Reggie Miller vs Klay Thompson

[Winsome Gerbil]

Reggie is such a hard player to evaluate because his overall stats are kind of meh, but his impact in key games was just staggering. In the last 5 minutes of a close game, you just feared Reggie Miller. Not a lot of players elicit fear.

20st all time in VORP
15th in WS

His stats are insanely good...

Those are both longevity stats. He was never that level player in any one season, but because he had old man athleticism at 22 he was able to keep on putting up good but not overwhelming numbers for a long time. His game didn't fall off because there was no place for his athleticism to go down. He created most of his offense in his mind, not with quickness, strength, or any other physical trait.

His calling cards will always be shooting efficiency and clutch shooting in the playoffs. But it was pretty close to the ONLY thing he did out there at above replacement level. He was a classic glass cannon. Actually the modern player he might have resembled most would have been Kevin Martin, who even tried to duplicate his constant motion off the ball game, except Martin was a better athlete and worse in the clutch. There was some brilliance, or at least steady vision to the way the Pacers' front office stayed steady in building squads throughout the 90s that recognized that fact. Small market, they had very few complete players or resources to get them. Everybody was a specialist of one sort or the other. Mark Jackson passed, and that was it. Reggie shot, and that was it. The Davis Bros defended and banged, and that was it. Smits was the other Reggie for them, the all offense big man, and nothing else. Only McKey threatened versatility, and he largely couldn't be inspired to do more than defend either.

Trying to blow Reggie up into an all time figure has always annoyed me. He could only do one thing, and he wasn't hugely prolific at that one thing. But unlike Klay, he proved that he was so good and steady and sophisticated in that one thing, that you could, with a lot of teamwork and a perfect build of supporting players, feature him in that one role and he would not shrink. He wasn't falsely propped up as a shooter or benefitting from attention being eaten up by teammates. He just needed his teammates to excel at all those things he didn't do at all.

[LKN]

Reggie is such a hard player to evaluate because his overall stats are kind of meh, but his impact in key games was just staggering. In the last 5 minutes of a close game, you just feared Reggie Miller. Not a lot of players elicit fear.

20st all time in VORP
15th in WS

His stats are insanely good...

Those are both longevity stats. He was never that level player in any one season, but because he had old man athleticism at 22 he was able to keep on putting up good but not overwhelming numbers for a long time. His game didn't fall off because there was no place for his athleticism to go down. He created most of his offense in his mind, not with quickness, strength, or any other physical trait.

His calling cards will always be shooting efficiency and clutch shooting in the playoffs. But it was pretty close to the ONLY thing he did out there at above replacement level. He was a classic glass cannon. Actually the modern player he might have resemble most would have been Kevin Martin, except Martin was a better athlete and worse in the clutch. There was some brilliance, or at least steady vision to the way the Pacers' front office stayed steady in building squads throughout the 90s that recognized that fact. Small market, they had very few complete players or resources to get them. Everybody was a specialist of one sort or the other. Mark Jackson passed, and that was it. Reggie shot, and that was it. The Davis Bros defended and banged, and that was it. Smits was the other Reggie for them, the all offense big man, and nothing else. Only McKey threatened versatility, and he largely couldn't be inspired to do more than defend either.

Trying to blow Reggie up into an all time figure has always annoyed me. He could only do one thing, and he wasn't hugely prolific at that one thing. But unlike Klay, he proved that he was so good and steady and sophisticated in that one thing, that you could, with a lot of work and a perfect build of supporting players, feature him in that one role and he would not shrink. He wasn't falsely propped up as a shooter or benefitting from attention being eaten up by teammates. He just needed his teammates to excel at all those things he didn't do at all.

Reggie isn't just good because of longevity (esp in the postseason - where he was elite).

33rd all time in OBPM (12th in postseason OBPM)
46th all time in BPM (29th in postseason BPM)

48th all time in WS/48 (23rd in postseason WS/48)

Also Miller didn't do just one thing - he was a great shooter and great at drawing fouls and getting to the line.

[Winsome Gerbil]

20st all time in VORP
15th in WS

His stats are insanely good...

Those are both longevity stats. He was never that level player in any one season, but because he had old man athleticism at 22 he was able to keep on putting up good but not overwhelming numbers for a long time. His game didn't fall off because there was no place for his athleticism to go down. He created most of his offense in his mind, not with quickness, strength, or any other physical trait.

