King Deez wrote:
Really? Career wise yes they have similar stats, why you cherry pick only 1 team or the other now?
What? I'm comparing what the two did as their teams' BEST PLAYER.
K, then Ray has Reggie as their teams best player averaging what 25 a game for Seattle and milwaukee while averaging 4.5 to 5 assists a game and 4.5 to 5 boards a game. Reggie averaging 3 assists and maybe 3 boards a game while scoring less
Ray's best season was a 26.4/4.5/4.1 in 06-07 for the Sonics.....they won 31 games.
Reggie's best season was a 24.6/3.6/3.8 in 89-90....they won 42 games.
Not seeing a huge difference here......except in wins of course.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
What? I'm comparing what the two did as their teams' BEST PLAYER.
K, then Ray has Reggie as their teams best player averaging what 25 a game for Seattle and milwaukee while averaging 4.5 to 5 assists a game and 4.5 to 5 boards a game. Reggie averaging 3 assists and maybe 3 boards a game while scoring less
Ray's best season was a 26.4/4.5/4.1 in 06-07 for the Sonics.....they won 31 games.
Reggie's best season was a 24.6/3.6/3.8 in 89-90....they won 42 games.
Not seeing a huge difference here......except in wins of course.
Never said a huge different. 2 ppg, 1 board and .3 assists. He did better though.
King Deez wrote:
K, then Ray has Reggie as their teams best player averaging what 25 a game for Seattle and milwaukee while averaging 4.5 to 5 assists a game and 4.5 to 5 boards a game. Reggie averaging 3 assists and maybe 3 boards a game while scoring less
Ray's best season was a 26.4/4.5/4.1 in 06-07 for the Sonics.....they won 31 games.
Reggie's best season was a 24.6/3.6/3.8 in 89-90....they won 42 games.
Not seeing a huge difference here......except in wins of course.
Never said a huge different. 2 ppg, 1 board and .3 assists. He did better though.
And.........11 games difference in the win column. Empty stats. One made the playoffs.....the other didn't sniff the playoffs.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
King Deez wrote:
Never said a huge different. 2 ppg, 1 board and .3 assists. He did better though.
And.........11 games difference in the win column. Empty stats. One made the playoffs.....the other didn't sniff the playoffs.
So now we are going to use a team accomplishment as the measuring difference? Ray had as good of teammates as Miller?
I've already given an example of Ray having as good of, or a superior team and being bounced by Reggie IN THE PLAYOFFS when he was 10 years older. I don't know what else I can spoon feed to you.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
Ray's best season was a 26.4/4.5/4.1 in 06-07 for the Sonics.....they won 31 games.
Reggie's best season was a 24.6/3.6/3.8 in 89-90....they won 42 games.
Not seeing a huge difference here......except in wins of course.
Never said a huge different. 2 ppg, 1 board and .3 assists. He did better though.
And.........11 games difference in the win column. Empty stats. One made the playoffs.....the other didn't sniff the playoffs.
To be fair... Ray Allen missed 27 games that season. If we're going by team accomplishments to separate the two... it's a shame to judge Allen for his teammates playing poorly without him.
[Note: Getting the sneaky suspicion that Rob is simply trolling us or just trying to extend this discussion because he's super duper bored.]
King Deez wrote:
Never said a huge different. 2 ppg, 1 board and .3 assists. He did better though.
And.........11 games difference in the win column. Empty stats. One made the playoffs.....the other didn't sniff the playoffs.
To be fair... Ray Allen missed 27 games that season. If we're going by team accomplishments to separate the two... it's a shame to judge Allen for his teammates playing poorly without him.
[Note: Getting the sneaky suspicion that Rob is simply trolling us or just trying to extend this discussion because he's super duper bored.]
No. Miller being an "OMG...WTF" at this point is stupid. I haven't even liked any of your posts in this thread.
Stop.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Bush4Ever wrote:I'd be curious to hear the rationale for Reggie Miller being a WTF pick at this point [oops...since posted]
Despite being somewhat limited as a player, he did the most important thing in the game extremely well for a fairly long period of time, and gets a boost from his playoff performances (IMO).
Interestingly, his advanced analytics are somewhat more impressive than what I was expecting when I took a glance at them.
Reggie Miller is very underappreciated. He was limited in his individual abilities but that made him no less of a difficult task to defend and game plan for. His off-ball and shooting style made him more of an unconventional #1 option and part of that is why he gets undervalued by the masses.
For a guy who was known strictly as a jump shooter, his conventional #s are very good. He shot atleast 35% 3pt in every season but his final season. He shot atleast 40% in 11 seasons. His overall FG% for his career is 47%, shooting at least 50% in 4 seasons.
Then there was his ability to draw fouls or "fouls."
Bush4Ever wrote:I'd be curious to hear the rationale for Reggie Miller being a WTF pick at this point [oops...since posted]
Despite being somewhat limited as a player, he did the most important thing in the game extremely well for a fairly long period of time, and gets a boost from his playoff performances (IMO).
Interestingly, his advanced analytics are somewhat more impressive than what I was expecting when I took a glance at them.
