RealGM Top 100 List #40

[Doctor MJ]

Very serious. It's sad how Schrempf is underrated.

Okay. When I have time, I think more on Schrempf. I'd love to see you really lay out your case.

[Doctor MJ]

Knicks in 1994 stopped Pacers in playoffs on 100,2 ortg. In regular Pacers had 107,8 ortg, so NY's defense was clearly very good. Other (and better) way to look at this is "expected" ortg/drtg ((regular season Knicks drtg + regular season Pacers ortg)/2). It's 103, so that year Knicks definitely did great job on Pacers.

In 1993 it's little different story (Pacers ortg in playoffs was almost the same as in regular), but it's smaller game sample (so result could be screwed by one or two games). And in that series happened something similar to one Suns vs Spurs series (in 2005 I think?), when Spurs didn't even want to play defense because they know that they could play better offense than Suns.

And my opinion is that Reggie improved (because opposing defenses were the most vulnerable for perimeter attack), but team as a whole played worse (after all they didn't won any of these series). It was kind of tactic: "we allow your top scorer to do whatever he want, but we will stop others". And it worked.

Ah. Okay first I'll admit that I didn't check the Pacers' ORtg for that rate myself, so good you made that clear.

That said, while I'm a big proponent of being wary of players getting stats while their opponent used that tactic...the Knicks were a FAR better team in the regular season and they barely, barely barely beat the Pacers in '94. It only makes sense to dismiss stats as a product of this tactic if the team in question wasn't getting seriously hurt by them, and in an extremely close series, they are certainly getting hurt by them.

[Doctor MJ]

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

ronny, apologies if you've already given your detailed argument for Nique. I don't mean to hound you, but it'd be nice to see a Nique supporters offer rebuttals to the statements made about Miller getting the clear scoring edge over Nique when it mattered.

I find it interesting how players who are well-decorated with accolades and have impressive stats who underperform in the playoffs "when it matters" have this completely affect how people view them, yet when you have the converse, it evidently doesn't count for much. I just find that... interesting.

Agree.

[ElGee]

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

Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
Nash 01, 05-07, 09 36 5.6 9.5 7.5
Duncan 00, 04, 05 37 8.4 6.5 7.5
McGrady 06-07 46 4.3 9.3 6.8
Robertson 68, 70, 72 50 4.2 9 6.6
King 84-85 33 1.8 11.2 6.5
McHale 86, 88, 91 45 7.9 4.3 6.1
Bird 91-92 44 6.3 5.8 6.0
Rodman 93, 95-97 100 8.0 3.6 5.8
Pippen 94, 98 48 7.6 3.3 5.4
Penny 97, 00 55 3.8 6.9 5.3
Garnett 06-11 72 5.7 4.9 5.3
Shaq 96-98, 00-04 142 6.4 4.1 5.3
West 67-69, 71 76 4.7 5.8 5.3
Hakeem 86, 91-92, 95-96 72 3.5 6.3 4.9
Kareem 75, 78 37 3.1 6.7 4.9
Mourning 94, 96-98 74 4.1 5.2 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28 -0.6 9.9 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129 4.7 3.7 4.2
Erving 73, 78, 83 29 4.1 4.2 4.1
Carter 01-04 77 1.2 7 4.1
Kidd 00, 04-05 46 2.9 4.9 3.9
Kobe 00, 04-07, 10 79 3.9 3.5 3.7
Barkley 87, 91, 94-97 100 3.5 3.5 3.5
Dumars 89-91, 94-95 50 0.9 6 3.5
Odom 05, 07 44 0.3 5.7 3.0
Cowens 75, 77 47 2.8 3.1 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46 0.1 5.3 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31 -1.1 6.4 2.6
Baylor 61-62, 66 54 2.3 2.4 2.4
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90 2.4 1.0 1.7
Moses 78, 84 36 -1.1 4.2 1.6
Iverson 00-02, 04, 06 89 0.5 2.7 1.6
Webber 95, 97-98, 01-03 104 2.5 0.7 1.6
Wilkins 92-93 51 -0.3 3.1 1.4
T. Hardaway 93, 95, 00 66 -0.5 2.4 1.0
Allen 02, 04, 07 66 -0.7 2.6 0.9
Hill 95, 00, 05 35 -2.5 4.2 0.9
Wade 04-08 95 -1.5 3.2 0.8
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

Here is the full list of in/out runs: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&start=120#p28653541

Planning on doing a few more and any that the group can think of/want...

