Reggie Miller vs Klay Thompson

[dhsilv2]

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.

Rip didn't have the shooting distance, but he always reminded me of a poor man's Reggie.

[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.

Rip didn't have the shooting distance, but he always reminded me of a poor man's Reggie.

Yup. Analyzing Hamilton is so strange because:

1. Nobody played like Miller before Miller.
2. Hamilton was probably the next guy to play like that, and the entire basketball world saw it and said "Ah, he's patterning himself after Miller".
3. Hamilton shot more 3's in college than Miller (granted with a worse percentage, but not awful).
4. Yet it's like Hamilton excised the 3's from both the pattern he took from Miller and his own college habits when he hit the pros.

I've always wondered if this was something that coaches tried to beat out of him, but the thing is that Larry Brown is the coach he's most associated with and Larry Brown coached Miller while he took lots of 3's. If Brown actually told Hamilton to avoid 3's after coaching Miller, to me that says something profoundly negative about a coach who was generally seen to be the smartest coach in the history of the game (not wisest, not most effective, but brilliant).

But as an analyst I appreciate us being able to see the difference. The reality is that Hamilton was the least effective of the core Pistons 5 (despite getting all-star primacy over Prince) and none of the Pistons 5 were as effective as Miller. If Hamilton simply plays more Miller like thus, I bet he takes a leap forward in value and I'd be inclined to say the team 3-peats and is legit seen as a dynasty.

And this gets into the WHY of how come players didn't play like Miller before Miller. It's not that Miller was fundamentally smarter per se than Jerry West or Rick Barry, but until the 3 becomes an established part of the game that a player is allowed to aim toward on a large portion of possessions, you can only effect so much value by running around like this.

And of course, gravity doesn't actually exist until it exists in the minds of defense. The scarier defenses realize someone like Miller is, the stronger his pull, the more power he has to manipulate them. Miller would shoot more 3's today because teams would understand that that's what needed to happen, and as he did so his ability to have passive impact through spacing would only grow.

Maybe it would be the same for Rip, but his career was what it was.

[Nazrmohamed]

Not a close debate. It's Reggie Miller by quite a margin. Thompson would have to be FMVP or lead his own team to deep playoff run to have a chance to pass him in my books. Impossible task as of now though.

I say the argument in the post right above yours is the better argument because hey, there are guys who put Pippen in the top 5 SF of all time. He only once led a team and they lost in the second round but I've argued the same thing. How there are guys with team carrying responsibility that would be offended by that but since Pippen was a number 2 on 6 titles it feels like he was a number 1 in some people's eyes.

I really like Klay and think he should be talked about the same way. But I guess the analytics tell a different story. Which begs the question for those more modern analytically inclined........is there a stat that provides insight into whether a career 2nd option would've done well as a 1st option had they had the opportunity?

For instance I've seen instances where a star gets hurt, the secondary star gets elevated and then let's say they don't gets as far in team success. Well then critics will say look, he had his chance and failed. Well my response has always been that star got to play with that 2nd option so that's not fair. When the 2nd got the opportunity he didn't have the output of the former first so really he's playing with the 3rd, 4rth and what have you. A fairer situation would be a role swap. Klay gets to be the primary and maybe Curry plays off the ball.

I know that was allot but just wondering if anybody knew of a way to measure that somehow. Without the eye test to murk it up.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Rip didn't have the shooting distance, but he always reminded me of a poor man's Reggie.

Yup. Analyzing Hamilton is so strange because:

1. Nobody played like Miller before Miller.
2. Hamilton was probably the next guy to play like that, and the entire basketball world saw it and said "Ah, he's patterning himself after Miller".
3. Hamilton shot more 3's in college than Miller (granted with a worse percentage, but not awful).
4. Yet it's like Hamilton excised the 3's from both the pattern he took from Miller and his own college habits when he hit the pros.

I've always wondered if this was something that coaches tried to beat out of him, but the thing is that Larry Brown is the coach he's most associated with and Larry Brown coached Miller while he took lots of 3's. If Brown actually told Hamilton to avoid 3's after coaching Miller, to me that says something profoundly negative about a coach who was generally seen to be the smartest coach in the history of the game (not wisest, not most effective, but brilliant).

