For career: Reggie Miller or Dwyane Wade

[SHAQ32]

Taking injuries and accolades into account, who would you rather have for their careers?

[MiamiBulls]

Reggie.

Wade truly only had 5 Healthy MVP-Level Seasons (2005,2006, 2009,2010,2011). Every other seasons he dealing with some debilitating injury. Wade was even injured in the 2005 Eastern Conference Finals against the Pistons which caused a decline in his play & decision-making in key moments.

With Miller, there's simply more bites at the apple. More chances to compete for championships and construct a roster around a steady Iron man like Reggie Miller.

It's similar to comparing Joel Embiid to Jayson Tatum or Kawhi Leonard to Paul Pierce. Tatum & Pierce are far more stable, reliable and sure-handed to build around.

[Djoker]

Wade by miles.

Reggie is underrated and his playoff scoring was spectacular but he was never close to the caliber of player Wade was. They are totally different tiers. Reggie is probably top 75 on my list and Wade is like top 30.

[trelos6]

Wade by miles.

Reggie is underrated and his playoff scoring was spectacular but he was never close to the caliber of player Wade was. They are totally different tiers. Reggie is probably top 75 on my list and Wade is like top 30.

Reggie is probably top 50. His sheer number of quality years starts to stack up. That said, I agree with your general sentiment. Wade’s a top 30 career, even with the injuries.

[One_and_Done]

Wade and it's not terribly close.

[penbeast0]

Wade and it's not terribly close.

Once again, crudely dismissive, no analysis, and a prejudice for modern players. This despite your often asserted argument that guards who do not shoot significant 3 pointers have no place in today's game. Wade, of course, shot under 30% from 3 on significantly lower volume than Reggie for his career.

There are good reasons for choosing Wade such as volume, superior defense, and a title run but there are also significant arguments for Reggie in his 3 point ability, efficiency, longevity, and being a significant playoff performer himself.

[lessthanjake]

The fact that Wade dragged his team to a title they had little business winning is of such immense value to me that I think it probably puts his career above Reggie Miller’s all on its own. I think you’d just rather have the guy who can do that for you, rather than a guy who just isn’t really good enough for that. The fact that Wade had at least two other strong MVP-level seasons that were unequivocally better than any years Reggie Miller ever had (2009 and 2010), as well as being the second-star on a team that won two titles and made two other finals, and having several other strong seasons beyond any of those years where he was roughly at or above Reggie-Miller-level (2005, 2007, 2016), and I think it’s a pretty easy decision.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Probably Wade, but I consider it close for a couple of reasons. First, basic snapshots of their primes:

Miller (1990-1998, 9 seasons, Per 100): 30.5 Points, 124 ORTG (Per BBREF), 4.8 Assists, 4.5 BPM, .44 FTR, 252.7 TS+ (Average)
Wade (2006-2012, 7 seasons, Per 100): 37.8 Points, 113 ORTG (Per BBREF), 9.0 Assists, 7.8 BPM, .48 FTR, 93.4 TS+

Miller (1990-1998, 9 seasons): 104.4 WS, 42.2 VORP, 2274 TS+
Wade (2006-2012, 7 seasons): 74.8 WS, 42.0 VORP, 653.7 TS+

Miller (1990-1998, 9 seasons): +2.6 Offense on average
Wade (2006-2012, 7 seasons): -.3 Offense on average

What I want to say about this is, while Wade had some clearly bad years due to injuries here, those did happen. I don't consider it fair to assess a prime and leave out weaker years, buoyed in between his best years, in order to make Wade look better.

When looking at a quick snapshot, Miller was the anchor of better offenses and for a longer duration, while Wade had better box-score metrics and was able to take on larger scoring and playmaking loads, but those larger loads didn't lead to greater team success in the regular season. In the post-season, which I will get to shortly, Wade won 2 championships in this period (2006 and 2012) while Miller never won a championship, and his only finals appearance took place in 2000.

Now, to the post-season, which is going to be surprising for many here.

Miller (1990-1998, 9 seasons, Per 100): 33.2 Points, 123 ORTG (Per BBREF), 3.5 Assists, 6.0 BPM, .45 FTR, 62 TS%
Wade (2006-2012, 7 seasons, Per 100): 35.1 Points, 111 ORTG (Per BBREF), 6.8 Assists, 7.6 BPM, .46 FTR, 57 TS%

The post-season gap is significantly smaller than the regular season. The Pacers, notably, overachieved in the postseason.

1991: -5.59 SRS gap and took the Celtics to 5 games
1994: -1.58 SRS gap and beat the Hawks in 6 games

The Pacers in this period never lost as the favorite (Simply looked at SRS) outside of 1995, when Miller played in 1 game in the series before injury ended his season.

Notably, the range of this snapshot omits some key years for both players. Wade was good in 2005 and 2013 until injuries curtailed his seasons (or in the case of 2013, severely hampered him on the way to a title). Miller's later years, 1999-2002, saw some of the same level of post-season performance as his prime years and his lone NBA Finals appearance.

For me, Miller added more for winning over the course of his career than Wade, but the specific spikes Wade climbed led to better results. Of course, the push-back there is that Wade was at his best in 2009 and 2010, which resulted in no more playoff success than Miller ever had, which goes to show the circumstances are incredibly important in winning a title versus goodness.

[Owly]

The Pacers in this period never lost as the favorite (Simply looked at SRS) outside of 1995, when Miller played in 1 game in the series before injury ended his season.

Minor thing here but I think - assuming this is with reference to 1996, injury didn't end his season - at least not directly. Having missed the first four games of the Atlanta series (and the final four regular season games - getting a fractured eye socket and concussion from a collision with Otis Thorpe on 13th April) Miller played in the final game and was (at least offensively) highly effective (13 made free throws and 0 turnovers the big positives) - I think he may have been sporting the eyewear that he had on for that summer's Olympic team.

Whether that makes any difference to one's overall player evaluation depends on how one does it. But Miller was likely available going forward.

[The Master]

When looking at a quick snapshot, Miller was the anchor of better offenses and for a longer duration, while Wade had better box-score metrics and was able to take on larger scoring and playmaking loads, but those larger loads didn't lead to greater team success in the regular season. In the post-season, which I will get to shortly, Wade won 2 championships in this period (2006 and 2012) while Miller never won a championship, and his only finals appearance took place in 2000.

Peak Wade played on either: weak teams (Heat 09-10) or teams with very mid spacing and overrated overall in terms of supporting cast (especially Shaq '06 in the playoffs).