[ElGee]

Perimeter in this case = scoring mainly from the outside. Reggie was a shooter, Jordan slasher, who attacked basket much more and that's why Knicks defense was more effective against him. because you know - they were built that way to stop players from scoring in the paint.

I see this as exactly the reason why Miller was so special. When you are one of the GOAT shooters, you can score from all over the court. Covering the 3-point line is roughly 75-feet of territory. Covering the rim is only a few feet of territory. It's not a weakness in the Knicks defense, but a strength in Miller.

[ElGee]

V
I think that people need to really think about the comparison with John Stockton. I think people expected Stockton to go about where he did, but expected Miller to go far lower. I ask the question: Why? Why is Stockton drastically ahead of Miller? I mean, if you really think Stockton should have been a strong MVP candidate all those years, okay, but if are rewarding him for being a top 10-ish level guys with a knack fitting well with other talent, I think you need to consider how that differs from Miller.

Stockton was ahead of Miller because he was more valuable player. Every outside the box score data available says so. Stockton was close to Nash level, Reggie to Ray Allen level.

Non box score data we have says:

1. RAPM

2002
Stockton +2.2
Miller 0.0

2003
Stoctkon +3.0
Miller -0.9

2004
Miller -0.7

2005
Miller -0.4

2. with/without impact

In 1998 Stockton improved Jazz offense by +6.1 ortg, not so impressive unless we realize that he lifted already very good offense (+2.8 ortg above LA) to one of the best of all time (+9.7)

Reggie also almost never missed games, the most he missed during his prime was in 1996 (6 games).
Pacers offense without him was +0.5 ortg above LA, with him +4.4. So younger, more in his prime Reggie had much less offensive impact than old Stockton.

3. Winston '00-09 APM:
Stockton +8.2
Miller not ranked in top 10.


So overall that shows that Reggie was nowhere close to Stockton in terms of value.

Seems crazy to me to put much stock in partial, past-prime data. And we discussed this before with Stockton, but I don't see why you're giving a 28 mpg that much "credit" when correlation is clearly in play. I mean, do you think the guy lifted Utah from +2.8 to +15?

[lorak]

Perimeter in this case = scoring mainly from the outside. Reggie was a shooter, Jordan slasher, who attacked basket much more and that's why Knicks defense was more effective against him. because you know - they were built that way to stop players from scoring in the paint.

I see this as exactly the reason why Miller was so special. When you are one of the GOAT shooters, you can score from all over the court. Covering the 3-point line is roughly 75-feet of territory. Covering the rim is only a few feet of territory. It's not a weakness in the Knicks defense, but a strength in Miller.

I think I agree ;] but don't you think Reggie was some kind (very special) role player (for me less valuable than Rodman)? And team offense must be structured around him and that don't necessary made overall team offense great. There's reason why Miller isn't on that list from b-r, while EVERY other great offensive player is.

[lorak]

V
I think that people need to really think about the comparison with John Stockton. I think people expected Stockton to go about where he did, but expected Miller to go far lower. I ask the question: Why? Why is Stockton drastically ahead of Miller? I mean, if you really think Stockton should have been a strong MVP candidate all those years, okay, but if are rewarding him for being a top 10-ish level guys with a knack fitting well with other talent, I think you need to consider how that differs from Miller.

Stockton was ahead of Miller because he was more valuable player. Every outside the box score data available says so. Stockton was close to Nash level, Reggie to Ray Allen level.

Non box score data we have says:

1. RAPM

2002
Stockton +2.2
Miller 0.0

2003
Stoctkon +3.0
Miller -0.9

2004
Miller -0.7

2005
Miller -0.4

2. with/without impact

In 1998 Stockton improved Jazz offense by +6.1 ortg, not so impressive unless we realize that he lifted already very good offense (+2.8 ortg above LA) to one of the best of all time (+9.7)

Reggie also almost never missed games, the most he missed during his prime was in 1996 (6 games).
Pacers offense without him was +0.5 ortg above LA, with him +4.4. So younger, more in his prime Reggie had much less offensive impact than old Stockton.

3. Winston '00-09 APM:
Stockton +8.2
Miller not ranked in top 10.


So overall that shows that Reggie was nowhere close to Stockton in terms of value.

Seems crazy to me to put much stock in partial, past-prime data. And we discussed this before with Stockton, but I don't see why you're giving a 28 mpg that much "credit" when correlation is clearly in play. I mean, do you think the guy lifted Utah from +2.8 to +15?

Much stock? I don't know, but that data is better than nothing.

[ElGee]

Perimeter in this case = scoring mainly from the outside. Reggie was a shooter, Jordan slasher, who attacked basket much more and that's why Knicks defense was more effective against him. because you know - they were built that way to stop players from scoring in the paint.

I see this as exactly the reason why Miller was so special. When you are one of the GOAT shooters, you can score from all over the court. Covering the 3-point line is roughly 75-feet of territory. Covering the rim is only a few feet of territory. It's not a weakness in the Knicks defense, but a strength in Miller.

I think I agree ;] but don't you think Reggie was some kind (very special) role player (for me less valuable than Rodman)? And team offense must be structured around him and that don't necessary made overall team offense great. There's reason why Miller isn't on that list from b-r, while EVERY other great offensive player is.

(1) Well, I don't consider Miller one of the GOAT offensive players at his peak. So that's an issue to be behind the offensive GOATs.

(2) The peripheral seasons outside the prime hurt a lot...for example I calculated Jordan without his TWO Washington seasons when Neil published the list and it moved him up something like 20 or 30 spots.

(3) QB PG's seem to have the biggest impact on team ORtg. What about wings who didn't play with a great PG?

33 Peja? He did play with Bibby and 2 GOAT-level passing bigs...but a guy we've discussed as a shooter.

35 Ray Allen - arguably the first player who fits this bill, and he played with Cassell-Robinson, then Barry-Shard, then the Big 3. Not too shabby. Interestingly, he's a Miller-type player and the first SG that meets the criteria and again, like Peja, a shooter.

40 Julius Erving - played with Mo Cheeks? Not a shooter, just Doctor J

43 Michael Jordan - played with Pippen (results better with Pippen). Not a shooter, just Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

46 Clyde Drexler - played with Porter. Not a shooter.

57 Kobe Bryant - well, he did play with Shaq and then Gasol.

That's about it, really. And IMO, certainly in their prime, those guys had much better offensive players next to them than Miller. Yet, Reggie's RS number is +1.8 (placing him just off the back of the pack). Again, that doesn't include the PS, which Neil uses in that method.

But if we exclude Miller's peripheral seasons (88-89, 01-05), his number becomes +3.0 (and we know he improved across the board in those postseasons). +3.0 would be 44th on that list...so I don't see it as something going against what we're claiming about Reggie Miller here. His PS numbers from what I've listed (1990-2000) is +6.6 using the same method. Combined, 1990-2000 is +3.73, which would be 20th.

As a point of fact, Miller led excellent offenses, consistently, throughout his prime, without another excellent offensive player, and improved basically every year in the PS.

[Doctor MJ]

I think I agree ;] but don't you think Reggie was some kind (very special) role player (for me less valuable than Rodman)? And team offense must be structured around him and that don't necessary made overall team offense great. There's reason why Miller isn't on that list from b-r, while EVERY other great offensive player is.

Er, a role player who come playoff time typically scores 25+ PPG on incredible efficiency with a game that creates space that helps allow the entire team's offense to improve?

I think you mentioning Rodman here is appropriate. Setting aside the specifics of Rodman's case, if you've seen Skeptical Sports analysis of him, it kind of begs the question: If a guy filling a specific role is valuable enough, does it really make sense to call him a "role player" given the assumptions people have about that term?

To me what a role player is, is someone who either 1) specializes in one thing that is relatively hard to find, but they use only a few times per game, or 2) specializes in one thing that is not terribly hard to find, but they use all the time.

Players who specialize in one thing, do it on an all-time great level, and do it prolifically enough that it has major impact on each possession have every possibility of being a star. Heck, Shaq isn't the greatest offensive big man of all time because he's versatile, you just can't stop what you know is coming.

Re: "There's reason why Miller isn't on that list from b-r, while EVERY other great offensive player is."

Hakeem's not on the list, Robinson's not on the list. Meanwhile, Schrempf's star teammate Gary Payton is on the list, which of course points toward the trend of having multiple players from one team on the list.

We should also note that Indiana twice led the league in offensive efficiency in the regular season with Miller as the team's best player, and according to ElGee, they had the rare tendency to significantly improve come playoff time.

I'm very hesitant to use this study against Miller given the other facts involved.

[Doctor MJ]

A couple of issues. I don't think 10-20% differences in scoring volume are very important if they've based on shot volumes. (Obviously, if they're based on efficiency that's a whole different matter.)

I do think that bucking the odds and having one's numbers increase in the postseason is nice. Context and sample size both come into play, of course. If Dwight Howard, usually double-teamed, runs into a post-season opponent who can safely single-team him, it may be misleading if his numbers stay the same from the regular season and some teammate who lives off of open 3s sees his numbers plummet. (I'm not saying all this happened, although I do root for the team that used to leave Perk alone on Dwight; I'm just raising it as an oversimplified example.)

I'm skeptical you've thought this through.

It's well and good to say "I'm not going to let a few point difference based on increased volume confuse my opinion of a guy", but what if that point difference is the difference between being a 5-time all-star and an All-NBA lock most years?

Miller broke 22 PPG in the regular season only twice. In the playoffs he did it 8 times, including 4 seasons breaking 27 PPG. If he had put up those playoff numbers in the regular season, his accolades skyrocket.

If that truly wouldn't affect how you see him, then you are a rare bird my friend.

Re: playoff context. Yes, but:

1) Indiana raised their profile come playoff time
2) Their offense got better
3) The key to both that offense and the offensive improvement was Miller.

This combo doesn't lend itself to the whole "let the star get his" strategy. When the opponent is doing better on you that you expect and it's star is going off, you adjust to stop the star. It's pretty simple. The fact that no one ever seemed to be able to really stop Miller given this situation is telling indeed.

[lorak]

As a point of fact, Miller led excellent offenses, consistently, throughout his prime, without another excellent offensive player, and improved basically every year in the PS.

Schrempf was excellent offensive player.

And no, Miller didn't let excellent offenses consistently through his prime.
Here's Pacers ortg relatively to LA during whole Miller's career:

Code: Select all

2005   -0,6
2003   1
2002   -0,4
2001   -1
2000   4,4
1999   6,5
1998   3,4
1997   -0,9
1996   3,2
1995   1,3
1994   1,5
1993   3,9
1992   3,5
1991   3,8
1990   3,4
1989   -1
1988   -1,4



So only two teams with ortg higher than +4. For reference point: since '74 season there was 110 teams with ortg relatively to LA +4 or higher.

Of course all these Pacers teams with ortg +3.2 to +3.9 are very good offensive teams, but IMO far from excellent.
And look, 1990 (huge improvement in ortg) is first full season when Schrempf played in Indiana. '93 season (the last when Pacers had 4 consecutive years with +3 ortg) is the last Schrempf's season as a Pacer!

Then they again became very good offensively in 1996 with last year as good offense in 2000, with exception of 1997, when their offense was below LA. So what happened here? Well, 1996 was first season when Mark Jackson was starter for full year, 2000 was his last season as a Pacer and of course in 1997 he played in Denver for most of the year!

