I just think Wade's peak was so much higher than Reggie's. Much better defender too at their respective peaks. Much better playmaker, finisher... Reggie gets longevity and shooting, which are valuable, but Wade covers a significant number of other skills in the game and dominated them in ways very few guards have.

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me--these aren't necessarily my takes.

You made a point about how there's a potential argument for Miller over West and Wade. I looked to see what that argument was because I don't see it and still don't.

It's healthy back and forth. In any case, we can simply agree to disagree if you still see otherwise.

[Colbinii]

I mean I argue with your last point, but I just think Wade's peak was so much higher than Reggie's. Much better defender too at their respective peaks. Much better playmaker, finisher... Reggie gets longevity and shooting, which are valuable, but Wade covers a significant number of other skills in the game and dominated them in ways very few guards have.

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me--these aren't necessarily my takes.

You made a point about how there's a potential argument for Miller over West and Wade. I looked to see what that argument was because I don't see it and still don't.

It's healthy back and forth. In any case, we can simply agree to disagree if you still see otherwise.

Reggie Miller has significantly more WS and VORP than Wade in the Regular Season while the post-season Wade has a slight edge [due in large part to playing next to LeBron James].

In every single one of Wade's deep runs, he had a player significantly better than anyone Miller ever had at his disposal.

[PistolPeteJR]

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me--these aren't necessarily my takes.

You made a point about how there's a potential argument for Miller over West and Wade. I looked to see what that argument was because I don't see it and still don't.

It's healthy back and forth. In any case, we can simply agree to disagree if you still see otherwise.

Reggie Miller has significantly more WS and VORP than Wade in the Regular Season while the post-season Wade has a slight edge [due in large part to playing next to LeBron James].

In every single one of Wade's deep runs, he had a player significantly better than anyone Miller ever had at his disposal.

Aren't WS and VORP cumulative? I already gave the edge to Miller as it pertains to longevity.

Peak isn't close though in my opinion. Miller was nowhere near 06 Wade, let alone 09. Defense wasn't close, nor was playmaking.

[Colbinii]

You made a point about how there's a potential argument for Miller over West and Wade. I looked to see what that argument was because I don't see it and still don't.

It's healthy back and forth. In any case, we can simply agree to disagree if you still see otherwise.

Reggie Miller has significantly more WS and VORP than Wade in the Regular Season while the post-season Wade has a slight edge [due in large part to playing next to LeBron James].

In every single one of Wade's deep runs, he had a player significantly better than anyone Miller ever had at his disposal.

Aren't WS and VORP cumulative? I already gave the edge to Miller as it pertains to longevity.

Peak isn't close though in my opinion. Miller was nowhere near 06 Wade, let alone 09. Defense wasn't close, nor was playmaking.

Right...so you agree that if someone [not you nor myself] valued longevity, explained how Wade benefited greatly from his teammates [Shaq and LeBron], pointed out how Wade was barely making the playoffs in his career when he didn't have LeBron or Shaq, and then concluded Miller was higher than Wade all-time, you would not be able to understand why said person had Miller ahead of Wade?

Do you think it is reasonable for people to have different views and valuations of "All-time greats"? Do you think cumulative value is reasonable? Do you think teammates have a massive impact on winning NBA Titles?

[Clyde Frazier]

If you go all in on his rTS, scalability in the playoffs and longevity, probably top 30.

[PistolPeteJR]

Reggie Miller has significantly more WS and VORP than Wade in the Regular Season while the post-season Wade has a slight edge [due in large part to playing next to LeBron James].

In every single one of Wade's deep runs, he had a player significantly better than anyone Miller ever had at his disposal.

Aren't WS and VORP cumulative? I already gave the edge to Miller as it pertains to longevity.

Peak isn't close though in my opinion. Miller was nowhere near 06 Wade, let alone 09. Defense wasn't close, nor was playmaking.

Right...so you agree that if someone [not you nor myself] valued longevity, explained how Wade benefited greatly from his teammates [Shaq and LeBron], pointed out how Wade was barely making the playoffs in his career when he didn't have LeBron or Shaq, and then concluded Miller was higher than Wade all-time, you would not be able to understand why said person had Miller ahead of Wade?

Do you think it is reasonable for people to have different views and valuations of "All-time greats"? Do you think cumulative value is reasonable? Do you think teammates have a massive impact on winning NBA Titles?

Of course they do. Miller also had years where he didn't have excellent supporting casts too. Sure, he didn't have LeBron James, I understand that, but peak for peak, him vs Wade aren't close at all. I've already ceded longevity his way. I just think their peaks and primes aren't close at all. That's literally all I'm saying.

