Reggie Miller

[ironmike67]

Rumor has it that Reggie Miller is coming out of retirement to help the Boston Celtics NBA team win a Championship! This could be huge!

 

[tennis_balls]

Rumor has it that Reggie Miller is coming out of retirement to help the Boston Celtics NBA team win a Championship! This could be huge!

I love Reggie so I'll root for him if he does do this. Although I'm sort of hoping he won't do it as I remember cringing as Jordan played for the Wizards.

 

[johnsteed]

***


I love you "tennis_balls", not in a gay way, but in the way that you're a funny guy!


Like you, I'm a big Reggie Miller fan. Personally, he's the greatest 3pt shooter (when it counts) that I can think of. Ray Allen is right there with him, but Miller's taken BIG shots; I don't really feel that Allen has been in those kind of games (say for that one magical run with the BUCKS).


But c'mon, this Miller coming out of retirement stuff is sooooo back page. Is it so hard to imagine him coming back in a situation like this? When Jordan came back, it was completely different. He's "MICHAEL JORDAN"! He was the centerpiece of that WIZARDS team, and it was a terrible team to begin with. You'll get no argument out of me that $ wasn't the same player as before, but he did do a better job than the media gives him credit for. Frankly, at that point of his career wasn't he on par if not better than Finley, Richmond, or even Houston's greatest years?


Reggie Miller is likely going to come off the bench, and play 20-25 minutes per game (not the 10 minutes that the press is already throwing out). But he's just a luxury piece, nothing really more than that.


Frankly, do the CELTICS really need him? I'm reading that he's going to free up Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, but has anyone looked at any stat sheet over the past decade? I can't think of anyone (but maybe 1 other person) who's launched more 3's over that period than these two. Why do they need another shooting specialist? I'm not saying that it's bad to have Reggie - it's nice - but they desperately need a lock-down type at various positions. For the life of me, I can't fathom why they haven't looked to locking-up a clean Kemp for a year or two at the league minimum. He's better defensively than people think, he still (apparently) has hops, and he's a big body. Even if he's only 50% of what he was when he was with the SONICS, that more than enough to make this team a contender. Gamble a bit...


Out of all the old guys coming back, I'm pulling for a Kemp return (which will never happen). I've always liked the older players, so I have no problem with retired guys coming back. Why does the press play these stupid angles? Who cares how old they are, if they're willing to give it a go again and be productive, that's awesome!



Steed

***

 

[tennis_balls]

Frankly, at that point of his career wasn't he on par if not better than Finley, Richmond, or even Houston's greatest years?

you had to include Richmond in this group? Mitch was amazing for a couple of years while attempting to carry an attrocious Kings team. Please don't stick Mitch in a group with one of the most arrogant and over-rated players of all time: Finley.......(I once heard Finley asked if he could choose any player in the league to take the final shot in game 7 of the finals......whom do you suppose he chose?.....hint: inintials MF)-er.

Reggie Miller is likely going to come off the bench, and play 20-25 minutes per game (not the 10 minutes that the press is already throwing out). But he's just a luxury piece, nothing really more than that.

successful teams in the NBA have proven that you can never have too many clutch 3 point shooters as role players (think Horry, Barry, Finley) and if Ray Allen's body isn't 100% after double ankle clean-up last spring then the luxury piece becomes more essential.

Out of all the old guys coming back, I'm pulling for a Kemp return (which will never happen).

Kemp is far too busy with his special hobby:Old Attachment (Invalid) (ok perhaps neither of those little characters resemble Kemp....my bad.)

any chance for the Celtics to resurrect Terry "Sweet Dew" Duerod?

of course if they really want to make things fun for the rest of the nation, they'll bring Rodman in for a try-out.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

***


I love you "tennis_balls", not in a gay way, but in the way that you're a funny guy!


Like you, I'm a big Reggie Miller fan. Personally, he's the greatest 3pt shooter (when it counts) that I can think of. Ray Allen is right there with him, but Miller's taken BIG shots; I don't really feel that Allen has been in those kind of games (say for that one magical run with the BUCKS).


But c'mon, this Miller coming out of retirement stuff is sooooo back page. Is it so hard to imagine him coming back in a situation like this? When Jordan came back, it was completely different. He's "MICHAEL JORDAN"! He was the centerpiece of that WIZARDS team, and it was a terrible team to begin with. You'll get no argument out of me that $ wasn't the same player as before, but he did do a better job than the media gives him credit for. Frankly, at that point of his career wasn't he on par if not better than Finley, Richmond, or even Houston's greatest years?


Reggie Miller is likely going to come off the bench, and play 20-25 minutes per game (not the 10 minutes that the press is already throwing out). But he's just a luxury piece, nothing really more than that.


Frankly, do the CELTICS really need him? I'm reading that he's going to free up Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, but has anyone looked at any stat sheet over the past decade? I can't think of anyone (but maybe 1 other person) who's launched more 3's over that period than these two. Why do they need another shooting specialist? I'm not saying that it's bad to have Reggie - it's nice - but they desperately need a lock-down type at various positions. For the life of me, I can't fathom why they haven't looked to locking-up a clean Kemp for a year or two at the league minimum. He's better defensively than people think, he still (apparently) has hops, and he's a big body. Even if he's only 50% of what he was when he was with the SONICS, that more than enough to make this team a contender. Gamble a bit...


Out of all the old guys coming back, I'm pulling for a Kemp return (which will never happen). I've always liked the older players, so I have no problem with retired guys coming back. Why does the press play these stupid angles? Who cares how old they are, if they're willing to give it a go again and be productive, that's awesome!



Steed

***

Well, was shocked to see Penny back to the Magic, lets just hope the other Hardaway does not get any ideas. BTW, Pippen is talking come back, well if Holyfield,neh nevermind about Holyfield, he is probably decided to chill with Sean and their army of kids.

 

[johnsteed]

***


tennis_balls

you had to include Richmond in this group? Mitch was amazing for a couple of years while attempting to carry an atrocious Kings team. Please don't stick Mitch in a group with one of the most arrogant and over-rated players of all time: Finley.......(I once heard Finley asked if he could choose any player in the league to take the final shot in game 7 of the finals......whom do you suppose he chose?.....hint: initials MF)-er.

Well, he is/was better than those players.



I like Mitch Richmond as well, but "amazing" for Richmond, is not necessarily "amazing" amongst the best in the game. I don't think he had peak years any more amazing than a Glen Rice, a Latrell Sprewell, or a Jerry Stackhouse. Sure, an argument can be made that he carried those teams on his back, and I believe that he showed up on most nights. He was the team's #1 option for all of his years with the KINGS, so of course, his numbers would be greatly inflated.



Comparing Richmond against that 2nd tier of SG - literally everyone not named MJ - his overall production would likely suggest that he was the best of the following group of high scoring '90s SG (looking at their total careers)...



a) Mitch Richmond


b) Latrell Sprewell


c) Mike Finley


d) Jerry Stackhouse


e) Ray Allen


j) Allan Houston


l) Reggie Miller


m) Joe Dumars


n) Glen Rice



* I'm leaving Bryant/Carter/Pierce/McGrady/Hill out of the discussion, because they could just as easily be cast as SF. I didn't include Eddie Jones/Hornacek/Starks, because then I have to start watering down the field and start adding Jimmy Jackson, J.R. Rider, Kendall Gill, ect.




#1

Mitch Richmond vs Latrell Sprewell​

When Jordan was playing minor league baseball, these were probably the best 2 SGs at that time. Looking at their career totals, it's a hands-down win for Richmond. He also has a Championship ring, although he did win this on the SHAQ/KOBE/PHIL express... where he was every bit a role player.



