Reggie Miller is better than Steph Curry | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Reggie Miller is better than Steph Curry

go back to sleep boomer he’s a 2 time MVP. let me take the words from steven A and say “STAWP IT”
 
Maybe the original thought morphed into too much.
Reggie Miller (like almost any shooter pre-3craziness) would be a better player in today's NBA then he was in his era. This is almost undisputable.
Steph Curry could have been worse if he played before the widespread 3 era AND might have have been more of the player initially expected (battling ankle injuries, not physical enough, hence that medium level 2nd contract) had he played in earlier eras.
This is debatable, but pretty likely.
Conclusion should not be that Reggie is better than Steph, it is that Reggie's game is more adaptable.
Reggie might have been better had both played in the earlier era and Reggie's career would be better in the current era. That and saying sibling Cheryl was better than sibling Seth, is as far as I'm willing to go in favor of the Millers.
 
Deepster said:
That's a pretty silly argument to make. You're better than that.
Expand ...
Well, you refuse to acknowledge that Curry (as PG) has to do more than Reggie, that he is a better rebounder and better defender (more steals). You don't care that Curry averages more points per game, and assists per game. You don't care about Curry's MVPs.

So.... what's left, other than you repeating that Miller is better?
;) :D
 
WingU-Conn said:
Well, you refuse to acknowledge that Curry (as PG) has to do more than Reggie, that he is a better rebounder and better defender (more steals). You don't care that Curry averages more points per game, and assists per game. You don't care about Curry's MVPs.

So.... what's left, other than you repeating that Miller is better?
;) :D
Expand ...

I lobbed out the initial argument. I've tried to tap it down the road and play counterpoint along the way. I think we're now on Day 3 and 5 pages in, so there's something to it.

I don't disagree with what you say in your post here. I also think the stats are helped by the new 3-centric game of today (that Reggie would excel in). I also think it will be interesting to see the 2nd part of Curry's career and if he has any longevity.
 
.-.
Curry did have a huge advantage growing up in NBA arenas, Dell Curry played with Ray, Ray brought Dell to the 99 title game with him.
 
Deepster said:
Klay isn't an alpha. Reggie was.
Expand ...

Reggie wasn't an alpha.

In the Drexler thread, I had tried to formulate an argument that Miller was better because he was underappreciated in his time and typed up a bunch of stuff but my research convinced me that he was not. I let evidence convince me of something and didn't post. Instead I posted some advanced stats that showed Drexler was better.

The main issue with Reggie's statistical and real life career is his usage %. He was incredibly efficient. His total points per shot attempt is fantastic. He played a ton of minutes with great career longevity. He didn't turn the ball over much. But he wasn't using the ball nearly at a level commensurate with other star players. He wasn't play-making, he wasn't getting others good shots. His team's offenses were good but not incredible, because he didn't have as big of an impact as some others. This also allowed his efficiency to be so high, due to the usage skill curve. He had a >25% usage rate twice in his 18 year career and his average is 21.6%, median 22.2%. Guys in that range this year in the league: Malik Monk, Kelly Oubre Jr, Terrance Ross, Bogdan Bogdanovic (the worse Bogdanovic). Those 2 years he reached 25%+ he was in the CJ McCollum/Buddy Hield range of usage. His best finish was 19th in usage % in the league. Curry has been 30+% usage 5 times. His average and median are both several % points higher than Miller's peak. If your argument is that Miller wasn't allowed to take more shots "by the man" or the league wouldn't let him: In Miller's peak years, Mitch Richmond took about the same % of his shots from 3 as Miller, but also had a usage rate in the high 20s, 2nd in the league behind Jordan who was in the 30s.

As others have mentioned, he was a catch and shoot player. Now, there is certainly an argument that being catch and shoot, his gravity and spacing were not well known at the time. Especially when comparing to someone like Drexler.

But you can't use that argument in comparison to Steph, the player with the most gravity of all time. Steph is better. There's no argument to the contrary. I know we're all bored, but damn.
 
auror said:
Reggie wasn't an alpha.

In the Drexler thread, I had tried to formulate an argument that Miller was better because he was underappreciated in his time and typed up a bunch of stuff but my research convinced me that he was not. I let evidence convince me of something and didn't post. Instead I posted some advanced stats that showed Drexler was better.

The main issue with Reggie's statistical and real life career is his usage %. He was incredibly efficient. His total points per shot attempt is fantastic. He played a ton of minutes with great career longevity. He didn't turn the ball over much. But he wasn't using the ball nearly at a level commensurate with other star players. He wasn't play-making, he wasn't getting others good shots. His team's offenses were good but not incredible, because he didn't have as big of an impact as some others. This also allowed his efficiency to be so high, due to the usage skill curve. He had a >25% usage rate twice in his 18 year career and his average is 21.6%, median 22.2%. Guys in that range this year in the league: Malik Monk, Kelly Oubre Jr, Terrance Ross, Bogdan Bogdanovic (the worse Bogdanovic). Those 2 years he reached 25%+ he was in the CJ McCollum/Buddy Hield range of usage. His best finish was 19th in usage % in the league. Curry has been 30+% usage 5 times. His average and median are both several % points higher than Miller's peak. If your argument is that Miller wasn't allowed to take more shots "by the man" or the league wouldn't let him: In Miller's peak years, Mitch Richmond took about the same % of his shots from 3 as Miller, but also had a usage rate in the high 20s, 2nd in the league behind Jordan who was in the 30s.

