y2ktors wrote:
But Reggie Miller, in the Bird years, was the man on championship contending teams. They just happened to not win the championship.
I guess basically what I believe is that Reggie and Ray, given roles as only secondary players, were capable of having greater career accomplishments.
The 2000 Pacers were much more of a "by committee" effort than most title-contending teams. It's arguable Reggie wasn't even the best player on the team. At a minimum, the distinction between Reggie and "the others" wasn't as clear and sharp as it is for most title teams.
I also think lots of times player A would clearly be a superior performer to player B in a leading role but actually be clearly worse in a role player/secondary role.
I think that might be the case here with Miller vs. Rodman. From my perspective, there is no chance those Bulls teams would have been better off swapping Rodman for Miller, and probably not the Spurs teams either. The Pistons maybe so...but Rodman wasn't even fully developed at that point.
That's a completely unfair comparison. They play completely different roles in completely different positions.
Swap out 32 year-old Reggie for 32 year-old Allen on that Celts team.....or the older versions on the Heat teams....and I think Reggie produces as well if not better than Ray-Ray.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
That's a completely unfair comparison. They play completely different roles in completely different positions.
Swap out 32 year-old Reggie for 32 year-old Allen on that Celts team.....or the older versions on the Heat teams....and I think Reggie produces as well if not better than Ray-Ray.
That's my point.
There isn't a straight line between being better as a lead player and being better within every contextual situation (position or not...you could make the same type of argument with a number of lead dog PFs vs. Rodman as well).
That's why I don't think it automatically follows that Reggie Miller or Ray Allen would have had success like Rodman if they had all played on talented teams in a secondary role. It's an open question, especially since they drove most of their value through shooting/scoring...and most talented teams are not exactly lacking in that aspect of the game.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Robceltsfan wrote:
That's a completely unfair comparison. They play completely different roles in completely different positions.
Swap out 32 year-old Reggie for 32 year-old Allen on that Celts team.....or the older versions on the Heat teams....and I think Reggie produces as well if not better than Ray-Ray.
That's my point.
There isn't a straight line between being better as a lead player and being better within every contextual situation (position or not...you could make the same type of argument with a number of lead dog PFs vs. Rodman as well).
That's why I don't think it automatically follows that Reggie Miller or Ray Allen would have had success like Rodman if they had all played on talented teams in a secondary role. It's an open question, especially since they drove most of their value through shooting/scoring...and most talented teams are not exactly lacking in that aspect of the game.
But Ray actually did have great success as a secondary player.
As far as Dennis goes, he fit in a very unique situation in Chicago. Their two pressing needs were rebounding and a PF. Dennis happened to provide both...and entertainment.
I'll never be convinced that no team couldn't have benefited greatly from having Reggie as a secondary player, especially in his prime. He was an unconventional #1 option, which leads me to belive that he was probably better off as a sidekick in order to achieve maximum value and production.
y2ktors wrote:
I'll never be convinced that no team couldn't have benefited greatly from having Reggie as a secondary player, especially in his prime. He was an unconventional #1 option, which leads me to belive that he was probably better off as a sidekick in order to achieve maximum value and production.
I would quibble with the word "greatly". He would contribute to any team, but in some situations I think his skillset would be somewhat redundant with the "star players". Not that it wouldn't help, but it might not exactly fill a big need.
Put it this way: If I'm starting a team from scratch and my goal is to win a title, I would take Reggie Miller over Rodman without much thought. However, if I knew my team already had a pair of all-star scoring type players on it, I would probably take Rodman over Miller without much thought as well.
How that balances out on a ranking is up to the person though, I don't think there is a right answer.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
y2ktors wrote:
But Reggie Miller, in the Bird years, was the man on championship contending teams. They just happened to not win the championship.
I guess basically what I believe is that Reggie and Ray, given roles as only secondary players, were capable of having greater career accomplishments.
The 2000 Pacers were much more of a "by committee" effort than most title-contending teams. It's arguable Reggie wasn't even the best player on the team. At a minimum, the distinction between Reggie and "the others" wasn't as clear and sharp as it is for most title teams.
I also think lots of times player A would clearly be a superior performer to player B in a leading role but actually be clearly worse in a role player/secondary role.
I think that might be the case here with Miller vs. Rodman. From my perspective, there is no chance those Bulls teams would have been better off swapping Rodman for Miller, and probably not the Spurs teams either. The Pistons maybe so...but Rodman wasn't even fully developed at that point.
Yeah Reggie and Jalen were somewhat interchangeable.
y2ktors wrote:
But again, you can't build a successful team around Dennis Rodman, a guy with limited scoring ability. That can't go ignored just because Dennis flourished in other areas for teams that only needed him to be a role player.
I don't believe you could really build great teams around those other guys either. Good teams - maybe but so what at the end of the day?
I'd rather have the great role player who can adapt his game to different leading players.
Agreed.
For the most part, everyone we're speaking of at this point is incapable of being "the man" on a title contending team. We're in the "magnificent role player" phase of our contest. And of all the players left, I can't think of one the did things in "their role" as well as Dennis Rodman did.
I'm just saying, but that there is a player who has proven capable of being "the man" on a title team and did so in a historic fashion without a vote yet. I understand longevity and what not but not only is curry in a whole other stratosphere from guys like Miller and Allen in terms of peak play, but he's already proven to be a more prolific and accurate 3pt shooter and with an MVP and being the leader of a championship squad, id take his career over millers in a heart beat (Allen may have more of a case)
Odogg wrote:
They don't get past the Blazers in the CFs in that scenario. I'm assuming you only watched the finals though based on that statement you made.
Kobe was between mediocre and terrible in at least 3 games that series. I'm assuming you only watched game 7 though based on that statement you made.
20/5/6/2/2 on a better ts% then Shaq while being tied for the team lead in DRtg, obviously he played somewhere between mediocre and terrible
Pretty sure I prefaced that with "in at least 3 games".
Besides....if we want to use O Rating and D rating for evaluation purposes, in their respective Conf. Finals series they were:
Kobe - O Rat. 109 - D Rat. 108....+1
Reggie - O Rat. 116 - D Rat. 104....+12
What would we like to discuss next?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
I don't believe you could really build great teams around those other guys either. Good teams - maybe but so what at the end of the day?
I'd rather have the great role player who can adapt his game to different leading players.
Agreed.
For the most part, everyone we're speaking of at this point is incapable of being "the man" on a title contending team. We're in the "magnificent role player" phase of our contest. And of all the players left, I can't think of one the did things in "their role" as well as Dennis Rodman did.
I'm just saying, but that there is a player who has proven capable of being "the man" on a title team and did so in a historic fashion without a vote yet. I understand longevity and what not but not only is curry in a whole other stratosphere from guys like Miller and Allen in terms of peak play, but he's already proven to be a more prolific and accurate 3pt shooter and with an MVP and being the leader of a championship squad, id take his career over millers in a heart beat (Allen may have more of a case)
His lack of longevity is why he's not getting my vote...at least at this time. I didn't vote for Walton either.
y2ktors wrote:
I'll never be convinced that no team couldn't have benefited greatly from having Reggie as a secondary player, especially in his prime. He was an unconventional #1 option, which leads me to belive that he was probably better off as a sidekick in order to achieve maximum value and production.
I would quibble with the word "greatly". He would contribute to any team, but in some situations I think his skillset would be somewhat redundant with the "star players". Not that it wouldn't help, but it might not exactly fill a big need.
Put it this way: If I'm starting a team from scratch and my goal is to win a title, I would take Reggie Miller over Rodman without much thought. However, if I knew my team already had a pair of all-star scoring type players on it, I would probably take Rodman over Miller without much thought as well.
How that balances out on a ranking is up to the person though, I don't think there is a right answer.
There isn't a right answer indeed. I'm not sure, at this point in the list, what should hold the most weight. I like how Rob put it, "arguably most decorated," because that is something that has major relevance without flat out stating Rodman > other 4 candidates.
wailuaFC wrote:
20/5/6/2/2 on a better ts% then Shaq while being tied for the team lead in DRtg, obviously he played somewhere between mediocre and terrible
Pretty sure I prefaced that with "in at least 3 games".
Besides....if we want to use O Rating and D rating for evaluation purposes, in their respective Conf. Finals series they were:
Kobe - O Rat. 109 - D Rat. 108....+1
Reggie - O Rat. 116 - D Rat. 104....+12
What would we like to discuss next?
I'm not sure why you're comparing a single series against completely different teams?
Hey bud, you brought up stats and defensive rating....not me.
For those playoffs Reggie outpaced Kobe in almost every single advanced stat category.
Reggie/Kobe
PER: 21.8/19.3
TS%: 59.6/51.7 (not even close)
WS/48: .195/.115 (not even close)
BPM: 5.3/3.3 (not even close)
VORP: 1.6/1.2
O Rat/D Rat differential: +12/+0 (not even close)
There is no reason to think that Prime Shaq couldn't have won titles with a seasoned Reggie Miller as his #2. There's also no reason to think that young Kobe would have led those Pacers to a title.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
Pretty sure I prefaced that with "in at least 3 games".
