# QUESTION Re: Reggie Miller...



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

I watched the Heat vs Cavs and listened to the commentators also ...

Was it me or did Reggie seem to have a personal dislike for LeBron? He made some comments that even the co-commentators would not even comment on, e.g. LeBron should take the mic at the end of the game to thank the fans(is he crazy or just want to demoralize LeBron? He doesn't owe those fans anything, nada. There is not a player in his position that played every night, every position, every minute...give or take a few, NEVER got into trouble to shame the fans ororganization. In fact, I think the fans have over reacted and this has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.).

He even said Pat Riley should be there to support LeBrown during this trip. That's when he was exposed as a horrible commentator. Is Riley suppose to attend the home visit of every player to their previous team, or does he want Riley to fuel the fire against Spolestra? Does he not know that LBJ went to Spolestra to clear the air?

I never liked Reggie as a commentator, but I now have no respect. In fact, I only liked him during his career because he choked Kobe out.

So, if he doesn't have a personal dislike for LBJ, his skills are much less than professional.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Reggie is just a moron who was running out of things to fill time with. I'm sure he's one of those guys who when he is actually around Lebron has nothing but great things to say.

What was funny about most of his comments is that it was Reggie Miller saying them. If Reggie Miller had been in that same situation in his career, he would have been trash talking the fans, making choking signs to Dan Gilbert, and lord knows what else.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 27, 2010)

I don't think it was a big deal when he said James should apologize to the fans. It's his comments, and he's probably thinking about the "The Decision" process and got caught up with the homecoming hoopla.

As far as him stating Riley should support him during the trip, that was probably unnecessary.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

I didn't have a problem with any of it. Riley showing up in support of Lebron would have been nice, but then again I understand not feeling safe in a crowd like that. Lebron probably should apologize at some point, because he did act like a jerk, but if he doesn't I don't really care(then again, I'm a Boston fan). All in all, I like Reggie, he gives a pretty good broadcast. I prefer JVG and Mark Jackson, but he's infinitely better than most of the local crews.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dynasty Raider said:


> I watched the Heat vs Cavs and listened to the commentators also ...
> 
> Was it me or did Reggie seem to have a personal dislike for LeBron? He made some comments that even the co-commentators would not even comment on, e.g. LeBron should take the mic at the end of the game to thank the fans(is he crazy or just want to demoralize LeBron? He doesn't owe those fans anything, nada. There is not a player in his position that played every night, every position, every minute...give or take a few, NEVER got into trouble to shame the fans ororganization. In fact, I think the fans have over reacted and this has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.).
> 
> ...


You keep bad mouthing Reggie and I'll punch your lights out.

**** Rider.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Reggie is just a moron who was running out of things to fill time with. I'm sure he's one of those guys who when he is actually around Lebron has nothing but great things to say.
> 
> What was funny about most of his comments is that it was Reggie Miller saying them. If Reggie Miller had been in that same situation in his career, he would have been trash talking the fans, making choking signs to Dan Gilbert, and lord knows what else.


Same situation? Like when he played with the Pacers his whole career even when any team in the league would have loved to have him?

Please, have some.... any, ****ing clue of what you're talking about before you start typing.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

For the most part I enjoy Reggie Miller's commentary.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hes entertaining. I don't think its a sin for him to say Lebron should have thanked the fans. Big deal.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Freedon of Speech


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*FREEDON OF REGGIE MILLER!*


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Free Don Johnson!


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

In other news, someone told me a joke and said Reggie Miller was a HOFer.

I laughed.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

He is without question.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

MemphisX said:


> In other news, someone told me a joke and said Reggie Miller was a HOFer.
> 
> I laughed.


Mmm. I think you can make a case for the guy with the 14th most points in the history of the league. Not to mention the guy whose taken and made the most 3 point shots in the history of the league. Granted, Ray Allen will likely pass him before its all said and done.

http://espn.go.com/nba/history/leaders

He's sandwiched in between Alex English and Jerry West, two pretty good players. I mean, they're okay I suppose.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Reggie Miller is a poor man's Ray Allen


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Reggie will make the hall - shame really. With that said, why they stick Mchale in the studio and have these clowns do the games is beyond me.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Reggie Miller is a poor man's Ray Allen


After winning a title, he may go down as being remembered as the better player. Poor mans Ray Allen though? No.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Reggie will make the hall - shame really. With that said, why they stick Mchale in the studio and have these clowns do the games is beyond me.


Shame? Why do you say that?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He's not a first ballot hall of famer. His theatrics dont make up for the fact that he was a good guard and that's being generous. Good isn't good enough for the HOF.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> He's not a first ballot hall of famer. His theatrics dont make up for the fact that he was a good guard and that's being generous. Good isn't good enough for the HOF.


Generous to say he was a _good_ guard?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Reggie was a great scorer and just ok at about everything else - he was also a clutch performer of the top tier which I think should be taken into account - now I like Reggie but if he is going to get into the Hall while a player like Artis Gilmore is still not that is some BS


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

Reggie doesn't have a dislike for Lebron, he has a dislike for the Heat, always has, and I'm not sure why. Everytime that he calls a Heat game I put it on mute.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Look at the class Reggie's in with:

Ralph Sampson, Maurice Cheeks, Maurice Lucas, Jamaal Wilkes, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Mark Jackson, Don Nelson, and Dennis Rodman? People have some serious hate around here if they don't think he should get in ahead or with these guys.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

My only problem with Reggie (besides being mildly annoying) is his overkill of 90's basketball praise. He sounds like an old man with his "in my day..." rants. Other than that, his opinions are pretty groupthink and don't bother me.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> He's not a first ballot hall of famer. His theatrics dont make up for the fact that he was a good guard and that's being generous. Good isn't good enough for the HOF.


Call him a good guard is being generous? No one is voting him in for taunting spike lee.

Once again you show a very, very limited knowledge of basketball here.

A good guard and that's being generous. Wow. When did you start watching ball? Its an honest question, because I'd assume 2000 or so if that's your take on Miller.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

e-monk said:


> Reggie was a great scorer and just ok at about everything else -


He wasn't even a "great scorer"

He's getting into the hall for his shooting percentages, and theatrics vs. the knicks. Kind of a joke.

His sister is better than he is. And probably knows a lot more about basketball than he does.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You know what's hilarious, someone like R-star coming on here telling someone else he has a limited basketball knowledge. Lol I have seen it all on here I tell ya.

Oh by the way for the umpteenth time, never claimed to be a basketball guru, but I do find it hilarious when peeps act like they are basketball know alls.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> He is without question.


LMAO

18 year career
5 All Star appearances
3 All NBA 3rd team (when 3 point line was shorter)

His claim to fame is he played a long time, didn't get hurt and an organization was stupid enough to build a team around him for over a decade.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> He's not a first ballot hall of famer. His theatrics dont make up for the fact that he was a good guard and that's being generous. Good isn't good enough for the HOF.


Right. If you were being fair instead of generous you would call Reggie an average guard.

Not like that good young prospect, d-leaguer Terrence Williams.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

:


HB said:


> You know what's hilarious, someone like R-star coming on here telling someone else he has a limited basketball knowledge. Lol I have seen it all on here I tell ya.
> 
> Oh by the way for the umpteenth time, never claimed to be a basketball guru, but I do find it hilarious when peeps act like they are basketball know alls.


Me not being interested in the circus of a game you guys watch today doesn't mean I don't know a hell of a lot more about the 90's and first half of 2000. Here's a hint, I know way more than you on that era.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> LMAO
> 
> 18 year career
> 5 All Star appearances
> ...


Stupid enough? Who's your team? ****ing Memphis? Reggie took the Pacers to the Finals and gave the three peat Lakers the biggest challenge of their run.

Nice try.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Dynasty Raider said:


> Was it me or did Reggie seem to have a personal dislike for LeBron?


I don't know about personal dislike, but he's no fan of the guy. Reggie's never come off as someone who's sold on LeBron, and has almost always taken subtle shots at the guy when calling Cavalier games. It used to be REALLY bad from about 06-08 when he started on TNT. He's somewhat toned it down the last couple of years but make no mistake, Reggie, who simply LOVES Kobe, is no LeBron fan.

It's not his LeBron dislike that makes him such a sh!t commentator though. He's just not cut out for the job. Horrible voice, has nothing interesting to say, provides very little analysis besides pointing the obvious and again, has a HORRIBLE voice. I really hope he doesn't remain a fixture of TNT's main commentary team of Marv and Kerr.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> He wasn't even a "great scorer"
> 
> He's getting into the hall for his shooting percentages, and theatrics vs. the knicks. Kind of a joke.
> 
> His sister is better than he is. And probably knows a lot more about basketball than he does.


Yea, you're right, the guy with most major three point records, and the most points scored in the smallest amount of time wasnt a great scorer. 

Basketball started before Lebron came into the league lady.


----------



## eazy8o5 (May 15, 2010)

Dynasty Raider said:


> I watched the Heat vs Cavs and listened to the commentators also ...
> 
> Was it me or did Reggie seem to have a personal dislike for LeBron? He made some comments that even the co-commentators would not even comment on, e.g. LeBron should take the mic at the end of the game to thank the fans(is he crazy or just want to demoralize LeBron? He doesn't owe those fans anything, nada. There is not a player in his position that played every night, every position, every minute...give or take a few, NEVER got into trouble to shame the fans ororganization. In fact, I think the fans have over reacted and this has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.).
> 
> ...


if it was jeff van gundy saying that, you wouldn't of thought nothing of it..cus hes a funny guy right?
leave reggie alone, freedom of speach


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

I can pretty much guarantee Reggie Miller will be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Anyone else think otherwise? 