But as an analyst I appreciate us being able to see the difference. The reality is that Hamilton was the least effective of the core Pistons 5 (despite getting all-star primacy over Prince) and none of the Pistons 5 were as effective as Miller. If Hamilton simply plays more Miller like thus, I bet he takes a leap forward in value and I'd be inclined to say the team 3-peats and is legit seen as a dynasty.

And this gets into the WHY of how come players didn't play like Miller before Miller. It's not that Miller was fundamentally smarter per se than Jerry West or Rick Barry, but until the 3 becomes an established part of the game that a player is allowed to aim toward on a large portion of possessions, you can only effect so much value by running around like this.

And of course, gravity doesn't actually exist until it exists in the minds of defense. The scarier defenses realize someone like Miller is, the stronger his pull, the more power he has to manipulate them. Miller would shoot more 3's today because teams would understand that that's what needed to happen, and as he did so his ability to have passive impact through spacing would only grow.

Maybe it would be the same for Rip, but his career was what it was.

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

[bondom34]

Mike Prada just wrote an article on Reggie, and it's very good.

https://mikeprada.substack.com/p/ahead-of-his-miller-time

And has gifs! Of more than "just a shooter"! Some fakes and drive bys on notable defenders.



Oh and not a bad passer, though he wasn't asked to at huge volume and he didn't turn it over much.

The idea that Miller was just a bucket-getter doesn’t pass the smell test either. Miller’s assist numbers were pedestrian and he was at his best when he didn’t need to change direction, but he read the floor well and delivered decisive, accurate passes whether into the post or back out to teammates. Considering how often Miller had to make quick decisions on the fly, it’s remarkable that he posted such minuscule turnover rates.

[rate_]

I say the argument in the post right above yours is the better argument because hey, there are guys who put Pippen in the top 5 SF of all time. He only once led a team and they lost in the second round but I've argued the same thing. How there are guys with team carrying responsibility that would be offended by that but since Pippen was a number 2 on 6 titles it feels like he was a number 1 in some people's eyes.

I really like Klay and think he should be talked about the same way. But I guess the analytics tell a different story. Which begs the question for those more modern analytically inclined........is there a stat that provides insight into whether a career 2nd option would've done well as a 1st option had they had the opportunity?

For instance I've seen instances where a star gets hurt, the secondary star gets elevated and then let's say they don't gets as far in team success. Well then critics will say look, he had his chance and failed. Well my response has always been that star got to play with that 2nd option so that's not fair. When the 2nd got the opportunity he didn't have the output of the former first so really he's playing with the 3rd, 4rth and what have you. A fairer situation would be a role swap. Klay gets to be the primary and maybe Curry plays off the ball.

I know that was allot but just wondering if anybody knew of a way to measure that somehow. Without the eye test to murk it up.

Klay's game is very scalable but not floor raising at all. I highly doubt he can carry a team as a #1 option. Biggest difference between the two is the free throw disparity. Klay cannot get to the line at will and put opposing defenses in foul trouble like Reggie. That is a big indicator of a #1 scoring option: free throw rate. Even when Harden was at OKC and had to defer to KD/Westbrook, his free-throw rate was always high. His ability to foul bait would carry over to a #1 option role when he got to Houston. And a Klay-led Warriors offense have never proven to keep a team afloat with Curry/Dray off court. From 2014-16, individual ORTG (w/o Curry & Dray) is 105 compared to 119 when all 3 are on the floor.

[Doctor MJ]

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

What's interesting about that is that Larry Brown is an ABA guy (which revolutionized basketball offense not defense) whose first two coaching stints in the ABA saw his teams take considerably bigger leaps forward on offense than on defense.

I think what I'd say is that a lot of these old school coaches earned the right to be seen as "old school coaches" by running circles around the "old school coaches" of their day. But time marches forward, guys get set in their ways, and they disappear.

This is one of the reasons I really revere guys who are able to stay ahead of the curve as the generations roll along and the market asymmetry transforms again and again.

Speaking of Klay Thompson, one of the things that blows me away about Jerry West was that when the Warriors were considering trading Klay Thompason for Kevin Love, he had a very specific reason why he was against it:

He said, Klay's never going to work in Mark Jackson's stodgy offense. Fire the coach, bring in someone with more spacing and flow and he'll take a leap forward. The Warriors did what he said and got a dynasty out of it.