If I look at their peak seasons, I would argue that Sprewell was a better overall player based solely on his warp-speed and relentless defense (that would eventually take a back seat later on his career). Sure, Richmond was the better outside shooter, and with Miller, may have had the best touch in the league in the mid-90s. But looking through various media guides, watching him in his heyday, defensively, Sprewell gets a major edge.



No, Richmond never choked his coach, and complained after turning down a not-so-deserving 8-figure contract, and scowled with a giant-chip-on-his-shoulder. Richmond had much more class than that. But ignoring the not-so-trustworthy media, Sprewell has been very well liked most places he's played at. His teammates loved his fire, and he was always a great teammate. The bigger the game, the better Sprewell would play. I never got that from Richmond. Remember, Sprewell was THE man on that KNICKS team that should never have made the finals.



Richmond was the focal point of any offensive scheme that the KINGS had, so he's going to have great stats. Really the only couple of years where Sprewell was the lone wolf, were his final 2 (and a quarter) years with the WARRIORS. His numbers were amazing like Richmond's, despite playing on teams (like Richmond) with no hope of making the playoffs.


Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that Sprewell at his peak is slightly greater than Richmond at his. Sprewell has no shot at making the HOF, while Richmond just might get there. I'm going to give it a draw.



#2

Jerry Stackhouse VS Mitch Richmond​

You could make an argument here, because Stackhouse did lead the league in scoring (2000-01). He also played in the FINALS; albeit on a team that would eventually drop 4 straight. He has similar defensive skills, that being mediocre although sometimes good. I would have to think that he's a better role-player. Richmond is the better passer, but not by a mile. Richmond is the better shooter, Stackhouse is the better finisher; cutting and slashing to the hoop. Both are/were surprisingly good down low; although nothing like J.R. Rider.



Another difference is that Stackhouse was never sought after long enough to be THE man on the teams he played for. A.I., then Hill, then M.J., then Dirk... Richmond was in an ideal position to build on his career totals in Sacremento, where he was considered the lone bright spot for a long time. Stackhouse is still playing, and he may very well continue playing in his reduced-role capacity for many years to come, but he'll never finish his career with numbers more eye-catching than Richmond's.



I'm going to give Richmond the edge here...



#3

Mike Finley VS Mitch Richmond​

​

Finley is/was a better dunker for all that's worth. They may have been the lone star on their team's (Finley was until Dirk and Nash really took-off), but they never really grabbed any headlines. Richmond was stronger athletically, was a better outside shooter (similar mid-range shooters at their peaks), and similar finishers in traffic (although I think Richmond gets the edge here). Richmond was a moderately better 1-on-1 defender, but both (I feel) were similarily decent with team defense. Richmond's major advantage was his passing and rebounding, and playing at a high level for a much longer period.


Mike Finley won't be a HOFer, even if that SPURS team wins 2 more titles with him in the line-up. I think that Richmond's skills are greater than Finley's, although they're closer to each in those regards than Richmond was to Jordan.



#4

Ray Allen VS Mitch Richmond​

Richmond was a stronger player than Allen. Both have great outside shots, and it's almost impossible to pick the better sniper. If I have a gun to my head, I'd take Allen; although you're not exactly "losing" if you took Richmond. Both are/were excellent passers for big-guards, similar defensive players (although Richmond might have been a bit better there), similar open-court players. They're both excellent mid-range shooters. Ray Allen is a better actor than Richmond D). They have career averages that are similar to one-another. Richmond is the better rebounder.



But, despite all of that, Allen is still adding to his career totals, and despite operations, I think he's good for another few years. Allen has never been the clear-cut best SG in the league, although he's really been right there each year for the better part of his career. Allen may very well go down as the games greatest long-range shooter (something that never dawned on me until the past couple of years), even though he began his career as more of an MJ (lite) clone. It's as if he's the happy medium between Jordan and Miller. I'm going to give the edge to Allen.