He is being seriously underrated on here, it tells me that some of you are just looking at his career stats and didn't really get to watch him play in an actual game, or just remember his final years.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

edit: double post


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ChiBron said:


> edit: double post


But I only see one post?


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

R-Star said:


> But I only see one post?


scroll up


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

jayisthebest88 said:


> I can pretty much guarantee Reggie Miller will be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Anyone else think otherwise?
> 
> He is being seriously underrated on here, it tells me that some of you are just looking at his career stats and didn't really get to watch him play in an actual game, or just remember his final years.


I watched him. He was a very good player. He was never considered great. He never had one freaking season in which he was considered great. He had great moments that have been overblown because they came against the Knicks.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Reggie was a borderline all-star most years with a lot of big moments. If numbers and individual ability is the criteria, he is definintely not a hall of famer. If the criteria includes memorable moments then he'll get some serious consideration. He was a big staple of late 90's and early 2000's basketball.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> I watched him. He was a very good player. He was never considered great. He never had one freaking season in which he was considered great. He had great moments that have been overblown because they came against the Knicks.


Your 15 and you watched him? 

I don't want to get in trouble telling a 15 year old to go juck himself.

(you're young, so I'll tell you. Juck? It means **** in this situation)


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Reggie Miller is absolutely a Hall of Famer. Anyone who disagrees is about as bright as the inside of my ass hole.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

I HATED Reggie Miller, which means he was great, which means he PROBABLY deserves to be in the HOF, but it's not a sure thing.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Your 15 and you watched him?
> 
> I don't want to get in trouble telling a 15 year old to go juck himself.
> 
> (you're young, so I'll tell you. Juck? It means **** in this situation)



LOL...whether young or old, if in an entire 18 year career, you can only muster 5 All Star appearances...you are not a HOFer. See every one here can revisionist romance it all they want, in 13 of 18 years of his career, the coaches felt he was not worthy of an All Star birth. That is a fact. For the most part during his career, Indiana was mediocre. He only played on five 50 win teams.

What part of his resume screams HOF? What did he do that was HOF worthy?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Yea, you're right, the guy with most major three point records, and the most points scored in the smallest amount of time wasnt a great scorer.
> 
> Basketball started before Lebron came into the league lady.


Steve Kerr was also a great 3 point shooter. I wouldn't call him a great scorer either. Great scorers to me are guys who average 30ppg in a few seasons. He was mostly around the 20ppg range for his career, despite never playing on a team that was good enough to win a championship.

Franchise Ego, role player talent. Poor man's Ray Allen.

He also played some years with a shorter 3 point line. I definitely watched pretty much all of his career and for the most part his claim to fame was his theatrics against the Knicks, and getting punched by Michael Jordan.

He acts like he's on the same level as say a Stockton, Jordan, or even Drexler...but really he's more Mitch Richmond's level with a mouth.

He's pretty much the definition of a borderline HOF. He might even be borderline borderline, ha.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

5 all star games
1 NBA third team berth

O yeah that definitely screams greatness


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> LOL...whether young or old, if in an entire 18 year career, you can only muster 5 All Star appearances...you are not a HOFer. See every one here can revisionist romance it all they want, in 13 of 18 years of his career, the coaches felt he was not worthy of an All Star birth. That is a fact. For the most part during his career, Indiana was mediocre. He only played on five 50 win teams.
> 
> What part of his resume screams HOF? What did he do that was HOF worthy?


You are not 15, you were not 7 when you started posting on this site.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> :
> 
> Me not being interested in the circus of a game you guys watch today doesn't mean I don't know a hell of a lot more about the 90's and first half of 2000. Here's a hint, I know way more than you on that era.


So you stopped following the NBA when the pacers stopped being relevant?

Let's start calling you futuristxen you ****ing bandwagoner.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> 5 all star games
> 1 NBA third team berth
> 
> O yeah that definitely screams greatness


It screams "if we're being generous we can call him good"

If Reggie was lucky to be called good what was Richmond? Just plainly good?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> LOL...whether young or old, if in an entire 18 year career, you can only muster 5 All Star appearances...you are not a HOFer. See every one here can revisionist romance it all they want, in 13 of 18 years of his career, the coaches felt he was not worthy of an All Star birth. That is a fact. For the most part during his career, Indiana was mediocre. He only played on five 50 win teams.
> 
> What part of his resume screams HOF? What did he do that was HOF worthy?


You can read a stats page, awesome. You do realize it was hard for a guard to make it to the asg when Jordan played right? I'm sure you do, why am I even asking, you're 15 and know everything.

Allen Iverson made the all-star team last year.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> So you stopped following the NBA when the pacers stopped being relevant?
> 
> Let's start calling you futuristxen you ****ing bandwagoner.


I watched some post malice bad years too. I just don't like the game like I used to. You breath on Wade and they're calling a foul. And I actually enjoy watching Kobe now? That's not right. It feels dirty.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> 5 all star games
> 1 NBA third team berth
> 
> O yeah that definitely screams greatness


Thanks for reading a stat page champ.

Jordan era. I mean are you guys retarded? That's like faulting a center for not making it in over Diesel in his prime.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol Jordan prevented Miller from making more all NBA and all star teams?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

futuristxen said:


> He wasn't even a "great scorer"
> 
> He's getting into the hall for his shooting percentages, and theatrics vs. the knicks. Kind of a joke.
> 
> His sister is better than he is. And probably knows a lot more about basketball than he does.


he was a great scorer - that was his job and his entire team was built around the way he did it - 20ppg+ for extended years at high efficiency? top 20 points scored career record? I'd say great scorer

I do love the fact that Cheryl used to kick his ass in the pick up games though


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Pacers Fan said:


> Look at the class Reggie's in with:
> 
> Ralph Sampson, Maurice Cheeks, Maurice Lucas, Jamaal Wilkes, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Mark Jackson, Don Nelson, and Dennis Rodman? People have some serious hate around here if they don't think he should get in ahead or with these guys.


Artis F-ing Gilmore - not one of those guys should get in ahead of him


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and people need to stop comparing Reggie to Shuttlesworth - their games have absolutely zip in common

a much more apt contemporary comparison would Rip Hamilton in his prime


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Reggie is definitely a HOFer.

Tough, smart and clutch.

Great, Great shooter.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You can read a stats page, awesome. You do realize it was hard for a guard to make it to the asg when Jordan played right? I'm sure you do, why am I even asking, you're 15 and know everything.
> 
> Allen Iverson made the all-star team last year.


Allen Iverson had a better career than Reggie Miller did.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

e-monk said:


> he was a great scorer - that was his job and his entire team was built around the way he did it - 20ppg+ for extended years at high efficiency? top 20 points scored career record? I'd say great scorer


Let's not be too liberal with 20+ ppg scorer. He was right at around 20ppg most years. Plenty of years under it.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

futuristxen said:


> Let's not be too liberal with 20+ ppg scorer. He was right at around 20ppg most years. Plenty of years under it.


for 9 straight years he scored 19 or more (6 of those seasons 21+) and then the following 3 years as he got into his early 30s he averaged 18+ - throughout his prime he was a 20ppg scorer - just a fact

he's top 20 points scored career-wise - ahead of Rick Barry and Jerry West just a few hundred points behind Alex English (almost a thousand points ahead of Allen Iverson)- again just a fact, dude might not have been great at much else but he could score

(I still like the fact that Cheryl used to school him though)


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Criticizing Reggie for a lack of all-star appearances is like criticizing Deron Williams for only having one all-star appearance. Ditto with league awards. The guard spots were super-stacked back in the '90's.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

futuristxen said:


> Allen Iverson had a better career than Reggie Miller did.


Maybe in the eyes of some fans, but I doubt any NBA team would take Iverson in his prime over Reggie in his prime.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Lol Jordan prevented Miller from making more all NBA and all star teams?


Jordan prevented a lot of 2 guards from making the ASG. That too complex for you HB?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Allen Iverson had a better career than Reggie Miller did.


Because of the stat sheets you read?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He's pretty borderline. I don't know, I have a problem giving a five time allstar the HOF nod.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Reggie Miller was the face of a franchise for 18 years, no? 

He's 7th all-time in career Offensive Win Shares (right behind Karl Malone and right ahead of Jerry West) for those wanting some statistical justification... http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_career.html

Regardless, stats don't tell the story for Reggie Miller - my guess is that if you don't think this guy is a hall of famer you either didn't watch a lot of basketball back in the day, or your team never had to face him in crunch time.

Nobody came closer to beating the real Jordan/Pippen Bulls than that 97-98 Pacers team when they took them to 7. Reggie Miller was the heart and soul of that team. Reggie and a collection of great role players (Mullin was 34 at the time, remember) taking that team to 7 was better than the Malone/Stockton Jazz (two HOFers) could muster... actually, I think the only other team that took the Championship Bulls (either threepeat) to 7 games was the '93 Knicks led by... drum roll... another HOFer.

You can't get Reggie's impact off of a stat sheet... I have always been a die hard Bulls fan and nobody ever scared me as a fan like Reggie did in crunch time.

