Happy Birthday, Reggie Miller (his performances vs top defenses)

[SHAQ32]

While Reggie already has a reputation as a clutch performer in the playoffs, let's go even further and see how he performed vs. top defenses. For this, we consider 'top defenses' to be ranked in the top 4 in the entire NBA.

1990, vs 2nd-ranked Pistons:
21 ppg on 57% FG

1993, 1994, and 1995, vs the ranked-1st-each-year Knicks (averaged):
27 ppg on 47% FG

1994 and 1995, vs the 4th-ranked-both-years Hawks (averaged):
26 ppg on 46% FG

1998 vs the 4th-ranked Knicks:
25 ppg on 46% FG

1998 vs the 3rd-ranked Bulls:
17 ppg on 42% FG


As you can see, during these seasons, the only series vs. a top-ranked defense in which Reggie struggled was 1998 vs. Jordan and the Bulls. But overall, these are impressive scoring averages.

What makes them even more impressive is when you factor in pace. During the 1993-1998 seasons, Indiana was in the bottom third of pace average for the entire league, including 1995, where they were 25th (of 27), and 1998, where they were 27th (of 29).

So while these are just raw FG% scoring stats, I still think it's safe to say that Reggie was one of the very top perimeter scorers of his era. Here's a cool tweet:

Read on Twitter

[Owly]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Reggie Miller was so much fun man. Probably the most underrated scorer ever.

Reggie Miller has the 2 of the top 3 PS scoring runs ever according to ScoreVal. He had a ScorVal of 4.8 in the 1993 PS and 4.3 in 1996.

The 1993 mark is the highest ever according to the stat.

It is also noteworthy that Miller is the only player in history with 2 PS runs with a ScoreVal of 4 or higher.

Kareem in 1977 has a ScoreVal of 4.4. Other than those 2, no player in history has touched a PS ScoreVal of 4.

[DWhiteMamba]

Hate his commentary. Overrated retroactively as a player also. If it wasn't for some well publicised playoff shots against some major market teams people wouldn't remember him nearly as much as they do. Reggie has become an advanced stats darling, but looking back he was the leader of a bunch of mid to low 40 win teams for years until the talent around the team was upgraded substantially. At that point it was an ensemble cast, of which he was one guy (albeit the "leader", and often the best player, of said ensemble). Best stat ever Reggie Miller in 1993 was leading a 41 win team. Miller had plenty of flaws, and his shooting would have stood out much less in today's era of uber shooting. Back then teams often did a terrible job of guarding the 3pt line.

[SHAQ32]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

Not sure if they were ideal at defending Reggie in particular but these teams defended shooting guards well on paper, with Dumars, Starks, Mookie & Augmon, Jordan & Pippen, etc.

[falcolombardi]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

theorically a team being a good defense overall, specially in rim protection should have trickle down effects on the rest of the court

a great mistake eraser ay the rim should dissuade from attempting high value lay ups and give defenders more confidence to play more agressive defense on the perimeter and outside the paint

of course the modern pace and space era has made this less true since centers are often forced outside the paint by 5 out teans or even 4 out with great pick and roll (see jazz vs clippers this year) making the disproportionate and court wide value of centers a bit less and increasing the relative value of perimeter defenders and help defense (theorically)

in a way i think the disproportionate value of bigs in defense and more equalitarian value of perimeter and bigs in offense has kind of reversed to a degeee

now imo, dominant defenders need team effort and coordination and quality defenders at all positions mpre thsn ever, one great interior defensive player can not carry a defense so easily anymore

if anythingh this is why i think defense in the perimeter may be more valuable -now- every weak link matters when spread pick and roll is so powerful and is relatively easy to put bad defenders on the play and avoid best 1vs1 defenders

and is why teams with great defenders at every/most positions (lakers, bucks, raptors, some other worse teams like george/roberson okc, etc) where carried defense like gobert jazz dont hold up so well

while in offense is the inverse trend, heliocentrism and spacing has made "carry job" offense easier for perimeter stars

but in reggie era?, the dificulty in getting layups (and the presente of great rim protector a making him try less) alone should have made it harder on him, even if technically ewing is not the one guarding him off screens he still has arguably the biggest impact against him

[No-more-rings]

He’ll definitely look more impressive if you list his ts%. A broad listing of field goal% doesn’t do justice for a high volume 3 point shooter. He absolutely was a great postseason scorer though for sure. He sort of was like a guard version of Dirk though with less impact because he’s not dragging big men out of the paint and doesn’t rebound but it’s a compliment nonetheless.