#5

Allan Houston VS Mitch Richmond​

​

There's not much of an argument that can defend Houston over Richmond, so I won't go there. What I will touch on is that I have serious doubts that Richmond could have thrived as he had in a bigger market. There's no way to prove that, but I've always felt that Richmond was in the perfect position (as was A.I.). The media and fans always talk about poor 'ol "Richmond" having to play in an obscure market with a bunch of losers, and that he would be even greater had he played for a PRIME TIME club. That could be true, but he despite putting those teams on his back, they still were never any good. He was the focal point, and the leader of those squads, but they played the game as if they were leaderless. They were nothing more than a garbage time stats team. Great "FANTASY" team, nothing more. If Richmond were at the very heart of it, doesn't he bear any sort of responsibility towards how that team is being projected?



There's absolutely nothing that Houston could ever do on the court that was any better than Richmond. Houston somehow thrived in a the New York market, despite never being perceived as "tough". Funny how that works... Edge: Richmond!!!




#6

Reggie Miller VS Mitch Richmond​

​

Richmond actually comes up ahead in many skill categories over Miller. They both worked hard in the off season, and they both kept working on their shooting (although Miller may have taken it too far). Richmond was stronger, a much greater finisher, he could put the ball on the floor, he could post-up, he could do a lot of things that Reggie couldn't do. But you know what, Reggie was the greater star. He played in Indiana, which is NOT a big market team, and he made the team relevant.



Miller may not own the ring that Richmond has, but was a big player in many many games. Richmond wasn't. Miller was as scary as MJ with the ball in the dying seconds of a game. Miller was extremely smart at getting to the right spots, and did his job perfectly. He pretty much was a single act, a shooter. But to me, he's the less crazy but frankly just as (lovingly) annoying player/specialist that Dennis Rodman was. Rodman had GODLY rebounding stats, and that's about it. But he was an excellent defender, and a very gifted passer. Miller is similar that he's the GOD of 3pt shooting, who's also a gifted passer despite not having great assist totals. Miller - like Rodman - did so many small things offensively off the ball, as Rodman did defensively off the ball. Rodman won't get into the HOF, although he should. Reggie will...



The edge goes to Reggie, because even though he didn't win a Championship, he always took his teams to the brink of something better.




#7

Joe Dumars VS Mitch Richmond​

​

Dumars was a great team player, therefore it's certain that since he played with great teams, his overall production (stats) cannot match-up with Richmonds. Dumars was an excellent 1-on-1 defender, and a great team defensive player. He was a good outside shooter, and better when the game was bigger. He was an excellent passer, and like Miller and Rodman, he did so many things off the ball that don't matter to "FANTASY" leagues.



Dumars was a greater all-around player than Richmond, and he contributed greatly to some winning teams. He's sometimes overrated, as Richmond is sometimes underrated (both historically). Richmond is the superior "featured" scorer, although I think that Dumars could do most of the things offensively that Richmond could do, just with not as much consistency over 48-minutes. Dumars was another SG who was pretty strong down low, although maybe not as good as Richmond.



Dumars is a HOF player BECAUSE he won championships, and was a great team player. I think that Richmond was more talented offensively, but as a whole, not necessarily greater.



I'm going to give the edge to Dumars.




#8

Glen Rice VS Mitch Richmond​

​

When Rice was with Charlotte, he was the 2nd best shooting guard... offensively in the league (Sprewell was so good at that time). Richmond was right with him. Rice was a very similar 3pt shooter that Richmond was. They both came into the league at the same time, both won a ring with the LAKERS (although I'd argue that Rice actually contributed more than Richmond had), and both left quietly. Both worked hard at their games, although Rice (and his REALLY HOT wife) started to sour on everyone, and Richmond was never really in any kind of spotlight (say for "RUN-TMC"). I don't really feel that either one was better than the other, but maybe Richmond was better athletically. It took a long time for Rice to get any kind of appreciation, and by the time that he did get some, he was soon traded to be a 3rd wheel. Richmond managed to stave off that fate for a bit longer. Richmond has the greater totals, so...



