I'll give you Ray Allen, but Mullin? Come on...the guy never even made a conference final, and certainly didn't have near the impact in the playoffs that Reggie did. Without looking at the numbers, Mullin might have been a better regular season scorer, but that's about it. And that was in a Don Nelson offense for many years. Same goes for Richmond. He put up big numbers on bad teams. Not to say he didn't have a similar level of talent, but Reggie Miller's career is defined by his clutch ability in the playoffs.
"John look at the score board". "John look at your stat line, you're a starting point guard, and look at your stat line" hahaha
Mullin was better than Miller better at scoring, playmaking, and is not worse at defense. Miller was not a good defender. Mullin and Richmond were just more all-around, and better players, than Miller. Richmond was a decent defender, I think, and just as good of a scorer/shooter, if not better. Switch prime Miller and prime Richmond/Mullin and I think you get exactly the same result for the Pacers. Robert Horry's rep is his playoff performance, but his real legacy is why he couldn't put up more than 12/6 numbers even though he had the talent to do more, and thus when he does do a bit more in the playoffs, it's "stepping up his game" and "being clutch". I don't think Horry is a great player or even close. Similarly I think Miller is being overrated because people remember the memorable buzzer beaters and think "oh he's amazing." It's not like he even has a ring. I believe all around game in, game out performance should decide who the better player was.
In any sports, you're defined by how you perform when the game is on the line. Reggie Miller EMBODIES clutch-ness. At the end of the game, you have no doubt in you mind that Miller will have the ball and take the shot, you design your whole play on prevent Miller from getting a good shot off, yet you STILL can't stop him. Nobody remembers the guy who scores 21 pts the first 47 minutes and 50 seconds, then bricks 4 straight free throws to lose the game in OT. Actually, I take that back. With Horry, he's at best the 3rd option on your team at any given time. You have the Hakeems, the Shaqs, the Kobes, and the Duncans to worry about before you focus on Horry. No offense to Horry, but most of the time he just camp at the 3 point line waiting for the pass to take the wide open shot. Plenty of great players don't have a ring. If we're going by rings, then we could be comparing DJ Mbenga to Karl Malone.
Reggie was not known for defense, but he was a good team defender and was average at worst. I don't think you can simply say "switch Richmond/Mullin for Reggie and you get the same result." Results mean something, otherwise playing the game is worthless. If Richmond or Mullin had even one defining year where they made a great playoff run (discounting Mullin's tenure in Indiana), I might accept the comparison. It's a shame that neither really had great supporting casts, but that doesn't automatically give them credit over the players that did and produced results. Nobody knows how they would have performed with games and entire seasons on the line. And Reggie is not just known for the buzzer-beaters. His scoring average went up nearly every year he was in the playoffs - which, by the way, was all but 3 of his 18 year career. It's the entire fourth quarters of playoff games that he would deliver even when the opposing team knew they were going to him. Nobody in history has had his ability to catch and shoot while coming off screens with such efficiency from three. The bottom line is he was a legitimate go-to guy in the biggest games, and we don't know that about Mullin and Richmond because they never played in those games.
Mullin had a higher prime than Miller. He was just too injury prone. To where Mullin was 2nd fiddle when he played on the same team Pacers team with Miller. Reggie Miller's prestige is helped out by being really good in 1 area. In his case as THE prolific 3 point bomber of his era. Similar to how Dennis Rodman is known for his rebounding. All-around skills should be coveted, but people tend to like an identifiable trait in a player even if its kinda 1 dimensional.
reggie miller was great, but that documentary was ridiculous knicks and pacers was a great story but in 95 it wasnt even in the conference finals! and neither of those teams even made it to the nba finals mediocrity has met a new level of greatness
The first things you mentioned, i gess thats just basketball savvy. I wud rather see sum1 be competitive and find sneaky things to do in a game than watch refs just favour players like wen fouls get called on superstars nowadays just because they r superstars
I feel the same way. Nowadays if you even look someone down, you could possibly get a T... its a shame.
ESPN's programming choices and topic selections are a far cry from Reggie Miller's ability as a player.
Growing up in the Bay Area, I was a huge Chris Mullin fan. That being said... Mullin absolutely did not play defense... none whatsoever. He and Kiki Vandeweghe were the slowest footed players ever to play in the NBA.
Miller was about the best off the ball runner that I can think of. I think he was a bit overrated numbers wise. Career averages of 3 rebs and 3 asts. His clutch reputation (which is earned) kind of boosts him up into discussions of truly great players. People that watched his entire career knew him best as a good shooter with an attitude. He didn't excel at defense, wasn't a superstar, didn't run the offense, etc.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/463f9vIeO6E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/463f9vIeO6E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> There was Reggie with 6 in 5.5 before there was Tracy McGrady with 13 in 35.
No your defined by the entirety of your contributions. Im not going to forgive a player for making the last shot when if he played better the team wouldve been safely in the lead.
Were most of you even watching basketball in the 90's, or are you just looking up stats and making comparisons. First of all Mullin was a small forward, so why is he being compared to a shooting guard. Second, how can anyone say Mullin and Richmond were not on good teams. They were on the same damn team, along with Tim Hardaway. They were called Run-TMC. If they were both that good, the team should have been better.
simple, a great shooter who could make millions and not get his teeth fixed! but that is just one man's opinion.
totally agree. And another thing, Reggie has a major edge in career longevity. Anybody saying that Reggie Miller consistently better teams than Mullin or Richmond, tell me who were Miller's best teammates in the 90's? Smits? Dale Davis? Mark Jackson? Face it, Reggie Miller (or the threat of Reggie Miller) made those teams run. And Miller may not have a ring, but he did lead a team featuring Smits, Davis, Austin Croshere, and an ancient Mark Jackson to within 2 games of beating the Shaq-Kobe Lakers for the 2000 title.