Whoever your favorite player is (save for the GOAT), Reggie was more clutch.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I'm not sure that how close he came to beating Jordan's Bulls is a good indicator of whether he should be in the HOF.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> Maybe in the eyes of some fans, but I doubt any NBA team would take Iverson in his prime over Reggie in his prime.


Ah...yeah they would. 

Iverson was much better player then Reggie Miller. I don't even know how that is even debatable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't even care to know when the discussion about him as a commentator turned into him as a player.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Allen Iverson had a better career than Reggie Miller did.


He did


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> He did


Back to 1 sentence coat tailing and dodging tough replies? From HB? I never thought Id see the day...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Well where do I start, the fact that AI was MVP, multiple all star berths, the multiple all nba teams, one of the highest scoring averages in league history, the fact that he lead his team to the finals, heroics and all. Its one thing to say Reggie was a better shooter than AI but to even suggest he was a better player....are you ****ting me?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Offensive win shares? What the hell is that?

Hard to keep up with stat geeks.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Well where do I start, the fact that AI was MVP, multiple all star berths, the multiple all nba teams, one of the highest scoring averages in league history, *the fact that he lead his team to the finals, heroics and all.* Its one thing to say Reggie was a better shooter than AI but to even suggest he was a better player....are you ****ting me?


yea,, Reggie never did that. Ever. Honestly HB, get a clue of what you're talking about. This is getting pathetic. Reggie is known for being one of the greatest playoff performers of all time.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I'm not sure that how close he came to beating Jordan's Bulls is a good indicator of whether he should be in the HOF.


Just using it as an example of his impact on whether or not his teams won games... which is the ultimate measure of a player, in my opinion.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

What the heck is this dude talking about? Who's saying Reggie didn't have playoff heroics? We are talking about who is a better player and you are implying Reggie is better than AI. Ridiculous.

AI's Career average is *26.7ppg, 6.2apg 3.7rpg 2.2spg*
AI's Career playoff averages *29.7ppg 3.8rpg 6.0apg 2.1spg*

Reggie Career average *18.2ppg 3.0rpg 3.0apg 1.1spg*

Reggie Playoff average *20.6ppg 2.9rpg 2.5apg 1.0spg *

Its laughable that the 6'6 guard couldn't even rebound the ball better than the 6' foot guy. So R-star besides shooting exactly what is Reggie better than AI at? Flopping?


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

jesus christ have mercy.

*1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 38,387
2. Karl Malone 36,928
3. Michael Jordan 32,292
4. Wilt Chamberlain 31,419
5. Shaquille O'Neal 28,422
6. Moses Malone 27,409
7. Elvin Hayes 27,313
8. Hakeem Olajuwon 26,946
9. Oscar Robertson 26,710
10. Dominique Wilkins 26,668
11. John Havlicek 26,395*
12. Kobe Bryant 26,319
* 13. Alex English 25,613*
14. Reggie Miller 25,279
*15. Jerry West 25,192
16. Patrick Ewing 24,815*
17. Allen Iverson 24,368
*18. Charles Barkley 23,757
19. Robert Parish 23,334*
*20. Adrian Dantley 23,177
21. Elgin Baylor 23,149*
22. Kevin Garnett 22,566
* 23. Clyde Drexler 22,195
* 24. Gary Payton 21,813
*25. Larry Bird 21,791*
*26. Hal Greer 21,586*
27. Dirk Nowitzki 21,584
28. Ray Allen 1,041 21,267
* 29. Walt Bellamy 20,941*
30. Tim Duncan

All the guys that I've put in bold are in the hall. So, in the top 30 scorers in the history of the NBA, Reggie Miller has the most points of the retired players not in the hall. How can you justify not putting him in? 

List of the NBA's top scorers not in the hall:

5. Shaquille O'Neal -- Okay, so I accidently bolded him, but I think its safe bet.
12. Kobe Bryant -- I suppose he gets by
14. Reggie Miller -- Apparently, he doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame.
17. Allen Iverson -- No NBA team wants him, yet he's a surefire HOFer?
22. Kevin Garnett -- Still playing. Any doubt he'll be in the hall?
24. Gary Payton -- ...Probably
27. Dirk Nowitzski -- Likely
28. Ray Allen -- Clearly a superior player to Reggie Miller
30. Tim Duncan -- Ehh. I Suppose we can let him in too.


Based on voting trends, I don't know how you can justify not putting him in the hall.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/11/30/hall-of-fame-nominees-2011/

He's getting in.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

What about vince Carter? Who has a better career, him or Reggie?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

:vuvuzela:


HB said:


> What the heck is this dude talking about? Who's saying Reggie didn't have playoff heroics? We are talking about who is a better player and you are implying Reggie is better than AI. Ridiculous.
> 
> AI's Career average is *26.7ppg, 6.2apg 3.7rpg 2.2spg*
> AI's Career playoff averages *29.7ppg 3.8rpg 6.0apg 2.1spg*
> ...


Damn ai is a couple boards away from matching what brook Lopez does?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Haha for the first time on here you actually made me laugh. You finally made a joke that wasn't lame.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Game3525 said:


> Ah...yeah they would.
> 
> Iverson was much better player then Reggie Miller. I don't even know how that is even debatable.


I'll debate it if you'd like.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> What about vince Carter? Who has a better career, him or Reggie?


Reggie, without question.

Edit: Vince has more career points than I thought at over 19,000, but Reggie still will likely have the better career at the end of the day.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Yet again Carter's career and playoff averages trump Reggie's. So for someone to make a statement and say without question without any argument whatsoever, knowing damn well both players have never won a championship is truly baffling to me. Yet again, Reggie more clutch, Reggie better shooter, but thats about IT!

If clutch shots and heroics are what gets you into the Hall, might as well start getting ready for Robert Horry the HOFer


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> I'll debate it if you'd like.


I don't see how you can debate this without looking irrational. Iverson in his prime was a top ten guy, and in some years a top five guy. I don't think you can say the same for Reggie.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

HB said:


> Yet again Carter's career and playoff averages trump Reggie's. So for someone to make a statement and say without question without any argument whatsoever, knowing damn well both players have never won a championship is truly baffling to me. Yet again, Reggie more clutch, Reggie better shooter, but thats about IT!
> 
> If clutch shots and heroics are what gets you into the Hall, might as well start getting ready for Robert Horry the HOFer


Yeah, I will have to agree with you on this one. Some of you guys are talking out of your asses. I think VC is soft, but he is without a doubt a better player then Reggie Miller.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Game3525 said:


> Yeah, I will have to agree with you on this one. Some of you guys are talking out of your asses. I think VC is soft, but he is without a doubt a better player then Reggie Miller.


Carter a better player than Teggie Miller. 

Now THAT is laughable.

But guys who don't know the game resort to stats.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> Carter a better player than Teggie Miller.
> 
> Now THAT is laughable.
> 
> But guys who don't know the game resort to stats.


Carter is/was a better player then Reggie Miller. Aside from being a better shooter, there is nothing Miller does better then VC.

I dislike Vince Carter, but there are years when he was a top ten player. There has never been a year when Reggie Miller was consider top ten player in the league.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Yet again Carter's career and playoff averages trump Reggie's. So for someone to make a statement and say without question without any argument whatsoever, knowing damn well both players have never won a championship is truly baffling to me. Yet again, Reggie more clutch, Reggie better shooter, but thats about IT!
> 
> If clutch shots and heroics are what gets you into the Hall, might as well start getting ready for Robert Horry the HOFer


Let's not forget when Carter heroically lead his team to the second round!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

R-Star said:


> yea,, Reggie never did that. Ever. Honestly HB, get a clue of what you're talking about. This is getting pathetic. Reggie is known for being one of the greatest playoff performers of all time.





Jamel Irief said:


> What about vince Carter? Who has a better career, him or Reggie?


Reggie. Vinces peak didn't last very long. When he was on top though? Probably the gunnery guy ive ever watched. Then he turned into a jump shooter who winced and had injured knees anytime he had bad stats or didn't feel like playing hard.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> Let's not forget when Carter heroically lead his team to the second round!


Haha those were the days man. AI man, that guy was incredible. I think I have those two games were VC and AI went for 50. Still doesn't change anything though, stats don't lie, if Reggie were a better player than VC he'd have the numbers to back it up.

I am not even sure what big name all star guard in the 2000s Reggie is better than, Ray? Tmac? Pierce? Maybe the likes of Joe Johnson and Ginobli.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Why has Iverson entered this discussion? Because Iverson had a better career than him, Reggie's not a Hall of Famer? Uh, Iverson's definitely getting in the HOF, is there something else here that I'm missing?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> Why has Iverson entered this discussion? Because Iverson had a better career than him, Reggie's not a Hall of Famer? Uh, Iverson's definitely getting in the HOF, is there something else here that I'm missing?


You dont just jump on the last few posts and comment, read why AI was brought into this before making that statement. Besides no one's saying Reggie isn't going to make it. But is a guy with a 18ppg 3rpg 3apg career average deserving? That's up for debate man.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> Yeah, I will have to agree with you on this one. Some of you guys are talking out of your asses. I think VC is soft, but he is without a doubt a better player then Reggie Miller.


Seeing as you've never watched Reggie and are going off a stat sheet, why don't you shut it and leave?

Know why I dont debate Wilt, Bird, Jabar and others? I never saw them play, and I'm a smart enough fan to know stat sheets and all-star game appearances don't tell all.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Game3525 said:


> Carter is/was a better player then Reggie Miller. Aside from being a better shooter, there is nothing Miller does better then VC.
> 
> I dislike Vince Carter, but there are years when he was a top ten player. There has never been a year when Reggie Miller was consider top ten player in the league.