[90sAllDecade]

Watch on YouTube

[DWhiteMamba]

Back then defenses generally thought letting other guys take a 3 was good D. There was nothing like the emphasis and scheming to stop 3pt shots today. Reggie was a fine player, but he reminds me of I.Thomas on the Pistons. Two guys who were over-hyped by some people for being early adapters in doing something that seemed groundbreaking. Back when Thomas played there were almost no point guards who could do what he did, his style was a new twist on the role of the point guard. Today tonnes of guys can do the things Thomas did (without bricking as many shots and being a defensive liability). In Miller's time guys didn't shoot 3s as efficiently as he did and defenses often didn't guard it properly. Today a tonne of guys shoot 3pt shots super well, and aren't the defensive liability Miller was and can create their own shot as well.

Another thing these 2 have in common is few ex-players seem as unaware of what made them successful on the court. They are just unbearable to listen to, with their terrible takes and fist waving at cloud sermons.

[Owly]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

theorically a team being a good defense overall, specially in rim protection should have trickle down effects on the rest of the court

a great mistake eraser ay the rim should dissuade from attempting high value lay ups and give defenders more confidence to play more agressive defense on the perimeter and outside the paint

of course the modern pace and space era has made this less true since centers are often forced outside the paint by 5 out teans or even 4 out with great pick and roll (see jazz vs clippers this year) making the disproportionate and court wide value of centers a bit less and increasing the relative value of perimeter defenders and help defense (theorically)

in a way i think the disproportionate value of bigs in defense and more equalitarian value of perimeter and bigs in offense has kind of reversed to a degeee

now imo, dominant defenders need team effort and coordination and quality defenders at all positions mpre thsn ever, one great interior defensive player can not carry a defense so easily anymore

if anythingh this is why i think defense in the perimeter may be more valuable -now- every weak link matters when spread pick and roll is so powerful and is relatively easy to put bad defenders on the play and avoid best 1vs1 defenders

and is why teams with great defenders at every/most positions (lakers, bucks, raptors, some other worse teams like george/roberson okc, etc) where carried defense like gobert jazz dont hold up so well

while in offense is the inverse trend, heliocentrism and spacing has made "carry job" offense easier for perimeter stars

but in reggie era?, the dificulty in getting layups (and the presente of great rim protector a making him try less) alone should have made it harder on him, even if technically ewing is not the one guarding him off screens he still has arguably the biggest impact against him

On Knicks specifically I would argue Ewing's driving deterrent would have a relatively minimal effect (certainly their team level performance for more driven by, and reflective off, effectiveness against more conventional driving, isoing wings) on a primarily outside shooter (who's savvy at generating ticky-tack marginal fouls on the outside) and that rather than a physically tough defense you would want a smart, communicative, (maybe athletic/switchy) defense.

As another poster noted there are plenty of good wing defenders here. As I said, this isn't to deny Reggie's greatness. Nor deny that he was effective in these series against overall very good defenses. But I do think a great defense on average isn't necessarily a great defense to minimize a specific individual and Reggie as an outlier style of player in his time, is plausibly more affected by this than most.

[ShotCreator]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

Eh. Lillard or Curry are outliers.


By the 90’s, Reggie’s volume and efficiency from 3 weren’t that crazy. His volume and efficiency from everywhere, combined with a good free throw rate and ast/tov ratio is what made him all-time good for his archetype in the box score.

But several guys across the league were Reggie level on 3 volume and efficiency, even in the playoffs.


You had several teams who already had strong space and pace principles in the early to mid 90’s.

Houston an obvious one winning b2b. I highly doubt you can call yourself a good defense and be prone to leaving shooters.

And that’s not to say any of those defenses were. NY, absolutely wasn’t at all. And he torched them.

And really I can’t think of one specific defense that should’ve been good at stopping Reggie.


It’s not like Reggie played on teams to get pressure off himself either. Indiana was very low on spacing, and had no players that could really warp defenses in Reggie’s prime.

NY got lit up while selling out to stop Reggie and still didn’t. Which is the sign of a guy really versatile and resilient. A dominant offensive player.

[ShotCreator]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

theorically a team being a good defense overall, specially in rim protection should have trickle down effects on the rest of the court

a great mistake eraser ay the rim should dissuade from attempting high value lay ups and give defenders more confidence to play more agressive defense on the perimeter and outside the paint

of course the modern pace and space era has made this less true since centers are often forced outside the paint by 5 out teans or even 4 out with great pick and roll (see jazz vs clippers this year) making the disproportionate and court wide value of centers a bit less and increasing the relative value of perimeter defenders and help defense (theorically)

in a way i think the disproportionate value of bigs in defense and more equalitarian value of perimeter and bigs in offense has kind of reversed to a degeee

now imo, dominant defenders need team effort and coordination and quality defenders at all positions mpre thsn ever, one great interior defensive player can not carry a defense so easily anymore

if anythingh this is why i think defense in the perimeter may be more valuable -now- every weak link matters when spread pick and roll is so powerful and is relatively easy to put bad defenders on the play and avoid best 1vs1 defenders

and is why teams with great defenders at every/most positions (lakers, bucks, raptors, some other worse teams like george/roberson okc, etc) where carried defense like gobert jazz dont hold up so well

while in offense is the inverse trend, heliocentrism and spacing has made "carry job" offense easier for perimeter stars

but in reggie era?, the dificulty in getting layups (and the presente of great rim protector a making him try less) alone should have made it harder on him, even if technically ewing is not the one guarding him off screens he still has arguably the biggest impact against him

Theoretically? Almost factually and certainly.

