In Today's Game Who You Pick #6 Allen Iverson Vs Reggie Miller

[SlimShady83]

Plain and Simple thread as always ... In today's game who you pick?

Allen Iverson vs Reggie Miller
One deadly from the Inside, One deadly from outside who and how do you pick?

* I know there's a lot more to It then just; pts, reb, ast etc, It's just a starting point for discussions, to talk about old school players on who YOU would PICK In today's game.

Stats Per Game
https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/allen_iverson_vs_reggie_miller.htm

Points Per Game
Allen Iverson 26.7
Reggie Miller 18.2

Rebounds Per Game
Allen Iverson 3.7
Reggie Miller 3.0

Assists Per Game
Allen Iverson 6.2
Reggie Miller 3.0

Allen Iverson highlights

Watch on YouTube

;t=11s

Watch on YouTube

Reggie Millers highlights

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Peace Out Slim

[One_and_Done]

Both are overrated by different ends of the fan spectrum. Miller is less overrated though.

[Matt15]

Reggie Miller easily.

[Ol Roy]

I'm not a fan of Allen Iverson's game in any context.

[tsherkin]

I can see some arguments either way.

Reggie is basically Klay on offense, except that he drew fouls. He was above TODAY'S league average TS% every season of his career. He was a career 61.4% TS guy, which is +3.4% rTS over 2024 average. 90-96, he was a 63.2% TS guy.

Of course, he was also a dude who posted over 22.6 ppg only once in his career. So he wasn't a volume scorer, wasn't a rebounder, wasn't a playmaker. Wasn't much of a defender, outside of some famous steals and such. He didn't do a lot BUT run around and shoot. So there's some limitation to the value he could provide. More than Klay, though, that's clear.

Iverson wasn't the premier player in the league in terms of sense or sensibility. He WAS, however, an absurd athlete. The handles he used, which were straight-up cheating at the time, are normalized today. He was FAST as all hell, changed directions in a blink and put significant north-south pressure on the defense. He'd see a rise in absolute efficiency today due to improved finishing around the rim. He wasn't a good 3pt shooter. He WAS a pretty good perimeter 2pt shooter, though, especially considering the volumes at which he was bombing. With some calmed-down usage and a heavier diet of pick-and-roll with spacing, he'd be pretty nasty.

It isn't hard to envision him as a 30/7 guy on, like 58% TS. League-average, but bombing away for a bleh team like the Hornets or something, he'd be reasonably effective.

Reggie would be better for a team with a focal star. Iverson would be better on a team with no primary scorer. The space in the middle likely wouldn't be awesome for either, IMHO.

[SlimShady83]

Reggie would be better for a team with a focal star. Iverson would be better on a team with no primary scorer. The space in the middle likely wouldn't be awesome for either, IMHO.

I chose Iverson, because I kind of expected everyone to choose Reggie because of the 3 point shooting.

Iverson can score over everyone and at will and much like his video, I believe he would get 35-40 points a game In today's game not to mention assists which go un noticed by most. Out of all the guards In today's game and the rules etc, how many guards In today's game can defend him?

[tsherkin]

I believe he would get 35-40 points a game In today's game not to mention assists which go un noticed by most.

I doubt that, unless he was allowed to blindly chuck at huge volume and with a fair degree of inefficiency. I think teams are much more conscious of that these days, and I doubt anyone would want to try and replicate those Philly teams. Inefficient, unipolar offense is a bad, bad idea in today's environment.

Out of all the guards In today's game and the rules etc, how many guards In today's game can defend him?

About as many in the days of his own career. Check his jumper, shade him into more advanced help coverage and encourage him to bomb from deep. He'd look about as bad if he tried to support too much volume, because his skill set didn't really provide for that.

[SlimShady83]

I'll get back to you about to go to work haha

[tsherkin]

I'll get back to you about to go to work haha

Know that dance!

[Owly]

I can see some arguments either way.

Reggie is basically Klay on offense, except that he drew fouls. He was above TODAY'S league average TS% every season of his career. He was a career 61.4% TS guy, which is +3.4% rTS over 2024 average. 90-96, he was a 63.2% TS guy.