His calling cards will always be shooting efficiency and clutch shooting in the playoffs. But it was pretty close to the ONLY thing he did out there at above replacement level. He was a classic glass cannon. Actually the modern player he might have resemble most would have been Kevin Martin, except Martin was a better athlete and worse in the clutch. There was some brilliance, or at least steady vision to the way the Pacers' front office stayed steady in building squads throughout the 90s that recognized that fact. Small market, they had very few complete players or resources to get them. Everybody was a specialist of one sort or the other. Mark Jackson passed, and that was it. Reggie shot, and that was it. The Davis Bros defended and banged, and that was it. Smits was the other Reggie for them, the all offense big man, and nothing else. Only McKey threatened versatility, and he largely couldn't be inspired to do more than defend either.

Trying to blow Reggie up into an all time figure has always annoyed me. He could only do one thing, and he wasn't hugely prolific at that one thing. But unlike Klay, he proved that he was so good and steady and sophisticated in that one thing, that you could, with a lot of work and a perfect build of supporting players, feature him in that one role and he would not shrink. He wasn't falsely propped up as a shooter or benefitting from attention being eaten up by teammates. He just needed his teammates to excel at all those things he didn't do at all.

Reggie isn't just good because of longevity (esp in the postseason - where he was elite).

33rd all time in OBPM (12th in postseason OBPM)
46th all time in BPM (29th in postseason BPM)

48th all time in WS/48 (23rd in postseason WS/48)

Also Miller didn't do just one thing - he was a great shooter and great at drawing fouls and getting to the line.

Yes, we're all aware he flopped like a fish. Annoyingly, everybody's all over Harden for that, but Reggie cheating was actually celebrated.

In any case though, it's all just "efficient" offense centered around shooting ability. Even as an offensive player he wasn't going to drive, or post, or any of that. He also didn't board, pass, create off the dribble, or defend. He basically did one thing. In that one outlier season for them in '98, he averaged 19.5pts...and 2.9reb 2.1ast 1.0stl. And the 19.5ppg was 21st in the league in scoring. And that was typical of him. A good, but not great pure scorer who was hellaciously efficient at lower volumes in a system entirely devoted to helping him run through 20 screens a possession to get off those efficient shots.

The difference in this comparison for me is Reggie absolutely proved he could be used in that way without shrinking or struggling with the attention. I've always suspected that Klay, who is arguably somewhat more rounded, would see his efficiency plummet if you took him away from Steph's side and made him a team's main offensive focus.

[dhsilv2]

I meant raw stats.

Those are just summary stats of the RAW stats. If your read of his raw stats are significantly different from those metrics, then you're not good at reading the raw stats.

We're on the same side of the debate here. All I meant was that it's easy to look at his stats and see a guy who wasn't an All-Time great scorer, didn't rebound much, get many assists, etc. and walk away not understanding what made him so special (whether it was his clutch ability, unrelenting confidence, or simply running around the court all game long tiring out his opponents).

My point is that if you look at his box metrics you SHOULD see someone who was special at least in terms of career and even peak. Now if your point is people suck at reading box score stats because they only know what 3 of the mean...then fair enough.

[dhsilv2]

Reggie is such a hard player to evaluate because his overall stats are kind of meh, but his impact in key games was just staggering. In the last 5 minutes of a close game, you just feared Reggie Miller. Not a lot of players elicit fear.

20st all time in VORP
15th in WS

His stats are insanely good...

Those are both longevity stats. He was never that level player in any one season, but because he had old man athleticism at 22 he was able to keep on putting up good but not overwhelming numbers for a long time. His game didn't fall off because there was no place for his athleticism to go down. He created most of his offense in his mind, not with quickness, strength, or any other physical trait.

His calling cards will always be shooting efficiency and clutch shooting in the playoffs. But it was pretty close to the ONLY thing he did out there at above replacement level. He was a classic glass cannon. Actually the modern player he might have resembled most would have been Kevin Martin, who even tried to duplicate his constant motion off the ball game, except Martin was a better athlete and worse in the clutch. There was some brilliance, or at least steady vision to the way the Pacers' front office stayed steady in building squads throughout the 90s that recognized that fact. Small market, they had very few complete players or resources to get them. Everybody was a specialist of one sort or the other. Mark Jackson passed, and that was it. Reggie shot, and that was it. The Davis Bros defended and banged, and that was it. Smits was the other Reggie for them, the all offense big man, and nothing else. Only McKey threatened versatility, and he largely couldn't be inspired to do more than defend either.

