Reggie Miller playing differently... 1995 Playoffs Knicks vs Pacers Game 3

[999Guy]

I dont really see how giving the ball to Smits to exploit a better matchup is a bad idea or giving the ball to Dale/Antonio Davis when they are covered by someone like Kukoc. He is still in the play by spacing the floor for those guys to prevent the double team.

Would the Pacers have been competitive against the Bulls in that one playoff series if they relied too much on one player to be their "superstar"? Miller was hobbled by an ankle injury mid series and without the strong play of Smits, the Davis boys etc. they would probably have lost early but those guys gave the Pacers a chance to win.

Miller would probably turn Smits into Ilgauskas if he had a different approach to the game.

Which people don’t understand.



Iverson got more efficient on less volume when he played next to Carmelo, but it would only make sense to do so.
Reggie has the ideal game for actually winning. Which is why his teams overachieved quite often.

Reggie’s IMPACT was better than his stats. The idea that a guy with that much off-ball gravity didn’t matter for any possessions except the ones he shot the ball or drew a foul is stupid.

Reggie was the Shaq of guards with how much stress he put on defenses without the ball and made his teammates way better than if he played like current Devin Booker.

But this is fundamentally different ideas about basketball we are talking about. I’m arguing against thirty or so years of PPG worship, with some Jordan and AND1 era propaganda thrown in there.

I mean think about it practically. If you had two Iverson’s on one team, you’re in deep shit. Neither is gonna play their best next to each other.

Somebody’s gonna suffer. Role players will suffer.

If you had two prime Reggie Miller’s? You are in coaching and scheming heaven in every single era of basketball, literally.

You have an offensive cheat code. And their games would mesh and have synergy for the whole roster. Two Reggie’s at the 2 and 3 with traditional guys like Jackson and Smits rounding out the roster? You are gonna be despicable in half court sets. And in today’s game, absolute hell in transition too.

Think about why all that is true, and that would answer any questions on how and why Reggie was underrated, is high-as-hell on impact, and is ideal for actually winning in any level.

[tpols]

Reggie’s IMPACT was better than his stats.

And his stats are already GOAT for his position. And he contextually used to hit the big shots. Play unselfishly, and with extreme competitive fire. Just an unbelievably underrated player because most people are dumb and only think what you do dribbling the ball matters, or how cool your game looks mattering more than effectiveness.

[Kblaze8855]

For one....the team took 50 shots a game outside Smits and Reggie at the time in question so I don’t know how you reach the conclusion that Reggie taking a few has to come from Smits....

Not to mention better duos than that have been fine with both taking more shots than either ever did. Plus Smits played like 25 minutes a game. None of Reggies teammates between Person and peak Rose would be any hindrance to him being a more consistently aggressive scorer. He just didn’t choose to do it. And that’s fine.

Nash didn’t either. Not everyone does. But his inability or hesitation was remarked upon but multiple coaches he had. Brown and Bird at least. But the very same quality....absolutely helped his efficiency. Overall point being that not everything that makes your scoring more statistically efficient is the right thing to do or more effective short term or long.

Not shooting when you aren’t open is correct....till nobody is open and someone has to do it anyway. There’s a time and place for everything and he often left something on the table when his team wasn’t scoring.

He was too good to be taking 10-11 shots in a close loss....but it wasn’t shocking to see. He just wasn’t prone to chasing it. And like I said...that’s great. Right up to the moment it isn’t.

[Kblaze8855]

And his stats are already GOAT for his position. And he contextually used to hit the big shots. Play unselfishly, and with extreme competitive fire. Just an unbelievably underrated player because most people are dumb and only think what you do dribbling the ball matters, or how cool your game looks mattering more than effectiveness.

And Professor and Hot sauce are genius players while Giannis is bad at basketball. Keep talking about substance though.

[DoctorP]

Highlights of his makes and misses with a lot of rare plays.

This is some sloppy, ugly basketball. Am I watching Rugby? I'd much rather watch 2000's basketball. Glad they opened the game up even if it has gotten a little over the top.

Miller was nothing special. Ray Allen was so much better with his 3ball.

[3ball]

.

Miller was nothing special.