[CharityStripe34]

Jesus, the three-point shot has really warped so many discussions. I'd say top 40 or so is reasonable for Reggie. Better than Jerry West is ridiculous.

[Dutchball97]

His accolades definitely undersell how good Miller was for a long time. Anywhere in the 30-50 range seems pretty reasonable to me to be honest. The highest I think you could push him is around 25-30. I'd still the question it but it's not impossible to make an argument to place Reggie this high. Anything above that would be too much though as Reggie was never really a top 5 player in the league.

[Stalwart]

Reggie Miller has significantly more WS and VORP than Wade in the Regular Season while the post-season Wade has a slight edge [due in large part to playing next to LeBron James].

In every single one of Wade's deep runs, he had a player significantly better than anyone Miller ever had at his disposal.

Aren't WS and VORP cumulative? I already gave the edge to Miller as it pertains to longevity.

Peak isn't close though in my opinion. Miller was nowhere near 06 Wade, let alone 09. Defense wasn't close, nor was playmaking.

Right...so you agree that if someone [not you nor myself] valued longevity, explained how Wade benefited greatly from his teammates [Shaq and LeBron], pointed out how Wade was barely making the playoffs in his career when he didn't have LeBron or Shaq, and then concluded Miller was higher than Wade all-time, you would not be able to understand why said person had Miller ahead of Wade?

Do you think it is reasonable for people to have different views and valuations of "All-time greats"? Do you think cumulative value is reasonable? Do you think teammates have a massive impact on winning NBA Titles?

I think at some point we have to draw the line on what an i dividual values in terms of strength of argument. For example someone could rank Andre Miller over Magic Johnson based on lomgevity. But is that really a legitimate argument or perspective? Shouldn't we be able to say that, from an objective point of view, there is no argument for Andre Miller over Magic no matter what you value? Or can anyone argue anything and be taken serious by the pc board so long as its based on what they personally value?

Or are we really going to entertain Reggie over Wade & West or just call it the nonesense that it is?

I think that's room to have different perspectives based on different values but only to a point. I think were jumping way past that point right now with these Reggie arguments.

[Colbinii]

Aren't WS and VORP cumulative? I already gave the edge to Miller as it pertains to longevity.

Peak isn't close though in my opinion. Miller was nowhere near 06 Wade, let alone 09. Defense wasn't close, nor was playmaking.

Right...so you agree that if someone [not you nor myself] valued longevity, explained how Wade benefited greatly from his teammates [Shaq and LeBron], pointed out how Wade was barely making the playoffs in his career when he didn't have LeBron or Shaq, and then concluded Miller was higher than Wade all-time, you would not be able to understand why said person had Miller ahead of Wade?

Do you think it is reasonable for people to have different views and valuations of "All-time greats"? Do you think cumulative value is reasonable? Do you think teammates have a massive impact on winning NBA Titles?

I think at some point we have to draw the line on what an i dividual values in terms of strength of argument. For example someone could rank Andre Miller over Magic Johnson based on lomgevity. But is that really a legitimate argument or perspective? Shouldn't we be able to say that, from an objective point of view, there is no argument for Andre Miller over Magic no matter what you value? Or can anyone argue anything and be taken serious by the pc board so long as its based on what they personally value?

But Andre Miller didn't provide more career value than Magic Johnson.

Andre Miller: 100.4 WS, 33.4 VORP
Magic Johnson: 155.8 WS, 88.0 VORP

See, your example isn't actually related to my example because Reggie Miller was significantly closer to Wade than he was Andre Miller as a basketball player.

Reggie Miller: 174.4 WS, 66.1 VORP
Dwyane Wade: 120.7 WS, 60.8 VORP

You tried to make an analogy yet you made a meaningless strawman which actually isn't related to my fabricated argument for why Reggie Miller could be viewed as higher on an all-time list than Dwyane Wade.

Or are we really going to entertain Reggie over Wade & West or just call it the nonesense that it is?

I actually don't think someone who had Reggie Miller over Dwyane Wade is nonsense--so long as the reasoning is sound and consistent and can be correlated to some sort of value add methodology.

I think that's room to have different perspectives based on different values but only to a point. I think were jumping way past that point right now with these Reggie arguments.

Nah, we aren't, you're attempting to make comparisons to the hypothetical comparison I created with Miller vs Wade and your attempt fell flat on its face.

[LAL1947]

Some numbers to consider..