That blows me away because back when West played, nobody was thinking like that. This wasn't something West grew up with. It's not something that was taught to him. It's just a basketball truth that he's figured out over time.

ftr, I was all for trading Klay to get Love, and me being wrong on that is why I appreciate so much understanding why the guy who was right was confident that he was right.

[TheGOATRises007]

This isn't even close.

Reggie Miller is in a different tier entirely to Klay.

[prophet_of_rage]

Klay easily. They are offensively equal and Klay can defend. Reggie couldn't. Reggie was like Richard Hamilton ... a leading scorer on a stacked team, but part of a gestalt. Rik Smits, Jackson and the Davises, even McKey ... were as important as Reggie. Reggie couldn't go get you a bucket.

[prophet_of_rage]

Rip didn't have the shooting distance, but he always reminded me of a poor man's Reggie.

Yup. Analyzing Hamilton is so strange because:

1. Nobody played like Miller before Miller.
2. Hamilton was probably the next guy to play like that, and the entire basketball world saw it and said "Ah, he's patterning himself after Miller".
3. Hamilton shot more 3's in college than Miller (granted with a worse percentage, but not awful).
4. Yet it's like Hamilton excised the 3's from both the pattern he took from Miller and his own college habits when he hit the pros.

I've always wondered if this was something that coaches tried to beat out of him, but the thing is that Larry Brown is the coach he's most associated with and Larry Brown coached Miller while he took lots of 3's. If Brown actually told Hamilton to avoid 3's after coaching Miller, to me that says something profoundly negative about a coach who was generally seen to be the smartest coach in the history of the game (not wisest, not most effective, but brilliant).

But as an analyst I appreciate us being able to see the difference. The reality is that Hamilton was the least effective of the core Pistons 5 (despite getting all-star primacy over Prince) and none of the Pistons 5 were as effective as Miller. If Hamilton simply plays more Miller like thus, I bet he takes a leap forward in value and I'd be inclined to say the team 3-peats and is legit seen as a dynasty.

And this gets into the WHY of how come players didn't play like Miller before Miller. It's not that Miller was fundamentally smarter per se than Jerry West or Rick Barry, but until the 3 becomes an established part of the game that a player is allowed to aim toward on a large portion of possessions, you can only effect so much value by running around like this.

And of course, gravity doesn't actually exist until it exists in the minds of defense. The scarier defenses realize someone like Miller is, the stronger his pull, the more power he has to manipulate them. Miller would shoot more 3's today because teams would understand that that's what needed to happen, and as he did so his ability to have passive impact through spacing would only grow.

Maybe it would be the same for Rip, but his career was what it was.

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

Hamilton didn't have NBA 3 point range. He had college 3 point range and there was nothing wrong with midrange shots in the 00s. Miller did not pioneer the come off screen game. Most shooting guards played that way traditionally. What he did was perfect it.

[dhsilv2]

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

What's interesting about that is that Larry Brown is an ABA guy (which revolutionized basketball offense not defense) whose first two coaching stints in the ABA saw his teams take considerably bigger leaps forward on offense than on defense.

I think what I'd say is that a lot of these old school coaches earned the right to be seen as "old school coaches" by running circles around the "old school coaches" of their day. But time marches forward, guys get set in their ways, and they disappear.

This is one of the reasons I really revere guys who are able to stay ahead of the curve as the generations roll along and the market asymmetry transforms again and again.

Speaking of Klay Thompson, one of the things that blows me away about Jerry West was that when the Warriors were considering trading Klay Thompason for Kevin Love, he had a very specific reason why he was against it:

He said, Klay's never going to work in Mark Jackson's stodgy offense. Fire the coach, bring in someone with more spacing and flow and he'll take a leap forward. The Warriors did what he said and got a dynasty out of it.

That blows me away because back when West played, nobody was thinking like that. This wasn't something West grew up with. It's not something that was taught to him. It's just a basketball truth that he's figured out over time.

ftr, I was all for trading Klay to get Love, and me being wrong on that is why I appreciate so much understanding why the guy who was right was confident that he was right.

Couldn't agree more. What separates the GREAT minds from VERY good ones is often the ability to just keep adapting. It isn't enough to have one revolutionary idea, but to keep doing it over and over as things changes. That's true genius.

