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

[999Guy]

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.

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

[DoctorP]

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

Care to post any vids of this so called domination for us non stat nerds?

[mehyaM24]

Lol. Reggie was smoking this guy the **** out at ages 33-36.

He even smashed peak Iverson in 2001 with his .500 team that had worse help than Iverson’s the years before.

Iverson was worse on both ends and especially in the playoffs. Even compared to old Reggie.

[999Guy]

Care to post any vids of this so called domination for us non stat nerds?

Is this your way of questioning that it happened? How could my getting the highlight videos ITT change the fact that you said the lousiest argument phrase ever, ‘agree to disagree’, and said the eye test is what you go by? Which is to say we both know you won’t accept any evidence showing Miller outplaying Iverson.

[DoctorP]

Is this your way of questioning that it happened? How could my getting the highlight videos ITT change the fact that you said the lousiest argument phrase ever, ‘agree to disagree’, and said the eye test is what you go by? Which is to say we both know you won’t accept any evidence showing Miller outplaying Iverson.

because I concede the technical argument, have no time or will to research any stats and want to watch the videos. Can you not understand that? I would take the video evidence as is.

[DoctorP]

[999Guy]

because I concede the technical argument, have no time or will to research any stats and want to watch the videos. Can you not understand that? I would take the video evidence as is.

Why would a highlight video give you more information than stats?

We’re not even talking a game.

If Iverson shoots 47 TS% while another guy does 67 TS% on more volume it’s up to you to tell me how that could possibly mislead anyone on who had a better series.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...vs-pacers.html

[DoctorP]

Why would a highlight video give you more information than stats?

We’re not even talking a game.

If Iverson shooting 47 TS% while another guy does 67 TS% on more volume it’s up to you to tell me how that could possibly mislead anyone.

let me know if you find a full game. i want to dissect it.

[Reggie43]

Yeah there is no denying that he should have shot more especially in the regular season but I think he had a pretty good balance in the playoffs even if there would be years he would leave a lot in the table for being unselfish/not agressive enough but he would usually make up for it the next year by playing at a higher intensity.

He may not have had the perfect approach but he had decent success with it outside of winning a ring and would prefer that style of play compared to similar level guys gunning for 20+ shots a night with their teammates reduced to spectators resulting in bad team chemistry.

[90sgoat]

The reason people put Iverson so high, is because watching him play told you way more, than looking at the stats.

Iverson was just a phenom, a relentless attacker, so difficult to plan for and warrior.

His issue was quite simple: shot selection.

He made Kobe look like Stockton. Iverson would just take the worst shots at all times. Long 2s mostly early in the shot clock.

It's why they moved him to shooting guard and then he'd play great off ball in the first half, but would want to take over in the second and begin just bombing away long 2s in the second half.

Had he played today, he would the biggest name, no doubt. 40ppg, easy.

[tpols]

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

I might've said they had genius skill... which they do. They do things with the ball that take stupid creativity and skill... dribbling, passing etc. I never said they'd be more more effective NBA players. Giannis is like 7 foot 245 lbs of pure muscle and can run like a deer. He's good because of his rare athleticism... not his basketball skill. Which is what I called bad btw... you took that out of context.

You simply underrate Reggie for some reason and the Iverson analysis is the most obvious example of how badly the media brainwashed you into thinking Iverson was better, when Reggie scored the same amount of points basically on way, way, way higher efficiency. If Iverson is missing an extra 7 shots a game, even if his teammates suck and shoot like shit.. 2/7 ~ 28%, that's an extra 4 or 6 points. And that could be the difference in the game. I mean... it's not even close. And unlike Giannis you cant point to defense and rebounding. All he was is entertainment and money. His game sold, it wasn't nearly as effective.

[Kblaze8855]

The exact words you said:

he is the perfect example of nba marketing making a player greater than he seems...

like imagine this dude under all different types of rule sets, ones where for instance no 3 seconds in the lane which is a blatant money grab rule to make athletic players appear good at basketball..

analyze his skillset in a vacuum, hes not even really good at basketball.

Entirely in context. Entire post.

He would be dikembe mutumbo in past eras which is still nice, but he's gotten a huge boost from today's era of spacing, monopolizing, and palming.

Giannis in the 80s west that ran like they do today only played less defense.....would be mutombo. A guy literally gliding entirely over defenders dunking alleys is gonna be stiff ass Dikembe(as if Mutombo were bad himself....but of course you dont acknowledge defense despite considering yourself a serious fan).