Now here's 5 playoff stat lines:

A) 36.3 points per 100 on 45/40/91 splits (61.6% TS) with a 116 ORTG and 6.8 OBPM
B) 33.5 points per 100 on 47/39/89 splits (58.4% TS) with a 118 ORTG and 5.7 OBPM
C) 35.4 points per 100 on 48/36/91 splits (60.2% TS) with a 121 ORTG and 6.3 OBPM
D) 33.3 points per 100 on 46/41/89 splits (60.4% TS) with a 121 ORTG and 6.1 OBPM
E) 36.5 points per 100 on 48/44/86 splits (62.4% TS) with a 125 ORTG and 7.1 OBPM

Whose statlines are they?

Spoiler:

A) = 5 year peak Steph Curry from 2015-2019 (91 playoff games)
B) = 11 year prime Dirk Nowitzki from 2002-2012 (118 playoff games)
C) = 6 year peak Dirk Nowitzki from 2006-2011 (71 playoff games)
D) = 11 year prime Reggie Miller from 1992-2002 (101 playoff games)
E) = 5 year peak Reggie Miller from 1992-1996 (41 playoff games)

This is an excellent example. All 5 of those stat-lines are so close, it's like they came from the same player.

Kudos for coming up with the idea.

[Stalwart]

Right...so you agree that if someone [not you nor myself] valued longevity, explained how Wade benefited greatly from his teammates [Shaq and LeBron], pointed out how Wade was barely making the playoffs in his career when he didn't have LeBron or Shaq, and then concluded Miller was higher than Wade all-time, you would not be able to understand why said person had Miller ahead of Wade?

Do you think it is reasonable for people to have different views and valuations of "All-time greats"? Do you think cumulative value is reasonable? Do you think teammates have a massive impact on winning NBA Titles?

I think at some point we have to draw the line on what an i dividual values in terms of strength of argument. For example someone could rank Andre Miller over Magic Johnson based on lomgevity. But is that really a legitimate argument or perspective? Shouldn't we be able to say that, from an objective point of view, there is no argument for Andre Miller over Magic no matter what you value? Or can anyone argue anything and be taken serious by the pc board so long as its based on what they personally value?

But Andre Miller didn't provide more career value than Magic Johnson.

Andre Miller: 100.4 WS, 33.4 VORP
Magic Johnson: 155.8 WS, 88.0 VORP

See, your example isn't actually related to my example because Reggie Miller was significantly closer to Wade than he was Andre Miller as a basketball player.

Reggie Miller: 174.4 WS, 66.1 VORP
Dwyane Wade: 120.7 WS, 60.8 VORP

You tried to make an analogy yet you made a meaningless strawman which actually isn't related to my fabricated argument for why Reggie Miller could be viewed as higher on an all-time list than Dwyane Wade.

Or are we really going to entertain Reggie over Wade & West or just call it the nonesense that it is?

I actually don't think someone who had Reggie Miller over Dwyane Wade is nonsense--so long as the reasoning is sound and consistent and can be correlated to some sort of value add methodology.

I think that's room to have different perspectives based on different values but only to a point. I think were jumping way past that point right now with these Reggie arguments.

Nah, we aren't, you're attempting to make comparisons to the hypothetical comparison I created with Miller vs Wade and your attempt fell flat on its face.

Ok, I was trying to save you and the pc board from jumping yet another shark but go right ahead.

[LakerLegend]

lol at the massive overrating of Reggie in here.

Did anyone actually watch him play or are these takes based on The Last Dance?

[1993Playoffs]

Borderline Top 50

[DNice68]

lol at the massive overrating of Reggie in here.

Did anyone actually watch him play or are these takes based on The Last Dance?

Exactly, he is barely a top 75 player imo!

[Stalwart]

Im still trying to figure out how Reggie's accumulative Win Shares provide more career value for Indiana than DWade's NBA Championships did for Miami.

[Dooley]

Not better than Wade or West but if you think he's the 5th or 6th best SG of all time, having him around 25-40 is reasonable.

For the people who have Reggie out of the top ~60 or so, do you guys think, like, Adrian Dantley was better than him? Vince Carter? Tony Parker? Who do you have over him?

[RCM88x]

Im still trying to figure out how Reggie's accumulative Win Shares provide more career value for Indiana than DWade's NBA Championships did for Miami.

Championships are team awards, they are also situational.

Ron Harper has 5 titles, is he a better player than Wade? KD? Isiah Thomas?

Does MJ winning a title in 1998 automatically make him a better player than he was pre 1990 or in 1995?