# Reggie Miller, HOF?



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

he should at least have his number retired...


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

Of course.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Absolutely...


----------



## trees (Jun 11, 2003)

No question


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>#21 On ma jersey</b>!
> he should at least have his number retired...


I can't imagine any possible scenario in which he wouldn't have his number retired.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

I'll join the riots if Reggie Miller doesn't get into the HOF


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

in my last thread here, people thought that in no way he would be a hall of famer. but I think there is no question


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

The NBA's all-time career leader in 3-pt FGM, he finished the 2002-03 season with 2,330. 

Moved into 15th place on the NBA's all-time career scoring list, surpassing Robert Parish, with his 11 points vs. Utah, 3/14/03. With 23,505 points in his career, he ended the season just 252 points behind Charles Barkley for 14th place. 

Recorded a double-double for the first time in two years, he had 14 points and a season-high 10 rebounds vs. Boston, 2/1/03. It came two years and a day after his last one, which also came against the Celtics, 1/31/01. 

In that game against the Celtics, he moved ahead of Elgin Baylor for 14th place on the NBA's all-time career free throws made list. He ended the season with a career 5,841, just 190 short of 13th place held by Dominique Wilkins. 

Became the 11th player in NBA history to log 43,000 minutes with his 14 minutes vs. Chicago, 3/28/03, finishing with a total of 43,260. 

His career-low 70 games played gave him a club record 1,243 games in his career and that is the fourth highest total in NBA history by a player with one team. Only John Stockton and Karl Malone of the Jazz and John Havlicek of the Celtics have played more games with one team. 

Represented the U.S. in the 2002 World Basketball Championship in Indianapolis. 

Averaged 24.3 points against the Lakers in the 2000 NBA Finals. 

Five-time All-Star (1990, '95, '96, 98 and 2000). 

Named to the All-NBA Third Team in 1997-98 for the third time, following 1994-95 and 1995-96 

Named to the 1997-98 NBA All-Interview Second Team 

Competed in 3-point contest on All-Star Weekend five times, finishing as high as 2nd in 1990 and 1995 

Became the first Pacer ever to start in an NBA All-Star Game in 1995. 

Member of the gold medal-winning U.S. Olmpic Basketball Team at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta 

Leading scorer (17.1 ppg) and a tri-captain on the gold medal-winning U.S. Basketball Team at the 1994 World Basketball Championship in Toronto. 

Named to the 1987-88 NBA All-Rookie Second Team after averaging 10.0 ppg and 2.3 rpg 

I'd say hes in!!!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Quite easily.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Without a doubt he'll be in.

Thanks for the info HEATLUNATIC.


----------



## jdg (Jun 13, 2003)

Yeah, throw my vote in!


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> Thanks for the info HEATLUNATIC.


ditto


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Um, no.

Miller will probably get in, but he's anything but a lock.

He does absolutely awful on the "Keltner List" of qualifications, about as bad as Mutombo:

- never the best player in basketball
- never the best player at his position, and rarely even top 3
- not even close to the best player not in the HOF (Dominique Wilkins and Adrian Dantley, two scoring-oriented superior players are not in the HOF)
- falls below the median HOF statistical standards
- never had an MVP type season or did well in 
- a measly 5 All Star appearances & 3 3rd team All-NBA, despite becoming a fairly high profile player in the 90's
- unlikely that a team with Reggie Miller as it's best player could make the Finals (the Pacers did make the Finals, but it came in a horribly depleted EC, and Jalen Rose was, at worst, neck-and-neck with Reggie for #1)

He does have some very strong qualifications - unique player, long career, likely to finish with 25K points, but he is a bubble player, not a lock - if it wasn't for his high-profile playoff games (overrated, IMO - 1 finals appearance when the EC was dead), he'd be in the same limbo with Dantley. IMO, Mitch Richmond was clearly better during the same time period, but Miller's superior hype will probably get him in and keep Mitch out.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I think Miller gets in on those remarkable playoff performances. That trumps him over Richmond (guy never really played in the post-season) or Dantley (just an ***hole).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

In terms of actual player quality, I'd say it's questionable. He _might_ be Hall of Fame-caliber, but it's far from certain. The only thing he did at a "great" level was shoot. He was not a dominant, or even particularly good, slasher, post-up player, passer, rebounder or defender.

His reputation is bolstered by his dramatic playoff moments, but I don't think those are actual _credentials._ Those are good for stories, just as Rex "Wonderdog" Chapman and Nick Van Exel have cool stories about playoff drama.

He was undoubtedly a very good player and a star in the league. But it's highly debtable as to whether he was ever *dominant* or a great *player* (as opposed to great at one aspect of the game).


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I think Miller gets in on those remarkable playoff performances. That trumps him over Richmond (guy never really played in the post-season) or Dantley (just an ***hole).


Is it Richmond's fault he played most of his career for the former worst franchise in the NBA (yes, more hopeless than the Clippers). Swap Richmond and Miller, and the Kings still don't sniff the postseason. I grew up watching the Kings and I can safely say that Mitch Richmond was pretty much the ONLY thing the team had going for it until the arrival of Geoff Petrie. I grew up watching the Kings and I don't think people remember just how totally hopeless that team was.

Also, Miller's playoff heroics are hugely overrated. His team was eliminated in the 1st round 8 of 13 seasons, made the NBA finals once (and it was tainted by the pathetic competition in the LEast at that point) and his career FG% is 47%, career playoff FG% 45%. He hit a bunch of very dramatic shots against a hugely overrated Knicks team, but his overall playoff performance was basically what he gave in the regular season.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> - unlikely that a team with Reggie Miller as it's best player could make the Finals (the Pacers did make the Finals, but it came in a horribly depleted EC, and Jalen Rose was, at worst, neck-and-neck with Reggie for #1)


I bet you didn't even believe this as you were typing it. The 90s Pacers not only reached the Finals once, but reached Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals three other times only to fall just short. Yeah, that seems like a team that doesn't have what it takes to make the Finals. 

Oh, right, Reggie wasn't actually the best player on those teams, it was Jalen Rose. If Rose is better than Reggie, I'm assuming that you believe that like Reggie, Rose will probably make the Hall of Fame, but isn't a lock? And since Rose wasn't an important player on the Pacers teams that fell just short of the Finals, who was the best player on those teams, if not Reggie?



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> His reputation is bolstered by his dramatic playoff moments, but I don't think those are actual <i>credentials</i>. Those are good for stories, just as Rex "Wonderdog" Chapman and Nick Van Exel have cool stories about playoff drama.


Did you just compare Reggie Miller's playoff heroics to *Nick Van Exel's*? Please tell me you're joking. Nick Van Exel's greatest playoff moment wouldn't get into Reggie's top five. No player, except perhaps Michael Jordan, has a list of playoff moments that compares to Reggie's.

Anyway, even if you decide to take the rather strange position that hitting lots of big shots has nothing to do with how good of a player you are, those shots are still Hall of Fame credentials. You can't reduce Hall of Fame membership to a set of numbers like the Hall of Fame Monitor. The Hall of Fame is supposed to promote the history of the game of basketball. That's why there are players in the HOF who helped bring basketball to the international stage, or African-Americans who helped open the league to blacks, and so on, even if they weren't as good as some players who aren't in the HOF. Reggie Miller is responsible for a whole bunch of the greatest moments in the history of the game, and for that, he's a Hall of Fame lock.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> Did you just compare Reggie Miller's playoff heroics to Nick Van Exel's? Please tell me you're joking. Nick Van Exel's greatest playoff moment wouldn't get into Reggie's top five.


No, I didn't. Do you want to point out a place where I used comparison words like, "better than," "worse than" or "equal to"? I noted other players who have been known for hitting big shots, but I made no comparisons between their "big shot hitting."

The point of noting other players who have been considered "clutch" in the playoffs is that greatness and hitting big shots has not gone hand-in-hand. Players like Van Exel, Miller (and Jordan) hit (and miss) big shots because their teams give it to them late. It's definitely an illustration that the player was the best scorer, or one of the best scorers, on the team...and it's also creditable that the player doesn't choke like an Eddie Jones...but I don't view it as some amazing feat.

Now, Miller's 8 points in 17 seconds, or whatever, *was* an amazing feat, but a single great play is not germane to anything except that moment.



> You can't reduce Hall of Fame membership to a set of numbers like the Hall of Fame Monitor.


I didn't. Excepting the stuff about playoff moments, which I addressed above, I wrote this:

_In terms of actual player quality, I'd say it's questionable. He might be Hall of Fame-caliber, but it's far from certain. The only thing he did at a "great" level was shoot. He was not a dominant, or even particularly good, slasher, post-up player, passer, rebounder or defender.

...

He was undoubtedly a very good player and a star in the league. But it's highly debtable as to whether he was ever dominant or a great player (as opposed to great at one aspect of the game)._

The fact is, I never once referenced "numbers." The fact that Reggie Miller was a wholly one-dimensional player and that one dimension wasn't even "scoring" (leading to dominant scoring) but rather one *aspect* of scoring...I don't think that constitutes a lock Hall of Famer.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Anyway, even if you decide to take the rather strange position that hitting lots of big shots has nothing to do with how good of a player you are, those shots are still Hall of Fame credentials.


So is Robert Horry a Hall of Famer? What about Sam Cassell? (and their shots even led to championships!). I guess Mike Bibby is a HOF to-be, because he already has a couple big playoff shots under his belt - he just has to make a few more and he's in! Reggie's playoff performances surely help his case, but they don't erase the fact that he was NEVER considered even the 2nd best shooting guard in the league at any point during his career (and very often not top 5!).



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> You can't reduce Hall of Fame membership to a set of numbers like the Hall of Fame Monitor. The Hall of Fame is supposed to promote the history of the game of basketball. That's why there are players in the HOF who helped bring basketball to the international stage, or African-Americans who helped open the league to blacks, and so on, even if they weren't as good as some players who aren't in the HOF. Reggie Miller is responsible for a whole bunch of the greatest moments in the history of the game, and for that, he's a Hall of Fame lock.


If Reggie was such a playoff god, why did his team go out in the 1st round 8 of 13 times? Why did his teams 'fall just short' so many times? His playoff heroism is overhyped because it came against the mega-overrated Knicks. Sure, he made a bunch of dramatic shots, but his overall playoff performance is worse than that of your average Hall of Famer. 

The facts are simple:

- Miller NEVER even made the All-NBA 2nd team in his career, and made the 3rd team just 3 times, so he was only a top 6 guard for 3 seasons.
- He only made 5 All-Star teams
- He NEVER was even considered for the MVP 

No matter the rest of his credentials, this is a huge black mark, and it makes him a marginal Hall of Famer.

Dominique Wilkins was a far superior player, and he's not in yet. I do think that Reggie will get in (he had a very long career, and he hit a milestone number, plus the hype), but it's kinda funny that everyone seems to consider Reggie a lock. Karl Malone is a lock. Reggie is a marginal Hall-of-Famer.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> So is Robert Horry a Hall of Famer? What about Sam Cassell? (and their shots even led to championships!).


No, because making big shots doesn't make you a Hall of Famer all by itself, sorry if that's what you thought I meant. It's simply a *credential*, a mark on your resume. Robert Horry has that credential too, but unfortunately, he doesn't have any other credentials (he never even made the damn All-Star team). Reggie does. He was a very good player for many years, plus he's the all-time leader in 3-pointers, plus he's one of the two best clutch performers in history. Together, I think those three are enough credentials to put him in the Hall of Fame.

Look at the post I was replying to. Minstrel said that Miller's heroics aren't an accomplishment *at all*, as far as Hall of Fame membership is concerned. Since you agree that his playoff performances help his case, I think you'll understand where I was coming from when I wrote this.



> If Reggie was such a playoff god, why did his team go out in the 1st round 8 of 13 times? Why did his teams 'fall just short' so many times?


I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Unless you win the championship, you have to lose somewhere. They fell short because they weren't the best team in the NBA. But they were a fixture in the Eastern Conference Finals, they were a pretty freaking good team for a number of years, and Reggie was the most important reason, by far. If you watched the series against the Hawks in 1996 when Reggie was injured, you saw how much worse the Pacers were without him.

And I'm not sure where you get the 8 of 13 statistic. The Pacers reached the Eastern Conference Finals in 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2004. Did you decide to omit some years of his career when you came up with the statistic? If so, how did you decide which years to omit?



> His playoff heroism is overhyped because it came against the mega-overrated Knicks.


And the Bulls, the Magic, and the Nets.

I agree that the 1990s Knicks are quite overrated, but I don't see how that makes Reggie's playoff heroism overhyped. 8 points in 15 seconds, the 25-point 4th quarter, and the others would be great moments in playoff history no matter who they came against.



> Sure, he made a bunch of dramatic shots, but his overall playoff performance is worse than that of your average Hall of Famer.





> - Miller NEVER even made the All-NBA 2nd team in his career, and made the 3rd team just 3 times, so he was only a top 6 guard for 3 seasons.
> - He only made 5 All-Star teams
> - He NEVER was even considered for the MVP
> 
> No matter the rest of his credentials, this is a huge black mark, and it makes him a marginal Hall of Famer.


If you look solely at his regular season accomplishments, then I agree that he doesn't get in. There are players (like Dominique Wilkins) who were better than him who won't get in. But like I said before, the Hall of Fame is more than just a judge of player quality, it's a chronicle of the history of the game of basketball. Whenever you look at a list of the 100 greatest moments in NBA history, Reggie's name is going to be on there a few times, and when you look at the record book, under "Career Leader, Three-Point Goals," you'll see Reggie's name. Recognizable accomplishments like that are a decisive factor. Dominique Wilkins doesn't have any of them, Reggie does.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Reggie is without question a hall of famer. 

I figure he's one of the greatest players from the 90's era of basketball, so he's gotta be hall of fame worthy.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> No, because making big shots doesn't make you a Hall of Famer all by itself, sorry if that's what you thought I meant. It's simply a *credential*, a mark on your resume. Robert Horry has that credential too, but unfortunately, he doesn't have any other credentials (he never even made the damn All-Star team). Reggie does. He was a very good player for many years, plus he's the all-time leader in 3-pointers, plus he's one of the two best clutch performers in history. Together, I think those three are enough credentials to put him in the Hall of Fame.


I actually think so too (however, Reggie isn't the 2nd best clutch performer in history; it can be debated that he was the 2nd best in the 90's behind Jordan, but 2nd all time? Larry Bird, Jerry West (um... Mr. Clutch), Isiah Thomas (now there's a guy with some ridiculous playoff perfomances as well) all more clutch just off the top of my head (I'm sure there are many more from the 60's, 70's and 80's). Miller is probably a Hall of Famer, but by the absolute slimmest of margins.



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> And I'm not sure where you get the 8 of 13 statistic. The Pacers reached the Eastern Conference Finals in 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2004. Did you decide to omit some years of his career when you came up with the statistic? If so, how did you decide which years to omit?
> 
> Whoops. Should be 8 of 14 years that he reached the playoffs (he missed the playoff in 3 of his 17 seasons), he went out in the 1st round (Got it from Basketballreference.com). Oddly enough, Miller has NEVER lost a 2nd round series; the 6 times that he made it out of the 1st round, the Pacers have at least reached the ECF. Is Miller a good playoff player? Undoubtedly. Is he one of the greatest of all-time in the playoffs? His playoff numbers and results seem to indicate he was merely very good.
> ...


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Put me in the RangerC / Minstrel camp.

Marginal HOFer. I can't predict the politics, but he does not deserve to get in on PERFORMANCE. However, if you make the argument that it is a hall of FAME, well Reggie certainly is FAMOUS.

Dominique Wilkins, 26,600pts, 9 straight all-stars, 24.8ppg career with 6.7rpg 2.5apg 1.3spg 
Not in HOF.

Reggie is not a locak to reach 25,000. Career 18.8ppg with 3.0rpg, 3.0apg and 1.1spg.

x-61-8-12-14-16-18-22-15-11-19-23-30-31-42-worse

That is Reggie Miller's ranks, in scoring, PPG, for his career.

Only ONCE did he ever make the top TEN in SCORING. Which is pretty much the only thing he is good at.

Sure, you can give him some consideration for consistency and longevity. But they don't call it the Hall of Persistence.

You will be hard pressed to find many HOFs who never won MVP, never won a ring, only had 5 AS games. I doubt you can find ANY who never finished top in any key single season stat (pts rebs asts stls blks).

A very nice player with an outstanding jumper, who could hit a clutch shot and worked tirelessly to get open.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Adrian Dantley-

21-16-inj-3-1-3-inj-1-7-2-21-21-29-dnq-10gp

I his 15 year career, he finished #21 in ppg as a rookie. Reggie watched from the bench.

In his prime he was a 30ppg scorer and led the league twice, with a 2nd and 2 thirds. He scored 30.7ppg in his prime injury year, but played only 22g.

That is what a HOF scorer's career looks like.

Oh wait, he didn't make it to the HOF...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Adrian Dantley will most likely not get in for years and years and years, because he was an ***hole. Nobody liked him and the voters continue to hold a grudge.

Dominique is not in yet, but he will get in, just not soon.

Reggie has some of the most impressive playoff feats of any player in an era, where Jordan ruled, but he dueled, Jordan, Ewing and Shaq during his prime years.

These are going to be weighted in his favor. 

Anyone who doesn't feel he will get in, is in denial.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

HFK- you may be right. But he will be one of the weakest modern era players in the HOF. But their are precedents. Dollar Bill Bradley got in because of FAME, and so may Reggie.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Adrian Dantley will most likely not get in for years and years and years, because he was an ***hole. Nobody liked him and the voters continue to hold a grudge.
> 
> Dominique is not in yet, but he will get in, just not soon.
> ...


So, Dantley was an ***hole but Reggie wasn´t? 

Reggie´s exploits in the playoffs (and man, what a game he often put on!!) will eventually get him in...

But i agree with others as to the fact that Reggie was NEVER the best SG in the game, and more often than not he couldn´t even crack Top-5 SG...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> So, Dantley was an ***hole but Reggie wasn´t?
> ...


At the end of the day Reggie was a respected NBA player by the media and his peers. No one liked Dantley. No one. It's one of the reasons he can't get in. 

Can you name the 5 shooting guards that were better than him, during his prime years? 

1. Michael Jordan
2. Mitch Richmond (arguably)
3. Reggie Miller 

Who am I missing that was better? An aging Clyde Drexler?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> At the end of the day Reggie was a respected NBA player by the media and his peers. No one liked Dantley. No one. It's one of the reasons he can't get in.


Who liked Isiah Thomas? And Charles Bakley?



> Can you name the 5 shooting guards that were better than him, during his prime years?
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Mitch Richmond (arguably)
> ...


What do you think their 5 prime years were? Then i´ll come up with some ballers...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Who liked Isiah Thomas? And Charles Bakley?
> ...


Reggie from 1993-2000. He was very good in all 7 years.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

interestingly, miller & dantley are 5th and 6th all-time in ppfga. miller's era adjusted would put him ahead. 

miller's gonna make it. dantley will likely make it as well. miller was greater than his numbers indicate. he was a dominant figure on offense, a guy who the other team needed to focus alot of attention on. it made him better, imo, than other guys who scored the same or slightly more. and, again, the ppfga is the best ever for a perimeter player.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Reggie from 1993-2000. He was very good in all 7 years.


Dumars, Petrovic, Reggie Lewis, Latrelll Sprewell, Ron Harper, Richmond, Jordan, Drexler, Michael Finly, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Stackhouse...

Granted they didn´t all excell in the same years... but they all were better than Reggie in some given years... And i could be forgetting a couple...

Btw, how many NBA Teams Reggie got on? I could be mistaken, but i believe he was 2 times a 3rd teamer... not much to brag about...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Dumars, Petrovic, Reggie Lewis, Latrelll Sprewell, Ron Harper, Richmond, Jordan, Drexler, Michael Finly, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Stackhouse...


Okay it's time to pick this list apart my friend. 

I know people love to talk about Drazen Petrovic, but I grew up a Net fan and there is no way in hell he was better than Reggie Miller. I think because he died tragically, that he gets pumped up more than he was. He was never the best player on the Nets, Derek Coleman or Kenny Anderson was. I don't want to feel like I am tearing down a dead guy, but those Nets games came on all time on Sportchannel and WWOR TV (UPN 9) here in NYC and he just wasn't as great as people were making him out to be. 

Actually Clyde Drexler was not better than Miller. Drexler was declining rapidly and by the time 1993 started, he was already in the league a decade. He played 3 more years, but was not better than Reggie. 

Joe Dumars the same thing. At that time was not better than Reggie. Throw him out. 

Stackhouse that is a joke. Peace out. 

Reggie Lewis, another guy, who died and it was tragic, but nope he has to get tossed aside as well. He was not better than Reggie. 

Michael Finley, nope, not better than Reggie either. He wasn't even considered an All-star until Dirk became a star.

Ron Harper, better than Reggie Miller? No way. When he was basically a defensive stopper on the Bulls. No buddy. 

Spreewell. Now here is someone who might have been better, although his teams didn't win much, until Reggie was almost out of his prime (1999). I can't give him the nod. 

Kobe didn't become a star until the 2000 playoffs and Finals (when they wn over the Pacers). Nope. 

So what you have is Jordan and arguably Mitch Richmond and Latrell Spreewell and those guys spent the majority of the time on crappy Sacto and Golden State. 

I don't know how anyone can say Reggie was not one of the best players in the league during his prime. It's just not accurate.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> Okay it's time to pick this list apart my friend.


No problem, HKF.
But keep in mind that Reggie:
- couldn´t defend;
- couldn´t dribble;
- couldn´t create his own shot. 



> I know people love to talk about Drazen Petrovic, but I grew up a Net fan and there is no way in hell he was better than Reggie Miller. I think because he died tragically, that he gets pumped up more than he was. He was never the best player on the Nets, Derek Coleman or Kenny Anderson was. I don't want to feel like I am tearing down a dead guy, but those Nets games came on all time on Sportchannel and WWOR TV (UPN 9) here in NYC and he just wasn't as great as people were making him out to be.


I could be biased about Drazen. He was God in hardwood here in Europe.
But still there´s no way you could say he was the 3rs best Net. Him and Coleman were one of the best outside-inside duos in the time... Kenny was just the distributer... (watch the 44 point game in the playoffs, if you will)...
Drazen couldn´t defend, sure, but he was a better shooter (man, it sure sounds like heresy) than Reggie... He could also create his own shot, which was money....



> Actually Clyde Drexler was not better than Miller. Drexler was declining rapidly and by the time 1993 started, he was already in the league a decade. He played 3 more years, but was not better than Reggie.


Drexler, till 97-98, was a good scorer. But he had a gigantic upper-hand to Reggie in rebounding, passing and... defending.



> Joe Dumars the same thing. At that time was not better than Reggie. Throw him out.


Yeah, Joe D's game started decining after the 84-95 season... Still, he defended a whole lot better than Reggie... and was able to play PG too... Reggie never could...




> Stackhouse that is a joke. Peace out.


I agree. Why did i bring up this guy?????



> Reggie Lewis, another guy, who died and it was tragic, but nope he has to get tossed aside as well. He was not better than Reggie.


Yes, he was... he could rebound and defend... things that Reggie could never do... He was also a marksman....



> Michael Finley, nope, not better than Reggie either. He wasn't even considered an All-star until Dirk became a star.


The same kind of player: offense first, rebound next and defend latter...



> Ron Harper, better than Reggie Miller? No way. When he was basically a defensive stopper on the Bulls. No buddy.


That was before he joined Satan´s team...



> Spreewell. Now here is someone who might have been better, although his teams didn't win much, until Reggie was almost out of his prime (1999). I can't give him the nod.


Spree couldn´t get the percentages Reggie was getting, but his defesne at the time was waaaaaaay better.



> Kobe didn't become a star until the 2000 playoffs and Finals (when they wn over the Pacers). Nope.


Till 2000 (the year i believe you stated)?
Then Kobe was putting 22/6/5: something i don´t think Reggie was ever capable of doing... 



> So what you have is Jordan and arguably Mitch Richmond and Latrell Spreewell and those guys spent the majority of the time on crappy Sacto and Golden State.


Not quite. How many 1st and 2nd Teams did Reggie make?



> I don't know how anyone can say Reggie was not one of the best players in the league during his prime. It's just not accurate.


Reggie was a God in the playoffs.
I remember vividly his exploits at the Guarden... and with the Celtics...

But the bottom line is: one finals appearence... 2 3rd team All-NBA (I think)... great 3pt and FT shooter... Couldn´t defend, pass or rebound...

Not much, HKF, not much...


----------