And where is the stat that measures Reggie Miller as one of the top three clutch players in NBA history, as opposed to Vince Carter's being one of the top 5 choke artists in NBA history


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> You dont just jump on the last few posts and comment, read why AI was brought into this before making that statement. Besides no one's saying Reggie isn't going to make it. But is a guy with a 18ppg 3rpg 3apg career average deserving? That's up for debate man.


Why? He should read pages of your ignorant gibberish and get more confused before posting first?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Haha those were the days man. AI man, that guy was incredible. I think I have those two games were VC and AI went for 50. Still doesn't change anything though, stats don't lie, if Reggie were a better player than VC he'd have the numbers to back it up.
> 
> I am not even sure what big name all star guard in the 2000s Reggie is better than, Ray? Tmac? Pierce? Maybe the likes of Joe Johnson and Ginobli.


Just curious, but it wince played 18 years like Reggie what do you think his career averages would look like? Look at reggies stats in his 13th year versus Vince now. Btw now you are mr NBA.com stat head when you denounced the practice in the brook Lopez threAd.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

27dresses said:


> And where is the stat that measures Reggie Miller as one of the top three clutch players in NBA history, as opposed to Vince Carter's being one of the top 5 choke artists in NBA history


Doesn't matter. Only the stats on NBA.com matter. I talked to HB and the other dummies in this thread, and from now on all time rankings for players are going to be judged by ppg average. Nothing else matters.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Just curious, but it wince played 18 years like Reggie what do you think his career averages would look like? Look at reggies stats in his 13th year versus Vince now. Btw now you are mr NBA.com stat head when you denounced the practice in the brook Lopez threAd.


You're surprised? I like HB, but he's the worst debater I've ever met.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Just curious, but it wince played 18 years like Reggie what do you think his career averages would look like? Look at reggies stats in his 13th year versus Vince now. Btw now you are mr NBA.com stat head when you denounced the practice in the brook Lopez threAd.


If VC continues to play for teams like Orlando, (I'd be shocked if when he becomes a FA he doesn't sign with teams that can contend for titles) his numbers will drop no doubt. With that said, look at Reggie's numbers, he was NEVER a strong rebounder, neither did he pass the ball that well. 

AS for Brook, he's only been in the league 3 years. Hardly a career.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Seeing as you've never watched Reggie and are going off a stat sheet, why don't you shut it and leave?
> 
> Know why I dont debate Wilt, Bird, Jabar and others? I never saw them play, and I'm a smart enough fan to know stat sheets and all-star game appearances don't tell all.


I am not even going by stats, I watched plenty of old 90's games. Reggie Miller wasn't a great passer, or defender, he was simply a great shooter and was pretty one dimensional. Vince Carter can create for others, and is a better defender, and is a far more versatile scorer then Reggie in his prime.

Reggie may have him beat in guts and intangibles, but still I would say Carter is the greater player of the two.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Doesn't matter. Only the stats on NBA.com matter. I talked to HB and the other dummies in this thread, and from now on all time rankings for players are going to be judged by ppg average. Nothing else matters.


Again, lots of words, nothing make sense. What exactly have you talked to us about? What does Reggie do better than Vince? What makes him a better player? Instead of dancing around the subject, explain this to me in layman terms. I know you have no stats to back this up, so I am curious as to what you have to say, if you have anything to say that is.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> And where is the stat that measures Reggie Miller as one of the top three clutch players in NBA history, as opposed to Vince Carter's being one of the top 5 choke artists in NBA history


Reggie Miller is clutch, but some of you guys are overrating that aspect. His team were 9-15 in elimination games, and 3-5 in deciding game 5's and 7's(Thank you Bill Simmons for that stat). 

He is clutch, but he isn't a top three clutch player of all-time. Some of you guys are letting nostalgia get in the way of reality.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> I am not even going by stats, I watched plenty of old 90's games. Reggie Miller wasn't a great passer, or defender, he was simply a great shooter and was pretty on dimensional. Vince Carter can create for others, and is a better defender, and is a far more versatile scorer then Reggie in his prime.
> 
> Reggie may have him beat in guts and intangibles, but still I would say Carter is the greater player of the two.


Vince is a terrible defender. And Reggie was a one dimensional scorer? No, he wasn't. Maybe to a kid like you, but no. Just because a player doesn't dunk, doesn't mean he's one dimensional.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Again, lots of words, nothing make sense. What exactly have you talked to us about? What does Reggie do better than Vince? What makes him a better player? Instead of dancing around the subject, explain this to me in layman terms. I know you have no stats to back this up, so I am curious as to what you have to say, if you have anything to say that is.


An 18 year career of being a top player? Being the most feared guard outside of Jordan in the playoff? Multiple 3 point records? 

"lots of words, no substance" you're saying that to me? Why don't you do your usual and wait until someone else makes a good counter point and then jump in with "Yea! What he said!"


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> Reggie Miller is clutch, but some of you guys are overrating that aspect. His team were 9-15 in elimination games, and 3-5 in deciding game 5's and 7's(Thank you Bill Simmons for that stat).
> 
> He is clutch, but he isn't a top three clutch player of all-time. Some of you guys are letting nostalgia get in the way of reality.


Isn't top 3 in clutch? Ok Youngblood, you pretty much just ruined yourself going going forward in this thread.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Vince is a terrible defender. And Reggie was a one dimensional scorer? No, he wasn't. Maybe to a kid like you, but no. Just because a player doesn't dunk, doesn't mean he's one dimensional.


Vince Carter is a lazy defender, not a horrible one. Miller is pretty one dimensional, he was an excellent shooter, but he wasn't great off the dribble, although he was very crafty.

Carter on the other hand was excellent off the dribble and had incredible range in his prime and he is an underrated passer. Of course, his biggest problem was he settled for too many jumpers.

Carter in his prime was pretty complete, Miller wasn't.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

TOP player? 18 years? :laugh:

Question, when in his 18 year career has been a top 10-15 player?

What do you mean the most feared guard outside of Jordan in the playoffs? The guy with the 20ppg Career playoff averages?

When the game is on the line, definitely he was feared, but this guy aint no Kobe, AI, never mind. You think you can turn opinion into facts huh?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> TOP player? 18 years? :laugh:
> 
> Question, when in his 18 year career has been a top 10-15 player?
> 
> What do you mean the most feared guard outside of Jordan in the playoffs? The guy with the 20ppg Career playoff averages?


When did you start watching basketball HB?

Being "the guy" on his team for his career makes him a top guy, yea.

And he was top 10 for many years. Unless you didn't watch basketball at the time and only go off stats of course.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Isn't top 3 in clutch? Ok Youngblood, you pretty much just ruined yourself going going forward in this thread.


He is in the top ten, but are you seriously going to take him over Jordan, Bird, and West?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Honestly though HB, post another smiley. I'm sure all the spectators in this thread are thinking "man that HB is smart when it comes to the NBA."


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

R-Star said:


> When did you start watching basketball HB?
> 
> Being "the guy" on his team for his career makes him a top guy, yea.
> 
> And he was top 10 for many years. Unless you didn't watch basketball at the time and only go off stats of course.


Dont know about top 10, he was good. He was also durable. But Miller did one thing really well and that was shoot the ball. Every other player we have mentioned in this thread had some more diversity to their game.



> Honestly though HB, post another smiley. I'm sure all the spectators in this thread are thinking "man that HB is smart when it comes to the NBA."


I am beginning to wonder if you are drunk, because you are posting a lot of stuff that's leaving me scratching my head here.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> He is in the top ten, but are you seriously going to take him over Jordan, Bird, and West?


West? Without a doubt. Jordan and Bird? A debate could be made.

I see Jordan more as being just that much better than everyone else than clutch, but that's me.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> When did you start watching basketball HB?
> 
> *Being "the guy" on his team for his career makes him a top guy, yea.*
> 
> And he was top 10 for many years. Unless you didn't watch basketball at the time and only go off stats of course.


That is dumb.

By that logic, Iggy is a top player since he is "the guy" on the Sixers, as is Joe Johnson for the Hawks.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> That is dumb.
> 
> By that logic, Iggy is a top player since he is "the guy" on the Sixers, as is Joe Johnson.


Iggy? No. Joe Johnson? You could argue it in previous years. By saying top player I'm not meaning top 5 if that's where the confusion lies.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> West? Without a doubt. Jordan and Bird? A debate could be made.
> 
> I see Jordan more as being just that much better than everyone else than clutch, but that's me.


To each their own I guess, but I don't see how you can take him over West, and I don't see how you can have a debate when it comes to Miller, Bird, and Jordan.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Dont know about top 10, he was good. He was also durable. But Miller did one thing really well and that was shoot the ball. Every other player we have mentioned in this thread had some more diversity to their game.
> 
> 
> 
> I am beginning to wonder if you are drunk, because you are posting a lot of stuff that's leaving me scratching my head here.


Again HB, when did you start watching basketball?

Here's a better question. Were you a fan when Miller was in his prime, or are you going off of seeing Reggie in the twilight of his career and a stat sheet? Answer that honestly and it's clear you have not a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

I should start arguing how good a random guy from the 60's was. Never saw him play, but I can play Professor HB and judge by the stats I read.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Late 90s, but why does that matter we all know how Miller tortured the Knick? We've seen his highlights over and over again, and to his credit he didn't really taper off until late in his career. He was known for being a workout fiend and he was quite durable during his career.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Late 90s, but why does that matter we all know how Miller tortured the Knick? We've seen his highlights over and over again, and to his credit he didn't really taper off until late in his career. He was known for being a workout fiend and he was quite durable during his career.