Besides....if we want to use O Rating and D rating for evaluation purposes, in their respective Conf. Finals series they were:
Kobe - O Rat. 109 - D Rat. 108....+1
Reggie - O Rat. 116 - D Rat. 104....+12
What would we like to discuss next?
I'm not sure why you're comparing a single series against completely different teams?
Hey bud, you brought up stats and defensive rating....not me.
For those playoffs Reggie outpaced Kobe in almost every single advanced stat category.
Reggie/Kobe
PER: 21.8/19.3
TS%: 59.6/51.7 (not even close)
WS/48: .195/.115 (not even close)
BPM: 5.3/3.3 (not even close)
VORP: 1.6/1.2
O Rat/D Rat differential: +12/+0 (not even close)
There is no reason to think that Prime Shaq couldn't have won titles with a seasoned Reggie Miller as his #2. There's also no reason to think that young Kobe would have led those Pacers to a title.
Once again, I have no idea what you're doing here. I was saying that Kobe didn't play "somewhere between mediocre and terrible", he was averaged his usual 20+/5+/5+ with two steals and two blocks a game while shooting more efficiently then Shaq and playing better defense. What reggie did against inferior competition has zero bearing on the fact that Kobe played quite a bit better then "Mediocre to terrible"
wailuaFC wrote:
I'm not sure why you're comparing a single series against completely different teams?
Hey bud, you brought up stats and defensive rating....not me.
For those playoffs Reggie outpaced Kobe in almost every single advanced stat category.
Reggie/Kobe
PER: 21.8/19.3
TS%: 59.6/51.7 (not even close)
WS/48: .195/.115 (not even close)
BPM: 5.3/3.3 (not even close)
VORP: 1.6/1.2
O Rat/D Rat differential: +12/+0 (not even close)
There is no reason to think that Prime Shaq couldn't have won titles with a seasoned Reggie Miller as his #2. There's also no reason to think that young Kobe would have led those Pacers to a title.
Once again, I have no idea what you're doing here. I was saying that Kobe didn't play "somewhere between mediocre and terrible", he was averaged his usual 20+/5+/5+ with two steals and two blocks a game while shooting more efficiently then Shaq and playing better defense. What reggie did against inferior competition has zero bearing on the fact that Kobe played quite a bit better then "Mediocre to terrible"
Oh, you're still stuck on that.....and still didn't acknowledge that I prefaced that statement with "in at least 3 games".
Kobe Stats from that series:
Game 1: 13/3/6 - 4/9 WIN
Game 2: 12/2/4 - 2/9 LOSS
Game 4: 18/4/7 - 5/15 WIN
Game 5: 17/5/4 - 6 TOs - 4/13 LOSS
His averages from those 4 games: 15.0/3.5/5.3...32.6%
I would qualify those 4 games as "mediocre to terrible". We all know what he did in game's 6 & 7, but I qualified my statement with "in at least 3 games".
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
If you put young Kobe on that Pacers team.......and old Reggie on that Lakers team.......the Lakers still win the title that year.
#nottrollingatall
They don't get past the Blazers in the CFs in that scenario. I'm assuming you only watched the finals though based on that statement you made.
Kobe was between mediocre and terrible in at least 3 games that series. I'm assuming you only watched game 7 though based on that statement you made.
I was thinking specifically of games 3 and 7, games where Shaq struggled due to foul trouble, etc. and Kobe needed to step up to keep the team in the game. Also defensive plays like Kobe's block on Sabonis at the end of game 3. Sure Reggie could have filled in from a scoring standpoint, but not for defense, assists, rebounds, etc.
Odogg wrote:
They don't get past the Blazers in the CFs in that scenario. I'm assuming you only watched the finals though based on that statement you made.
Kobe was between mediocre and terrible in at least 3 games that series. I'm assuming you only watched game 7 though based on that statement you made.
I was thinking specifically of games 3 and 7, games where Shaq struggled due to foul trouble, etc. and Kobe needed to step up to keep the team in the game. Also defensive plays like Kobe's block on Sabonis at the end of game 3. Sure Reggie could have filled in from a scoring standpoint, but not for defense, assists, rebounds, etc.
My only point is that Kobe had 4 games that series of below average play.....and the Lakers went 2-2 in those games. Reggie's play at that time was far more consistent and he would have had similar success,with Shaq, as young Kobe did.
I'm in no way trying to compare prime Reggie to prime Kobe....there is no comparison to be made there.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