Trying to blow Reggie up into an all time figure has always annoyed me. He could only do one thing, and he wasn't hugely prolific at that one thing. But unlike Klay, he proved that he was so good and steady and sophisticated in that one thing, that you could, with a lot of teamwork and a perfect build of supporting players, feature him in that one role and he would not shrink. He wasn't falsely propped up as a shooter or benefitting from attention being eaten up by teammates. He just needed his teammates to excel at all those things he didn't do at all.

No, you don't finish at those levels all time just through longevity.

Parish was a hall of fame player hwo played 1611 games and 45,704 minutes in the league. A 9 time allstar. His career WS ranks 23rd and his VORP 52nd. Players only do well on career VORP if they were REALLY good for a long time.

Instead we see 5 seasons where Miller was top 10 in WS and 4 in VORP. 11 top 15 seasons in WS and 7 top 15 in VORP.

Miller was a consistent all nba level player who was criminally under valued in his era and it seems remains under valued by people like yourself today.

Miller was elite at creating opportunities for his teammates without the ball in his hands.This remains despite over a DECADE of data and nba titles being won through it, something fans stubbornly miss about players. We don't have gravity metrics from that era but anyone watching miller saw he was elite there.

Basketball offense is about creating space, increasing the size of passing lanes, and maximizing the points you score each time you have the ball. Miller was outside of the god level players, in that next tier of all time great offensive players. Remember all else equal the more you add to offense without the ball, the better you are as a player. The more you need the ball to add value, the worse you are as a player. This has never not been the case and any fan following the game especially over the last few decades has seen this. That isn't to say a Harden who needs the ball is bad because for someone like him, all else is FAR from equal. But when we discuss guys like IA vs Miller, well Miller was a better offensive player, he could simply add more value to more teams and he'd add more championship level value.

[DaPessimist]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

[dhsilv2]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

Miller took MJ's bulls 7 games....he absolutely could have been that guy.

[HeartBreakKid]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

Why do you think Klay is a better #2...?

[bondom34]

20st all time in VORP
15th in WS

His stats are insanely good...

Those are both longevity stats. He was never that level player in any one season, but because he had old man athleticism at 22 he was able to keep on putting up good but not overwhelming numbers for a long time. His game didn't fall off because there was no place for his athleticism to go down. He created most of his offense in his mind, not with quickness, strength, or any other physical trait.

His calling cards will always be shooting efficiency and clutch shooting in the playoffs. But it was pretty close to the ONLY thing he did out there at above replacement level. He was a classic glass cannon. Actually the modern player he might have resembled most would have been Kevin Martin, who even tried to duplicate his constant motion off the ball game, except Martin was a better athlete and worse in the clutch. There was some brilliance, or at least steady vision to the way the Pacers' front office stayed steady in building squads throughout the 90s that recognized that fact. Small market, they had very few complete players or resources to get them. Everybody was a specialist of one sort or the other. Mark Jackson passed, and that was it. Reggie shot, and that was it. The Davis Bros defended and banged, and that was it. Smits was the other Reggie for them, the all offense big man, and nothing else. Only McKey threatened versatility, and he largely couldn't be inspired to do more than defend either.

Trying to blow Reggie up into an all time figure has always annoyed me. He could only do one thing, and he wasn't hugely prolific at that one thing. But unlike Klay, he proved that he was so good and steady and sophisticated in that one thing, that you could, with a lot of teamwork and a perfect build of supporting players, feature him in that one role and he would not shrink. He wasn't falsely propped up as a shooter or benefitting from attention being eaten up by teammates. He just needed his teammates to excel at all those things he didn't do at all.

No, you don't finish at those levels all time just through longevity.

Parish was a hall of fame player hwo played 1611 games and 45,704 minutes in the league. A 9 time allstar. His career WS ranks 23rd and his VORP 52nd. Players only do well on career VORP if they were REALLY good for a long time.

Instead we see 5 seasons where Miller was top 10 in WS and 4 in VORP. 11 top 15 seasons in WS and 7 top 15 in VORP.

Miller was a consistent all nba level player who was criminally under valued in his era and it seems remains under valued by people like yourself today.