So we can judge his career by highlights now?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nope we have NBA.com for that


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Nope we have NBA.com for that


For guys like you? Yea. Me? I try not to judge a player hardly ever saw.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Oh we saw a lot of him no doubt, he was a thorn in the Nets side for a while


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The notion that Reggie Miller of all people was not seen by the bulk of this board is pretty incredible. Yet that seems to be the only argument for the pro-reggie crowd.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

You Iverson and Carter supporters are certainly entitled to your opinions.

If you are making your judgements based on stats, then you don't know much about the game.

But obviously, I'm not going to change your minds, and you are certainly not going to change mine.

Now, I'm going to watch T-Will play some D-League ball.

Ciao.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

In what ways was he better then Vince Carter, or even Allen Iverson? The Reggie Miller fans still haven't answered this yet.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

Game3525 said:


> In what ways was he better then Vince Carter, or even Allen Iverson? The Reggie Miller fans still haven't answered this yet.


He was more clutch.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

myst said:


> He was more clutch.


And longevity.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> The notion that Reggie Miller of all people was not seen by the bulk of this board is pretty incredible. Yet that seems to be the only argument for the pro-reggie crowd.


THESIS: REGGIE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME.

EVIDENCE:#14 NBA ALL TIME SCORING LIST

All time leader in 3FGA and 3FGM

Gold Medal winner in 96' olympics and 1994 championship


CONCLUSION: REGGIE DESERVES TO BE IN THE HALL OF FAME.

I don't give a **** about VC or Iverson right now. We're talking about the standard that has been used in the past to determine if someone should get in the hall, not some subjective set of requirements that experts on basketballforum.com come up with. Clearly, there is more evidence to support his initiation to the hall such as this one -- such as being the face of a franchise for a generation. HEY LEBRON LOVER -- this is something that is actually recognized and respected in the basketball community. I'm not sure if you realize this because of your blind love for another man, but loyalty is a valued quality in the NBA today.

Single season scoring averages are not among the most important factors when determining when one player should or should not be admitted entrance into the hall. Jerry Mo-foing Stackhouse once dropped in 30 ppg for a season. News flash: 5 years later, no one cares. Consistently high performing players inevitably make in into the hall of fame -- we call it longevity. 

At any rate, the dude is part of basketball lore. Certainly, these measurements are less quantifiable, but I know you all didn't go to MIT.

More accomplishments

- 8 points in 9 seconds
- 25 points in the fourth quarter
- The Spike Lee feud 
- The choking face

At any rate, he was nominated last Tuesday. READ: People's whose basketball opinions are worth money got together and decided that Reggie Miller was at the very least good enough to be put into consideration for entrance into the hall of fame.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

If you dont give a **** about Iverson or Carter, why in the world did you make that silly statement in the first place then. Why make a statement that you cant defend? Its stuff like that which irks me. "Reggie is better without question" then avoids defending it, why because you know there's no way you can prove that.

Lol those accomplishments you put up, are they really serious reasons as to why Reggie should be in the hall? So Tmac's 13 pts in how many seconds is going to be considered when he is hall eligible?


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

myst said:


> He was more clutch.


Yes, he was more clutch and a better shooter. But both of those guys were better overall players.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> If VC continues to play for teams like Orlando, (I'd be shocked if when he becomes a FA he doesn't sign with teams that can contend for titles) his numbers will drop no doubt. With that said, look at Reggie's numbers, he was NEVER a strong rebounder, neither did he pass the ball that well.
> 
> AS for Brook, he's only been in the league 3 years. Hardly a career.


In reggies 13th year the pacers made the finals. He played on 60 win teams after that.

I don't think you got what I meant with the brook Lopez comment, you NBA.com hypocrite.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

And? Like I said, he's going to make it in, but the notion that he is somehow a better player than VC and AI is absurd. The stats simply do not add credence to that. As for Lopez, nothing hypocritical about that, that thread was mostly about his skill set. In this case we are comparing players, how else do you compare players if you don't bring up numbers and stats?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> And? Like I said, he's going to make it in, but the notion that he is somehow a better player than VC and AI is absurd. The stats simply do not add credence to that. As for Lopez, nothing hypocritical about that, that thread was mostly about his skill set. In this case we are comparing players, how else do you compare players if you don't bring up numbers and stats?


Ability, popularity and results. The globetrotters don't make the HOF because of their stats.

And you are comparing a couple of 34 year olds career stats with a guy that played until he was 40. Like I said if wince is still alive at age 40 let alone playing who sees his last 5 years looking like reggies?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sadly I dont have the ability to look into the future


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Sadly I dont have the ability to look into the future


But you do have the ability to judge the past with the magic of NBA.com


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

This guy again lol....if I understood what your point was, I'd be able to argue well. You realize Miller in his 18 seasons has never had a better rebounding or passing season than VC and AI. His best scoring season doesn't even compare to those guy's best. So exactly what am I missing here?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Sadly I dont have the ability to look into the future


After years of reading your horrible playoff predictions this is obvious.

I'll tell it for you, lakers will 3peat again and wince will play 3 more years after this and struggle to average double figures in the last two.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> The notion that Reggie Miller of all people was not seen by the bulk of this board is pretty incredible. Yet that seems to be the only argument for the pro-reggie crowd.


You called him a poor mans ray Allen when their games are not that similar. This would lead people to believe you didn't watch him. That's like calling Allen a poor mans Kobe.

We know you watched Reggie though. You are a former bulls bandwagoner.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> You called him a poor mans ray Allen when their games are not that similar. This would lead people to believe you didn't watch him. That's like calling Allen a poor mans Kobe.


He's Ray Allen's shooting without the all-around game. Thus poor-man's Ray Allen. Ray's been playing Reggie's game in Boston basically though with great movement and shooting. Difference is it's for a title winning team.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Josh Smith can't guard Bosh. Need to milk that.


Wrong thread.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

futuristxen said:


> He's Ray Allen's shooting without the all-around game. Thus poor-man's Ray Allen. Ray's been playing Reggie's game in Boston basically though with great movement and shooting. Difference is it's for a title winning team.


Nah, he is more like Rip Hamilton on PEDs.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

You guys, you guys! My penis is still bigger than all yours.

Seriously though, Miller is a HOF'er, but I'm not sure about 1st ballot. From the guys on that list, I'd say he's in the same tier as Mo Cheeks, Mullin and Rodman.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

HB said:


> *If you dont give a **** about Iverson or Carter, why in the world did you make that silly statement in the first place then. Why make a statement that you cant defend?* Its stuff like that which irks me. "Reggie is better without question" then avoids defending it, why because you know there's no way you can prove that.
> 
> Lol those accomplishments you put up, are they really serious reasons as to why Reggie should be in the hall? So Tmac's 13 pts in how many seconds is going to be considered when he is hall eligible?


noted failure to respond to my argument

failure to defend your point that reggie doesn't deserve to be in the hall.

Your straw dog arguments are pretty pitiful. Of course not, they're all features in a TOTAL BODY OF WORK. Think holistically. Kobe Bryant isn't going to get into the hall because he dropped 12 3 pts in a game. Reggie isn't getting in on the basis that he scored 8 points in 9 seconds.

This isn't an argument about Reggie being better or worse than Iverson, this is an argument about Reggie having the right to enter the Hall of Fame.

Clue: If you are feeling totally helpless and cannot respond to my THESIS, EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSION that I clearly laid out in capital letters, I think you should consider claiming that your sole purpose for participating in this thread was to defend the great names of Vince Carter and Allen Iverson. For then, you have an argument, albiet a different and completely unrelated argument to what was originally brought up, but an argument nonetheless.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> He's Ray Allen's shooting without the all-around game. Thus poor-man's Ray Allen. Ray's been playing Reggie's game in Boston basically though with great movement and shooting. Difference is it's for a title winning team.


They play nothing alike though. 

Thats like saying Reggie Evans = poor mans shaq. Shaqs rebounding without his all around game.

Or what about darko being a poor mans shaq? Shaqs passing without his all around game?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> noted failure to respond to my argument
> 
> failure to defend your point that reggie doesn't deserve to be in the hall.
> 
> ...


I didnt say he didn't deserve to be in it btw, and I should have clarified the first post, I don't think he's a first ballot hall of famer, but its pretty much guaranteed he will make it in.

LOL I didnt respond to the thesis because I thought it was ridiculous. You really want me to take that seriously. I could make a better argument as to why he deserves to be in. How about being the face of Indiana basketball for more than a decade? One of the best shooters of his generation....absolutely clutch shooter. None of that trivial stuff about how many seconds he scored 8pts or being Spike's enemy. Thats some bogus ****.

I notice in your mini essay you still didn't explain why Reggie is better than VC WITHOUT question. And since you cant give a reason or reasons for that matter, I am saying why bring it up in the first place?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You guys, you guys! My penis is still bigger than all yours.
> 
> Seriously though, Miller is a HOF'er, but I'm not sure about 1st ballot. From the guys on that list, I'd say he's in the same tier as Mo Cheeks, Mullin and Rodman.


Maybe, but Reggies is bigger than all of ours.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Maybe, but Reggies is bigger than all of ours.


Thats not what Cheryl said.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*HB!*

It's been explained by some why we think Reggie is better than Vince. You obviously have no counter point to Reggie having longevity, a finals run vs the Lakers, and not being an "ouch my knee, I mean my ankle, I mean.... ****, just take me out coach" type of player.

That's been said multiple times in this thread. You're just a terrible debater and act like if you ignore it then it didn't happen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Thats not what Cheryl said.


All the balla's round the globe know Cheryls got the biggest dick.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

HB said:


> This guy again lol....if I understood what your point was, I'd be able to argue well. You realize Miller in his 18 seasons has never had a better rebounding or passing season than VC and AI. His best scoring season doesn't even compare to those guy's best. So exactly what am I missing here?


You are missing everything about the NBA that goes beyond stats.

Vince Carter, a player that has bben DUMPED by his teams twice already, and is verging on a third dumping in exchange for an unstable player with a truly horrible contract.

Vince Carter, who has rolled over and died on his teams during the playoffs.

THAT Vince Carter. That's who you think is a better player than Reggie Miller, one of the top three clutch shooters in NBA history, regular season AND playoff.

HB, you shouldn't (and it would seem to me that you already don't) watch NBA games.

Just read the boxscores, don't look at the final score, and then just tally up all the stats at the end of the season.

Oh wait, that's how you currently follow the NBA, isn't it?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Basel said:


> Wrong thread.


You jumped on that quick. I deleted that like right after I posted it.
:baselllama:


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

R-Star said:


> *HB!*
> 
> *It's been explained by some why we think Reggie is better than Vince*. You obviously have no counter point to Reggie having longevity, a finals run vs the Lakers, and not being an "ouch my knee, I mean my ankle, I mean.... ****, just take me out coach" type of player.
> 
> That's been said multiple times in this thread. You're just a terrible debater and act like if you ignore it then it didn't happen.


Huh guy, myst is the only one who has said anything. None of you has explained or come close to explaining why REggie is better. All you have given me is tales, the other guy Duck just dodged the whole thing completely. What championships did Reggie win? What finals MVP? All star MVP perhaps? Rookie of the year? So again 

Again you can't pass off your opinion as facts man. The numbers dont support your argument. Unless of course you are trying to tell me that somehow NBA statisticians have gotten it all wrong.

And for goodness sake, stop with the big words, its clearly not your strong suit.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> You jumped on that quick. I deleted that like right after I posted it.
> :baselllama:


Quit gloating about your editing capabilities, toots!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> They play nothing alike though.
> 
> Thats like saying Reggie Evans = poor mans shaq. Shaqs rebounding without his all around game.
> 
> Or what about darko being a poor mans shaq? Shaqs passing without his all around game?


How about this then:
Reggie Miller is Rip Hamilton with more range, and less rings.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> You are missing everything about the NBA that goes beyond stats.
> 
> Vince Carter, a player that has bben DUMPED by his teams twice already, and is verging on a third dumping in exchange for an unstable player with a truly horrible contract.
> 
> ...


You don't even have to look at stats, just watch both of them play. At their peaks, Carter was a better player then Miller. Miller for the most part was a borderline all-star, Carter in his prime was a top ten guy in the league.

I rag on Vince as much as anyone, but even I can see that he is clearly a superior player to Reggie Miller.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Game3525 said:


> You don't even have to look at stats, just watch both of them play. At their peaks, Carter was a better player then Miller. Miller for the most part was a borderline all-star, Carter in his prime was a top ten guy in the league.
> 
> I rag on Vince as much as anyone, but even I can see that he is clearly a superior player to Reggie Miller.


Just as Vince is one of the biggest dogs to ever play in the NBA, so are you one of the most ignorant NBA fans that has ever watched a basketball game.

I'm done with thread.

Enjoy the little circle-jerk you have going.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

27dresses said:


> Just as Vince is one of the biggest dogs to ever play in the NBA, so are you one of the most ignorant NBA fans that has ever watched a basketball game.
> 
> I'm done with thread.
> 
> Enjoy the little circle-jerk you have going.


Is name calling all you can do? Seriously, you haven't giving a good reason for Miller being better then Carter. All you have said is Vince is quitter and a dog, we all know that. But from a basketball standpoint, Carter is the greater player of the two. He was a more versatile scorer in his prime, a better defender, and much better at creating for others. The only thing Miller does better then Vince is he was a better jump-shooter.

Carter in his prime was a top ten player in the league, you cannot say the same for Reggie Miller. Some of you are seriously riding that 90's nostalgic train.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> Is name calling all you can do? Seriously, you haven't giving a good reason for Miller being better then Carter. All you have said is Vince is quitter and a dog, we all know that. But from a basketball standpoint, Carter is the greater player of the two. He was a more versatile scorer in his prime, a better defender, and much better at creating for others. The only thing Miller does better then Vince is he was a better jump-shooter.
> 
> Carter in his prime was a top ten player in the league, you cannot say the same for Reggie Miller. Some of you are seriously riding that 90's nostalgic train.


No team in history would draft Vince Carter over Reggie Miller if they were both in the draft together. Reggie had a big contact and any team would have loved him, and Vince gets dumped more than once for expirings. Think about that.

And Reggie in his prime isn't top 10? You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

R-Star said:


> No team in history would draft Vince Carter over Reggie Miller if they were both in the draft together. Reggie had a big contact and any team would have loved him, and Vince gets dumped more than once for expirings. Think about that.
> 
> And Reggie in his prime isn't top 10? You have no idea what you're talking about.


That is utter bull****, and you know it. Teams would
definitely draft Carter over Miller. Carter was one of the more talented prospects of this generation. He had a much higher ceiling then Miller.

Reggie Miller never had a year where he was considered a top ten player. He was a good player, but never considered elite.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> And Reggie in his prime isn't top 10? You have no idea what you're talking about.


Back this up then. What do you consider to be Reggie's prime? Give your top ten list from that time period. I would like to see who you put Reggie ahead of to make your top ten.

Reggie's career: "Stick around long enough to be called a hall of famer"


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Welp there you have it folks, don't think I have anything else to say. R-star gave the most convincing argument


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

27 year old Reggie Miller in 92-93. Players I'd rather have looking back at Basketball Reference.com in no order:

Ewing
Mike
Dumars
LJ
Zo
Petrovic
Hakeem
David Robinson
Malone
Stockton
Barkley
Kevin Johnson
Kemp
Drexler
Shaq

And I'm sure older posters could think of more. And most of those names stood in front of him until they were replaced by other players. Hill, Payton, Kidd, all had yet to stake claim. Reggie could've never been considered a top 10 player I don't think, and probably not even a top tier SG.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> That is utter bull****, and you know it. Teams would
> definitely draft Carter over Miller. Carter was one of the more talented prospects of this generation. He had a much higher ceiling then Miller.
> 
> Reggie Miller never had a year where he was considered a top ten player. He was a good player, but never considered elite.


I had a long post drafted but I just want to ask if you agree with this statement:

Vince Carter was the more talented player, Reggie will have the better career.

Please don't respond with their turnovers per game average or their defensive efficiency share percentages.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dre™;6426475 said:


> 27 year old Reggie Miller in 92-93. Players I'd rather have looking back at Basketball Reference.com in no order:
> 
> Ewing
> Mike
> ...


Why would you list petro buy not DC?
First year Jordan retired Latrell Spreewell made the all-NBA first team.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Glen Rice, Dominique, Derick Coleman to add as well. Hell you can even make the case that he wasn't even better than the Rifleman in the early stages of his career on the Pacers.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why would you list petro buy not DC?


Didn't know if he was having his effort issues yet. I wouldn't have rather had an iffy guy no matter how talented.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

I'm quite shocked that Reggie Miller only had 5 all star appearances.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

To introduce a new argument, this is a hall of *fame* we're talking about. 

Reggie Miller was, and still is, famous. He was the star of one of the greatest rivalries in basketball history, and delivered in moments when his team needed him to. 

The question I ask myself is: 30 years down the line, will my kids hear stories about him? My answer is yes. 

In that entire decade, Reggie Miller vs. the Knicks will probably be one of the last stories I will choose to forget. It doesn't hurt to immortalize it. It's good for basketball. Also helps that Reggie defined Indiana basketball for more than a decade. He was the face of one of basketball's meccas. 

He's famous enough to get into the hall. His story is amazing enough. Every time I remember those Pacers vs. Knicks series, my faith in professional sports is restored.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

I don't believe Reggie should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> I don't believe Reggie should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.


Considering some players that got selected (KC Jones, Lenny Wilkens, CAlvin Murphy, etc., etc.) , Reggie should get in.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Should doesn't really matter when we know he will.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Considering some players that got selected (KC Jones, Lenny Wilkens, CAlvin Murphy, etc., etc.) , Reggie should get in.


No. That's just poor reasoning. Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based on the candidate's merits, not based on the inductions of players in the past. 

Does Reggie have Hall of Fame numbers? No. 18-3-3 is not Hall of Fame material.

Does Reggie have Hall of Fame accolades? No. He made the All-NBA 3rd team three years in his career. He was a five time All-Star. Those are significant accomplishments, but not Hall of Fame accomplishments.

Reggie was never one of the top 10 players in the NBA. You can argue he wasn't top 15. He was certainly clutch, but almost all of his clutch moments came against the Knicks (although I could never forget the half-court heave that sent game 5 of the 2002 first round against the Nets into overtime and then his dunk to send it into a second overtime)

He is the all-time leader in 3s made (although Ray will pass him very soon). That by itself is not enough to be a Hall of Famer.