Of course, he was also a dude who posted over 22.6 ppg only once in his career. So he wasn't a volume scorer, wasn't a rebounder, wasn't a playmaker.

I'm ... not as bullish as some here on Miller ... still ...

Not sure where the Klay comp is going because you end up granting "more [value]" ...

And there's some sense of doing a raw comp by just comparing his raw numbers to present league average ...

RS only with a career through age 39, RS only, Miller was a career 3.9 OBPM ... Thompson has once season above that and one more within 1.0 of it (career average [still active, average likely falling] of 1.7).

With the aforementioned caveat about Miller playing longer, Thompson still active
Miller has 140.4 OWS
Thompson has 31.6.
Miller .141523342 OWS/48
Thompson .058690605

In terms of box aggregation (which are set in era norms) ... RS isn't close. I won't do postseason (as far as the comp) but ...

a dude who posted over 22.6 ppg only once in his career

in the regular season.

Well, -tangenting here - actually technically twice. In choosing "over" and giving the figure for his second highest season (from a rounding to one dp) ... you open yourself up to this ... in 1991 he's at 22.62195122.

People can weight it differently (I'm aware I'm on the low end fringe of how much I regard it) ... Miller scores over 22.6 in 8 playoff runs. There's a clear split: one is one game, four more are single series (in the old, shorter format) whilst three are deep runs of over 15 games (16, 17, 22). If he'd retired after 2002 (his age 36 season) he'd have had a career playoff average nicely above that mark (23.5). It might be luck. A good defense isn't necessarily a good defense for a particular position or player ... he plays a slow, defensively inclined Knicks in 93, 94, 95 and though a lesser D '98 too. Account for the raw terms rise, the pace of the era and the opponents, perhaps the quality of opponents D (cf caveats regarding a good D doesn't necessarily mean defending a particular position or archetype well ...) I may not be all the way there myself ... you can see why people rate him highly. And RS slashlines and thresholds (never a great tool) might not do him justice.

[tsherkin]

I'm ... not as bullish as some here on Miller ... still ...

Not sure where the Klay comp is going because you end up granting "more [value]" ...

I thought it was reasonably clear that I was talking about his approach to the game. Low versatility, off-ball movement maestro, excellent catch-and-shoot guy with some pluses over Klay because Miller was a little better at slashing and much better at drawing fouls. Klay's the platform for comparison, but I also thought it was quite clear that I was saying Miller was, and would remain, better than Klay.

in the regular season.

Yes, over a large, significant sample. He elevated often enough over short samples in the playoffs, but the RS is 82 games long. Shouldering the load over the RS is its own skill.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. You seem quite fixated on the "Klay" remark, which is largely aesthetic and otherwise a baseline from which to look at Miller, who was clearly above. Not sure why you dug in on that part, tbh.

[Owly]

I'm ... not as bullish as some here on Miller ... still ...

Not sure where the Klay comp is going because you end up granting "more [value]" ...

I thought it was reasonably clear that I was talking about his approach to the game. Low versatility, off-ball movement maestro, excellent catch-and-shoot guy with some pluses over Klay because Miller was a little better at slashing and much better at drawing fouls. Klay's the platform for comparison, but I also thought it was quite clear that I was saying Miller was, and would remain, better than Klay.

in the regular season.

Yes, over a large, significant sample. He elevated often enough over short samples in the playoffs, but the RS is 82 games long. Shouldering the load over the RS is its own skill.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. You seem quite fixated on the "Klay" remark, which is largely aesthetic and otherwise a baseline from which to look at Miller, who was clearly above. Not sure why you dug in on that part, tbh.

So
1) I do note that you say Miller gives more value. I was unsure if it was clear how much more...
2) I think player value matters in comps. Unless you put "a broke man's ..." there's generally an implication that we're in the same ballpark or what are we doing... but then ... like people will compare Steph Curry and Abdul-Rauf and yes there are some superficial (aesthetic?) similarities they're both small, they can both generate shots, they're both great at the line but no, one is among the greatest players of all time and otoh I'd tilt that the other wasn't ever an above average starter. So unless there's a clear signing an oft repeated comp (both of these - though the Curry-Rauf one might just be clickbait videos, articles) where the value gap is isn't made explicit ... I don't love it.