Wade in 05-10 improved Heat offenses by +10.1 net in the regular season and +9.7 in the playoffs (+9.1 on/off, +14.0 on/off, respectively, in general) - and it corresponds pretty well with his boxscore production (+5.9 OBPM / +6.2 OBPM in the RS/PO in this period). He was amazing and would've had been better if he had played on teams with better fit and/or talent at that time.

Re: Wade vs Miller - this is typical peak vs longevity type of discussion, so I'll add only two things:

1. Reggie was obviously very underrated as a player in terms of accolades / evaluation of his impact at that time. He was really an offensive superstar adjusted to his era.
2. Players like Wade or CP3 (he got injured in '05, he was injured in '07, I don't think that he was healthy in '09, he was injured in '13 as well) should be more scrutinized for their injuries in the playoffs.

It's probably still Wade as he peaked higher / won more / we have actual data to fairly assess his impact (which was immense) / his longevity wasn't bad per se (8x All-NBA), but it's much closer than some people may believe.

[ReggiesKnicks]

When looking at a quick snapshot, Miller was the anchor of better offenses and for a longer duration, while Wade had better box-score metrics and was able to take on larger scoring and playmaking loads, but those larger loads didn't lead to greater team success in the regular season. In the post-season, which I will get to shortly, Wade won 2 championships in this period (2006 and 2012) while Miller never won a championship, and his only finals appearance took place in 2000.

Peak Wade played on either: weak teams (Heat 09-10) or teams with very mid spacing and overrated overall in terms of supporting cast (especially Shaq '06 in the playoffs).

Weak teams similar to most of Reggie's team? Yes.

Reggie would have killed for 2006 Shaq for the early 1990s or a good coach prior to Larry Brown.

My overarching point is Reggie had great success when he had a good coach and supporting cast, similar to how Wade had success when he had talent and a good coach.

Wade in 05-10 improved Heat offenses by +10.1 net in the regular season and +9.7 in the playoffs (+9.1 on/off, +14.0 on/off, respectively, in general) - and it corresponds pretty well with his boxscore production (+5.9 OBPM / +6.2 OBPM in the RS/PO in this period). He was amazing and would've had been better if he had played on teams with better fit and/or talent at that time.

These numbers are similar to Millers.

From 1992-1996, Miller put up a post-season OBPM of +7.1.

Re: Wade vs Miller - this is typical peak vs longevity type of discussion, so I'll add only two things:

1. Reggie was obviously very underrated as a player in terms of accolades / evaluation of his impact at that time. He was really an offensive superstar adjusted to his era.
2. Players like Wade or CP3 (he got injured in '05, he was injured in '07, I don't think that he was healthy in '09, he was injured in '13 as well) should be more scrutinized for their injuries in the playoffs.

I agree, these are good points. It's actually the difficult thing for me with CP3. He has this incredibly unlucky streak of injuries curtailing so many of his GOAT level Point Guard seasons.

It's probably still Wade as he peaked higher / won more / we have actual data to fairly assess his impact (which was immense) / his longevity wasn't bad per se (8x All-NBA), but it's much closer than some people may believe.

Yeah it is close, especially when Wade's prime was riddled with injuries.

For example, what Happens with Wade if he enters the NBA 2 years earlier, gets Shaq for his 2007 and 2008 seasons and is fighting injuries both seasons and never has his 2006 run?

Now, the 2006 title run did happen, but so much of NBA is circumstances and timing.

[Owly]

The fact that Wade dragged his team to a title they had little business winning is of such immense value to me that I think it probably puts his career above Reggie Miller’s all on its own.

Criteria differ but that seems like an awful lot of weight to something pretty circumstantial.

If the Heat aren't in the East (or given being in the East aren't in the Central with Detroit and Cleveland) they don't get 2nd seed in an conference low on contenders.

Mileage may vary but if one is playoff leaning Miller 90-01 offers an OBPM of 6.0 over 4049 minutes.

2006 playoff Wade offers 6.5 OBPM (10.4 in 2010 over 5 games, 7.0 in 2009 and another 6.5 in 2011 - all others are below 6.0).

OBPM selected here because more accepted than the other Reference composites and the offensive side is quite a bit more accurate than the other end but obviously Wade has the better defensive boxscore so how big you think that gap is should be accounted for - I think PER would tilt more toward Wade, WS/48 and OWS/48 more for Miller.

92-96 sees an OBPM of 7.1 over 1553 minutes for Miller (of which 684 of those minutes are against the Knicks - a very effective defensive team). One can argue how much is luck, whether opponents necessarily play to RS standards in smaller samples, whether specific positions are defended well (though Starks was well regarded as a defender) etc. But if we're looking at giving you a chance to win a title ... that production is a different shape to Wade's (and maybe in raw terms hurt by pace?) and again the defensive side he's less productive ... I don't know where I am on it really but how sure are we that he's however much worse than Wade? As I say I don't have a strong position and playoff comparisons are messy but ... that one run probably doing enough on it's own to outpace Miller's career ... is tough to understand from my point of view.

Wade has on-off to support that he was impactful in that run and that data doesn't exist for Miller. Still on the actual "title"-ness of it all that seems a lot too contingent on things like "Keith van Horn shot really badly and the Mavericks did poorly in his limited minutes" flip some of his shooting luck and generally make them lose by a little less in his minutes and ... the Mavericks conceivably win in 5.

[lessthanjake]

The fact that Wade dragged his team to a title they had little business winning is of such immense value to me that I think it probably puts his career above Reggie Miller’s all on its own.

Criteria differ but that seems like an awful lot of weight to something pretty circumstantial.

If the Heat aren't in the East (or given being in the East aren't in the Central with Detroit and Cleveland) they don't get 2nd seed in a conference low on contenders.

I don’t think we can say that the Heat had an easy or fortunate road to the title at all. They had to face a 64-win Pistons team that had just won the title in 2004 and lost in Game 7 of the Finals the year before (in a series where they outscored their opponent). That group had just had their best regular season and were healthy. The Pistons were the strong title favorite that year going into the playoffs, not a team in the West (and they were big enough favorites that I really don’t think it’s just a function of being in the East). And the Heat had to face them. And that’s before obviously facing a strong team from the West in the Finals. Even the Nets were not a weak second-round opponent. Indeed, they were more favored than the Cavaliers going into the playoffs, and had the 6th best pre-playoffs odds to win the title (at a not-great-but-also-not-terrible +1500). Not that betting odds are super important, but I find it hard to conclude that the Heat were beneficiaries of circumstance when they had to face the strong title favorite in the conference finals, a strong Finals opponent, and the 6th favorite team in the second round, with all of those teams being healthy.

There’s plenty of teams in NBA history that have won the title but had a lot of fortunate breaks go their way during the playoffs—including upsets to other top teams, injuries to opponents, a conference without any other particularly good team, etc. But the 2006 Heat were not the beneficiary of any of that. It’s actually an example of a run that was really not the beneficiary of circumstance.