Reggie will make the Hall of Fame, but it will be because of his longevity, not because of his accomplishments or because he deserved it.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Your logic is flawed - his longevity and sustained performance _are _an accomplishment, and one of the reasons he deserves to get in.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dre™;6426506 said:


> Didn't know if he was having his effort issues yet. I wouldn't have rather had an iffy guy no matter how talented.


That was his best season. People were calling him the most talented player in the NBA after Jordan. He had Malone size with a guards shooting and ball handling ability.

Think of Lamar Odom with an extra 20 pounds and Michael Beasley's scoring ability. 

No way was he deemed less valuable than Drazen Petrovic.

But yeah he eventually became a headcase, injury prone and a vagina... like Vince Carter.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Your logic is flawed - his longevity and sustained performance _are _an accomplishment, and one of the reasons he deserves to get in.


No joke, how many players can be second on their team in points- on a winning team at age 39?

I always wondered why he got such a farewell tour, but two decades of HOF caliber moments and being the face of many contenders all in the same city counts for something.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

He'll most likely get in although I don' think he should be. I think the standards of the Basketball HoF are horrible in general.

Here's the thing. Rasheed Wallace probably will not get into the Hall of Fame, likelihood is almost zero. If you told me who would give my team a better chance of winning the most titles, I would say Wallace throughout their careers.

Would you guys put Spreewell in? Is Miller meaningfully better then Sprewell at all? I don't think Miller was much better than Latrell Sprewell if you account for Sprewell's defensive play. Because that's the class of player Miller is.

Out of modern players, he's in the same class as Jason Richardson, who I would never consider for the Hall of Fame.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Pacers Fan said:


> Criticizing Reggie for a lack of all-star appearances is like criticizing Deron Williams for only having one all-star appearance. Ditto with league awards. The guard spots were super-stacked back in the '90's.


Deron has been a top 10 player for 2 or 3 seasons straight.

I don't think Reggie was a top 10 player at any point in his entire career.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> LMAO
> 
> 18 year career
> 5 All Star appearances
> ...


Yep, agreed 100%. If the best player on your team is Reggie Miller, you have almost shot of ever winning a title. You might make the playoffs a lot, but at no point your team be in the top 4 team. Not a realistic contender.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kenneth said:


> He'll most likely get in although I don' think he should be. I think the standards of the Basketball HoF are horrible in general.
> 
> Here's the thing. Rasheed Wallace probably will not get into the Hall of Fame, likelihood is almost zero. If you told me who would give my team a better chance of winning the most titles, I would say Wallace throughout their careers.
> 
> ...


No personal attacks, argue the point dont attack others


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kenneth said:


> Yep, agreed 100%. If the best player on your team is Reggie Miller, you have almost shot of ever winning a title. You might make the playoffs a lot, but at no point your team be in the top 4 team. Not a realistic contender.


So when he led the Pacers to 60 wins and took your team to a hard fought Finals it was what, a fluke?
*
No personal attacks. It's not that hard to grasp.* You know that right Kenny?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He DIDN'T lead the Pacers to 60 wins....wasn't that the team where JO was a MVP candidate? Didn't that team also have a very good player called Artest?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

No?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You are really pushing it, keep up the personal attacks and we'll see how far that gets you


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mad you were wrong there HB? Threaten me again, and we'll see how far that gets you.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> No. That's just poor reasoning. Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based on the candidate's merits, not based on the inductions of players in the past.


actually it's pretty solid reasoning - our justice system also uses it - it's called precedent

being faithful to precedent establishes a baseline for qualifying characteristics and maintains a level of consistency in a matter that is afterall pretty subjective


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Mad you were wrong there HB? Threaten me again, and we'll see how far that gets you.


And you'll what? Beat me up? Come on man stop with the childish behavior.

Yes or no wasn't Reggie on a team with Artest and JO that won 60 games? All you coulda said was that's not what I meant, but instead in typical R-star behavior, you launch into attacking other people.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> And you'll what? Beat me up? Come on man stop with the childish behavior.
> 
> Yes or no wasn't Reggie on a team with Artest and JO that won 60 games? All you coulda said was that's not what I meant, but instead in typical R-star behavior, you launch into attacking other people.


You were wrong and you're trying to blame it on me? Get real HB.

Reggie took the Pacers to the finals with Rose, Best, Dale Davis an Smits. You were wrong. Admit to that an move on.

And beat you up? It's the Internet. But what are you going to do? Nothing.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> No. That's just poor reasoning. Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based on the candidate's merits, not based on the inductions of players in the past.
> 
> Does Reggie have Hall of Fame numbers? No. 18-3-3 is not Hall of Fame material.
> 
> ...


This is the key. Like other s have said, Reggie's great longevity is an accomplishment in itself.
For 17 years he started for the Pacers. And only once he played less than 30mpg. He became the face of the franchise. And arguably the greatest shooter of all time.

Peak-wise, sure, he didn't rank amongst the best at his time. But let's consider players careers: if you are trying to win a championship, and you got your franchise player set, who would you take as a second-banana? A guy like Vince Carter (ot Tracie McGreedy), or Reggie Miller?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> You were wrong and you're trying to blame it on mr? Get real HB.
> 
> Reggie took the Pacers to the finals with Rose, Best, Dale Davis an Smits. You were wrong. Admit to that an move on.


Sigh! Again, I wasn't sure what team you were talking about. I was wrong cool, BUT again yes or no, was Reggie on a team with JO and Artest that won 60 games?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I dont think that's the team he was talking about - but to your credit he got the 60 wins part wrong

his reference to taking 'your team' to 6 games in the finals - not sure who he was responding to - suggests the 56 win 99-00 Pacers

the 61 win team in 03-04 was clearly JO's team and Reggie averaged 10ppg and was a non-entity in the play-offs


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

So that team he was talking about didn't even win 60 LOL and this guy is acting all tough like he knows what he is talking about. You gotta be ****ting me. I was right after all.

The ONLY 60 win team Miller was on was the one with Artest and JO


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Sigh! Again, I wasn't sure what team you were talking about. I was wrong cool, BUT again yes or no, was Reggie on a team with JO and Artest that won 60 games?


What the he'll does that have to do with anything other than you trying to save face?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

That team didn't win 60 buddy....you dont know what you are talking about. *Again only 60 win team that Reggie was on was the one with ARtest and JO*


----------



## Juggernaut (Jul 20, 2010)

HB said:


> And you'll what? Beat me up? Come on man stop with the childish behavior.
> 
> Yes or no wasn't Reggie on a team with Artest and JO that won 60 games? All you coulda said was that's not what I meant, but instead in typical R-star behavior, you launch into attacking other people.


Didn't he just copy what you said in his edited post? Did you mean you would beat him up? 

In the 97-98 season he lead his team to 58 wins, and lost in the conference championships to MJ's bulls. 


As a Knicks fan growing up, there wasn't a player me and my father hated more than Reggie. That being said, it would be a travesty if he wasn't elected into the Hall as a first ballot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> That team didn't win 60 buddy....you dont know what you are talking about. *Again only 60 win team that Reggie was on was the one with ARtest and JO*


We were talking about the finals. Which you said Reggie never led a team to. That year they won 58 games, but please feel free to make a two game discrepancy your main talking point HB. Pathetic.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He said Reggie was top dog on that team and he mentioned the 60 win team. The only 60 win team I knew Reggie was on, was the one where JO was MVP and Artest was his trusty sidekick.

Whats so hard to get here? The 60 win thing was what was confusing because they went to the conference finals. I thought that was what he meant.


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Your logic is flawed - his longevity and sustained performance _are _an accomplishment, and one of the reasons he deserves to get in.


Hmmm ... interesting. I would attribute his longevity to a lack of defensive game and with an average of 18 pts., he certainly didn't work hard nor have wear-and-tear on his little skinny legs/knees. Even that point average came from 3s, so he didn't even expend energy to get that. No ... his longevity doesn't count.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Longevity is not a significant enough accomplishment to make Reggie deserving of a HOF induction. The HOF is for the very best players, not players that were simply good for long periods of time.


----------



## Juggernaut (Jul 20, 2010)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Longevity is not a significant enough accomplishment to make Reggie deserving of a HOF induction. The HOF is for the very best players, not players that were simply good for long periods of time.


He is one of the very best. Holds the major records for 3 pointers, one of, if not the most clutch players ever, and stayed in the same city for 18 years. 

All of them combine to a HOF worthy career. The thing that sets him apart is that he never pulled a Malone and spent the last year or two chasing the championship and ruining his legacy.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Malone didn't hurt his legacy with the Lakers. He was an important part of that team, in fact they sort of fell apart without his presence in the Finals.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

His banner should go up in Indy for staying in the city than long. That's not good enough criteria to get into the HOF.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dynasty Raider said:


> Hmmm ... interesting. I would attribute his longevity to a lack of defensive game and with an average of 18 pts., he certainly didn't work hard nor have wear-and-tear on his little skinny legs/knees. Even that point average came from 3s, so he didn't even expend energy to get that. No ... his longevity doesn't count.


You don't like Reggie, we get it. Doesnt mean you have a god damn clue of what you're talking about. Most of his points came off 3's? No. Thanks for coming to the thread though junior.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Longevity is not a significant enough accomplishment to make Reggie deserving of a HOF induction. The HOF is for the very best players, not players that were simply good for long periods of time.