As others have mentioned, he was a catch and shoot player. Now, there is certainly an argument that being catch and shoot, his gravity and spacing were not well known at the time. Especially when comparing to someone like Drexler.

But you can't use that argument in comparison to Steph, the player with the most gravity of all time. Steph is better. There's no argument to the contrary. I know we're all bored, but damn.
Expand ...
tenor.gif
 
.-.
WingU-Conn said:
I appreciate the honesty.
Expand ...

My closing statement on Reggie:

The most impressive part of his career is that he consistently led the Pacers deep in the playoffs with little to no supportive star power. I posted about it this in other threads, in the prime of his career (1993-2000) he never played with a 2x all star. He had at most one all star on his team but that was rare (Smits and Davis only once). His only teammate to make an ASG more than once was Jermaine O’Neal and that was year 15,16,17, and 18 of Reggies career.

Reggie played in a small market so he missed out on numerous all star games and all nba nods. If he played in NY or LA he gets in, you can’t convince me otherwise.

Reggie made 6 ECF and 1 NBA Finals. Those 5 losses were brutal (Pistons, Knicks 2x, Bulls, Magic). He could have joined “super teams” Celtics wanted him in 2008, Knicks wanted him in mid 90s, and he safe to say he could have won a ring if he wasn’t as loyal. I don’t hold not having a ring against his legacy like some people here do.
 
The last thing I would like to say is that Reggie was more than a catch and shoot player. Anyone who says otherwise either did not watch a lot of full games and/or has a short memory.
He was an alpha in his time. He was the man on his team, and no one was a close second ever to him. Again, I think Steph is the superior player. However, head to head in their primes, one on one would be a draw. Steph is a lot more mobile, but Reggie just would have backed Steph down time and time again.
What I love about both is something that is oft forgotten or overlooked about both of them. In their time, they were 2 of the smartest basketball players in the league.
 
Spaceman213J said:
The last thing I would like to say is that Reggie was more than a catch and shoot player. Anyone who says otherwise either did not watch a lot of full games and/or has a short memory.
He was an alpha in his time. He was the man on his team, and no one was a close second ever to him. Again, I think Steph is the superior player. However, head to head in their primes, one on one would be a draw. Steph is a lot more mobile, but Reggie just would have backed Steph down time and time again.
What I love about both is something that is oft forgotten or overlooked about both of them. In their time, they were 2 of the smartest basketball players in the league.
Expand ...

solid take.
 
.-.
Zach Lowe's podcast episode from last week (rewatching Game 7 of the '98 ECF) touches on Reggie's legacy.

They also mention the recent ESPN Top 74 list and Ryen Rusillio (his guest) misread the list and thought Reggie was left off of it lol.
 
Lefty2one said:
Zach Lowe's podcast episode from last week (rewatching Game 7 of the '98 ECF) touches on Reggie's legacy.

They also mention the recent ESPN Top 74 list and Ryen Rusillio (his guest) misread the list and thought Reggie was left off of it lol.
Expand ...
I was just glad "Timmy" made the top ten. I think he's another guy that future generations will see his highlights and not realize just how good he was. Glad to see him going into the Hall of Fame. Duncan didn't have a lot of flash to his game, but he was just a winner.
 
Spaceman213J said:
I was just glad "Timmy" made the top ten. I think he's another guy that future generations will see his highlights and not realize just how good he was. Glad to see him going into the Hall of Fame. Duncan didn't have a lot of flash to his game, but he was just a winner.
Expand ...
Duncan was incredible - very deserving of that top 10 spot. As a Lakers fan and follower of the WC in general, he was always so impressive. His sustained excellence was up there with the best. I think he was the first player to start on a championship squad in 3 different decades? He was a fierce competitor who always put winning first, and I always enjoyed his (different vs MJ/Kobe?) competitiveness
 
UConnSean said:
Duncan was incredible - very deserving of that top 10 spot. As a Lakers fan and follower of the WC in general, he was always so impressive. His sustained excellence was up there with the best. I think he was the first player to start on a championship squad in 3 different decades? He was a fierce competitor who always put winning first, and I always enjoyed his (different vs MJ/Kobe?) competitiveness
Expand ...
I'm a huge Celtic fan and I remember watching the draft lottery for Duncan. I was devastated... I mean didn't want to get out of bed when the C's didn't get him.

He was so good he got ejected just for laughing on the bench.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,207
Messages
4,556,905
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom