#50 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[TheBigVeto]

This is just a simple question...

To you people who pick Dennis Rodman here, if you had to pick between Reggie Miller and Dennis Rodman, who would it be?

Be honest now...

I know what my answer would be, all due respect to Dennis Rodman, he also belongs here somewhere in the standings... but not ahead of Reggie in my list... no god damn way.... Rodman was not a go-to-guy, he was not a franchise player that would impact you in a way you could win unless that team already had that go-to-guy / franchise player, he was only a complimentary player TO TOP 50 PEOPLE LIKE REGGIE MILLER........

Are you really gona act like rings is what separates Rodman over Reggie? Just because he was blessed of having to play with what i consider is the greatest team ever? Switch teams where Reggie Miller would play next to Jordan for the Bulls and Rodman would play next to Pooh Richardson (who? exactly) for the Pacers and i can guarantee you he would have the same championships.... and i can guarantee you Rodman would be remembered as nothing but a rebounding showman.... Rings are overrated that way...

Sometimes, you do make good posts.

[haji_d_robertas]

Kevin Durant

[Boston C's]

No they weren't. Pierce had nobody on his team in 2005 while Ray had Rashard and good bigs. Pierce had literally no one. He had Antoine Walker back who was declining, cancerous Ricky Davis, and 40 year old Gary Payton? That's really better than what Ray had in Seattle, alright


How was Ray a better player that year?

What could Ray do that year that he couldn't ever do? Did Ray all of a sudden just pass better? Did Ray get to the hoop better? Did Ray rebound better? Defend better?

No he didn't. Ray was never better than Pierce as a player, ever because there was nothing Ray could do that Pierce couldn't. Ray was a better shooter that was it, Pierce was a better scorer, better slasher, better ball-handler, better passer, better rebounder, better defender, you want anymore?

Ray is a better shooter than just about every NBA player in NBA history, so if shooting is all you care about than Ray is the GOAT. Ray was not better than Pierce ever and at anything besides shooting, that's just the truth.

It's funny how you say Ray was better than Reggie at everything so there is no debate. The same could be said about Pierce vs. Ray, but you are arguing that Ray was better than Pierce at one point, nice double standard, idiot.

for one i know how big of an idiot you are when you say we had good bigs...we had horrible bigs are you freakin kiddin me jerome james and vivaly potapenko gtfo Yes pierce was better then ray at almost every asset of basketball but ill say passing is a wash between them... and I'm talking about one yr and how ray was more successful and played better then him for one freakin yr and you wanna act like im tryin to say he all of a sudden got new skills...he didn't ray just played better then pierce that yr period and the sonics winning 52 games was an abberation that yr the team was flat out garbage...ray had rashard and a bunch of scrubs and shard bitched out of the 05 playoffs with a bum toe...ray literally was on his own for half hte series against san antonio and still managed to win a game and give them a run for their money... you wanna try and tell me that pierce was better in the 05 playoffs that yr your out of your freakin mind...first round exit with home court advantage...ill take pierces team every day of the week and twice on sundays over that garbage sonics team ray had the entire yr

pierces 05 celtics team was arguably his best talent since the big 3 get together...shit happens the pacers team was underrated that yr but you cant ignore the fact tha tpierce lost with homecourt advantage and failed as a leader... (see game 6) where his scrub teammates literally bailed out his stupidity in o.t

just stop seriously nobody is saying ray is better then pierce all time or anything im just saying ray is better then reggie all time and comparing ray to pierce is a hell of a lot closer then comparing reggie to ray...don't believe me go look at what both ray and pierce accomplished before they got together...their career accomplishments practically mirror each other while comparing ray to reggie ray literally leaves reggie in the dust

ray vs reggie is not a debate period

[Whoah10115]

Thurmond certainly has a better case than Worthy and Pierce.

But Thurmond, unlike those two, proved he could be a franchise player.


Thurmond had a higher peak, that alone puts him in the debate with a guy like Pierce. Thurmond never won a title, but got close a lot more often than Pierce and unlike Pierce could lead a team that had a chance at winning the title.

Strongly disagree. I'd go as far as to say I can't really understand the case for Thurmond over Pierce. I mean, I can understand what people are saying and why, but not in context.


Tho I do have consideration for Thurmond ahead of Miller. He was such a terrific defender. Shame that Kareem made so many All-Defensive Teams over Thurmond. That's ridiculous.

[Whoah10115]

It was not one time. And I assure you...if we go into Larry Brown quotes on reggie miller he wont come out looking good. Especially considering how much more likely a coach is to offer praise of his own players in public than to say what he really feels if its negative. Really:








And it wasnt just Larry:




At the time...Larry Brown...a basketball lifer and obsessive lover of the game and HOF coach of the Pacers...ranks Mckey over Reggie. Phil Jackson...HOF coach of a division rival who has been playing Reggie over for years...rans Mckey over reggie. national media names 4 people not in this top 50 to the All NBA team over reggie. Millions of fans do not vote him into the ASG....and the NBA coaches see fit to name Kenny Anderson and Mookie Blaylock to the team on the bench and not Reggie.

But here we are 18 years later and people who barely remember it or dont...have Reggie top 50 all time and guys over him probably not top 100. doesnt...strike anyone as odd? That these esteemed basketball people didnt think highly of Reggie but 20 years later people who dont remember it would say Reggie was better at the time...and we act like the people NOW know better about the past than NBA coaches did in their present?

And before Reggie hit his prime?

That idea really annoys me at times. Reggie Miller was older than Kevin Durant is now in 1990. But people act like he didnt come into his own till he was 30.

Reggie Miller was as good as he ever was in 1989. I watched him back then. He didnt get much better at anything but passing and his athletic ability fell off unusually early and his faceup game back then got him more than his post up game did in the late 90s.

Anyway....as I said. Little to justify even discussing Reggie at the moment and all its gonna do is get 22 year olds who dont remember the real Reggie to vote for him out of name value just like other 90s/early 2000s players.

I dont have to tell you what Dennis Johnson, Billy Cunningham, Paul Westphal, Jojo white, Sidney Moncrief, Tiny Archibald, Earl Monroe and so on did. But a lot of people who dont know...will see Reggie Miller discussion...and vote for him over them. Not because of looking into them and deciding hes better or did more(laughable for at least 4 of them).

But because Reggie Miller played when they were kids and they know more about him.

Hes gonna start getting votes from people who dont know the others soon and while there is nothing to be done about it...I dont need to have some long argument thats just gonna get his name mentioned 70 times and have more deserving/accomplished/talented players disregarded because this is 2012 and nobody cares about Dennis Johnson anymore.

I'm sorry but you're gonna have to lose this one. Every quote is out of context. In the Larry Brown quote, it says "ever the pessimist". That's like Mourinho ripping his players just to light a fire.


Phil Jackson likes all-around players. So he singled out McKey, in the middle of one season. But if he was coaching the Pacers, you think McKey would be his best player? Only if McKey stepped up and lived up fully to his potential. And if you wanna go on that, that's not a knock on Miller, but both a compliment and a knock on McKey, for his abilities and for his inability to maximize.



I would definitely take Reggie over Rodman. Ray as well. Between the two...Ray has a more all-around game, but despite PPG averages, Reggie is the better scorer. If he was given the same license to score in his prime as he was given earlier in his career and in the playoffs, his average would be a lot higher. But he still was nasty in the playoffs, and that offense was what it was. His career average is lower than it should be, because he kept playing.


There is plenty of argument for Reggie being top 50 and there would certainly be no argument for him not being top 100 (don't know if you're suggesting that). His stats are deceiving. He's scored 22 and 24 PPG before, and that was before his prime. And in that stacked NBA, he led his teams to the playoffs when scoring like that.



Larry Brown loves the system offense. He was perfect for that Detroit team. He loves coaching players up. Reggie's game fit very naturally and he sacrificed points but not worth or value to his team. And they needed him to go outside the offense, he delivered.



If you're going to argue against him, argue fairly. Your arguments are not fair at all. And they're not accurate.



I have take Reggie Miller...unless I'm forgetting someone, which is very possible.

[StateOfMind12]

for one i know how big of an idiot you are when you say we had good bigs...we had horrible bigs are you freakin kiddin me jerome james and vivaly potapenko gtfo

James stepped up in the post-season which was why the Knicks offered him that fat contract. His bigs was also better than whatever the hell Pierce was playing with pre-KG.

You also ignored how Ray played with Nick Collison in 2005 who is an underrated big. It's funny how you bring up Potapenko before you bring up Fortson, Collison, Vlad, and Evans who all played more minutes than he did especially in the post-season.

I'm sure there was no bias in that.

and I'm talking about one yr and how ray was more successful and played better then him for one freakin yr and you wanna act like im tryin to say he all of a sudden got new skills.

I'm telling you that Pierce was better than Ray ever was as an overall player.

I know Ray had a better season in 2005, but big shit. Ray had a better team/situation one year than Pierce did, what am I suppose to be impressed about?

It doesn't mean Ray was better than Pierce as a player because he never was and he never will be. Pierce was just too rounded while Ray was close to one-dimensional.

ill take pierces team every day of the week and twice on sundays over that garbage sonics team ray had the entire yr

If you switch their teams in 2005, Ray would probably end up missing the playoffs in Boston while Pierce would still get to the 2nd round with the Sonics because Pierce was better.

[Whoah10115]

To add to the Ray/Pierce thing. Ray definitely had the better season in 2005, but that certainly doesn't mean he was the better player then. He had the better season. It's one year.


And there is no way that those Celtics were as good as those Sonics. James stepped up in the playoffs and sucked prior to that. But Evans has always been underrated, Ridnour was very good (and really is right now too). Lewis was legit as an all-star that year and as a general borderline all-star. I loved that Seattle team for a reason. They were good. It crashed the next year, but then again Pierce had maybe his best season in 2005/06 and they didn't make the playoffs that year for the first time in who knows how long...There were maybe 5 players in the league that could have been plugged into Pierce's situation and taken that team to the playoffs, unless someone actually wants to account for what the coach does and the options available.