So when Pacers had the best offenses during Miller's career he player with one offensive player better than him (Detlef) and other who is probably worse, but still very good playmaker (Jackson).

[Doctor MJ]

TS% is itself a hack anyway, although anything will be approximate as long as we don't have records separating the two- (or three-) shot fouls from the and-ones.

Well fine, substitute FG%. Same difference: We normalize PPG so that we get a gauge focused on what gets accomplished per possession because in the end basketball is a possession game like baseball is an inning game. That call for normalization has nothing to do with anything relating to FG%.

Yes, we can adjust for FG% relative to league average, the need to do so is far less clear. In the end, I resist doing an algorithmic normalization on that front, preferring to have a more fuzzy picture in my mind.

Also: TS% may be a hack, but it's a very good hack. The error between TS% and the TRUE true shooting percentage would be where we have the data is tiny compared to the error between FG% or eFG% and the TRUE true shooting percentage. Pointing out the hack only really makes sense when encountering someone making a huge deal out of a really tiny TS% lead.

[Dr Positivity]

ElGee - Good response on the Miller points. The Porter thing was a blonde moment, going through the bballreference ASG pages too quickly

I'm having a hard time choosing between Miller, Iverson, Nique, McHale, Reed here. I'll probably just go with who I'd draft and right now I'm leaning Miller due to the longevity and ability to fit with virtually any team at SG

[Doctor MJ]

As a point of fact, Miller led excellent offenses, consistently, throughout his prime, without another excellent offensive player, and improved basically every year in the PS.

Schrempf was excellent offensive player.

And no, Miller didn't let excellent offenses consistently through his prime.
Here's Pacers ortg relatively to LA during whole Miller's career:

Code: Select all

2005   -0,6
2003   1
2002   -0,4
2001   -1
2000   4,4
1999   6,5
1998   3,4
1997   -0,9
1996   3,2
1995   1,3
1994   1,5
1993   3,9
1992   3,5
1991   3,8
1990   3,4
1989   -1
1988   -1,4



So only two teams with ortg higher than +4. For reference point: since '74 season there was 110 teams with ortg relatively to LA +4 or higher.

Of course all these Pacers teams with ortg +3.2 to +3.9 are very good offensive teams, but IMO far from excellent.
And look, 1990 (huge improvement in ortg) is first full season when Schrempf played in Indiana. '93 season (the last when Pacers had 4 consecutive years with +3 ortg) is the last Schrempf's season as a Pacer!

Then they again became very good offensively in 1996 with last year as good offense in 2000, with exception of 1997, when their offense was below LA. So what happened here? Well, 1996 was first season when Mark Jackson was starter for full year, 2000 was his last season as a Pacer and of course in 1997 he played in Denver for most of the year!

So when Pacers had the best offenses during Miller's career he player with one offensive player better than him (Detlef) and other who is probably worse, but still very good playmaker (Jackson).

I think you're being too much of a stickler here.

ElGee just said that in Miller's prime they were typically +3 above average. That's Top 10 offense territory in a sport where even a GOAT level offensive player can't be expected to drag a horrendous team to Top 5 status. For Miller, who is special but no Magic or Nash, it quickly translates to "yeah, that's fine, nothing to get alarmed about".

[Doctor MJ]

Dr MJ . . . and yeah, he was more Kevin Love than Dirk but Love hasn't done it long enough to really be impressive whereas Dirk and Lucas did it for an impressive duration too (and Dirk has only started to really be recognized for how good he is after this year). If Love keeps up this year for 10 years with a normal career arc he will be a sure HOF player and, depending on how much his teams win, a contender for all-time best PF (defense fades in hindsight so often while stats stay ever fresh).

It's true that Kevin Love is no slouch. I'm a big fan of his. I just object to calling Lucas the equivalent to a guy we've voted into the Top 20 to help build his credibility when really they don't have that much in common.

[lorak]

1) Indiana raised their profile come playoff time
2) Their offense got better
3) The key to both that offense and the offensive improvement was Miller.

Could you quote posts which talk about it in details?