Also sign me up as someone who totally missed the ball on the Love for Klay trade. I had some defensive issues, but in my mind Love was just too good to pass up.

[dhsilv2]

Yup. Analyzing Hamilton is so strange because:

1. Nobody played like Miller before Miller.
2. Hamilton was probably the next guy to play like that, and the entire basketball world saw it and said "Ah, he's patterning himself after Miller".
3. Hamilton shot more 3's in college than Miller (granted with a worse percentage, but not awful).
4. Yet it's like Hamilton excised the 3's from both the pattern he took from Miller and his own college habits when he hit the pros.

I've always wondered if this was something that coaches tried to beat out of him, but the thing is that Larry Brown is the coach he's most associated with and Larry Brown coached Miller while he took lots of 3's. If Brown actually told Hamilton to avoid 3's after coaching Miller, to me that says something profoundly negative about a coach who was generally seen to be the smartest coach in the history of the game (not wisest, not most effective, but brilliant).

But as an analyst I appreciate us being able to see the difference. The reality is that Hamilton was the least effective of the core Pistons 5 (despite getting all-star primacy over Prince) and none of the Pistons 5 were as effective as Miller. If Hamilton simply plays more Miller like thus, I bet he takes a leap forward in value and I'd be inclined to say the team 3-peats and is legit seen as a dynasty.

And this gets into the WHY of how come players didn't play like Miller before Miller. It's not that Miller was fundamentally smarter per se than Jerry West or Rick Barry, but until the 3 becomes an established part of the game that a player is allowed to aim toward on a large portion of possessions, you can only effect so much value by running around like this.

And of course, gravity doesn't actually exist until it exists in the minds of defense. The scarier defenses realize someone like Miller is, the stronger his pull, the more power he has to manipulate them. Miller would shoot more 3's today because teams would understand that that's what needed to happen, and as he did so his ability to have passive impact through spacing would only grow.

Maybe it would be the same for Rip, but his career was what it was.

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

Hamilton didn't have NBA 3 point range. He had college 3 point range and there was nothing wrong with midrange shots in the 00s. Miller did not pioneer the come off screen game. Most shooting guards played that way traditionally. What he did was perfect it.

He shot 34.6% for his career. That'd be good for 51.9 TS% which was roughly what his career mark was. More 3's and less long 2's would have improved his stats without really much debate. He was a ~42.5% mid range shooter, so that's reasonably good but it's a worse shot than a 3 at the rate he shot.

There was something wrong with a midrange shot the day they implemented the 3 point line. Just because coaches/teams didn't realize it doesn't change reality.

[prophet_of_rage]

I've always thought of Brown as an incredible defensive coach and a pretty backwards "old school" offensive coach.

What's interesting about that is that Larry Brown is an ABA guy (which revolutionized basketball offense not defense) whose first two coaching stints in the ABA saw his teams take considerably bigger leaps forward on offense than on defense.

I think what I'd say is that a lot of these old school coaches earned the right to be seen as "old school coaches" by running circles around the "old school coaches" of their day. But time marches forward, guys get set in their ways, and they disappear.

This is one of the reasons I really revere guys who are able to stay ahead of the curve as the generations roll along and the market asymmetry transforms again and again.

Speaking of Klay Thompson, one of the things that blows me away about Jerry West was that when the Warriors were considering trading Klay Thompason for Kevin Love, he had a very specific reason why he was against it:

He said, Klay's never going to work in Mark Jackson's stodgy offense. Fire the coach, bring in someone with more spacing and flow and he'll take a leap forward. The Warriors did what he said and got a dynasty out of it.

That blows me away because back when West played, nobody was thinking like that. This wasn't something West grew up with. It's not something that was taught to him. It's just a basketball truth that he's figured out over time.

ftr, I was all for trading Klay to get Love, and me being wrong on that is why I appreciate so much understanding why the guy who was right was confident that he was right.

The greats understand that styles make fights. If you took Jordan and said ... stand in the corner and come off a pin down screen while we throw it into Cartwright you don't have the greatest shooting guard ever. Pat Riley had the Showtime Lakers but when he got to New York he realised he didn't have runners or scorers outside of Ewing so he ground the game to a halt and mugged you for four quarters and made sure his guys were so well conditioned that they were still fresh in the fourth while the opponent's legs turned to jelly.