Miller was elite at creating opportunities for his teammates without the ball in his hands.This remains despite over a DECADE of data and nba titles being won through it, something fans stubbornly miss about players. We don't have gravity metrics from that era but anyone watching miller saw he was elite there.

Basketball offense is about creating space, increasing the size of passing lanes, and maximizing the points you score each time you have the ball. Miller was outside of the god level players, in that next tier of all time great offensive players. Remember all else equal the more you add to offense without the ball, the better you are as a player. The more you need the ball to add value, the worse you are as a player. This has never not been the case and any fan following the game especially over the last few decades has seen this. That isn't to say a Harden who needs the ball is bad because for someone like him, all else is FAR from equal. But when we discuss guys like IA vs Miller, well Miller was a better offensive player, he could simply add more value to more teams and he'd add more championship level value.

Yeah hearing that all Reggie did was shoot is a pretty odd statement when he was capable of creating and his on ball game wasn't totally lacking either. He wasn't a primary creator, but he absolutely still created offense.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

Miller took MJ's bulls 7 games....he absolutely could have been that guy.

Reggie Miller had little to do with that one time event, and indeed his performance there was a display of precisely why he never was that guy.

As a #1, that season was the only time his teams ever win more than 52 games. The only time they were serious contenders. Which is fine as long as exaggerated claims aren't being made. It's no better than A.I.'s record, and he gets worked over around here all the time. And when the team, in Bird/Carlisle's first year, did have its best year, it was as much about the defense jumping up to #5 in DRTG.

then we get to the ECF and this happens:

Jordan 41.1min 31.7pts (.467 .400 .811) 5.7reb 4.1ast 1.7stl 0.4blk
Miller 38.3min 17.4pts (.416 .436 .912) 1.6reb 2.0ast 1.0stl 0.0blk

Meanwhile the Pacers average 91.7pts a game for the series. It wasn't Miller or the offense who carried them to a 7th game. They got smothered, and Reggie got utterly rocked in the Jordan matchup, which was to be expected. It was the defense that locked in and hung tough behind an absolute walk it up pace trying to minimize the talent gap. Early Carlisle was the diagnosis at the time. Reggie's 7 game GmScr was 11.6, which would have put him just behind Kukoc for 4th on the Bulls team.

[dhsilv2]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

Miller took MJ's bulls 7 games....he absolutely could have been that guy.

Reggie Miller had little to do with that one time event, and indeed his performance there was a display of precisely why he never was that guy.

As a #1, that season was the only time his teams ever win more than 52 games. The only time they were serious contenders. Which is fine as long as exaggerated claims aren't being made. It's no better than A.I.'s record, and he gets worked over around here all the time. And when the team, in Bird/Carlisle's first year, did have its best year, it was as much about the defense jumping up to #5 in DRTG.

then we get to the ECF and this happens:

Jordan 41.1min 31.7pts (.467 .400 .811) 5.7reb 4.1ast 1.7stl 0.4blk
Miller 38.3min 17.4pts (.416 .436 .912) 1.6reb 2.0ast 1.0stl 0.0blk

Meanwhile the Pacers average 91.7pts a game for the series. It wasn't Miller or the offense who carried them to a 7th game. They got smothered, and Reggie got utterly rocked in the Jordan matchup, which was to be expected. It was the defense that locked in and hung tough. Early Carlisle was the diagnosis at the time. Reggie's 7 game GmScr was 11.6, which would have put him just behind Kukoc for 4th on the Bulls team.

So back to what miller did? Spacing, open passing lanes, etc? Gravity...

[bondom34]

Neither player can win a title as a #1 option, and Klay is the better #2 option.

So I pick Klay.

Miller took MJ's bulls 7 games....he absolutely could have been that guy.

Reggie Miller had little to do with that one time event, and indeed his performance there was a display of precisely why he never was that guy.