Reggie Miller is very underappreciated. He was limited in his individual abilities but that made him no less of a difficult task to defend and game plan for. His off-ball and shooting style made him more of an unconventional #1 option and part of that is why he gets undervalued by the masses.
For a guy who was known strictly as a jump shooter, his conventional #s are very good. He shot atleast 35% 3pt in every season but his final season. He shot atleast 40% in 11 seasons. His overall FG% for his career is 47%, shooting at least 50% in 4 seasons.
Then there was his ability to draw fouls or "fouls."
The ol' Reggie Leg Kickout, which Wade has carried on.
I have no idea why you are assuming that Ray Allen's supporting cast was on par or better than Reggie's in 2000.
You had two respectable teammates, then a giant grand canyon sized lack of anything else.
Compare to Indiana, which was unusually deep/balanced, mature, and well-rounded role-wise.
PER 2000-Indiana
Mark Jackson 17.7
Dale Davis 17.4
Reggie Miller 17.3
Rik Smits 17.3
Jalen Rose 16.7
And even Austin Croshere and Travis Best had PERs in the mid 16s, albeit in more reduced roles.
There are fair arguments to make for Reggie Miller over Ray Allen, but I don't think anything related to the 2000 playoffs is particularly powerful, not to mention the series came down to a single missed shot to boot.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Bush4Ever wrote:I have no idea why you are assuming that Ray Allen's supporting cast was on par or better than Reggie's in 2000.
You had two respectable teammates, then a giant grand canyon sized lack of anything else.
Compare to Indiana, which was unusually deep/balanced, mature, and well-rounded role-wise.
PER 2000-Indiana
Mark Jackson 17.7
Dale Davis 17.4
Reggie Miller 17.3
Rik Smits 17.3
Jalen Rose 16.7
And even Austin Croshere and Travis Best had PERs in the mid 16s, albeit in more reduced roles.
There are fair arguments to make for Reggie Miller over Ray Allen, but I don't think anything related to the 2000 playoffs is particularly powerful, not to mention the series came down to a single missed shot to boot.
Ray Allen didn't even lead his own team in PER....that was Sam Cassell. (but neither did Reggie). However, Nobody on Indy was higher than 17.7. Cassell was up over 21.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
Ray Allen didn't even lead his own team in PER....that was Sam Cassell. (but neither did Reggie). However, Nobody on Indy was higher than 17.7. Cassell was up over 21.
Yes, I somewhat accept that the Bucks were a tad more talented at the very top (at least offensively...not even close defensively), but they were *extremely* different once you moved into the other starters and meaningful role players, where Indiana had a very decisive advantage (and defensively as well IMO). To say nothing of experience, maturity, and other intangibles.
Put it this way. If I am defending Planet Earth in a 7 game series against the Monstars Space Jame style, I'd *much* prefer to go into the series with the 2000 Pacers 2-12 guys than the 2000 Bucks 2-12 guys.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Bush4Ever wrote:I have no idea why you are assuming that Ray Allen's supporting cast was on par or better than Reggie's in 2000.
You had two respectable teammates, then a giant grand canyon sized lack of anything else.
Compare to Indiana, which was unusually deep/balanced, mature, and well-rounded role-wise.
PER 2000-Indiana
Mark Jackson 17.7
Dale Davis 17.4
Reggie Miller 17.3
Rik Smits 17.3
Jalen Rose 16.7
And even Austin Croshere and Travis Best had PERs in the mid 16s, albeit in more reduced roles.
There are fair arguments to make for Reggie Miller over Ray Allen, but I don't think anything related to the 2000 playoffs is particularly powerful, not to mention the series came down to a single missed shot to boot.
Ray Allen didn't even lead his own team in PER....that was Sam Cassell. (but neither did Reggie). However, Nobody on Indy was higher than 17.7. Cassell was up over 21.
Regardless of who lead the teams in per, all but three of the Bucks had a lower PER then jalen Rose (#5 on the team) and Allen had a higher per and was 2nd on his team compared to 3/4 like Reggie. Reggie doesn't deserve to be on this list, or even nominated.
Robceltsfan wrote:Wow.......the Reggie hate is incredible to me.
I started a thread not too long ago asking mullin or Miller and the only non troll to vote for Reggie was AI. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50118&p=695074&hilit=Mullin#p695074" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reggie was a great three point shooter and improved his play in the playoffs (not hard to do with a low baseline), and of course mocked spike lee. If we are rewarding players for only excelling at a single aspect, I say Ben Wallace should be on the list already as his defense was way more impactful then reggies shooting and actually led to personal and team hardware
All I know is that Reggie was the leader of a team that had a solid run of success for a decent stretch of time, and he was an all-time great shooter, and one of the all-time great clutch players in the NBA.
Meanwhile there's about to be support for Alex Fucking English who won a few more playoff series than I did in my NBA career.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:All I know is that Reggie was the leader of a team that had a solid run of success for a decent stretch of time, and he was an all-time great shooter, and one of the all-time great clutch players in the NBA.
Meanwhile there's about to be support for Alex Fucking English who won a few more playoff series than I did in my NBA career.