Mileage may vary but if one is playoff leaning Miller 90-01 offers an OBPM of 6.0 over 4049 minutes.

2006 playoff Wade offers 6.5 OBPM (10.4 in 2010 over 5 games, 7.0 in 2009 and another 6.5 in 2011 - all others are below 6.0).

OBPM selected here because more accepted than the other Reference composites and the offensive side is quite a bit more accurate than the other end but obviously Wade has the better defensive boxscore so how big you think that gap is should be accounted for - I think PER would tilt more toward Wade, WS/48 and OWS/48 more for Miller.

92-96 sees an OBPM of 7.1 over 1553 minutes for Miller (of which 684 of those minutes are against the Knicks - a very effective defensive team). One can argue how much is luck, whether opponents necessarily play to RS standards in smaller samples, whether specific positions are defended well (though Starks was well regarded as a defender) etc. But if we're looking at giving you a chance to win a title ... that production is a different shape to Wade's (and maybe in raw terms hurt by pace?) and again the defensive side he's less productive ... I don't know where I am on it really but how sure are we that he's however much worse than Wade? As I say I don't have a strong position and playoff comparisons are messy but ... that one run probably doing enough on it's own to outpace Miller's career ... is tough to understand from my point of view.

Miller was genuinely a great playoff performer. I am actually very high on him. However, I just don’t see him as someone who could take a team like the 2006 Heat to a title. I don’t think that that team was very good at all. I was absolutely shocked that they won the title at the time, and I still am now. It took Wade just completely taking over against some incredible opponents. Reggie Miller has actually put up some fantastic numbers against good teams in the playoffs too. So I guess I could see someone thinking Miller could’ve potentially done something approximately similar, but I just don’t think so. He could’ve potentially approximated the efficiency. After all, he was often an efficiency monster in the playoffs. It’s potentially possible he even could’ve approximated the volume Wade put up against the Pistons while being really efficient. He did do that in a few playoffs series in his career—though never in a best-of-7 series, so it’s not super likely. But I really don’t think he could’ve scaled up to the volume Wade had to get to in the Finals, nor do I think he could’ve created for others as well as Wade did in those playoffs (even keeping gravity stuff in mind). And the volume thing is really important here, because a big part of the reason it’s so amazing that the 2006 Heat won the title is that Shaq was massively declining before our eyes, and the team’s next biggest scorer was one of the worst and most inefficient starting players I’ve ever seen (Antoine Walker). Any amount of volume decrease from what Wade was doing was going to largely go in the trash heap of increased Antoine Walker volume, which would’ve absolutely lost the series. And then we also get to Wade being a better defender.

I just don’t see Miller as being the level of player who could carry a team like that to a title. Which is pretty important here, because if I’m going to take a player for his whole career, I’d put a massive premium on a guy who I know has the ability to carry a relatively mediocre team to a title. It gives me so much more leeway in terms of not needing to strike gold with the rest of my roster. That’s mitigated by the guy who can carry his team having less longevity and therefore you’d get less bites at the apple with him. But, basically, I think the chances of winning a title go up exponentially as your star player gets better and better, and so I’d value fewer years of a guy like Wade significantly more highly than more years of a guy like Miller. And, again, I’m actually pretty high on Miller (he’s probably in my top 50 all time, though I’ve not sat down and made a list, so I’m not certain).

Wade has on-off to support that he was impactful in that run and that data doesn't exist for Miller. Still on the actual "title"-ness of it all that seems a lot too contingent on things like "Keith van Horn shot really badly and the Mavericks did poorly in his limited minutes" flip some of his shooting luck and generally make them lose by a little less in his minutes and ... the Mavericks conceivably win in 5.

Yeah, I mean, if other players played differently then it’s possible the Heat wouldn’t have won. That’s always the case, though. And we should remember that the 2006 Heat were never even taken to 7 games in any series. No team was actually *that* close to beating them. So I don’t think it’s a particularly great example of the “this guy was just lucky that a few bounces went his way” line of thinking. A lot of things would’ve had to go differently for the Heat to actually lose. And, to the extent you might note that they may not have been taken to 7 games, but they won some very close games, I’d note that Wade played completely out of his mind in the later stages of close games in those playoffs. See here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119602168#p119602168. In the last three rounds of the playoffs in 4th Q + OT with the game within 10 points, Wade scored just below 50 points per 100 possessions on 67.05% TS%. So yeah, I think the close games going the Heat’s way was a lot more about Wade being unstoppable than the Heat being lucky.

[The Master]

Yeah it is close, especially when Wade's prime was riddled with injuries.

For example, what Happens with Wade if he enters the NBA 2 years earlier, gets Shaq for his 2007 and 2008 seasons and is fighting injuries both seasons and never has his 2006 run?

Now, the 2006 title run did happen, but so much of NBA is circumstances and timing.

Yeah, I guess it is a matter of outcome-oriented vs simulation-like type of analyses.

I do believe Wade was a better player (bigger offensive volume + better defender + much better playmaker and on-ball skills > off-ball skills IMHO in real world), yet in my eyes he gave you pretty narrow window in terms of him potentially leading you to the title:

- 2005: he got injured in G5 of the Pistons series
- 2006: realistic shot vs Duncan to be named the best player in the league and amazing season all-around
- 2009: I don't think that he was healthy against Hawks (although he still played a solid series)
- 2010: amazing series against Celtics
- 2011: amazing against Celtics / subpar against Bulls / injured in the finals in G4 IIRC

It's even hard to assess all these injuries, really. Would he have been able to play at his normal level if Heat had eliminated Pistons in 2005 or if he had advanced past the first round in 2009? No idea.

So yeah, I can imagine Miller actually providing the same / better simulation-type outcome there in terms of career value. But we're not living in simulation (or maybe we do and I'm lucky to not be aware of that) and it's hard to ignore outcomes - and the outcome here is that Wade was a top2 player in the league in 2006, leading his team to the title.

To actually make a valid counter point here in favor of Reggie, the question is how many seasons of his you consider that he can lead you to the title in ~parity in terms of supporting cast (I believe Heat '06 were more or less in such position), and how many times he can be 1A / 1B type of guy in more lucky circumstances.

[ReggiesKnicks]

To actually make a valid counter point here in favor of Reggie, the question is how many seasons of his you consider that he can lead you to the title in ~parity in terms of supporting cast (I believe Heat '06 were more or less in such position), and how many times he can be 1A / 1B type of guy in more lucky circumstances.

I'd first ask the value of this type of question.

Did McGrady have a better career than Pierce?

[One_and_Done]

Wade and it's not terribly close.

