Basketball-reference puts Reggie Miller's HOF probability at 6.4%. Remember, this number is not based on merit or performance, it's simply a correlation study of existing HOF'ers. So what it's saying is given historical trend, Reggie Miller has a 6.4% chance of making the HOF. It would be a huge way out of the norm for the basketball HOF if Reggie Miller makes it. Interestingly enough, Chris Mullin also only had a 13.2% chance so it's possible the HOF standards are changing. Here's some interesting HOF probability numbers of players considered to be "on the cusp": T-Mac @ 59.8% Vince Carter @ 82.3% Dikembe Mutombo @ 6.4% Alonzo Mourning @ 53.5% Mitch Richmond @ 65.8% Tim Hardaway @ 56.3%
That is ridiculous if you don't believe Reggie Miller should be in the Hall of Fame. Maybe not first ballot but absolutely a HOFer.
Reggie is def an allstar. Surprised to see Tim Hardaway and the likes of Mitch Richmond having such good chances. Seems like anyone who makes the all star team a few times is eligible and perhaps likely to get in the hall of fame
For a guy who has never actually won a championship, it's pretty amazing that his clutch play has somehow managed to overshadow that he was a one dimensional scorer who wasn't even an elite scorer (average 18.1 ppg and peak 21-24 ppg) and never an elite player; All-NBA 3rd team 3 times were his only appearances in the All-NBA teams. If he played on middling teams he'd be like Kevin Martin; before you bash me for this comparison, think about whether Reggie was really significantly better as a player than Martin?
Thank you, still though, Miller is better than Martin will ever be though both are and never were good defenders.
This is a idiotic post. Anybody who feels Reggie miller shouldn't be in the HOF can't be over 25. The guy's probably the best off the ball shooter ever and is more clutch than anybody in his era (including MJ). Not only that but he had a very long productive career as well. Some of you clutchfan posters havent watched much basketball
Mutombo will make it as a "contributor" to the game, if nothing else. Or at least he should. Good basketball player. Amazing person.
Robert Horry was clutch and had a long productive career as well. Should he be in the HOF? There's just not enough on Miller's resume to be considered a HOF player. Has he ever even been considered a top 5 player in the league during any season? But like I said, Chris Mullin somehow got in and he was the least deserving of the Run TMC so I'm not sure what the standards are anymore.
I have no idea what their formula is; but any formula that says Baron Davis and Sam Cassell have better shots to make the Hall over Reggie need to readjust some things. Reggie is a first ballot hall of famer, and it ain't even close. If his numbers are down it is only because his career mirrored the greatest guard to ever play the game. Reggie had no chance to ever be a all first 1st team because of jordan. I'd take reggie miller over kobe any day of the week.
lol. I don't know about that last part, but I agree that these guys on this thread are really underrating reggie miller.
Never won a championship. Not a great defender. Didn't rebound. Didn't create off the dribble. Among his contemporaries, he wasn't as good as Jordan, wasn't as good as Drexler, wasn't as good as Richmond, wasn't as good as Mullin. Of the guys who came after him, Iverson, Kobe, Ray Allen, and McGrady were all better. He's a definite borderline case, and not a first-ballot guy. Unless you buy into the media-driven narrative, I guess.
I'd argue that he was definitely as good as Richmond and Mullin (and won a lot more games). Reggie shot a higher FG% and 3P% than Mitch and a higher 3P% than Mullin. The style of offense just didn't allow him to put up as many points, though those guys were probably both better at creating their own shot. I'll agree he's borderline but again, something is wrong if Mullin can get in but not him.
Geez man sometimes i can't believe the things i read, reggie miller was absolutely great and legendary in the playoffs, he was a bonafide superstar in the 90s he won a gold medal, i mean even though ray allen just recently broke the 3 point record 16 years into his career many still regard him as the best shooter ever and at the very least one of the best shooters. I've actually seen post were people thing mitch richmond is better???? I would choose reggie over kobe but lets be honest the only sg id choose over kobe is micheal jordan. Reggie miller is basketball royalty and deserves to be in the hall of fame. PS. As for the championship argument, name 5 stars that won championships in the 90s that didnt play for the bulls. Ill help u, Isiah, Hakeem, Tim Duncan...........(and clyde as a second option) so obvious championships were hard to come by at that time, shoot lebron is supposedly the best right now, he would be tmac in the 90's in the sense that he would never get out of the first round if he played against the legends of 90s basketball.
Was Horry ever a go to guy? Could Horry create his own shot? Did teams center they're game plan around stopping him? Did he every carry a franchise? Again, you guys can't be over 25 with this ridiculous logic. Reggie Miller is by FAR a HOF
Top 5 player ... no way. Even a top 5 wing is arguable Michael Jordan Hakeem Olajuwon David Robinson Shaquille O'Neal Karl Malone Charles Barkley Patrick Ewing Chris Webber Clyde Drexler Dominique Wilkins John Stockton Mitch Richmond Gary Payton Alonzo Mourning Reggie Miller had the memorable moments, but he wasn't the most versatile player in the world.
Tim Hardaway and Mitch Richmond were both pretty good players in the 90s, in fact, I would both arguably better than Miller. People often knock Richmond for not winning, yet he was stuck in Sacramento for the most part of his career. I doubt Reggie Miller would've made the Hall of Fame, being stuck in Sacramento or a bad team. I think people sort of forget how good those Pacer teams were from the 90s. Though, Miller was fantastic player in the playoffs.