Larry Bird in the 80’s was a true outlier on shooting, especially at his position, and his shooting fell off tremendously against tougher defense.

And he had some pretty good offensive help.

[Owly]

I have a small issue with (some use of) "versus top defenses" in general, that it seems to assume that the team covers that particular position well (the presumed idea being that the tough defense is, or should be, tough for that particular player).

This would be magnified for Reggie. Reggie was an outlier in terms of getting his points from 3. Thus the types of defense that are most effective on average aren't necessarily the the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller and conversely the most effective teams at defending Reggie Miller don't necessarily show up at the top of the best (on average) defenses.

This isn't, of course, to say that Reggie Miller wasn't very good indeed. Just some thoughts.

Eh. Lillard or Curry are outliers.

Other players being outliers in a different era doesn't stop Miller being one.

By the 90’s, Reggie’s volume and efficiency from 3 weren’t that crazy. His volume and efficiency from everywhere, combined with a good free throw rate and ast/tov ratio is what made him all-time good for his archetype in the box score.

But several guys across the league were Reggie level on 3 volume and efficiency, even in the playoffs.

And yet you name ... none of them.

90-99 (which covers [slightly beyond] all these runs, but could still go longer for some claims) Miller is consistently top 10, mostly top 5, twice 1st in 3pt makes and above .400 both on average and in half the individual seasons.

Rice might be the closest to his generation matching volume and efficiency. But he's at a career .262 3PAr for 188 (league adjusted) 188 3PAr+ (100 being baseline). Miller at .371 3PAr and 281 3PAr+. Ellis at the back end of the 80s matched (slightly surpassed) Miller versus league norms. He might be the closest to Miller in the 90s but by this point it's mostly not like for like (6th man or bench player, not the team's highest scorer).

But to be clear, he's not just an outlier in generating points above average from three, he's a outlier in style, scoring (3s) off ball (Ellis did this too, though later more spot up).

re: "even in the playoffs" assume this means, because Miller was better then (true). But if you're thinking single runs or any other small samples. I would think comparable playoffs are more likely because of small samples and a high variance thing being measured.

You had several teams who already had strong space and pace principles in the early to mid 90’s.

Houston an obvious one winning b2b.

Houston did shoot a lot of 3s for the time (though not that efficiently in the RS). A hub and spokes, inside-out off the double team offense is however not the same as one based on freeing an off-ball shooter with picks.

I highly doubt you can call yourself a good defense and be prone to leaving shooters.

At this point it's difficult to see if there is intent for an honest debate given the framing ...
Will being "prone to leaving shooters" (on purpose? as part of some trade off or just for giggles?) correlate with good defense, no.
Is it possible that the best defenses aren't the best defenses at guarding off-ball 3 point shooters ... yes.
Was it possible to not only "call yourself a good defense", but actually be one whilst conceding a high percentage on 3s. Well the 98 Cavs -5.9 rDrtg is pretty strong. This despite the fact they were 4th in 3pt fg% allowed (though below average volume).

And really I can’t think of one specific defense that should’ve been good at stopping Reggie.

That you can't think of one doesn't matter though. what would matter more is if any were or not. But I'll imagine it's true. And I'm entirely open to Reggie being defense inelastic and his raw numbers being the roughly the same versus all defenses (not just in terms of good and bad on average but also different in kind). This wouldn't change much/perhaps anything in my post. Best team defenses aren't necessarily best at covering a specific position, archetype or, within that, specific player. Miller had an extreme style that typically effective defenses perhaps they weren't any (or much) more effective against than the Clippers, Nets, Nuggets, Kings of the era (or whichever teams had worst D in a given year, I've listed some 90s punching bags in general).

It’s not like Reggie played on teams to get pressure off himself either. Indiana was very low on spacing, and had no players that could really warp defenses in Reggie’s prime.

As far as I can tell
1) this doesn't seem to relate to anything in the post it's notionally in response to.
2) the "very low on spacing is less of a concern to an off ball shooter than a driving and/or iso-based scorer. Whilst effective screen setters would be more important.
3) "very low on spacing" is at very least too vague and sometimes outright wrong. Smits at the 5 was 0.467 from 16ft-3pt in the limited sample we have, and 0.434 from 10-15ft. Smaller samples for Smits but both those numbers were (as of time of compilation, circa a year ago) better than Novak, Redick, Korver, Calderon, Hubert Davis, K Thompson, Kapono, Miller himself, Lillard etc. Schrempf too was superb shooter, especially if you consider him a 4 which is typically his first listed position from guides at that time, though he played both forward spots. Micheal Williams was a good pure shooter too, whilst replacement Pooh Richardson mental issues at the stripe he was regarded as a capable shooter to 20 feet (supported, in a very limited sample by bkb-ref shooting splits). I wouldn't say C Person, Sam Mitchell, McKey or Mark Jackson were "very poor" either (Dale Davis, yes). Later they add Mullin.