Once again, crudely dismissive, no analysis, and a prejudice for modern players. This despite your often asserted argument that guards who do not shoot significant 3 pointers have no place in today's game. Wade, of course, shot under 30% from 3 on significantly lower volume than Reggie for his career.

There are good reasons for choosing Wade such as volume, superior defense, and a title run but there are also significant arguments for Reggie in his 3 point ability, efficiency, longevity, and being a significant playoff performer himself.

As I've said elsewhere, Wade's meh 3pt shot hurts him a little. However, not to the point where he can be rated below such an inferior player as Reggie Miller. It would be like saying Kyle Korver is better than Ja Morant because of his 3pt shot.

I feel Reggie Miller has become a very overrated player, something I've discussed at length in many threads. When I think of players who would be much better today thanks to the changes in the game, I think of guys like Ray Allen not Reggie. Reggie's inability to create for himself, and explode to the basket to punish defences who are paranoid about his 3pt shot, limits him substantially.

Wade is completely different from Oscar in almost every way. He's got a modern handle, is far faster and more athletic, and while his 3pt shot is an issue it's not like he has no 3pt shot. If you leave him open, he is at least a threat to hit it (in his best years). Because of Wade's modern handle he can also be the point of attack on offense, which limits the damage of his lack of 3pt shooting to some degree.

[Owly]

The fact that Wade dragged his team to a title they had little business winning is of such immense value to me that I think it probably puts his career above Reggie Miller’s all on its own.

Criteria differ but that seems like an awful lot of weight to something pretty circumstantial.

If the Heat aren't in the East (or given being in the East aren't in the Central with Detroit and Cleveland) they don't get 2nd seed in a conference low on contenders.

I don’t think we can say that the Heat had an easy or fortunate road to the title at all. They had to face a 64-win Pistons team that had just won the title in 2004 and lost in Game 7 of the Finals the year before (in a series where they outscored their opponent).

Well a key here is the distinction between easy and fortunate.

There's a somewhat difficult team in their path in one round in the conference because ...
1) there's normally at least one good RS team in a conference
2) the Heat weren't that team. They were a 52-30 team. They were a 52-30 pythag team. They were a 3.59 SRS team.

So the Pistons weren't an easy opponent but they aren't an unexpectedly difficult one for a non-contender level RS team to need to go through to get out of the conference.

That group had just had their best regular season and were healthy. The Pistons were the strong title favorite that year going into the playoffs, not a team in the West (and they were big enough favorites that I really don’t think it’s just a function of being in the East).

I'm not that up on the odds and I haven't done the implied math on that or tightly on whatever else with series odds but ... being in the East especially for Detroit ... is huge. SAS, PHX, DAL almost certainly each have to go through at least one of the others and two will likely meet up in the 2nd round and need to go through both the others and then likely Detroit. Detroit is looking at a route through one team of circa 5.5 SRS or better. SAS is looking at 2 such matchups. Phoenix and Dallas are looking at 3. And Detroit is looking at having HCA throughout. Being in the East is a substantial advantage for Detroit.

And the Heat had to face them.

As I say facing a good team in your conference ... even if you are a good team isn't exactly wild. When you aren't it's almost a given.

And that’s before obviously facing a strong team from the West in the Finals.

A strong team in the finals when coming out of the weaker conference. Well yeah. Again is that not kind of a given. And as I'll touch on later, though the difference isn't huge, not the toughest SRS team in the other conference.

Even the Nets were not a weak second-round opponent.

I disagree.
For one this isn't a Miami team who were 60+ win 8+ SRS who can rightly expect a 4/5 seed caliber team.

And just in absolute terms 1.11 SRS, 45 pythag wins (flattered by 49 wins). And that's running their stars at 37mpg, circa 3000 total minutes.

There’s plenty of teams in NBA history that have won the title but had a lot of fortunate breaks go their way during the playoffs—including upsets to other top teams, injuries to opponents, a conference without any other particularly good team, etc. But the 2006 Heat were not the beneficiary of any of that. It’s actually an example of a run that was really not the beneficiary of circumstance.

Any "other" particularly good team ... is an interesting framing. If you're the '86 Bucks you might feel it's tough that you're in with the '86 Celtics. But if you're sub 4 SRS team is 3rd best SRS in conference is 2.17 - and they're the other side of the bracket because they're in the same division as the best team - your opponents are 0.51 and 1.11 ... a 3.59 SRS team would be really happy with that I think.

The Grizzlies posted a similar (slightly better) SRS in the opposite conference and would have been looking at Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit as their most likely gauntlet (substitute Miami in if you want as the "actual" team who made it through).

My gut is you might be lucky to not face a team with a higher SRS than the 0.51 an 1.11 combined in the first round and looking at typically a significantly higher total with a sterner second round test.

Quick and dirty look at teams with an SRS within .25 of Miami's in the 27+ team era (through 2019 ... because that's what I have easy access to and Covid started to janky things up in terms of non 82 game seasons, covid absences etc) ...

Atlanta 1998 - face 2.45 Charlotte Hornets - would then have faced 7.24 Chicago Bulls.
Atlanta 2016 - face 2.83 Boston Celtics - face 5.45 Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston 1992 - face 1.85 Indiana Pacers - face 5.34 Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston 2010 - face 1.99 Miami Heat - face 6.17 Cleveland Cavaliers
New Jersey 2002 - face -0.07 Indiana Pacers - face 0.57 Charlotte Hornets
Cleveland 1994 - face 2.87 Chicago Bulls - would have faced 6.48 New York Knicks
Dallas 2015 - face 3.82 Houston Rockets - would have faced 6.80 LA Clippers
Denver 2008 - face 7.34 LA Lakers - would have faced 6.86 Utah Jazz
...

apart from one outlier at the nadir of the "Leastern"-era East I'd suggest we're seeing a pattern here.


It's marginal but regarding the framing on "upsets" - it's not so much what one might typically think of as a "upset" but - and this relates to having 3 of the 4 strong SRS teams in one conference - the Heat's route didn't go through (marginally) the toughest RS team (the Spurs).

Mileage may vary but if one is playoff leaning Miller 90-01 offers an OBPM of 6.0 over 4049 minutes.

2006 playoff Wade offers 6.5 OBPM (10.4 in 2010 over 5 games, 7.0 in 2009 and another 6.5 in 2011 - all others are below 6.0).

OBPM selected here because more accepted than the other Reference composites and the offensive side is quite a bit more accurate than the other end but obviously Wade has the better defensive boxscore so how big you think that gap is should be accounted for - I think PER would tilt more toward Wade, WS/48 and OWS/48 more for Miller.