As a #1, that season was the only time his teams ever win more than 52 games. The only time they were serious contenders. Which is fine as long as exaggerated claims aren't being made. It's no better than A.I.'s record, and he gets worked over around here all the time. And when the team, in Bird/Carlisle's first year, did have its best year, it was as much about the defense jumping up to #5 in DRTG.

then we get to the ECF and this happens:

Jordan 41.1min 31.7pts (.467 .400 .811) 5.7reb 4.1ast 1.7stl 0.4blk
Miller 38.3min 17.4pts (.416 .436 .912) 1.6reb 2.0ast 1.0stl 0.0blk

Meanwhile the Pacers average 91.7pts a game for the series. It wasn't Miller or the offense who carried them to a 7th game. They got smothered, and Reggie got utterly rocked in the Jordan matchup, which was to be expected. It was the defense that locked in and hung tough. Early Carlisle was the diagnosis at the time. Reggie's 7 game GmScr was 11.6, which would have put him just behind Kukoc for 4th on the Bulls team.

In 98 the Pacers were the 4th best offense in the NBA. They were a 111.2 O rtg with Miler on court and 98.0 off.

And no, he wasn't as good as Jordan, but nobody's arguing that.

[dhsilv2]

Miller took MJ's bulls 7 games....he absolutely could have been that guy.

Reggie Miller had little to do with that one time event, and indeed his performance there was a display of precisely why he never was that guy.

As a #1, that season was the only time his teams ever win more than 52 games. The only time they were serious contenders. Which is fine as long as exaggerated claims aren't being made. It's no better than A.I.'s record, and he gets worked over around here all the time. And when the team, in Bird/Carlisle's first year, did have its best year, it was as much about the defense jumping up to #5 in DRTG.

then we get to the ECF and this happens:

Jordan 41.1min 31.7pts (.467 .400 .811) 5.7reb 4.1ast 1.7stl 0.4blk
Miller 38.3min 17.4pts (.416 .436 .912) 1.6reb 2.0ast 1.0stl 0.0blk

Meanwhile the Pacers average 91.7pts a game for the series. It wasn't Miller or the offense who carried them to a 7th game. They got smothered, and Reggie got utterly rocked in the Jordan matchup, which was to be expected. It was the defense that locked in and hung tough. Early Carlisle was the diagnosis at the time. Reggie's 7 game GmScr was 11.6, which would have put him just behind Kukoc for 4th on the Bulls team.

In 98 the Pacers were the 4th best offense in the NBA. They were a 111.2 O rtg with Miler on court and 98.0 off.

And no, he wasn't as good as Jordan, but nobody's arguing that.

It's like all the things smart people say work and the silly stuff doesn't matter as much...

[LKN]

Reggie Miller had little to do with that one time event, and indeed his performance there was a display of precisely why he never was that guy.

As a #1, that season was the only time his teams ever win more than 52 games. The only time they were serious contenders. Which is fine as long as exaggerated claims aren't being made. It's no better than A.I.'s record, and he gets worked over around here all the time. And when the team, in Bird/Carlisle's first year, did have its best year, it was as much about the defense jumping up to #5 in DRTG.

then we get to the ECF and this happens:

Jordan 41.1min 31.7pts (.467 .400 .811) 5.7reb 4.1ast 1.7stl 0.4blk
Miller 38.3min 17.4pts (.416 .436 .912) 1.6reb 2.0ast 1.0stl 0.0blk

Meanwhile the Pacers average 91.7pts a game for the series. It wasn't Miller or the offense who carried them to a 7th game. They got smothered, and Reggie got utterly rocked in the Jordan matchup, which was to be expected. It was the defense that locked in and hung tough. Early Carlisle was the diagnosis at the time. Reggie's 7 game GmScr was 11.6, which would have put him just behind Kukoc for 4th on the Bulls team.

In 98 the Pacers were the 4th best offense in the NBA. They were a 111.2 O rtg with Miler on court and 98.0 off.

And no, he wasn't as good as Jordan, but nobody's arguing that.

It's like all the things smart people say work and the silly stuff doesn't matter as much...

Reggie hitting a huge clutch shot (and getting away with a totally blatant pushoff LOL) is the only reason that series went 7 games in the first place.

[Joey Wheeler]

Miller by miles. Miller vs Curry would be a more interesting debate.

[Doctor MJ]

Reggie.

By and large most folks don't understand what Reggie was doing out there and why it was so valuable.

Klay is a great off-ball shooter, but Steph is the one who patterned his off-ball play after Reggie. Constantly looking for openings, constantly tiring his man out, constant using other players as shields who don't realize what he's doing to them. Before Steph, Reggie basically pioneered this style of play and no one came close to his skill at it until Steph met and surpassed him.