NY got lit up while selling out to stop Reggie and still didn’t. Which is the sign of a guy really versatile and resilient. A dominant offensive player.

The assertion that the Knicks were (in general?) "selling out to stop Reggie" is unsupported here, which would make engaging on the topic, even if I wanted too, tough.


I'm done here.

[SHAQ32]

Yeah, and sorry I was just too lazy to click through each playoff series and get TS%. I mean just looking at the FG% and remembering how Reggie gets his points, you could imagine his TS% is fairly high, so.

[DWhiteMamba]

The idea anyone in the 90s was "selling out" to protect the 3pt line is almost certainly false. It was the least defended area of the floor. In today's game the thing that makes Reggie special is normal, and the whole system is geared towards stopping it. Miller would not stand out, and would not be rated anywhere near as high as some people want to pretend he was in hindsight.

Reggie wasn't rated that high by his contemporaries, you can see that when you look at awards voting, etc, and in today's game he wouldn't be either because he'd be less of a stand out at the thing he's good at.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Yup, this thread proves Reggie is one of the most underrated players ever. With just about anyone other all-time great on here, people discuss their dominance relative to era, yet with Reggie he is overhyped because he played in an era not prepared to defend him.

Turns out being too good for your competition does have drawbacks.

[LukaTheGOAT]

The idea anyone in the 90s was "selling out" to protect the 3pt line is almost certainly false. It was the least defended area of the floor. In today's game the thing that makes Reggie special is normal, and the whole system is geared towards stopping it. Miller would not stand out, and would not be rated anywhere near as high as some people want to pretend he was in hindsight.

Reggie wasn't rated that high by his contemporaries, you can see that when you look at awards voting, etc, and in today's game he wouldn't be either because he'd be less of a stand out at the thing he's good at.

Pretty likely he would shoot many more 3s today, therefore possibly giving him a chance to bump up his efficiency.

[DWhiteMamba]

Reggie wasn't "too good" though. He was not rated highly by his contemporaries either, and his teams didn't achieve above the expected results. The only thing he is hyped by is some advanced stats and a very select sample of clutch moments fondly remembered by fans.

[pillwenney]

Hate his commentary. Overrated retroactively as a player also. If it wasn't for some well publicised playoff shots against some major market teams people wouldn't remember him nearly as much as they do. Reggie has become an advanced stats darling, but looking back he was the leader of a bunch of mid to low 40 win teams for years until the talent around the team was upgraded substantially. At that point it was an ensemble cast, of which he was one guy (albeit the "leader", and often the best player, of said ensemble). Best stat ever Reggie Miller in 1993 was leading a 41 win team. Miller had plenty of flaws, and his shooting would have stood out much less in today's era of uber shooting. Back then teams often did a terrible job of guarding the 3pt line.

I don't think you're totally wrong. I think what stands out to people is that he was only the real star on any of the teams during his prime, and he did make some deep playoff runs in that position. The teams were deep with really solid players, but they were hardly super talented ones--at least during his prime.

I suppose there's some relevant context though--which is that one-star teams were super common in the 90s, and he played in a weaker conference.

I think he's a fascinating player, because his game was pretty much just super elite off-ball movement and shooting in an era where that wasn't a common way of leading a team. He wasn't a conventional "go get us a bucket" guy or really much of a playmaker. Didn't even have that many huge scoring seasons in terms of volume. And yet, he was the top player on teams as good as teams where the top player was Ewing, or Pippen, or young Shaq. It just seemed like his impact far outweighed what it would have seemed like, and what's interesting to me is that the league didn't seem to pick up on it at the time. Reggie was a sign of things to come, of just how powerful shooting could be, and for the most part, the league just didn't realize it for years.

[DWhiteMamba]

Yeh, according to some advanced stats that people need to stop relying too heavily on Reggie was "the reason" those teams were as good. In reality, as I pointed out, he was part of an ensemble cast, even if he was (at times) the best player on that cast. So the comparisons to teams "as good as Shaq's teams", then the implied causation that Reggie was the reason for that, in a way that was remotely comparable to Shaq, is where you are off base. I look at their best team in 98, and I don't see Reggie Miller's team. Instead I see Reggie, the Davis twins, Smits, M.Jax, Jalen Rose, McKey and Mullin. A really nice, deep and well balanced team.