92-96 sees an OBPM of 7.1 over 1553 minutes for Miller (of which 684 of those minutes are against the Knicks - a very effective defensive team). One can argue how much is luck, whether opponents necessarily play to RS standards in smaller samples, whether specific positions are defended well (though Starks was well regarded as a defender) etc. But if we're looking at giving you a chance to win a title ... that production is a different shape to Wade's (and maybe in raw terms hurt by pace?) and again the defensive side he's less productive ... I don't know where I am on it really but how sure are we that he's however much worse than Wade? As I say I don't have a strong position and playoff comparisons are messy but ... that one run probably doing enough on it's own to outpace Miller's career ... is tough to understand from my point of view.

Miller was genuinely a great playoff performer. I am actually very high on him. However, I just don’t see him as someone who could take a team like the 2006 Heat to a title. I don’t think that that team was very good at all. I was absolutely shocked that they won the title at the time, and I still am now. It took Wade just completely taking over against some incredible opponents. Reggie Miller has actually put up some fantastic numbers against good teams in the playoffs too. So I guess I could see someone thinking Miller could’ve potentially done something approximately similar, but I just don’t think so. He could’ve potentially approximated the efficiency. After all, he was often an efficiency monster in the playoffs. It’s potentially possible he even could’ve approximated the volume Wade put up against the Pistons while being really efficient. He did do that in a few playoffs series in his career—though never in a best-of-7 series, so it’s not super likely. But I really don’t think he could’ve scaled up to the volume Wade had to get to in the Finals, nor do I think he could’ve created for others as well as Wade did in those playoffs (even keeping gravity stuff in mind). And the volume thing is really important here, because a big part of the reason it’s so amazing that the 2006 Heat won the title is that Shaq was massively declining before our eyes, and the team’s next biggest scorer was one of the worst and most inefficient starting players I’ve ever seen (Antoine Walker). Any amount of volume decrease from what Wade was doing was going to largely go in the trash heap of increased Antoine Walker volume, which would’ve absolutely lost the series. And then we also get to Wade being a better defender.

I just don’t see Miller as being the level of player who could carry a team like that to a title. Which is pretty important here, because if I’m going to take a player for his whole career, I’d put a massive premium on a guy who I know has the ability to carry a relatively mediocre team to a title. It gives me so much more leeway in terms of not needing to strike gold with the rest of my roster. That’s mitigated by the guy who can carry his team having less longevity and therefore you’d get less bites at the apple with him. But, basically, I think the chances of winning a title go up exponentially as your star player gets better and better, and so I’d value fewer years of a guy like Wade significantly more highly than more years of a guy like Miller. And, again, I’m actually pretty high on Miller (he’s probably in my top 50 all time, though I’ve not sat down and made a list, so I’m not certain).

93-96 playoff Miller 36.9 points per 100 possessions
2006 Wade 36.3 points per 100 possessions.
RS League Ortgs were
93: 108.0
94: 106.3
95: 108.3
96: 107.6
06: 106.2
maybe you want to tweak the numbers at the margins though eyeballing it league circumstances look similar enough.

Either run might be fluky though Miller's is a larger sample. Miller's per above has a large chunk against the Knicks. Other than the prior Miller's playoffs might be luck angle (which ... isn't necessarily unreasonable in and of itself but I think would be strange in someone elevating a single run above an entire career) I'm not sure where the questioning of Miller on volume is coming from.

I don't want to get too into versus one particular opponent, in a particular team context because ... that's not really what I'm arguing. If you want to hypothesize about a coach giving additional shots to Antoine Walker ... in one particular scenario ... whatever ... giving him shots is a bad idea.

On the "don't see Miller as being the level of player" ... if the point were just peak-ish Wade seems better with big RS samples ... sure (and there's other stuff I don't necessarily disagree on - I've acknowledged defense too. Wade is the better passer whilst as you note Miller has the gravity - and something along the lines of exponential makes sense in terms of teams typically needing to be great to win a title). But where there's a focus on playoff runs it comes back to all the original points and those expanded on here. Other Heat players aren't great. But for such a team Wade typically won't drive a title because you'll face a tougher road. And whilst Wade has a very strong finals, overall that run is very good but ... mileage may differ, different metrics will differ ... not a wild, pantheon level of production.

Wade has on-off to support that he was impactful in that run and that data doesn't exist for Miller. Still on the actual "title"-ness of it all that seems a lot too contingent on things like "Keith van Horn shot really badly and the Mavericks did poorly in his limited minutes" flip some of his shooting luck and generally make them lose by a little less in his minutes and ... the Mavericks conceivably win in 5.

Yeah, I mean, if other players played differently then it’s possible the Heat wouldn’t have won. That’s always the case, though. And we should remember that the 2006 Heat were never even taken to 7 games in any series. No team was actually *that* close to beating them. So I don’t think it’s a particularly great example of the “this guy was just lucky that a few bounces went his way” line of thinking. A lot of things would’ve had to go differently for the Heat to actually lose. And, to the extent you might note that they may not have been taken to 7 games, but they won some very close games, I’d note that Wade played completely out of his mind in the later stages of close games in those playoffs. See here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119602168#p119602168. In the last three rounds of the playoffs in 4th Q + OT with the game within 10 points, Wade scored just below 50 points per 100 possessions on 67.05% TS%. So yeah, I think the close games going the Heat’s way was a lot more about Wade being unstoppable than the Heat being lucky.

I just drive back to the quote. No the series didn't go 7. Miami win one in overtime by 1 point, one by two points which are the games cited as easily flippable and then further the 6th game by 3 points. If you want to say 4-2 so not that close ... fine I guess, if that's your preferred measure. Saying "a lot of things would have had to go differently for the Heat to actually lose" that seems objectively wrong. 1 point change in regulation net gain for Dallas in G5, 3pt net gain for Dallas in G3. I'm not sure how "Wade played well in close games" changes any of this. It's already baked in. It's in the stats, it's in the points margins. Unless the case being made "Wade could have just added even more good late game play to flip the margin back in Miami's favor as required" ... and that will sound flippant but ... I don't know how this is supposed counter the point being made. If you think Wade playing well in a particular part of the game and the influence of luck in close games are mutually exclusive then maybe, but I don't see why they would be.

I will note that a swing in luck or marginal performance isn't destined to go in one particular direction. On the other hand I have heard it said Wade got a friendly whistle in those finals, though I haven't checked closely myself.

My intent at this point is to leave it here. Go to go now and per initial post don't feel strongly on the general subject. I've said what I have to on luck with regard to opponents, Miller's playoff scoring apex, flip-able games and indexing on titles. Wade had a great finals and better regular seasons. I just can't see that run being something to take him over a career of Miller when he himself plays so well in the playoffs. It feels circumstantial. But I've said all this so I don't think this is going anywhere.