[Boston C's]

James stepped up in the post-season which was why the Knicks offered him that fat contract. His bigs was also better than whatever the hell Pierce was playing with pre-KG.

You also ignored how Ray played with Nick Collison in 2005 who is an underrated big. It's funny how you bring up Potapenko before you bring up Fortson, Collison, Vlad, and Evans who all played more minutes than he did especially in the post-season.

I'm sure there was no bias in that.


I'm telling you that Pierce was better than Ray ever was as an overall player.

I know Ray had a better season in 2005, but big shit. Ray had a better team/situation one year than Pierce did, what am I suppose to be impressed about?

It doesn't mean Ray was better than Pierce as a player because he never was and he never will be. Pierce was just too rounded while Ray was close to one-dimensional.



If you switch their teams in 2005, Ray would probably end up missing the playoffs in Boston while Pierce would still get to the 2nd round with the Sonics because Pierce was better.

James stepped up and made his money off of one series..he was trash against the spurs and in that king series he basically offsetted rashard lewis playing like absolute ass..rashard probably had 1 good game that entire first round and didn't play pretty much at all in the second...you wanna talk about bigs alright...regular season...jerome james and potapenko were trash... reggie evans did his job i always liked him and radman was good at shooting 3's but he was literally our 3rd option on offense and thats horrible if you have radman as your third option..fortson was too busy fouling out getting techs and flagrant fouls then being on the court he was a bruiser and nothing more...dude was probably more hated by the refs then sheed at that point and thats saying a lot and that leaves collison who was essentially a rookie since he broke his foot and missed his entire rookie season...am i missing anything? Absolute trash...collison didnt see big minutes since he was a rookie and evans was our best big...i repeat reggie evans was our best big

you should be impressed that ray was in a much tougher conference to make the playoffs and not only made it but won 52 games with a mediocre at best roster

your third quote is absolutely asine and shows me you never watched ray allen ball at all...to call him close to one dimensional in his prime is absurd...ray was one of the top scorers in the league in his prime and was a do it all player who had a good all around game...makes me think you started watching ray allen only when he came to boston because in the sonics and bucks ray scored in a variety of ways...was pierce better all around then ray absolutely...was ray one dimensional? absolutely not and kind of makes me think that your either a ray allen hater or someone who rarely followed his career

your 4th statement actually made me laugh more then the third one...so what your saying is lets swap rosters and put ray in a much weaker eastern conference and he'll miss the playoffs when you don't even have to be .500

ray could definitely get over 40 wins with that boston roster...you switch him with pierce you probably get the same result in a sense that boston loses in the first round

[Boston C's]

To add to the Ray/Pierce thing. Ray definitely had the better season in 2005, but that certainly doesn't mean he was the better player then. He had the better season. It's one year.


And there is no way that those Celtics were as good as those Sonics. James stepped up in the playoffs and sucked prior to that. But Evans has always been underrated, Ridnour was very good (and really is right now too). Lewis was legit as an all-star that year and as a general borderline all-star. I loved that Seattle team for a reason. They were good. It crashed the next year, but then again Pierce had maybe his best season in 2005/06 and they didn't make the playoffs that year for the first time in who knows how long...There were maybe 5 players in the league that could have been plugged into Pierce's situation and taken that team to the playoffs, unless someone actually wants to account for what the coach does and the options available.

I'm just suggesting ray had a better yr then pierce but i still think the celtics were more talented then the sonics...rashard lewis actually played better the following yrs after his all star berth...his 05 season wasn't even his best as a sonic...as for ridnour as much as i liked him he struggled against good pg's and theres a reason that he often sat in the 4th in favor of antonio daniels that yr who is a seasoned vet...the reason the sonics crashed the next yr was because mcmillan left and that season was just an abberation...you replay that 05 yr again i have serious doubts the sonics win 52 games

pierces 06 yr i agree with...he probably had his best yr but his team was God awful and I didn't think it would be worse until the next yr lol...but it also goes to show you how good his 05 team was...losing a lot of key players then having a significant drop off even though pierce significantly raised his game to another level

[haji_d_robertas]

Kevin Durant

[Whoah10115]

I'm just suggesting ray had a better yr then pierce but i still think the celtics were more talented then the sonics...rashard lewis actually played better the following yrs after his all star berth...his 05 season wasn't even his best as a sonic...as for ridnour as much as i liked him he struggled against good pg's and theres a reason that he often sat in the 4th in favor of antonio daniels that yr who is a seasoned vet...the reason the sonics crashed the next yr was because mcmillan left and that season was just an abberation...you replay that 05 yr again i have serious doubts the sonics win 52 games

pierces 06 yr i agree with...he probably had his best yr but his team was God awful and I didn't think it would be worse until the next yr lol...but it also goes to show you how good his 05 team was...losing a lot of key players then having a significant drop off even though pierce significantly raised his game to another level

Agree on Lewis, tho I still disagree on the talent. Another thing they had tho was Nake McMillan. He's been a little up and down with Portland (Portland is), but I think he's a great coach and did an awesome job with Seattle. That team was going places too. I think Ridnour would have developed more. Shame he left. They may have overacheived that season, but they could have gotten a lot better had he stayed around.