john248 wrote:My official vote is for
Reggie Miller. He doesn't have an awesome peak. He's as 1-dimensional as it gets being a off-ball shooter, however he was so effective in that single dimension which helped the team. Defense is mediocre though at least understood rotations and put in effort. The argument for him is mainly how consistent he was over the course of his long career scoring between 18-20 ppg at high percentages. Much has already been said on the PC board about Miller's ability to rise in the postseason with some quotes below. Very competitive and a high IQ player.
Due to his off-ball ability, he can play in any offense. Being able to work off screens and run across the court puts a ton of pressure on the defense, and Miller was the best at doing so. While he had comparatively low scoring volume in comparison to other legit 1st options in the RS, Miller did score more in the post season when needed. He was also able to maintain his efficiency while doing so against great defenses of the time. His RS season high is 24.6 ppg, but he averaged more than that 4 times in the post season while having other post seasons fairly close. He wasn't doing this in just a series or 2, but rather over the course of his post season career; no serious sample size issue here. And of course, we're talking about a very clutch player with some rather famous moments. He's able to hit those clutch shots because his shooting is at that elite level. So whether that shot comes closing the game, or the shots come over the course of the 4th quarter, elimination game, a series, or a playoff run, the consistency is rather remarkable. And at how high level it is, more so.
ElGee wrote:The thing is, Reggie can create his own shot, he just needs screens. Per the rules of the sport, EVERY player in the NBA can set screens for him, and he runs off those screens better than maybe anyone ever. So he's simply not using his dribble to create the shot with bouncing the ball (threat of a drive) and a quick pullup move getting the shot-release high-enough over a defender...instead he's using speed/quickness without the ball to create this kind of shooting space by running his defender through an obstacle course of obstructions.
It is my belief, having watched his career fairly closely and having analyzed it quite a bit, that this is why his offensive game was essentially "resistant" to any kind of defense. (And, NB, the Pacers offense as a whole was too by extension -- Miller's spacing and attention HELPED all the other players.) It doesn't matter if you have a great defensive scheme, or great individual defenders, no one can run through screens, and everyone has a hard time adjusting to that MANY screens when the guy running off them is (a) super smart and crafty and (b) a GOAT-level shooter.
Literally, just about the only time I can remember Reggie being defended well in a series is by the 98 Bulls, and there you had Phil Jackson's philosophy of taking away the opponent's 3 coupled with two of the GOAT perimeter defenders.
Miller is also a better defender than Richmond IMO. Position (draws charges), feisty, smart...look at his results against the top SG's of the 90's or how well the Pacers defended them -- people might find this surprising. He was an underrated defender.
therealbig3 wrote:Elimination games 91-02: 25.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 62.2% TS
bastillon wrote:Miller time baby!
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/02/mil ... n-offense/Elgee's post is very interesting. shows you that Reggie was anchoring some amazing playoff offenses despite playing vs high level defenses all the time (Pacers played Knicks 35 times in the playoffs!).
Here are some of Reggie's series:
1993 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 31.5/3/3 on 69% TS
1994 vs Shaq/Penny, 29/3/4 on 68% TS
1994 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/5 on 58% TS
1995 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 23/4/3 on 58% TS
1995 vs Shaq/Penny 26/3/1 on 67% TS
1998 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/1 on 61% TS
1998 vs Jordan/Pippen, 17/2/2 on 58% TS
2000 vs Sixers, 26/2/3 on 67% TS
2000 vs NYK, 22/2/2 on 56% TS
2000 vs Lakers, 24/3/4 on 59% TS
2001 vs Sixers, 31/3/2.5 on 61% TS
2002 vs Nets, 24/3/3 on 63% TS
Generally, when Pacers lost, it was because of their defense. Meanwhile Reggie's improvement as an individual coincided with Pacers team improvement...and they improved to all-time levels basically. It's not like Reggie's supporting cast was stacked offensively. Smits was solid post presence, and Mark Jackson was a good point guard, but many great players had better supporting cast players (Drexler, Penny, Kemp, Stockton & Hornacek) and couldn't anchor similarly effective playoff offenses.
So was Reggie Miller 2nd best offensive player of the 90s ?