[edited to fix a quote marker and adding one further point of agreement - re exponential]

[lessthanjake]

Criteria differ but that seems like an awful lot of weight to something pretty circumstantial.

If the Heat aren't in the East (or given being in the East aren't in the Central with Detroit and Cleveland) they don't get 2nd seed in a conference low on contenders.

I don’t think we can say that the Heat had an easy or fortunate road to the title at all. They had to face a 64-win Pistons team that had just won the title in 2004 and lost in Game 7 of the Finals the year before (in a series where they outscored their opponent).

Well a key here is the distinction between easy and fortunate.

There's a somewhat difficult team in their path in one round in the conference because ...
1) there's normally at least one good RS team in a conference
2) the Heat weren't that team. They were a 52-30 team. They were a 52-30 pythag team. They were a 3.59 SRS team.

So the Pistons weren't an easy opponent but they aren't an unexpectedly difficult one for a non-contender level RS team to need to go through to get out of the conference.

I’m not sure what point you’re aiming to make here. Is it “The Heat weren’t a great team, so they should expect to have to play a great team to make the Finals”? Like, okay, that’s true. But the fact that they did indeed have to play a great team to make the Finals undermines any argument that Wade and the Heat were beneficiaries of circumstances. Not to mention the fact that Wade playing so well that he dragged a team that wasn’t actually that good to a title is the main thrust of my point!

I don’t see anything fortunate here. At best, you’ve just made an argument as to why it wasn’t an *unfortunate* circumstance, or why it could’ve been even worse. Compared to other title-winning teams, the 2006 Heat did not have an easy slate of opponents. In fact, it was probably well on the harder side. The fact that it could’ve been *even harder* if that same Heat team was plopped into the Western Conference that year doesn’t seem very persuasive. Wade faced a playoff road that was probably harder than average for title winners and he got through it with a team that had no business winning a title. If I’m getting a guy for his whole career, I’m very keen on a guy who is capable of doing that. The fact that it’s possible he wouldn’t have done it if you made him have like the hardest ever playoff road for a title winner (which is what winning with the 2006 Heat out of the Western Conference basically would’ve been) seems pretty unpersuasive to me.

Also, more on this later, but your entire argument seems premised on the idea that Wade was lucky the Heat had the playoff road they had because they hadn’t had a good regular season. But the Heat’s second-best player had missed 23 regular season games, and they’d played at a 58-win, +5.64 net rating pace in the games he’d played! So if you’re saying their road was lucky given their regular season (a premise I reject, with explanations elsewhere in this post), then surely that’s counterbalanced by having been unlucky to have had that regular season in the first place. In which case, what are we doing here? Are you saying Wade had fortunate circumstances unless his second-best player is out a lot of the season and then the team has a particularly difficult road even for a team that only did as well as they did with an injury-riddled regular season?

(I will note that there’s potentially some tension between me pointing out they were actually a good regular-season team when Shaq played and saying they had no business winning the title, but that circle gets squared by the fact Shaq heavily declined before our very eyes in those playoffs).

That group had just had their best regular season and were healthy. The Pistons were the strong title favorite that year going into the playoffs, not a team in the West (and they were big enough favorites that I really don’t think it’s just a function of being in the East).

I'm not that up on the odds and I haven't done the implied math on that or tightly on whatever else with series odds but ... being in the East especially for Detroit ... is huge. SAS, PHX, DAL almost certainly each have to go through at least one of the others and two will likely meet up in the 2nd round and need to go through both the others and then likely Detroit. Detroit is looking at a route through one team of circa 5.5 SRS or better. SAS is looking at 2 such matchups. Phoenix and Dallas are looking at 3. And Detroit is looking at having HCA throughout. Being in the East is a substantial advantage for Detroit.

The Pistons had +100 pre-playoffs title odds. Which definitely means that they were considered favorites over any Western Conference team too, since the implied title odds there are 50%, and obviously the odds would’ve priced in some chance they lose before the Finals (note: there’s some “vig” there such that the implied odds are really very slightly below 50%, but it’s still quite clear they were favorites over the West). The 2006 Pistons were definitely the strong title favorites, and it is not because of the conference they were in. They just were considered the best team.

And the Heat had to face them.

As I say facing a good team in your conference ... even if you are a good team isn't exactly wild. When you aren't it's almost a given.

Yep, and Wade winning a title with a team that isn’t good is…a really big deal, and definitely something I want a good chance of if I’m getting a guy for his career.

Also, I’d note that the annals of NBA title winners are filled with a lot of teams that actually didn’t face a really good team in their conference that was actually healthy. We can just think back through the last 10-15 years of playoffs and that’s arguably true for a lot of them. The 2006 Heat did not have that, so I think an argument that Wade winning a title with them was a product of fortunate circumstances for his team doesn’t make much sense. Again, you could theoretically construct an even more difficult circumstance and being not a very good team makes the chance of such a scenario a bit higher than if they were a great team (because of worse seeding), but Wade won a title with a team that wasn’t particularly good, with his team getting a road to the title that was actually harder than normal. Again, that weighs extremely highly to me.

And that’s before obviously facing a strong team from the West in the Finals.

A strong team in the finals when coming out of the weaker conference. Well yeah. Again is that not kind of a given. And as I'll touch on later, though the difference isn't huge, not the toughest SRS team in the other conference.

Not every title-winning team has to face a very difficult team in the Finals. And even fewer have to do so after they’ve dispatched the clear title favorite in the conference finals. Often, it’ll be one or the other. Both is not overly common. When you have to do both and your opponents were healthy, your team really wasn’t fortunate.

An argument could be made that it might’ve been even harder if the Spurs had gotten past the Mavs, but those two teams were essentially equally good in the regular season, and the Mavs won a series between them and outscored the Spurs by 4 points a game in that series, so I’m fairly comfortable with the conclusion that getting the Mavs instead of the Spurs wasn’t materially fortunate.

Even the Nets were not a weak second-round opponent.

I disagree.
For one this isn't a Miami team who were 60+ win 8+ SRS who can rightly expect a 4/5 seed caliber team.

And just in absolute terms 1.11 SRS, 45 pythag wins (flattered by 49 wins). And that's running their stars at 37mpg, circa 3000 total minutes.

Yep, the Nets season results weren’t super inspiring. But, again, they had the 6th best pre-playoffs title odds of any team in the league. That’s definitionally pretty much middle-of-the-road for what you’d expect to have to face in the second round. And while you might say that’s from being in the East, I would say two things: (1) the Nets +1500 title odds suggested people thought they actually had a real chance of winning the title (i.e. a real chance of actually beating the Western Conference champion). Those are implied odds of a 6.25% chance of winning the title. For reference, that’s very similar to the Warriors’ odds this past playoffs or the Thunder or Mavs odds in 2024; (2) I wouldn’t really say being in the East really helped a team’s odds much when the clear title favorite was looming in the conference.