Mark Jackson was a shockingly unimaginative coach who basically had no offence. He was worse at his job than Klay was at his.

[HMFFL]

Reggie Miller but Klay does have a chance to pass Reggie if he can be more of a front man. He hasn't shown the passion and intensity Reggie naturally has.

Reggie was the star on a solid Indiana teams that has above average role players. Management never seemed dedicated to do what it takes to have more success. Reggie was always exciting to watch!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[prophet_of_rage]

Not a close debate. It's Reggie Miller by quite a margin. Thompson would have to be FMVP or lead his own team to deep playoff run to have a chance to pass him in my books. Impossible task as of now though.

I say the argument in the post right above yours is the better argument because hey, there are guys who put Pippen in the top 5 SF of all time. He only once led a team and they lost in the second round but I've argued the same thing. How there are guys with team carrying responsibility that would be offended by that but since Pippen was a number 2 on 6 titles it feels like he was a number 1 in some people's eyes.

I really like Klay and think he should be talked about the same way. But I guess the analytics tell a different story. Which begs the question for those more modern analytically inclined........is there a stat that provides insight into whether a career 2nd option would've done well as a 1st option had they had the opportunity?

For instance I've seen instances where a star gets hurt, the secondary star gets elevated and then let's say they don't gets as far in team success. Well then critics will say look, he had his chance and failed. Well my response has always been that star got to play with that 2nd option so that's not fair. When the 2nd got the opportunity he didn't have the output of the former first so really he's playing with the 3rd, 4rth and what have you. A fairer situation would be a role swap. Klay gets to be the primary and maybe Curry plays off the ball.

I know that was allot but just wondering if anybody knew of a way to measure that somehow. Without the eye test to murk it up.

You have to leave your team and go to another. Kawhi, for example.

[Metallikid]

Reggie, but really, Ray.

[Doctor MJ]

Hamilton didn't have NBA 3 point range. He had college 3 point range and there was nothing wrong with midrange shots in the 00s. Miller did not pioneer the come off screen game. Most shooting guards played that way traditionally. What he did was perfect it.

I don't think coming off set screens was the "Miller" part of the game. That happened to be sure, but Miller made other players on the court shields who had no intention to be shields. That also wasn't something that was invented, but I'm not aware of anyone who did this so aggressively, and certainly not with the intention of getting a 3.

Re: nothing wrong with midrange in the '00s. The interesting part is that the paradigm shifter came in the '90s and clearly people were not telling Rip. People thought it was fine even though the guy they thought Rip resembled was very specifically motivated based on getting 3's.

Re: college shooting range. I really struggle with the idea that guys who shoot well in general and shot the college 3 comfortably can't learn to take the pro 3 comfortably. I get it if you're an old vet, but the idea that you would make the 3 a part of your game in college and then just decide not to make it part of your game in college is a strange thing to me.

[evilpimp972]

Mike Prada just wrote an article on Reggie, and it's very good.

https://mikeprada.substack.com/p/ahead-of-his-miller-time

And has gifs! Of more than "just a shooter"! Some fakes and drive bys on notable defenders.



Oh and not a bad passer, though he wasn't asked to at huge volume and he didn't turn it over much.

The idea that Miller was just a bucket-getter doesn’t pass the smell test either. Miller’s assist numbers were pedestrian and he was at his best when he didn’t need to change direction, but he read the floor well and delivered decisive, accurate passes whether into the post or back out to teammates. Considering how often Miller had to make quick decisions on the fly, it’s remarkable that he posted such minuscule turnover rates.

Quality post, you just made me a fan of Reggie lol, I gotta watch those playoffs series back!

[picc]

While I do think Reggie has gotten overrated in hindsight, he's still better than Klay. Probably doesn't have the nuclear ceiling Klay does on offense, but a more consistently dangerous halfcourt player very comfortably. In both scoring and passing. Was just binging the 95 ECF between Orlando and Indiana along with some other series, and he's clearly a more dynamic and aggressive player all around.

Defense is a different story but he wasnt terrible on that end either.

[r0drig0lac]

Reggie obviously