I've quoted ElGee in my vote for Miller since he explains things nicely (as well as the quotes from therealbig3 and bastillon to support the claim. I like that he calls Miller's offense "resistant" to any kind of defense. And the numbers definitely show in elimination games and in series against strong defenses over his playoff career which include several deep runs.From here, I will just share what I got out of his analysis. We know Miller's singular clutch moments. But those moments happen due to Miller's GOAT shooting, off-ball, high BBIQ, and remarkable consistency...pretty much being "resistant" to any kind of defence. That consistency is shown in those singular clutch shots & 4th quarters, and to more plural moments over a series, over an entire playoff run, through his career, and against any defense.I haven't meantioned his clutch moments all that much simply because I see the consistent play in ANY moment. And those moments happen because Miller can recognize when he needs to take a scoring load and understands situations to give his team a chance to win. Doc MJ has talked about the effectiveness of what his off-ball game does.
I realize I'm weighing playoffs heavily here. He is an outlier though. In the RS, the efficiency is staggering and contributed to winning records. In the PS, volume goes up, at a star level, with little to no effect on his percentages.
ThaRegul8r wrote:Chuck Texas wrote:
john,
Would you mind expounding a bit on why you believe his game is "resistant" to any defense? I'm not sure I'm completely following this idea.
Thanks
People often say that in the postseason the defense gets tougher as they're able to lock in on an opponent, yet despite this, Miller continued to perform, and against the best defense of his era.
With Jordan, you are guessing what he’ll do to embarrass you. With Rice or Indiana’s Reggie Miller, you know the flood is coming, there’s just no sure way to hold it back. ‘With Michael, you wait until he gets the ball, then you go to work because you don’t know what he’s going to do,’ said [Steve] Smith. ‘But Reggie or Glen are running, ducking, moving (to get open) so you’ve got to work before they get the ball.’
Specific to the statement of being "resistant" to any defense, prior to the 2000 NBA Finals, Shaquille O'Neal said that “Reggie’s not really the kind of guy you can stop.” This is an NBA player saying this at the time, not an internet poster years after the fact, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. The 2000 Lakers were the best defensive team in the league, first in the league in defensive efficiency (98.2) and opponents’ field-goal percentage (41.6%), and Miller averaged 24.3 points on 58.8 percent true shooting against them in the Finals, 27.8 points on 47.7 percent shooting and 65.5 percent true shooting after an aberrational Game 1. Which, interestingly enough, is the exact opposite of what Ray Allen did in the 2010 NBA Finals against the Lakers (4th in the league in defensive efficiency [103.7], 26th out of 30 teams in opponents' field-goal percentage [44.6%]), in which he had the one hot game, but outside of the aberrational Game 2 shot 31.4 percent, 13.3 percent from behind the arc, averaging 11.7 points on 43.7 percent true shooting, and averaged 14.6 points on 36.7 percent shooting, 29.3 percent shooting from beyond the arc and 50.5 percent true shooting overall.
Others have posted Miller's numbers against the top defenses of his era, which I have, but I'll let somebody who's actually campaigning for him do it if they're so inclined. But I will repost this:
sp6r=underrated wrote:The New York Knicks, under Pat Riley, were easily, the best defensive team of the 90s. TMACFORMVP already ran the numbers:
A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.
A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.
The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.
MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.
MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)
Code: Select all
Ppg rpg apg spg bpg topg fg% efg ts%
Regular Season: 32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531
MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)
Code: Select all
Ppg rpg apg spg bpg topg fg% efg ts%
Regular Season: 34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531
The Knicks were also the most successful team against Chicago. Riley led Knicks met the Chicago Bulls (w/Jordan) 13 times in the playoffs. The Bulls went 8-5, vs everyone else they went 22-6 during that span. This is despite having only an average offense. All their success came from their defense.
In 1993, Jordan struggled against the Knicks, 32.2 points on 40 percent shooting and 52.2 percent true shooting. Miller lit the same team up, to the tune of 31.5 points on 53.3 percent shooting from the floor, 52.6 percent shooting from beyond the arc on 4.8 attempts per game, 94.7 percent shooting from the line, 60.0 percent effective shooting and 68.7 percent true shooting. “Miller had a tremendous series,” wrote Clifton Brown of
The New York Times (May 7, 1993). As sp6r=underrated said, those Knicks were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season, yet Miller continually raised his production against the same team. The same team that was able to limit the production of the consensus GOAT was unable to do the same to Miller, an example of his "resistance" to elite defense. John Starks, who guarded both, said:
NBA Africa: You played against some of the best players in NBA history. Who was the most difficult for you to play against?
Starks: The hardest player to guard was Reggie Miller because he ran a lot. Michael Jordan obviously was the toughest of the tough, but he was easy to guard from a standpoint that he was not going to run off a lot of picks. He was just going to pretty much get the ball, set you up and ask “can you stop me?” You know, those two guys right there were probably the most difficult players for me to defend.