So how do we square these things? The Nets didn’t have an amazing regular season, but they were seen as legitimate dark-horse contenders. Well, Jason Kidd had led the Nets to 2 straight Finals not long before, and given the Pistons a really tough series in 2004, and he was still at the tail end of his prime and they’d added Vince Carter. They were a serious team. Not an awful draw in the second-round. You expect to meet a serious team in the second round. But not a cupcake draw either. Again, the annals of NBA title winners is filled with plenty of teams that have had easier second-round opponents.

You might say that they would’ve gotten a harder team if they were in the Western Conference. But, again, I don’t think the 2006 Heat’s run has to be the hardest possible run for us to say they weren’t fortunate or that “circumstances” aren’t a real caveat here. And that’s not even getting into the fact that their second-round opponent genuinely might not have been more difficult in the Western Conference. The Western Conference team with the closest record to the Heat was the Suns, and they faced the Clippers in the second round, which was not really a better team than the Nets.

There’s plenty of teams in NBA history that have won the title but had a lot of fortunate breaks go their way during the playoffs—including upsets to other top teams, injuries to opponents, a conference without any other particularly good team, etc. But the 2006 Heat were not the beneficiary of any of that. It’s actually an example of a run that was really not the beneficiary of circumstance.

Any "other" particularly good team ... is an interesting framing. If you're the '86 Bucks you might feel it's tough that you're in with the '86 Celtics. But if you're sub 4 SRS team is 3rd best SRS in conference is 2.17 - and they're the other side of the bracket because they're in the same division as the best team - your opponents are 0.51 and 1.11 ... a 3.59 SRS team would be really happy with that I think.

The Grizzlies posted a similar (slightly better) SRS in the opposite conference and would have been looking at Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit as their most likely gauntlet (substitute Miami in if you want as the "actual" team who made it through).

My gut is you might be lucky to not face a team with a higher SRS than the 0.51 an 1.11 combined in the first round and looking at typically a significantly higher total with a sterner second round test.

Quick and dirty look at teams with an SRS within .25 of Miami's in the 27+ team era (through 2019 ... because that's what I have easy access to and Covid started to janky things up in terms of non 82 game seasons, covid absences etc) ...

Atlanta 1998 - face 2.45 Charlotte Hornets - would then have faced 7.24 Chicago Bulls.
Atlanta 2016 - face 2.83 Boston Celtics - face 5.45 Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston 1992 - face 1.85 Indiana Pacers - face 5.34 Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston 2010 - face 1.99 Miami Heat - face 6.17 Cleveland Cavaliers
New Jersey 2002 - face -0.07 Indiana Pacers - face 0.57 Charlotte Hornets
Cleveland 1994 - face 2.87 Chicago Bulls - would have faced 6.48 New York Knicks
Dallas 2015 - face 3.82 Houston Rockets - would have faced 6.80 LA Clippers
Denver 2008 - face 7.34 LA Lakers - would have faced 6.86 Utah Jazz
...

apart from one outlier at the nadir of the "Leastern"-era East I'd suggest we're seeing a pattern here.

Okay, so a couple things:

1. Seeding is determined by wins not SRS. Only one of those teams you listed won as many games as the 2006 Heat did. And it was the “outlier” that had an easier second-round opponent.

2. As I noted above, I think it’s a bit odd to act like the Heat were lucky in their playoff opponents based on how they did in the regular season, when them having a relatively weak regular season was heavily influenced by their second-best player missing 23 games. It seems like in order for you not to deem Wade to have had fortunate circumstances, his team must have their regular-season record heavily affected by injury *and* have a second-round opponent that is difficult for a team that only does as well as they did in their injury-affected season. And it seems you think that the fact that that did not happen is not mitigated by the fact that they faced a great team in the Finals, and the title favorite in the conference finals, and their opponents were healthy. To me, this seems like you’re saying Wade had fortunate circumstances unless every single possible roadblock was put in his way.

3. SRS is a good measure, but it’s not a perfect determinant of team quality. The Nets were considered a significantly better team than their SRS, which is why they had the 6th best pre-playoffs title odds despite having the 13th best SRS (including being above several higher-SRS teams in the same conference). Undoubtedly this is influenced by the fact that Kidd and Jefferson had gotten them to two Finals already (and they’d actually put up a good fight in one of them). You’d generally much rather face your garden-variety mediocre-SRS team than a mediocre-SRS team led by a couple guys who have made two Finals.

It's marginal but regarding the framing on "upsets" - it's not so much what one might typically think of as a "upset" but - and this relates to having 3 of the 4 strong SRS teams in one conference - the Heat's route didn't go through (marginally) the toughest RS team (the Spurs).

By upsets materially affecting the difficulty of a playoff run, I’m talking about something like the 2023 Heat beating the Celtics or the 2021 Hawks beating the 76ers, not the 2006 Mavs beating the 2006 Spurs. Like, something that results in facing a genuinely weaker team than you’d have otherwise have faced. That did not happen for the 2006 Heat. Nor did they face teams that weren’t healthy. Nor were they in a conference that did not have another really strong team. Again, if you go through the annals of NBA champions, I think you’ll find that at least one of those three things occurred for quite a lot of them. I really don’t see how a playoff road was fortunate if none of those things were present.

Miller was genuinely a great playoff performer. I am actually very high on him. However, I just don’t see him as someone who could take a team like the 2006 Heat to a title. I don’t think that that team was very good at all. I was absolutely shocked that they won the title at the time, and I still am now. It took Wade just completely taking over against some incredible opponents. Reggie Miller has actually put up some fantastic numbers against good teams in the playoffs too. So I guess I could see someone thinking Miller could’ve potentially done something approximately similar, but I just don’t think so. He could’ve potentially approximated the efficiency. After all, he was often an efficiency monster in the playoffs. It’s potentially possible he even could’ve approximated the volume Wade put up against the Pistons while being really efficient. He did do that in a few playoffs series in his career—though never in a best-of-7 series, so it’s not super likely. But I really don’t think he could’ve scaled up to the volume Wade had to get to in the Finals, nor do I think he could’ve created for others as well as Wade did in those playoffs (even keeping gravity stuff in mind). And the volume thing is really important here, because a big part of the reason it’s so amazing that the 2006 Heat won the title is that Shaq was massively declining before our eyes, and the team’s next biggest scorer was one of the worst and most inefficient starting players I’ve ever seen (Antoine Walker). Any amount of volume decrease from what Wade was doing was going to largely go in the trash heap of increased Antoine Walker volume, which would’ve absolutely lost the series. And then we also get to Wade being a better defender.