You make jackass points that disregard the total game all day everyday because you break down the game like a child. So And 1 players who specialize in fancy illegal moves for a show while routinely getting eaten by dudes from the Y(ive seen and 1 in person) have genius skill. Throwing the ball in a circle under your jersey and dribbling with your feet may be amusing sideshow skills....but they arent basketball ones any more than kicking the ball in which ive seen some do as well. Either it can apply to a game or it cant. The ref/announcer yelling "No holding!" to embarrass defenders into not playing any serious defense so guys can do fancy moves doesnt make you good no matter how spectacular your are in selected clips of it working. Those guys dribbled out of bounds all the time. Couldnt shoot. Would get guys playing D pulled from the game for ruining the show. Saw some of them at the absolute height of that nonsense. Theres a reason they sold mixtapes and not full games. Half the shit didnt work. THey toured all over with the real and post breakup teams and after 5 minutes you realize its garbage to impress 12 year olds. And you. They were not the harlem globetrotters...who beat the lakers in a real game. They were a circus.

But thats how you evaluate basketball skill at times. Fancy moves over effective total game....then turn around and talk about the media making people think AI was good as if every player and coach didnt reach the same conclusion.

You pretty much troll in whatever direction needed at the moment. You ignore whatever skills are needed to advance the trolling of the day. Praise and 1 dudes as having genius skill one day then act like Mr purity the next almost always ignoring defense entirely unless you need to lean on it to troll the other way. The one thing I can count on from you is taking the most extreme approach to whatever point youre trying to make at the expense of all fairness.

[Kblaze8855]

Miller was on a better team and had to do less so it doesnt shock me that he had better efficiency numbers.

One weird thing to me....the insistance by many that Reggie didnt have really good teams. Especially when its so often coming from people who harp on how not everything is ppg.

For a few years there Reggie had the prime version of like 5 all stars.....none of which were the guy 3 HOF coaches from the time said was the teams best player. The team in the OP had 5 people who played in all star games and Reggie was the oldest of them. The youngest was 25. So ALL of these people were prime ages. Reggie had a whole squad of low end all stars/very good players most of them playing a game that suited him perfectly. Hes out there with the guy who retired with the second most assists ever, not one, not 2, but 3 low end all star centers, a guy I believe was second in 6th man of the year voting as like...the 8th man....and Mckey who the coach of the team, Phi Jackson, and George Karl all called the best player on the team.

Derrick Mckey was like 6'9'' and could guard the entire NBA. Hed press guards full court on the Sonics, turned around and guarded Hakeem and Barkley types, could pass better than many guards(Reggie among them)....multiple time all D guy.

Nobody even knows who that is.

He and 4 others who were low end all star level were out there with Reggie getting absolutely no recognition for the same reason people on here think Reggie is underrated now....fans not seeing how PPG isnt everything.

You would figure people saying shit like:

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.

Would be repping the entire Pacers squad.

Being better than your PPG could be said of like....the 8 best players on every Pacers team from maybe 94-01. Bunch of hard working guys who specialized in non ppg contributions other than Smits who simply didnt have the body to be played big minutes when he had so much help in the frontcourt anyway.

The pacers had some of the deepest squads in the NBA they just didnt have guys with eye popping point totals.

Vince Carter at his peak was trying to get by with Reggies former 7th man as his all star sidekick years past his prime.

By the standards of the late 90s Reggie had a more than solid squad. None of them washed up or young up and comers. Straight prime veterans who could all play and proved they could contribute at a high level. That was among the better constructed teams in the nba. Theres a reason they nearly knocked off the Bulls with Reggie barely showing up. They came at you a lot of ways no matter what Reggie did. Smits was out there playing Ewing like a straight up equal at times. Hell he doubled Ewings scoring in the game OP posted.

That was a total team and at the time the person getting the most credit for it was Larry Brown. Things just morph a lot in retrospect and the big names get bigger and the guys doing the little things get lost in the shuffle. But there were no one year wonders on those teams. No has beens or one days. All long term good veteran players who knew how to win. The pacers were as far from Reggie and some guys as it gets. It was some guys....and Reggie was one of them. The most historically prominent because only scoring gets ESPN specials....but he was more of a first among equals than some kinda straight up leader of those teams. Im not sure Mark Jackson being swapped for an average numbskull point wouldnt hurt them as much as swapping out Reggie some of those years. Prime mark was more than his 10/9 or whatever he might average.

That team minus Reggie, Jackson, or Smits wouldnt have been worth following many of those years.

[Reggie43]

I dont wholeheartedly agree but its nice to see someone giving the other Pacers players their due.

I would rather have guys criticize Millers game than people overly praising him too much while trashing his teammates in the process.

[tpols]

Entirely in context. Entire post.

So you go out of your way to find a post to disprove where I said it was about his skill... and your evidence has me directly saying it was about his skill lmao.

And nah... Reggie's help historically was nothing special. The best player he ever played with was Rik Smits. People just don't win championships with only Rik Smits as their 2nd best player historically. You can count the years down, it would be a rare event.