It isn't to be construed that Miller was better, and anyone who takes offense to it in that way is missing the point. Miller's style made him a tougher matchup, and to refer back to the above quoted article, with Miller you knew what was coming, but “there’s just no sure way to hold it back.” This was said at the time, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. (Which is the entire point of paying attention to what's said about players at the time they're actually playing.)
ElGee wrote: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.
TheRegul8r with a great response. Thanks for sharing part of your catalog of historical quotes.
Quotatious wrote:Anyone would like to explain to me why Reggie should be ranked over Gervin? Other than longevity, I don't really see any good arguments for Miller. Well, playoff success, too, but Iceman was a very good playoff performer, I wouldn't say Reggie was really better than him in this regard. More decorated? Yes. Better player who helps you win more games? Not really. Reggie was more efficient, but his scoring volume, shot creation abilities and usage% doesn't even compare to Gervin's.
Miller is far more portable. I'd value Gervin's on-ball scoring more if he were better at making his teammates better since he had the ball in his hands more. As it is since his usage was high and on-ball, I don't see much value in his ability to create for teammates which would've been what separated the 2. Also, they're just creating their shots differently. It's not like Miller was a spot up shooter; he was awesome off-ball running screens to create a shot for himself. Those clutch moments we all have watched don't happen if Miller wasn't able to do that. Miller has the efficiency advantage as you've said; part of that is also being able to draw fouls better. Gervin's lack of longevity was he refused to come off the bench at the end of his career like Havlicek. Meanwhile, Miller's game aged far more gracefully. At age 34 near the end of his prime, he was a part of a team that went to the Finals...whereas Gervin was retired by 33. No real point in talking about their defense. Tough for me to side with Gervin any way you slice it. The volume isn't much of a argument to me considering Gervin wasn't on any deep teams with the Spurs. Hell, the Midwest division was especially weak. Just how much does that volume start coming into play on deeper teams? Or better yet, let me quote this:
Chicago76 wrote:2-When you look at Gervin's volume, and relative efficiency advantage (+4.3 over lg avg TS%)
...
The only way anyone can make a case for Gervin would rely upon the fact he carried a weak team offensively and his numbers didn't reflect his true offensive ability as a result of the load. The problem with this is that he'd have to be so much more efficient with a better cast to make up for his relative weaknesses that it's just not possible. He'd need to make up maybe a 4 pt Drexler difference with even more efficiency and his current extra 5% of USG alone. He'd need to be more relatively efficient than Jordan (+5.4 TS). He'd need to be almost as efficient as Reggie Miller (off the charts +9.3) at ridiculously high usage. Nope.
I have some sympathy for Gervin's lack of support, but by late 70s/early 80s standards of haves and have nots, it wasn't awful. The Spurs played in some really awful divisions. Total number of +1 SRS division rivals in Gervin's first 7 years in the league: 4. Cutting the list further, the total number of +2 SRS division opponents in those 7 years: 1. The Spurs were a 50ish win team often playing a soft schedule with one superstar and a limited group of good players (Silas, Kenon, Gilmore for a bit, some others), but not a ton of help. Roll him out there with that kind of support in the WC during Drexler's time at the same age, and he'd miss the postseason more often than he made it and would never have gotten out of the first round. Put him on a team with better help, and I'm not sure that he could do the other things to make up for the loss of volume. His skill curve was such that I don't think he'd become much more efficient with fewer shots either. He wasn't a catch and shoot guy. Didn't matter if he took 20 shots a night or 30, he created them and was efficient hitting high degree of difficulty shots and easy ones alike.
Great player despite his deficincies all things considered, and one of the most fun to watch ever, but no way was he as good as Drexler
Stats per/100 ... Seasons past 1st round in prime.
94 30.7/4.1/4.8, 63.6% TS, 123 ORTG, .212 ws/48
playoffs 35.2/3.5/4.6, 58.1% TS, 120 ORTG, .236 ws/48
95 31.8/4.2/4.8, 62.5% TS, 123 ORTG, .204 ws/48
playoffs 37.3/5.2/3.1, 63.2% TS, 125 ORTG, .197 ws48
98 30.8/4.5/3.3, 61.9% TS, 121 ORTG, .206 ws/48
playoffs 28.6/2.5/2.9, 58.8% TS, 116 ORTG, .151 ws/48
99 28.6/4.2/3.5, 59% TS, 119 ORTG, .172 ws/48
playoffs 30.3/4.4/5.9, 55.5% TS, 117 ORTG, .188 ws/48
00 25.4/4.1/3.2, 60.3 %TS, 118 ORTG, .162 ws/48
playoffs 31.9/3.2/3.6, 59.6% TS, 122 ORTG, .195 ws/48