RealGM

Who peaked higher? Who had a better career?

Trying to give some love to the mid-level guys here, and I'm genuinely curious what people think.

Teague is more efficient . . . in a more efficient league as Miller didn't shoot 3's. Probably the better defender as well. Miller the better playmaker and higher BBIQ.

Miller's peak is probably 02 where he played his most minutes, led the league in assists, and had his highest compilation stats. In terms of scoring, his TS Added is 42.9 that year, he's been over 50 a couple of times though he was never consistently good and his total TS Added for his career is 27.3. But again, his primary value is as a playmaker in his era.

Teague's all-star year was 2015 where he only played 2228 minutes (v. 3023 for Miller though part of that higher number is era related as well, but only part). His TS Added for that year was 64.4, but that's his only season over 50 TS Added and his assist% was 37.9 v. Miller's 49.8 while having a slightly higher turnover rate. Teague's overall career was shorter with far less minutes (22K v. 40K minutes) as he didn't stay a starter nearly as long though his career TS Added is 79.3.

I don't see any way Teague wins this on career; and probably vote Miller for peak year relative to his peers as well though Teague would be better adapted to today's NBA if that's your only criteria.

GeorgeMarcus wrote:Who peaked higher? Who had a better career?

Trying to give some love to the mid-level guys here, and I'm genuinely curious what people think.

Miller for both. High BBIQ player who was regularly a better floor general than most teams had all through his career.

Teague is still remembered because he was named all-star once, but he shouldn't have been. Plenty of guys - including a prime Miller - could have played Teague's part on that Hawk team.

Teague was in that next tier of point guards, after the Kyle Lowry's and Mike Conley's. Pretty versatile. Could play defense, shoot the ball. Didn't turn the ball over.

Andre Miller put up assists numbers but never played on any good teams. You could question his conditioning. He couldn't shoot. His assists didn't translate to the times he did play in the postseason. Kind of overrated, considering he did play 17-18 years in the league.

Teague shoots 3s. That's your answer there.

One_and_Done wrote:Teague shoots 3s. That's your answer there.

Better big man, Naz Reid or Giannis . . . your take, if that's your reasoning, Naz. Otherwise, please don't post something you don't actually believe just to troll.

penbeast0 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Teague shoots 3s. That's your answer there.

Better big man, Naz Reid or Giannis . . . your take, if that's your reasoning, Naz. Otherwise, please don't post something you don't actually believe just to troll.

But in this case they're similar in terms of talent, except one shoots 3s and the other doesn't. That's basically the end of the comparison.

Also the need for a big to shoot 3s isn't always the same as for a small.

One of the best floor generals, someone who went to Philly for Allen Iverson and was pretty much just as successful as AI had been in his last year, v. a guy who was more of a part time player who didn't have the court vision that Miller did. As I said, better shooter, from what I remember better defender, but not really a standout in either area v. one of the best playmakers in the league.

Not similar in terms of talent, that's the problem.

penbeast0 wrote:One of the best floor generals, someone who went to Philly for Allen Iverson and was pretty much just as successful as AI had been in his last year, v. a guy who was more of a part time player who didn't have the court vision that Miller did. As I said, better shooter, from what I remember better defender, but not really a standout in either area v. one of the best playmakers in the league.

Not similar in terms of talent, that's the problem.

How many starting point guards today can't shoot 3s?

He didn't play today, he played in a different era where most players didn't shoot threes. I'm sure today he would be adequate at the 3.

I think it's probably easier to build around Teague for the shooting, although Miller would have ranked higher in his time for PGs based on weaker era for them, while Teague played in the deepest PG era of all time.

penbeast0 wrote:He didn't play today, he played in a different era where most players didn't shoot threes. I'm sure today he would be adequate at the 3.

3pt shooting has existed for the majority of NBA history. Deployed optimally, his skills are more valuable. The stuff Miller is 'more talented' at is less relevant to winning basketball games. Teague has the advantage in the skills that matters.

If Miller played today he'd be a back-up who barely played in the playoffs. We can't give him skills he never had.