Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lefty2one, post: 3548830, member: 1001"] Yep, and the irony of Reggie's profile is that although analytics like him, people today hate one-dimensional players like he was. I see a lot of people saying he'd translate to today's league better than any 90s player yet he wasn't a playmaker, rebounder, or defender. Hell, even someone like Mitch Richmond was a better player, he was just stuck in a terrible situation for most of his career. Mitch was a better all-around scorer, and a better passer, rebounder, and defender but he was buried on the west coast on bad teams for his prime, not playing playoff games at The Garden and against MJ or Shaq & Penny. Much like the 90s Knicks, those Pacers teams weren't sexy on paper but they were really good teams. Reggie's supporting cast was darn good. Reggie didn't "carry" a damn thing. Winning teams were constructed so differently back then: you needed the bruisers and strongmen and rebounders and screeners. Guys like Dale Davis and Charles Oakley probably couldn't play in the league today given their skillset but they were vital pieces to a winning team 25 years ago. Their impact went far behind the box score. Rik Smits gave Ewing fits on plenty of occasions and had some big games in big spots. Mark Jackson was the perfect PG for Reggie. McKey had his moments. Chris Mullen and Jalen Rose later on. Analytics are great for looking at things from another POV or as you said to point out things we may miss. But I can't stand when people throw out [I]just [/I]advanced stats to support a claim about a player, especially when it comes to players from yesteryear. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach