Chuck Texas wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:All of that exist for Ray Allen, and it's why he's a lock for Hall, and in general seen as a candidate for the Top 50. Bottom line is that a guy like that, who let's you use this lubricating role so well, doesn't come along that often.
But Miller's more than Allen on this front. He's better at losing his man, he's better at taking off balanced shots when he gets open, and he's crafty as a mofo at drawing fouls. All of this makes him a tier better as a player on a day in day out basis, but it's even bigger than that given what we've seen of him in crunch time.
Im not prepared at all to suggest that Miller is a tier above Ray Allen. I think we saw Ray Allen have to do more things because he played on some teams super dependent on him. And he showed quite capable of doing so. Then when he got to be more part of an ensemble like Miller did for much of his career, he was extremely effective in a reduced-volume off ball role. And again while Reggie's crunch moments tend to involve the Knicks and MSG and thus seem larger than life, I'm not sure he has that many more moments than Ray. I'd want to do more evaluation of both guys, but Ray Allen is also really really good.Doctor MJ wrote:In general you'd expect a player with high efficiency and only middling volume to be getting that efficiency through caution in some sense. If forced to really take more shots, his efficiency would fall off rapidly. But of course that's not what happened with Reggie. Reggie was known for exploding when his team needed him. When the rest of the offense truly did get frozen, he would just keep moving around until he could get an opening. Hence the thing limiting his volume in more normal location was simply how successful his teammates were...which itself was allowed in part by the space he created. Up the pressure on them, and you might chip away at their effectiveness in spite of the help he was giving, but that only made it make more sense to rely on Reggie repeatedly, and he delivered.
Sure. I agree with this. Reggie played within the team concept and didn't force things and was absolutely helping to create better opportunities for his teammates. And when the situation called for it, he would put the team on his figurative back. He was without question a very good offensive player.
I like Ray Allen too and understand the arguments for him. In comparison to Miller in the eye test, he is more athletic, better with the dribble (which leads to more assists), and can be a better man defender. If we were to look at RS #s, Allen does pop out more given his 3 point shooting volume at similar percentages and higher scoring/assist totals. However, I do feel there is a rather clear separation in their overall offensive value where both Miller's floor and ceiling is higher in high pressure situations such as the playoffs. It's really no secret that Miller does kick it in an extra gear, and one IMO, that Allen doesn't match. So depending on criteria of how much someone weighs RS vs PS, I can see the point of contention.
If we were to compare them, Allen has some low points like 08 against the Cavs, 09 against Magic, and his 2010 run wasn't particularly outstanding. And this is him in the ensemble role, coming off a 26.4/4.5/4.1 in Seattle to more of an off-ball role similar to Miller, where he's had a series scoring under 10 or an ORTG under 100. Miller, at similar age 32-34, was better. He does have some mediocre series with a bit high turnovers agaisnt the Cavs 98, struggled with Jordan/Pippen in 98, 99 against Knicks. Actually had a good run in all of 2000. And Miller was still doing this as the primary threat at good volume and efficiency while aging more gracefully.
I've quoted ElGee in my vote for Miller since he explains things nicely. I like that he calls Miller's offense "resistant" to any kind of defense. And the numbers definitely show in elimination games and in series against strong defenses over his playoff career which include several deep runs.From here, I will just share what I got out of his analysis. We know Miller's singular clutch moments. But those moments happen due to Miller's GOAT shooting, off-ball, high BBIQ, and remarkable consistency...pretty much being "resistant" to any kind of defence. That consistency is shown in those singular clutch shots & 4th quarters, and to more plural moments over a series, over an entire playoff run, through his career, and against any defense.I haven't meantioned his clutch moments all that much simply because I see the consistent play in ANY moment. And those moments happen because Miller can recognize when he needs to take a scoring load and understands situations to give his team a chance to win. Doc MJ has talked about the effectiveness of what his off-ball game does.
I realize I'm weighing playoffs heavily here. He is an outlier though. In the RS, the efficiency is staggering and contributed to winning records. In the PS, volume goes up, at a star level, with little to no effect on his percentages.