And there's some acknowledgement for Miller as better ... it's not from the post (IDK now) clear that you grasp how big the value gap is. Hence the numbers.

On RS ... yeah I like the RS more than ... I'd guess at least 95% of posters here. I agree with the sample size point. Fwiw, Reggie through 2002 is larger than any one of those RSes. But I absolutely weight the RS heavily ... given the bulk of his playoff career until the late 30s is above that "only once" mark ... it's worthy of note.

[tsherkin]

1) I do note that you say Miller gives more value. I was unsure if it was clear how much more...

Good. Yes, I think that there is a distinct addition above and beyond their shared baseline with Reggie. His ability to draw fouls is HUGE. It's what, without change, ensures that he would actually be efficient in today's game, whereas Klay hasn't been for a couple years. And then there's the value of it beyond Reggie's efficiency in terms of foul pressure. And then he had a nice rip-through dribble and drew fouls on his floater and pull-ups really well, even if he wasn't really dynamic after a dribble or two. That's more than can generally be said of Klay, for sure.

2) I think player value matters in comps. Unless you put "a broke man's ..." there's generally an implication that we're in the same ballpark or what are we doing... but then ... like people will compare Steph Curry and Abdul-Rauf and yes there are some superficial (aesthetic?) similarities they're both small, they can both generate shots, they're both great at the line but no, one is among the greatest players of all time

Well, he's top top 40-50, anyway, which is pretty impressive. He'll slide more over time, but yeah, he was quite impressive. I think he benefits at least a LITTLE from having a bunch of high-profile matchups with Jordan and with the Knicks in the late 90s, but he also aged really well and had a nice, extended prime and a graceful down arc to his career.

and otoh I'd tilt that the other wasn't ever an above average starter.

Are we talking about Klay here, or are you holding onto this SAR thing for the sake of making the point? Just looking for clarity so I know whether or not I should respond to that.

In any case, Reggie had a nice prime. Not a tier 1 type of prime, but still pretty good. He doesn't give you a lot besides his shooting, though, so he needed a lot around him. And he had it. He had Detlef Schrempf for a long time. He had Rik Smits' entire career. Most of the best years of Chuck Person's career. Then Dale Davis started to really crush it on the offensive glass for them. Then then added Antonio Davis, who was doing the same (and though on low volume, both drew fouls at a pretty good rate). Mark Jackson in the mix at the point, etc, etc. Reggie had the luxury of playing his very specific role and to not contribute much beyond that. Dunno how much that factors in, to be truthful, because you build your roster around your star in a more general sense, but there's less forgiveness the more you start dealing with someone who is essentially a lesser version of Adrian Dantley in scope... though obviously Reggie's spacing effect was quite a bit different than Dantley's.

Anyway, circling back. I thought I was being clear that Reggie was notably better than Klay. Evidently I wasn't. But yes, I see a considerable gap between the two and was drawing a mostly aesthetic comparison between the two. I'm not as bullish on Miller because he basically did one thing and offered very little beyond that, which is part of why I selected the Klay comparison as a baseline in the first place. I think it presents a certain set of limitations as a focal star. I think he was brilliant at what he did, of course, and he was clearly a very good player overall. Across Miller's career, there were only so many guys who produced as he did. 60+ GP, 18+ ppg, 5+ OBPM, for a rude measure? Miller did that 4 times. Barkley, Kobe, Drexler, KG, Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, McGrady, Shaq, D-Rob and Nique are the only other guys to do that. Of course, several of them did it a lot more and a couple of guys got cut off from other seasons where they did it by the specifics of that timeframe. Guys like Vince, Ray Ray, KJ, Duncan, and Dirk, mainly. Not a bad list to be in, regardless of magnitude differences. His seasons are all in the bottom half of that list, but that should be no surprise given some of those names, as those are true legends of the game. This sort of helps settle the idea that he really was quite good. And, ceding that there is value to be extracted from more the just the RS of course, it is worth mentioning that 90-02, his PS OBPM was +6, which is almost 50% better than his RS OBPM over that same stretch. 7 of those postseasons were single-series affairs, of course, so that's a contributing factor, but nevertheless, impressive stuff.