All right, let's try this, WITH longevity:

- #6 NBA Games played and minutes played;
- NBA All-time leader in 3 pointers made (11 seasons top-5 in 3PM (led the league twice);
- Led the league 5 seasons in FT% (#9 career);
- #14 all time in career points;
- #6 all-time in TS%;
- #2 all-time in Offensive rating;
- #7 all-time in OWShares;

Mix it up with neing a player who upped his game in the playoffs (where he delivered epic games).

Reggie Miller was not a player who stuck around simply for the sake of it (like, say, Robert Parrish).
Dude was not one of the best. But regarding his career, yes, it trumps the careers of some players who had a higher peak, but fadesd into onscuranty (sp?).

And about your comment regariding the HOF being for the very best, well, that's not the way it works...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> All right, let's try this, WITH longevity:
> 
> - #6 NBA Games played and minutes played;
> - NBA All-time leader in 3 pointers made (11 seasons top-5 in 3PM (led the league twice);
> ...


Thank you - it is the total picture you have to look at with Reggie Miller. He deserves to be in the hall of fame. 


And I can't believe somebody said Reggie Miller didn't work hard for his shots... the guy was one of the best off-the-ball creators I've ever seen, constantly working to get open.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Whether the Pacers won 57,58,59, 60 or 75 regular season games the fact remains he was the best player on very strong contenders contrary to what Kenny2 and HB said.

The 98 Pacers were the best team the bulls face in their second 3 peat. Also made the conference finals in 94, 95, 99 and 04 (though he wasn't the best player) they also made the conference finals.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the thing about the Naismith HOF is that induction takes into account college as well as pro experience (whether it be international or the nba)- it's the only HoF amongst the major sports that doesnt serve as the specific pro league's HoF - Pat Summitt is in the hall of fame for instance

so all this talk about who should and shouldnt be in the hall of fame is a bunch of hot air in the end - you see, the criteria a lot of people have been trying to argue for simply arent the actual criteria used when considering induction into the hall - simple as that

of course you can start your own hall (and many have argued that the NBA should)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Reggie also has a gold medal.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and a hell of a college career


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

R-Star said:


> You don't like Reggie, we get it. Doesnt mean you have a god damn clue of what you're talking about. Most of his points came off 3's? No. Thanks for coming to the thread though junior.


YOU ARE FUNNY!!! *I* started the thread!!!! So, thank YOU for coming.  hahahah


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

I skipped the last two pages because it got pointless reading everything as it was repetitive. 

My question/observation is for the anti-Reggie crowd and the stat geeks. Firstly, over the years I have come to the realization and conclusion that stats do not tell the story and are too easily skewed, they are too easily taken out of context, and many times invaluable. However for the sake of arguing, my question is that to all of the players using stats to diminish Reggie...how do you tell who the best player is when you are watching a game and don't have access to a box score? If you watch the game and decide that player A was the best during the course of the game but then you get home and look at the box score and he didn't have the best stats, is he not the best player anymore?

Secondly, even if I agree with you that Reggie was only a better scorer than some other player? So what? Overall he was the better player, scoring, rebounding, assists, they are just numbers. Ricky Davis has higher career averages than Reggie in assists and rebounds but I'm not going to argue that he was a better player because he was more rounded. I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting but when I watch and decide who I think is better I'm doing it based on what I see on the court and not on a piece of paper. I've seen too many players who can put up stats but still won't be a great basketball player. There's more to Reggie, along with every other player, than just his numbers. What stats account for passing out of double teams? Or for tiring your defender out by running off dozens of screens? Or for being a threat without the ball? For having a high IQ? For not stepping down from a challenge? For intimidating the other team? For changing a teams game plan? 

I used to be a stat fanatic too but you begin to realize that there is no substitute for watching the games. It seems like too many of these debates end up being who can find stats to agree with what they are saying.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The main point being...he is terrible on TV. Bad voice. Stupid analysis. And hypocritical moralizing. He's like a triple threat of bad.

Plus he has no chemistry on air with Kerr and Marv.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Exactly, which was the initial point of this thread.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

oh ok


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

thug_immortal8 said:


> I skipped the last two pages because it got pointless reading everything as it was repetitive.
> 
> My question/observation is for the anti-Reggie crowd and the stat geeks. Firstly, over the years I have come to the realization and conclusion that stats do not tell the story and are too easily skewed, they are too easily taken out of context, and many times invaluable. However for the sake of arguing, my question is that to all of the players using stats to diminish Reggie...how do you tell who the best player is when you are watching a game and don't have access to a box score? If you watch the game and decide that player A was the best during the course of the game but then you get home and look at the box score and he didn't have the best stats, is he not the best player anymore?
> 
> ...


Amazing post, and something I doubt the Miller critics will be able to respond to.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I actually think Miller should be in, but that's more or less a copout "stats aren't everything" post when you should just be ignoring the people saying his resume isn't enough as illegitimate. That hurts the argument if anything because it looks like you're grasping at straws. 

You're not about to get someone to change their mind because they finally realized he could run off screens and get on hot streaks. He is what he is and we all know that. 

The intangibles are what _make him_ worthy of this discussion, noone's ignoring them. What other consistent 18-21 ppg guys have people fighting about them like this? His clutch ability and somewhat unique game are what separates him in the first place, so in short I disagree.

That said I haven't seen a compelling argument why he shouldn't be in.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Regardless of what everyone thinks, none of our opinions matter and at the end of the day Reggie Miller will be in the HOF.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> The main point being...he is terrible on TV. Bad voice. Stupid analysis. And hypocritical moralizing. He's like a triple threat of bad.
> 
> Plus he has no chemistry on air with Kerr and Marv.


Here is a question, do you think if Matt Bullard or Vincent Askew would have a national TV gig despite being horrible in many ways? What about Vince Carter when he retires?

Just goes to show you that Reggie was more transcendent than his rebound per game and all-NBA appearences would lead you to believe.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nvm


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Here is a question, do you think if Matt Bullard or Vincent Askew would have a national TV gig despite being horrible in many ways? What about Vince Carter when he retires?
> 
> Just goes to show you that Reggie was more transcendent than his rebound per game and all-NBA appearences would lead you to believe.


Yes Reggie Miller joins the Hall of Fame ranks of Steve Kerr, Tim Legler, Jon Barry, Mark Jackson, and Jalen Rose...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm on the fence about Reggie in the hall. He is not a no-brainer for the HOF but he is right at the cutoff. Who does he have to compete with when he becomes eligible?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't think the basketball HOF is as prestigious as say the Baseball Hall of Fame. Just because it's not just for the NBA. So if you take into account Reggie's whole basketball career high school through pros, I'm sure he meets the level needed to get in there.

But in the mythical NBA HOF in fan's minds, I'm not sure he's there. It's a shame the NBA doesn't have it's own hall of fame. One that was as rigorously guarded as the Baseball one.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Rigorously guarded my ass...at the end a lot of baseball players end up stat chasing because certain round numbers get you in without any context..


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Yes Reggie Miller joins the Hall of Fame ranks of Steve Kerr, Tim Legler, Jon Barry, Mark Jackson, and Jalen Rose...


Those guys are either solid or stellar broadcasters. Reggie is not, yet keeps his job. Why is that?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I miss Bill Walton


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Those guys are either solid or stellar broadcasters. Reggie is not, yet keeps his job. Why is that?


Because I love him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> *Those guys are either solid or stellar broadcasters.* Reggie is not, yet keeps his job. Why is that?


Is this a joke?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Those guys are either solid or stellar broadcasters. Reggie is not, yet keeps his job. Why is that?


Jalen Rose is absolutely awful, the others are at least tolerable. Your guess is as good as mine as to why Reggie has a job.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Jalen Rose is absolutely awful, the others are at least tolerable. Your guess is as good as mine as to why Reggie has a job.


Because of his name? That was my point.

As for Rose, he's better than Reggie.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Is this a joke?


People like broadcasters in general as much as they like refs and head coaches. There will never be a year when everyone feels a majority of either of those 3 groups are better than mediocre.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

hey since we're talking about Reggina - Jalen Rose was the best player on that 99-00 team t or f?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> hey since we're talking about Reggina - Jalen Rose was the best player on that 99-00 team t or f?


Because he had 1 more point a game? I watched every game that season, the answer is without a doubt false. Reggie was the teams best player, but Rose, Best and even Croshere stepped up big time in many games.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

actually because he was the only other Pacer to play more than 2200 minutes on that team and had the ball in his hands a lot more than Reggie and pulled down twice as many boards and dished out 18% of his team's assists (as opposed to Reggie's 10%) - Reggie took and made a lot of 3s that year and ran people around a lot of picks but in terms of every other facet of the game?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> actually because he was the only other Pacer to play more than 2200 minutes on that team and had the ball in his hands a lot more than Reggie and pulled down twice as many boards and dished out 18% of his team's assists (as opposed to Reggie's 10%) - Reggie took and made a lot of 3s that year and ran people around a lot of picks but in terms of every other facet of the game?


Jalen was the point guard when besmt wasn't in and point forward if t.hey were both on the court at the same time. Of course he's going to get more assists.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

mark jackson saw significantly more time than Best on that squad (starter, +8mpg) - Jackson 28mpg, Best 20mpg = 48mpg = all the PG minutes available

Rose was just the 'point forward'


----------

