Doctor MJ wrote:- I would not say the paint was always clear for Nash. I'd say that much of Nash's game was about taking advantage of transition where he wanted teammates not just to run down the court but to run to - and if need be - through the paint causing chaos which he could turn into opportunity. I'd say Nash wasn't someone who really needed his off-ball players to be in a particular place all the time the way your Westbrookian helios do.
No, it wasn't always clear, that was hyperbole. But in Phoenix especially, they ran shooters at every position when they could, certainly once they had Frye. And then it was really only worrying about Amare and defenders, and Stoudemire was extremely adept at moving to the right places at the right times, and Nash was an exceptional continuation dribbler.
- Peak Klay Thompson on offense. I see Miller as drastically more dangerous than Klay as an offensive player. I mean, look at the fact that even in an absolute metrics Miller was more efficient than Klay. Then remember he played in a different era. Then remember that when he played he didn't have freaking Steph Curry next to him making every shot he took much easier.
Yes, in-era, Miller's impact was outsized relative to Klay. On average, he was about 2% more efficient than peak Klay. There are seasons where the divide was larger, of course, but on balance, not so much.
I wouldn't even say Klay just hasn't proven himself the way Miller did, rather I think he's demonstrated quite clearly how limited he is compared to guys like Miller, or Ray Allen for that matter, as an offensive threat.
Ray Allen was more dynamic than either. Reggie was considerably better at drawing fouls than Klay, who is the superior volume 3pt shooter. You can quibble over the particulars of the comparison; it was made loosely to open a discussion and it's not a hill I'm going to die on as a result of that imprecision. But a slightly-more-efficient Klay goes only so far to impact a team offense, which is the root of my point. It's considerably more talent-intensive to build around that than around more conventional players. And the upper bound never really challenged the top-end offenses outside of the lockout year. Miller + talent produced top 7 offenses. That's good, but nothing really remarkable.
- "peripheral talent not easy to acquire". Hmm, I don't think a Miller-type needs anything that's that hard to come by that you don't already see as a priority. Do you want a great facilitator? Absolutely...on every single team in the NBA you want that.
Now consider salary. Now consider frontcourt. Now consider style of play and how best to deploy Miller's offense with someone who can be a high-end offensive impact player with dribble initiation focused on pitch-outs and attacking the paint.
I can understand the argument of not seeing Miller as a great fit in all circumstances, but I'd have to see an example that really resonated with me. I think Nash would work wonders with Miller. I think Westbrook would not, and so were I committed to building around Westbrook, getting a guy like Miller would not be my priority...but if I were literally choosing between Westbrook and a Miller-type as good as Miller, I'd choose the Miller-level Miller-type without hesitation.
If we're speaking of 2017 Westbrook, I'd take him over Miller any day of the week. Outside of that specific season, it becomes a little less clear. But 15 and 16 would be compelling arguments to have. Westbrook was very good at his peak.
Re: bulk of Miller's career wasn't captaining high-end offenses. The Pacers shot up to be the #1 TS% team in the league as soon as they made him their 1st option in '89-90. I think we see plenty of evidence of the ability of Miller to have a major impact on team shooting efficiency over his career.
Sure, but that isn't the scope of offense and there's a limit to how much he can impact an offense by only finishing. We've seen high-efficiency scorers before and that means only so much for total team offense. Miller was mostly a low-volume scorer on high efficiency. That's only a relatively small proportion of team possessions. It makes an impact, but he wasn't creating for others.
Indiana TS% rankings by year.
90: 1st
91: 1st
92: 2nd
93: 7th
94: 4th
95: 8th
96: 4th
97: 15th
98: 4th
99: 5th
00: 1st
01: 13th
02: 12th
So they were a little inconsistent and dropped off considerably as Reggie's personal volume dropped off. Then it rose again as others took up the banner in 98-00, then dropped off again.
Not for nothing, 90 and 91 were Reggie's two highest-scoring seasons, and likewise his highest-volume passing seasons. But he didn't maintain that over his career, and so you see the drop-off as well. There are others to consider, because Reggie hardly did it alone.
Rik Smits was a 15 ppg guy and from 90-96, he was a 55.7% TS player. 90-93, they had Detlef Schrempf, and he posted 17.2 ppg on 60.2% TS. Even Chuck Person was an 18.8 ppg guy on 55.2% from 90-92 with Reggie during their peak. Lots and lots of help. Mark Jackson wasn't a hot scorer by he did pass pretty well and adding him in 95 helped things out once he got integrated. Dale Davis was low-volume as a 9.4 ppg guy with Indy but he was also a 55%+ TS guy. Derrick McKey provided about 12 ppg on about 55% TS from 94-96. Antonio Davis was very much like Dale Davis in producing about 9 ppg on about 55% TS.
The whole cast contributed. Basically everyone but Mark Jackson and Jalen Rose were pretty high-efficiency guys around Miller and the earlier you look, the better the cast in that regard with respect to its other volume scorers. So landing all of this on Reggie doesn't work out very tidily. Indy had a very good offensive cast. They didn't have huge names and most of the guys who did make an All-Star team in their careers only made a couple and weren't perennial participants, but they were flush with talent that contributed to those efficiency rankings.
Does he clinch high team ORtg by himself? No, but I'm not sure anyone truly does.
ORTG has its limitations, to be sure. The Raptors are showing us that right now with their 2023 offering. Possession control alone will net you a good ORTG if you blow chunks at actually hitting shots.
But again, you need a lot of distributed offensive talent around Miller, and more than just shooters. Smits and Schrempf were very good. You didn't ask them for 25 ppg, for sure, but when you've already got Reggie handling 20-22 ppg, you can rock a pair of 15+ ppg guys and it works out pretty well, especially if they're like 55-60% TS players. And you had driving forces. Distributed talent is key with someone like Reggie because he's not RUNNING the offense and coordinating everything. He isn't a game manager or a major decision maker, mostly. He's running his routes and then receiving a pass. The pass was often quite simple and he did all the hard work generating his own shot, for sure (aside from the bruising screens the Davises were setting, of course), but he also didn't do much for creating better looks for his teammates. That had to happen in other ways. And he had some very, very skilled frontcourt guys early on.