Anyway, hopefully that clarifies things some.

[JimmyFromNz]

Interesting comparison, its tricky. Immediately I think, well Reggie's game would flourish in the modern era.

On the other hand, Iverson is just a more skilled and talented player than Reggie was warts and all. In the modern game you're looking at a mould of a higher tempo, grittier, athletic version of what Trae Young should have been. Yet I'm amongst a board that voted Reggie as the 36th best player of all time recently, and Iverson in the 80s.The narrative that Iverson was purely propped up as a culture guy and the advanced statistics reflect that, I think that is kind of grating and simplistic but that's a debate for another day.

Ultimately I'd still lean towards Reggie because of a seamless era and team fit, along with the philosophy that sometimes 'less is more'.

[SlimShady83]

I believe he would get 35-40 points a game In today's game not to mention assists which go un noticed by most.

I doubt that, unless he was allowed to blindly chuck at huge volume and with a fair degree of inefficiency. I think teams are much more conscious of that these days, and I doubt anyone would want to try and replicate those Philly teams. Inefficient, unipolar offense is a bad, bad idea in today's environment.

Woo I'm finally home, time to PARTY! ... And best of all tomorrow Is my Friday

Out of all the guards In today's game and the rules etc, how many guards In today's game can defend him?

About as many in the days of his own career.

But he still averaged 26.7 ppg and with his best season was 33ppg (what's your definition of what many Is???) and the way the league Is going no doubt he would get 35 40 points at least 1 season maybe not all.

Check his jumper,

Still wouldn't stop him from scoring and It didn't even In the time he played, they still couldn't stop him. He too damn quick

shade him into more advanced help coverage and encourage him to bomb from deep.

Since we are talking about whether or not he would get 35/40 points and you saying his basicaly a chucker, yet you still gonna double team a chucker and hope to force him to shoot 3's? hahahaha.

So let's say you do double team him, b4 he blows past your defender, his just gonna pass It off - so sure he might not get 35-40average points when you double team, but he'll increase his asts (which Is surprisinly high) didn't think they were that high.

And that alone should be the reason to take him over Reggie, who Is a fine player no doubt, I just hated Reggie because back In the day my mates all went for him against teams I liked haha.

None the less still taking Iverson

Would you ever double team Reggie because his a shooter OR Is Iverson that good of a chucker, that you need to double team him In the hope to slow him down or force 3's?

because his skill set didn't really provide for that.

In the 2nd video he says a lot of people compare him to Ja and I kind of agree with that, what your thoughts on Ja As A comparison?

P.S I actually have another thread In mind which I'll post over the wknd some time when free and this one Is about 2 shooters - not naming who they're and not replying to anyone guessing It's a surprise, but will be Interesting to see who y'all pick when 2 shooters go head to head.

[xb3at band1tx]

I lean Reggie as well but I think AI would be great in today's league.

AI was a pretty underrated workhorse who can play 40+ min a night. That motor was nothing to scoff at.

I think with today's offense, teams would be able to hone in on his talent. Best case scenario he could probably put multiple years equivalent of 2017 Isiah Thomas. At worst, he's Spurs-Bulls Derozan with a bit more of a chip on his shoulder.

[SlimShady83]

Watch on YouTube

[SlimShady83]

Watch on YouTube

[Asianiac_24]

Iverson is the kind of player that would translate horribly in todays game

[penbeast0]

I thought he translated badly to the era he actually played in, at least in terms of his on court impact. His off court impact was massive as a cultural icon. I think he was hurt by playing in the first era of player empowerment which allowed him to develop his immaturity and his tendencies to hog the ball and slack on defense without serious consequence.

I go Miller in any situation which allows him to take strong advantage of his 3 ball, and would have to think about the situation before I would rate Iverson over him even on, say, the 1940s/50s Globetrotters in terms of pure impact on winning games. (Assuming Iverson refused to play without primacy as he did at various times during his career, would he be hurting the Globies ability by not letting them run their passing hub/weave offense as the primary system?)