That's the thing I want to point out does that make him better than some of these other players. There's no way I would've take a player like Miller over say a Barkley, Ewing, Robinson, or Mourning. Again, he deserves to be in Hall of Fame, but I won't concede on him being in top 5 or 10 players from the 90s. It would be head scratcher to put him at 9 or 10.
It is the Basketball HOF, which make him a definite. He was a very good player for a long time. In the 90s he was a 20ppg scorer shooting nearly 50%. He also led his team to the finals once.
Crazy. Richmond wasn't that great. He scored a lot of points, but he was a loser everywhere except GS which had Hardaway and Mullin, and Golden State actually got better without him. Every team had a substantially better record the year after they got rid of him. Advanced stats back up that he wasn't that good. Reggie has 100 more win shares than Richmond.
That and also pushed Jordan's Bulls to the brink ('98 ECF went to 7 games, Pacers were up 3-2 at one point) like no other team did during the 6 championships.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistical Excellence, or Hall of Production. Reggie is Indy's favorite athlete, even moreso than Peyton Manning. He is to Indy what Ron Santo was to Chicago, or Biggio was to Houston. He deserves it. (But not as much as his sister.)
You're speaking about a positional preference here. Would you really take any other shooting guard (besides micheal) over Barkley, Ewing, Robinson? I think that with very few exceptions I'd rather have Ewing and Robinson over any shooting guard not named Jordan. The only shooting guard that was ever worth a top ten center in the league was Micheal. However, positionally speaking, I think Reggie dominated his position as much as anybody ever has in the league at their positions. Take Ewing, for example - would you take him over Hakeem or Robinson? The point I'm getting at is that you can't judge players at different positions. I think that Reggie and Drexler and Micheal are closer than people think. Of course MJ is #1, but I don't think there is a clear #2. I like Reggie's clutch shooting, but I also like Drexler's athletic-ability and his ability to post up.
Funny. I was just watching this the other day. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/656noCVKWLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Reggie has won many playoff series and made it to the NBA finals. He's beloved by the Pacer fans. Stop comparing him to players that won nothing.
He's what the 2nd best 3-point shooter of all time. Had he not played in the Jordan era, he would have won at least one ring- hell if Artest doesn't go in the stands, that team wins the Finals that year.
You are seriously underestimating the type of career it takes to score 25,279 points, particularly as a guard. And it not really just the points, it's all of the clutch playoff moments too.
Longevity is also a factor. Reggie scored 10,000 more points in his career than Tim, and 5,000 more than Mitch. That's a boatload in each case.
Huh? I guess you kinda forgot about what happened with our basketball team in the 90's? We had a pretty clutch guy on it.
Under Reggie Miller, the pacers went to 4 eastern conference finals + another NBA Finals. When you think of the pacers, the first thing you think about is Reggie Miller. I'll say this, looking back at Miller Time: I'd actually take Reggie over Ewing, Robinson and certainly over Barkley. Reggie was so close to winning a title it isn't fair.
Geez man its not the same thing, Robert Horry was a role player Reggie Miller was the superstar on the team, defenses game plan were designed specifically around miller. Reggie Miller was second only to MJ when you talk about clutch play in the playoffs during the 90s. And to go further the only reason he is second to michael is because MJ has championships to back up his clutch moments.
Ironically, if Reggie had had a big man anywhere near the caliber of those guys or had those guys had a guard anywhere near what Reggie was, they would all have rings. I guess that's easy to say though - 2 HOFs = rings. But the likes of Rik Smits, Dale/Antonio Davis, John Starks, Sean Elliot, Dan Majerle, and Kevin Johnson just weren't good enough as the second best options. Makes what Hakeem did in '94 all that more amazing.
He'd be like Kevin Martin if you completely ignore the fact that Reggie Miller was a much better shooter than Martin and was not nearly as injury prone as Martin. Reggie was the best player on teams that competed for titles. If you switch Martin out for Miller I don't think those old Pacers are nearly as good.
He nearly beat Micheal without them. What is so amazing is that when you look at MJ's titles, many of them are a play away from being Bulls losses. It certainly wasn't luck, but the knicks, jazz, and pacers were closer to the bulls than people realize.
My biggest point was in someone else's argument who said that he was a top 5 player in the 90s, so actually I only refuted that point. In the 90s, Reggie Miller was a good all-star player who turned it up a notch in the playoffs, but to use the word dominate. No and no. In that era alone, I'm not sure Reggie Miller matched someone, like Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Clyde Drexler, or even Mitch Richmond. Again, never a great facilitator, defender, couldn't really create his own shot, and not nearly as versatile as these other players My biggest thing is he did not dominate his position, like Ewing did. Ewing is one of the most well-rounded players in history, he's got Miller beat in advanced statistics, like PER and WS. In his prime years (on average), Miller was only around 20 ppg. That's good, but hardly dominate. You could make a greater case in the playoffs. In fact in his strongest category, scoring, he's not exactly beating these players by large margin at all . All-star appearance for the most part, shouldn't matter, but Miller only appeared five times in an all-star game. That's not a sign of domin
Yet in career averages, Mitch Richmond and Reggie Miller are about neck and neck in percentages, yet Richmond was tad bit better overall. People are sort of downplaying how good of a team the Pacers had, especially compared to a franchise, like the Kings. Tim Hardaway is a mere decimals away from Miller in scoring, yet he was a great facilitator/other worldly point guard, better on defense. Honestly, I think alot posters are struck by highlights and not the actual games. If you are building a team, there's no way I would've picked Reggie Miller over David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, or Charles Barkley. He's a fraction under those players. Mainly, because I think all 3 of those players are amongst the top 20 players ever and are very rare talents. Can you name one season where Reggie Miller was a candidate for MVP?
I guess you and I see dominance in a different fashion, because I don't equate that with Mitch Richmond, Anfernee Hardaway or Grant Hill. Those guys all had great individual seasons but none did what Miller did over the long hall. 5 times Reggie lead his team to at least the ECF's game. He took MJ to 7 games, he went to the finals, all with decent above-average players but no other superstar. Reggie knew when to turn it on, when to raise his game. Grant Hill might have been great had he not got injured; but I am speaking mainly about what they as a group actually accomplished.
