penbeast0 wrote:For these two it's pretty much all about scoring, neither adds much else.
That's more or less true [mostly so, anyway]. However, delving into the nitty gritty is sort of what we do here, no?
Defensively, Reggie was passable: good length of a SG, not bad lateral quickness, very hard-nosed and consistent good effort [even in rs]. Weaknesses were that he wasn't overly strong, and not in any way a creative or brilliant defender.
Gervin in many ways is a similar athlete (excellent length for a SG, but kinda skinny/weak). Unlike Miller, though, he has a terrible defensive reputation. I'm not sure it's entirely earned; from my limited eye-test I didn't think he looked terrible [not in the way that Pete Maravich has looked terrible to me, for instance], but he was FAR from good, too.
To his credit, he's got multiple seasons averaging in the neighborhood of 2+2 [2 steals and 2 blocks] per 100 possessions. I don't think you can get that as a SG without putting in some effort defensively, particularly the blocks part. otoh, he does have a sort of high foul rate; so there may be some gambling and/or biting on fakes involved.
Gun to my head, I'm calling Reggie the better defender by at least a tiny margin.
Rebounding is a notable [though perhaps not enormous] edge to Gervin.
Passing/playmaking has got to go to Reggie. Gervin's a touch of a one-trick pony in this regard. Even though Reggie wasn't a good playmaker [at least in terms of passing], I'll note that he does have both a higher assist rate and a lower mTOV%.
And that's before we talk about the "Reggie Assist", but I'll get to that below....
penbeast0 wrote: One thing, Miller's teams seemed to be set up to create looks for Reggie. Indiana ran a pick heavy offense running Miller's defender through off ball as well as on ball picks. The Spurs pretty much seemed to just assume Gervin could score on anyone and would run their normal offense just throwing it to Gervin whenever they needed a boost. I don't know if that is much of a factor, but it was my perception at the time.
What has to be acknowledged, however, is that you can't just do what the Pacers did with Reggie using anyone. For example, you can't just run Gervin through that same pick-heavy offense and get the same result. You need a guy who knows the angles and timing on using screens [surprisingly not everyone figures that out], you need a guy with the motor to run all night [not everyone has that], and you need a guy who's an IMMEDIATE threat on any catch no matter how far from the basket [which forces not only HIS defender, but help defenders to cover him even if he doesn't have the ball (see Steph Curry for modern example).
It's his running thru screens and drawing two defenders [without even having the ball!] that created open looks for teammates (which he'd get no credit for in the box-score).
penbeast0 wrote: I did, however, feel that as a Washington fan, Gervin always seemed the more unstoppable of the two but that may just be a style thing; Gervin's scoring being more flashy.
There's no doubt Gervin was the better isolation scorer [and not particularly close]. All these considerations make "who's the better player?" an interesting question, though.
I don't think there's any question that Reggie had the superior longevity either, fwiw.
penbeast0 wrote:I would also say that I feel Miller played with superior teammates for longer though I have not done serious analysis on it.
I'd have to look into it more to say, but off the cuff I'm not sure I agree. I don't feel like Reggie ever had a great cast, for instance. And there were A LOT of years where the starting PG was someone like Vern Fleming or Haywoode Workman (and the best was probably an older Mark Jackson); the best C he EVER had was Rik Smits; the best SF he EVER had was probably Derrick McKey [or maybe a post-prime Chris Mullin].
Detlef Schrempf was likely the best player he EVER had as a teammate, and that was for about 4.5 seasons in an 18-year career.
Anyway, although I'm not voting for him yet, I'll comfortably take Reggie over Gervin, personally.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
