I think this is the most impressive. 4 threes in a row? There's a word I'm looking for...... what is it now? ahhh Clutch
That is the point. Who is to say that it is easier to score 13 pts in 32 seconds than it is to score 8 pts in 9 seconds? People were saying 8pt/9sec is higher ratio than 13pts/32sec, thus Miller's doing was greater. But it is not that simple. As a matter of fact, I will say 200pts/48min, though at a much much lower ratio, is 100 times harder to achieve than what either Miller or Tmac did.
Shooting-wise, T-mac's performance is by far greater. Get 4 3's plus a foul shot is much much harder comparing to shooting 2 in a row. Did Knicks miss two free throws in final seconds in that game, and let Miller shoot 2 free throws to get a win? (correct me if I am wrong). On the other side, Spus doesn't give Rockets too much chance. They get 7 of their last 8 free throws in. More impotantly, this is the first time I saw it happen ALIVE!!! Vote goes to T-mac
T-Mac vs. Reggie? I want to say it's TMac, but we're kind of lucky to pull that off. First, Yao follow up and dunks it, then Padget stole the ball and slams it home. Then we got Tim Duncan leaning on TMac for that three, Tim Duncan is usually pretty smart. We got all the breaks in that game especially at the end. It's great to have T-Mac goes into a zone in the waning second of the game. TMac definitely is one of best clutch players. Reggie on the other hand, it's more cold blooded. Just a great clutch player.
I think Reggie's was a bigger moment since it was the playoffs, but here are some things that were amazing about T-Mac's performance: *The 4 point play. Even getting that shot off with Duncan hacking him was amazing let alone making it. *Doing it against the best defense in the NBA along with one of the best perimeter defenders. *Doing it when everyone in the building knows you're going to go for three and doing it 4 times in a row. *My personal favorite.... going for the 3 and the win on the semi-fast break instead of the tie. That was gutsy but I don't think anyone has caught fire like that at the end of a game.
It's also harder to score 13 in 35 seconds... you have to be able to keep it going longer... just like someones example about 200pts in a game
I was actually at the Reggie Miller game at MSG....I was smart enough to stay for the end of that one...last night's game doesn't hold a candle to it...sorry.
I want to know what he REALLY did when he went back to the locker room. Then maybe I can do it and go to the NBA
I guess Samfish didn't get my point initially. The reason I brought up buzzer beaters was to show that the argument in favor of Miller will lead to the conclusion that buzzer beaters are greater, which is ridiculous.
Did they also score 17 pts in the final 45 seconds? Your Terps is no Spurs, I bet they commited multiple TO's and missed many FT's. Am I right?
the statement was that no one had ever done it...at the time Duke and Maryland were like 1 and 2 in the country...or close to it
i think you have to go with miller because of playoff pressure- BUT- miller had a much easier time getting in a rhythm considering the shots were all very close together (only 1 timeout or stoppage of play, i think- cant remember) the amazing thing about tmacs performance was every 3 was VERY well covered and all of them came with a timeout or freethrows in between, which makes it much harder to stay in a rhythm. not only did he sustain it, but completed a 4 point play during all of that AND did it against a team that has owned us recently... and to go for the win when all we needed was to tie- WOW. unreal
I second the statistical reasoning of canoner. It's an issue of sample size. What's harder? (or, in this analogy, more lucky?): 1) Flipping a quarter four times, and having it come up heads all four times? 2) Flipping a quarter 100 times, and having it come up heads 90 times? Looking at raw %, Scenario 1 has a higher % heads: 100%, vs. 90% for Scenario 2. But, when you factor in the unlikeliehood of repeating this phenomenon many, many times, Scenario 2) is clearly more remarkable. There's a way to do this mathematically, but frankly, I don't have the time to do it at work right now. Anyways, of course this analogy is somewhat limited, as it's about luck, and not performance. But the concept is the same: just because something has a higher <i>ratio</i> in a compressed period of time (Miller), does not necessarily mean it is more remarkable. my 2 cents. p.s. I do agree that Miller was on a bigger stage, though.
