Reggie Miller Only Made Two Consecutive All-Star Appearances

[Kblaze8855]

You’re free to think that. If you’ve been a fan for any period of time you know coaches and fans simply don’t look at basketball the same. On average…not across the board…but on average…coaches care more about the total game than fans.

Coaches generally speaking care about basketball. Fans generally speaking care about scoring. They shouldn’t be expected to reach the same conclusions when they’re doing different math.

[dankok8]

This is fair altho it’s also worth noting that competition is harder on average in the playoffs, so maintaining your exact stats does mathematically require at least a modest INCREASE of performance. Im not saying its significant but it’s something. And so to raise it by a couple in the playoffs could be akin to raising it by 3 or 4 in the regular season. I have no idea what the exact adjustment works out to but in theory there should be one.

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

[tpols]

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

Doesn't count!

[ImKobe]

Reggie Miller was never a big time scorer. We remember him because he hit big shots in the postseason, especially against the Knicks. Got into it with Spike Lee. In 94 he was likely averaging around 20 points because through his prime that was the level he was generally around. He wasn't the clutch legend he became that a few years later. Him missing the all star game would be like a 22 ppg scorer missing it today, has a legit argument to be made but when you try and figure out which guard he's better than it's not a clear-cut argument.

He was 11th-12th in scoring in some of the years he missed the ASGs ('91, '97 for example), which would be the equivalent of averaging 26 ppg right now. He was also way up there in TS%, even leading the league at 65% when he wasn't an All-Star in '91.

He played in an era that did not understand advanced stats & efficiency and how volume 3-Point shooting could lead to a better offense. His raw numbers weren't flashy enough.

[tpols]

Those coaches were wrong though. The likes of Derek McKey and Mookie Blaylock were not nearly as good as Reggie.

Reggie Miller was an unbelievable scorer. Low key one of the best scorers ever disguised in plain sight. Monster combo of volume and efficiency.

Kblazes M.O. is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Yup. Mookie Blaylock and John Starks were better than Reggie. God said so.

[L.Kizzle]

Not to mention Reggie was the 7th or 8th seed in all of those 1st round losses. He dramatically upped his scoring against literally the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

McGrady was averaging like 33 points in his first round exits. They only remember the exits tho and not that he led the playoffs in avg ppg, (in a first round exit at that.)

[Kblaze8855]

The claim Reggie upped his playoff scoring significantly seems like a disingenuous argument to me when virtually all of these instances occurred in first round losses. If you want to argue the semantics that he still technically upped his scoring average, ok, but I don't read too much into 3-4 game sample sizes.

In playoff runs past the first round he averaged 23, 25.5, 20, 20 & 24, you average that out, it comes to 22.5 ppg. During his prime, let's say 1990-2000 to cover all his all-star seasons, he averaged 21 ppg. So as you can see, it's a very moderate increase at best. Even if you want to include all those first round L's, the sample size is so small that over that timeframe it only bumps the average up to 23 ppg.

Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

[Phoenix]

I was just about to say, both of Reggies 30ppg playoff series he was playing 44 minutes. But eh whatever.....Reggie is one of those players I find really hard to discuss on this board.

[Kblaze8855]

Kblazes M.O. is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Yup. Mookie Blaylock and John Starks were better than Reggie. God said so.

Not my fault you don’t acknowledge that some people know more than you. You know absolutely nothing about Ricky Pierce, Alvin Robertson, or Mookie Blaylock. You couldn’t tell me without googling it Alvin was left handed or right. You know NOTHING about these people but maintain strong opinions that the people who do are wrong and call it a logical fallacy with a straight face.

You genuinely see no problem telling people you know know more than you they’re wrong about people you don’t even know and feel like I’m the one being ridiculous. You are constant comedy.

[tpols]

And yet nobody would agree guys like Starks were better than Reggie. Even when they got voted ahead of him by your Gods. It's a total joke and everybody here knows it.

[TeflonDonTrump]

Does this clown know he needs to be voted in as a guard in the East in the 90s?

[Kblaze8855]

90% of the people here weren’t even in the fourth grade when John Starks made the All-Star game. I care as much what you think about it as you care about the rankings being made right now by a kid born during the 2019 finals.

It isn’t unreasonable to think Reggie Miller should’ve been an All-Star over John or Alvin or whoever. He was an all star level player and there are always more players than spots. What is unreasonable is for somebody who doesn’t know what the **** they’re talking about at all to be calling out people who watched them up close and made the determination for themselves. You simply do not know what the **** you’re talking about on the issue of most of these players.


You do not know shit about Ricky Pierce. You don’t know about his defense. You don’t know if he could pass. You don’t know his go to moves or how he reacted to the double team. You are a complete ****ing blank slate of no knowledge about these people. You don’t see me arguing that the coaches in the 60s were wrong about Dick Van Arsdale being an all star over Geoff Pietrie or something.

I know I don’t know what the **** I’m talking about relative to them. It isn’t an appeal to authority. It’s not being too arrogant to acknowledge the truth.

on a lot of these subjects, you are simply a know nothing, know it all. I’m arrogant, but I don’t pretend to know shit that I don’t. If I don’t know, I say I don’t know. I’ll tell you I have no valid means of evaluating who should be on the 1977 All-Star team when compared to a ****ing coach in the 1977 NBA. you can’t do that because your ego doesn’t allow you to tell the truth about your lack of information.

I’d rather be real than bullshit my way through arguments.

I happily admit I know less than some people about some things. Those people have a better basis to make decisions on those subject than I do.

You not admitting that doesn’t make me illogical. It makes you dishonest.

[dankok8]

Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

Michael Redd did it once.

Reggie scored like a monster for 12 straight years in the playoffs. Including in later rounds. The Pacers made 5 Conference Finals during Reggie's prime.

Why is it so hard to admit that the coaches simply got it wrong? Even if Miller is "overrated" he STILL should have made like 10 all-star teams. It's not like Reggie didn't play defense either. He was solid. Passing he didn't do much of because he rarely had the ball in his hands. And again his scoring is historic. It's not like T-Mac that someone mentioned who scored high volume at league average efficiency. Reggie from 1992-1996 as per the graph scored at +11 efficiency and from 1998-2002 at +8. That kind of production flat out wins games.

[iamgine]

Playoff numbers are always so skewed on top of it too. Play 44 minutes a game and get swept people are enamored 30 years later because of the 35 points in a blowout loss.

People have averaged 35 point triple doubles by playing 45 minutes in early playoff losses. It’s not exactly being dominant.

27/5/2 being swept playing 40, 47, and 43 minutes?

Its fine. You did well. But it’s not really…legendary…is it?

Are people caring about that? Go look at Michael Redd vs the 06 Pistons. 64 win team Pistons when they still had Ben and a top defense.

Anyone caring right now?

I mean anyone can have one great series. If Redd did it lots of times people might care.

Reggie upped his game quite consistently in the playoff. iirc he's almost always the top 2 scoring SG in the 90s playoff.

[tpols]

Man you out here like Hopper from a Bug's Life trying to convince us Reggie was worse than Mookie or Starks or Pierce or whoever.



Most slaves will believe what their masters told them even if it was all a lie.