It's hard for a shooter like Miller to be special at 4 to 5 three-point attempts per game

Curry wasn't shit at that volume either - he was a 19 ppg scorer for 3 straight years until the league format changed to a 3-point contest, thereby doubling his three-point volume and stats

Otoh, Miller didn't have a league format that fit his style, yet he still increased his scoring to 24 ppg in the playoffs with many deep, legendary runs (despite never having any star help)

[mehyaM24]

anyone who thinks iverson was better than miller needs their head examined. back then i could understand it. but NOW with stats at your disposal, playoff results and valued impact? no excuse for that buffoonery.

[DoctorP]

It's hard for a shooter like Miller to be special at 4 to 5 three-point attempts per game

Curry wasn't shit at that volume either - he was a 19 ppg scorer for 3 straight years until the league format changed to a 3-point contest, thereby doubling his three-point volume and stats

Otoh, Miller didn't have a league format that fit his style, yet he still increased his scoring to 24 ppg in the playoffs with many deep, legendary runs (despite never having any star help)

Pacers were a well oiled defensive machine. Rik Smits was a star and the Davis boys were tough. Meh. Not a Miller fan. He had his moments, the 3s at the last minute against the Knicks were amazing. Hell yeah Iverson was much better than Miller.

[mehyaM24]

miller outplayed iverson in their playoff matchups too. iverson averaged 28 to millers 26, but reggie shot 49/43/93 from the field compared to iverson's 39/21/78 most importantly though, millers teams went 9-4 in their h2h's.

[Rysio]

anyone who thinks iverson was better than miller needs their head examined. back then i could understand it. but NOW with stats at your disposal, playoff results and valued impact? no excuse for that buffoonery.

Iverson probably had more 40 point games in 1 season than reggie Miller did his entire career. Reggie Miller is now better than iverson lol only a dumb stat nerd would think that.

[mehyaM24]

Iverson probably had more 40 point games in 1 season than reggie Miller did his entire career. Reggie Miller is now better than iverson lol only a dumb stat nerd would think that.

miller was the best shooter of his era, a better defender & outproduced iverson in their playoff matchups.

you're a clown.

[DoctorP]

miller outplayed iverson in their playoff matchups too. iverson averaged 28 to millers 26, but reggie shot 49/43/93 from the field compared to iverson's 39/21/78 most importantly though, millers teams went 9-4 in their h2h's.

Iversons FG % was always shit, he was a volume shooter and had a worse team around him. Still a better player though and he wasn't even in his prime when he went vs Miller.

[3ball]

Pacers were a well oiled defensive machine. Rik Smits was a star and the Davis boys were tough. Meh. Not a Miller fan. He had his moments, the 3s at the last minute against the Knicks were amazing. Hell yeah Iverson was much better than Miller.

^^^ For anyone else, that's considered garbage help

The reality is that 3-point shooters like Miller or Curry don't need much help because getting an extra point on shots yields an effective brand of ball.. Klay/Dray certainly isn't 70-win help, but they're sufficient if you have a strategy edge on the league.

[mehyaM24]

Iversons FG % was always shit, he was a volume shooter and had a worse team around him. Still a better player though and he wasn't even in his prime when he went vs Miller.

based on what? miller had better raw numbers in the playoffs & better impact numbers across the board. because of his shooting & off-ball ability. basically miller's game was more valuable.

miller's teams also have a winning record against iversons teams. and no, you're wrong. iverson WAS in his prime. miller outplayed him in 2000 & 2001. that's PEAK iverson.

[DoctorP]

based on what? miller had better raw numbers in the playoffs & better impact numbers across the board. because of his shooting & off-ball ability. basically miller's game was more valuable.

miller's teams also have a winning record against iversons teams. and no, you're wrong. iverson WAS in his prime. miller outplayed him in 2000 & 2001. that's PEAK iverson.

Miller was on a better team and had to do less so it doesnt shock me that he had better efficiency numbers. I saw plenty of Iverson and know without looking at the numbers that he was a better player. Call it the eye test. I respectfully disagree. Agree to disagree. I will never take Miller over Iverson if given the chance. Maybe in a 3 point competition but that's it.