It's worth noting that as celebrated as Steph is, his fellow NBA players still underrate him, and the reason is because they don't understand the scale of impact he can have off-ball. It's my hope though that with huge influence Steph is going to have on future generations that by 2030 or so we start having many great off-ball movers kicking the NBA to a new paradigm shift.

[Doctor MJ]

So back to what miller did? Spacing, open passing lanes, etc? Gravity...

Yup. Reggie is basically the Isaac Newton of basketball gravity. There was no one before him who made use of spacing manipulation like he did.

(And ya, that makes Steph Einstein, to complete the analogy pairs.)

[Joey Wheeler]

Reggie.

By and large most folks don't understand what Reggie was doing out there and why it was so valuable.

Klay is a great off-ball shooter, but Steph is the one who patterned his off-ball play after Reggie. Constantly looking for openings, constantly tiring his man out, constant using other players as shields who don't realize what he's doing to them. Before Steph, Reggie basically pioneered this style of play and no one came close to his skill at it until Steph met and surpassed him.

It's worth noting that as celebrated as Steph is, his fellow NBA players still underrate him, and the reason is because they don't understand the scale of impact he can have off-ball. It's my hope though that with huge influence Steph is going to have on future generations that by 2030 or so we start having many great off-ball movers kicking the NBA to a new paradigm shift.

Unlike Curry, Miller actually increased his level in the playoffs. Indiana consistently overachieved in the playoffs on the back of Miller's hyperefficient scoring and overall offensive impact. He'd probably be even more impactful in this era as he'd be encouraged to shoot much more.

[Doctor MJ]

Yes, we're all aware he flopped like a fish. Annoyingly, everybody's all over Harden for that, but Reggie cheating was actually celebrated.

In any case though, it's all just "efficient" offense centered around shooting ability. Even as an offensive player he wasn't going to drive, or post, or any of that. He also didn't board, pass, create off the dribble, or defend. He basically did one thing. In that one outlier season for them in '98, he averaged 19.5pts...and 2.9reb 2.1ast 1.0stl. And the 19.5ppg was 21st in the league in scoring. And that was typical of him. A good, but not great pure scorer who was hellaciously efficient at lower volumes in a system entirely devoted to helping him run through 20 screens a possession to get off those efficient shots.

The difference in this comparison for me is Reggie absolutely proved he could be used in that way without shrinking or struggling with the attention. I've always suspected that Klay, who is arguably somewhat more rounded, would see his efficiency plummet if you took him away from Steph's side and made him a team's main offensive focus.

You, like most people who know a lot of basketball, underrate Reggie because you have "things you can do that are useful" into neat little buckets attached categories of classical skills.

The reality is that when Reggie was running around like he was, he was causing impact with the way he contorted the defense. This approach he used, it's not so much that it's inferior or superior to, say, a guy looking to get rebounds, as much as it is another valuable thing that has to be done instead of being the rebounder or being the on-ball guy.

The key thing is that Reggie was busy doing something productive, but since there wasn't any known stat for it back then all we saw was the PPG which led to thoughts of him being one-dimensional in his impact, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Literally EVERY offense should have a player like Reggie. Period. You don't need all your guys to play like him, just like you don't need them all to be focused on rebounding, but having a guy like him on the floor doing his thing just makes it a lot easier for other guys to get open shots and drives to the hole.

[Doctor MJ]

Reggie.

By and large most folks don't understand what Reggie was doing out there and why it was so valuable.

Klay is a great off-ball shooter, but Steph is the one who patterned his off-ball play after Reggie. Constantly looking for openings, constantly tiring his man out, constant using other players as shields who don't realize what he's doing to them. Before Steph, Reggie basically pioneered this style of play and no one came close to his skill at it until Steph met and surpassed him.

It's worth noting that as celebrated as Steph is, his fellow NBA players still underrate him, and the reason is because they don't understand the scale of impact he can have off-ball. It's my hope though that with huge influence Steph is going to have on future generations that by 2030 or so we start having many great off-ball movers kicking the NBA to a new paradigm shift.

Unlike Curry, Miller actually increased his level in the playoffs. Indiana consistently overachieved in the playoffs on the back of Miller's hyperefficient scoring and overall offensive impact. He'd probably be even more impactful in this era as he'd be encouraged to shoot much more.

Yup, he'd absolutely be more impactful today, but his impact back then was considerably bigger than most think.