I just don’t see Miller as being the level of player who could carry a team like that to a title. Which is pretty important here, because if I’m going to take a player for his whole career, I’d put a massive premium on a guy who I know has the ability to carry a relatively mediocre team to a title. It gives me so much more leeway in terms of not needing to strike gold with the rest of my roster. That’s mitigated by the guy who can carry his team having less longevity and therefore you’d get less bites at the apple with him. But, basically, I think the chances of winning a title go up exponentially as your star player gets better and better, and so I’d value fewer years of a guy like Wade significantly more highly than more years of a guy like Miller. And, again, I’m actually pretty high on Miller (he’s probably in my top 50 all time, though I’ve not sat down and made a list, so I’m not certain).

93-96 playoff Miller 36.9 points per 100 possessions
2006 Wade 36.3 points per 100 possessions.
RS League Ortgs were
93: 108.0
94: 106.3
95: 108.3
96: 107.6
06: 106.2
maybe you want to tweak the numbers at the margins though eyeballing it league circumstances look similar enough.

Either run might be fluky though Miller's is a larger sample. Miller's per above has a large chunk against the Knicks. Other than the prior Miller's playoffs might be luck angle (which ... isn't necessarily unreasonable in and of itself but I think would be strange in someone elevating a single run above an entire career) I'm not sure where the questioning of Miller on volume is coming from.

I don't want to get too into versus one particular opponent, in a particular team context because ... that's not really what I'm arguing. If you want to hypothesize about a coach giving additional shots to Antoine Walker ... in one particular scenario ... whatever ... giving him shots is a bad idea.

On the "don't see Miller as being the level of player" ... if the point were just peak-ish Wade seems better with big RS samples ... sure (and there's other stuff I don't necessarily disagree on - I've acknowledged defense too. Wade is the better passer whilst as you note Miller has the gravity - and something along the lines of exponential makes sense in terms of teams typically needing to be great to win a title). But where there's a focus on playoff runs it comes back to all the original points and those expanded on here. Other Heat players aren't great. But for such a team Wade typically won't drive a title because you'll face a tougher road. And whilst Wade has a very strong finals, overall that run is very good but ... mileage may differ, different metrics will differ ... not a wild, pantheon level of production.

You’re quoting per-100-possession stats, but Miller played over 4 fewer minutes per game in that span than Wade did in the 2006 playoffs. If Wade played the same as he did but played 4 fewer minutes a game, the Heat are pretty unlikely to have won the title.

And that’s not even getting into the league context being a little higher-scoring in those Miller years, or the other things Wade did better than Miller.

Yeah, I mean, if other players played differently then it’s possible the Heat wouldn’t have won. That’s always the case, though. And we should remember that the 2006 Heat were never even taken to 7 games in any series. No team was actually *that* close to beating them. So I don’t think it’s a particularly great example of the “this guy was just lucky that a few bounces went his way” line of thinking. A lot of things would’ve had to go differently for the Heat to actually lose. And, to the extent you might note that they may not have been taken to 7 games, but they won some very close games, I’d note that Wade played completely out of his mind in the later stages of close games in those playoffs. See here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119602168#p119602168. In the last three rounds of the playoffs in 4th Q + OT with the game within 10 points, Wade scored just below 50 points per 100 possessions on 67.05% TS%. So yeah, I think the close games going the Heat’s way was a lot more about Wade being unstoppable than the Heat being lucky.

I just drive back to the quote. No the series didn't go 7. Miami win one in overtime by 1 point, one by two points which are the games cited as easily flippable and then further the 6th game by 3 points. If you want to say 4-2 so not that close ... fine I guess, if that's your preferred measure. Saying "a lot of things would have had to go differently for the Heat to actually lose" that seems objectively wrong. 1 point change in regulation net gain for Dallas in G5, 3pt net gain for Dallas in G3. I'm not sure how "Wade played well in close games" changes any of this. It's already baked in. It's in the stats, it's in the points margins. Unless the case being made "Wade could have just added even more good late game play to flip the margin back in Miami's favor as required" ... and that will sound flippant but ... I don't know how this is supposed counter the point being made. If you think Wade playing well in a particular part of the game and the influence of luck in close games are mutually exclusive then maybe, but I don't see why they would be.

Wade playing well in the most important moments isn’t truly baked into the stats. He played really well throughout the playoffs, but he played *particularly well* in the most important moments. The overall stats don’t reflect that. Utterly dominating the highest-leverage moments is really important and is simply not accounted for in the stats.

As for generally saying the Heat won games by a small amount and so the result could’ve been flipped by small things if we leave Wade’s performance constant, I suppose that’s true, but one can always say that, and the opposite is just as true (i.e. the opponents could’ve played worse and those games wouldn’t have been as close, or they could’ve won Game 1 that was a two-point game going into the 4th Quarter). Indeed, considering how badly Shaq played, I think there’s a good argument Wade was *unlucky* in terms of how things out of his control in the series played out.

You mention that there’s some close games they won. And, again, I’d reiterate that Wade was easily the biggest reason for this, and that things could’ve gone even better for the Heat just as easily as they could’ve gone worse. Someone isn’t lucky just because things didn’t go worse than they did in reality. What happened in reality isn’t some baseline that we assume is fortunate/lucky. Wade would be lucky if his teammates played out of their minds, such that you’d expect the teammates to generally do worse than that. But the opposite was probably true here, given that the Heat had Shaq collapsing as a player.

Anyways, even if you say they could’ve easily lost a game they won, that’s where we get to the fact that they won the series in 6 games. The results of two games would’ve had to flip, or one game and then the Mavs would’ve had to win a Game 7 that never happened. It’s all very speculative, and requires changing multiple things to go against the Heat. This isn’t “If Chris Bosh didn’t get that rebound or Ray Allen didn’t make that shot, then the Heat don’t win the 2013 title.” It requires a lot more than just one little thing changing. And there’s no reason to deem it lucky that a slew of things didn’t happen to change the outcome.

My intent at this point is to leave it here. Go to go now and per initial post don't feel strongly on the general subject. I've said what I have to on luck with regard to opponents, Miller's playoff scoring apex, flip-able games and indexing on titles. Wade had a great finals and better regular seasons. I just can't see that run being something to take him over a career of Miller when he himself plays so well in the playoffs. It feels circumstantial. But I've said all this so I don't think this is going anywhere.

Lol, well I read this part of your post after already writing all of the above. I’m going to press “Submit” anyways, but am perfectly happy for us to leave it here. A lot of what I said above is admittedly redundant anyways.