This combo doesn't lend itself to the whole "let the star get his" strategy. When the opponent is doing better on you that you expect and it's star is going off, you adjust to stop the star. It's pretty simple.

Unless that team with star isn't winning. And that's the case here - why to adjust when this tactic worked? Star scored his points but his team lose.

Sad fact - during Miller's career Pacers:
- 3 times didn't make playoffs
- 8 times lost in first round

[lorak]

As a point of fact, Miller led excellent offenses, consistently, throughout his prime, without another excellent offensive player, and improved basically every year in the PS.

Schrempf was excellent offensive player.

And no, Miller didn't let excellent offenses consistently through his prime.
Here's Pacers ortg relatively to LA during whole Miller's career:

Code: Select all

2005   -0,6
2003   1
2002   -0,4
2001   -1
2000   4,4
1999   6,5
1998   3,4
1997   -0,9
1996   3,2
1995   1,3
1994   1,5
1993   3,9
1992   3,5
1991   3,8
1990   3,4
1989   -1
1988   -1,4



So only two teams with ortg higher than +4. For reference point: since '74 season there was 110 teams with ortg relatively to LA +4 or higher.

Of course all these Pacers teams with ortg +3.2 to +3.9 are very good offensive teams, but IMO far from excellent.
And look, 1990 (huge improvement in ortg) is first full season when Schrempf played in Indiana. '93 season (the last when Pacers had 4 consecutive years with +3 ortg) is the last Schrempf's season as a Pacer!

Then they again became very good offensively in 1996 with last year as good offense in 2000, with exception of 1997, when their offense was below LA. So what happened here? Well, 1996 was first season when Mark Jackson was starter for full year, 2000 was his last season as a Pacer and of course in 1997 he played in Denver for most of the year!

So when Pacers had the best offenses during Miller's career he player with one offensive player better than him (Detlef) and other who is probably worse, but still very good playmaker (Jackson).

I think you're being too much of a stickler here.

ElGee just said that in Miller's prime they were typically +3 above average. That's Top 10 offense territory in a sport where even a GOAT level offensive player can't be expected to drag a horrendous team to Top 5 status. For Miller, who is special but no Magic or Nash, it quickly translates to "yeah, that's fine, nothing to get alarmed about".

Elgee said that Miller constantly led excellent offenses without another excellent offensive player. That's simply not true. During Miller's career only 1 team he led was excellent offensively and the best offensively Pacers teams had Schrempf or Jackson. In fact there is very strong correlation between Schrempf and Pacers good offense during first part of 90s.

[Dr Positivity]

Tentatively...

Vote Miller

Nominate KJ

[Doctor MJ]

1) Indiana raised their profile come playoff time
2) Their offense got better
3) The key to both that offense and the offensive improvement was Miller.

Could you quote posts which talk about it in details?

I'm sorry, totally reasonable request, but I'm procrastinating even being on RealGM right now. If LG or someone else can do it, that'd be awesome, I've got to punt.

Unless that team with star isn't winning. And that's the case here - why to adjust when this tactic worked? Star scored his points but his team lose.

Sad fact - during Miller's career Pacers:
- 3 times didn't make playoffs
- 8 times lost in first round

Key thing I'm talking about is that unless you're beating a team easily, a star going off concerns you. Get it? If I'm winning each game by double digits, then let the star go off. If I'm sweeping the series, let the star go off.

But if it's coming down to the last 5 minutes of the last game of a series and I can't stop the other team's star, by no means am I content with that.

And of course that's the situation with Reggie. Lots of tight series with Miller going off. Sometimes his team lost like in New York '94, but other times his team won (and I think they beat NY in the playoffs 3 times for example).

Let's also note that when we talk about a team not getting past the 1st round, you seem like you're saying that as if there was a fundamental playoff problem with the team. In reality the only time a prime Miller team got upset, it was in the strike year against a NY team that had already beaten the East's #1 seed before facing Indiana in the Conference Finals. There's basically no track record at all of Miller teams disappointing in the playoffs, and there is plenty of record of them surpassing expectations.