Richmond gets the edge over Rice.



***


I have no problem with Richmond getting into the HOF, and I hope that he does. I was a fan of his, and loved him at a time because I thought (along with everyone else) that he was incredibly underrated. He was a star player for a long time, and he was a great scorer. I don't think he's greater than Alex English, and at his peak, I don't think he was greater than 100 other NBA stars throughout the history of the game. He was the right player in the right situation, feasting on buckets. Do I think that he's a HOFer? Not especially. Will he make it? Yes, because he was underrated, he had a long career, he put up some great totals during that time, and he has ring (although he wasn't exactly a key player on that team). Are there other HOF candidates who're more worthy than him? Yes. Rodman and English should be there ahead of him. Ditto Bernard King, Dan Issel (if he's not already in), and certainly Dennis Rodman.


***


As far as the part about Finley's "arrogance" that rubs you the wrong way, I can think of 75% more players in the league who're infinitely more arrogant, crude, rude, and that have no concept of reality over the likes of Finley. Finley has been generaly perceived to be "classy" (whatever that means) and at times a "shy-jokester". Most coaches would love a player who feels that he wants to take that last shot, even if there are more capable players who CAN take that shot. Seeing that there are soooooooooo many punks in the game today, how do you come up with Finley so readily?


I used to laugh when the media said that the Mavs were Finley's team, because everyone knew that it was Nash's and Dirk's at the time he signed that huge contract. "tennis-balls", I wouldn't think of Finley as being overrated, but certainly not worthy of the contract he got and a very borderline All-Star in his best years. I'll give you that...


***


cont...

successful teams in the NBA have proven that you can never have too many clutch 3 point shooters as role players (think Horry, Barry, Finley) and if Ray Allen's body isn't 100% after double ankle clean-up last spring then the luxury piece becomes more essential.

Great point! I do think that Miller is a nice addition, and I don't have a problem with Ainge trying to sign him. I just happen to think that the team's primary concerns are defense and another multi-dimensional BIG. I like the CELTICS to win 55 games (provided that their cores players are healthy), and I don't mind their chances of getting to the Conference Finals. But getting past that point isn't that simple. They need greater depth than they have. They don't really have any defensive specialists (although Rondo isn't bad, and Garnett is nice... but more on par with a Ben Wallace rather than a Tim Duncan; forget about any comparison with Olajuwon). The media keeps saying that they're too old, and I don't really agree with that. They're still at their peak (or very close to it), so I think that they can be productive and happy for a while, as long as they're winning.



But, their lack of depth defensively is going to hurt them, so I don't think they're a title contender (yet), and I also don't think that Reggie Miller is the answer (not that anyone said he was). He's probably a wasted pick-up unless Ainge has plans D and E waiting in the wings. I am rooting for them though, because I've always loved Allen, and Garnett is great (and better than Charley Rosen thinks).



Steed

***

 

[chuchu59]

Hi guys,

Being Chinese, I would love to hear what you think of Yao Ming.

 

[Christoff]

Isn't Reggie Miller the guy who played in the 1990 World Cup for Cameron and danced every time he scored?!

 

[johnsteed]

***


chuchu59

Hi guys,

Being Chinese, I would love to hear what you think of Yao Ming.

I liken him to a hybrid of Patrick Ewing and Rik Smits. On the plus side, he's got a soft touch, he's a decent shot-blocker, he's an underrated passer who's slowly getting better each year kicking the ball-out to the wings, he's got really strong legs (I don't think he'll be one of those guys who always has knee problems), he's still tall and that means something. He also seems to show a bit more passion than he displayed over his first few years in the league. I happen to think that he has a desire to play the game, the right way. He's still young, and seems to be making small steps towards improving each year.


On the down side, he's not very mobile... rather slow-footed. Adelman is at the helm now, and the ROCKETS are sure to be doing a heckuva lot more running and launching than then had been doing under Van Gundy. He's a better rebounder than Rik Smits (who was terrible), but not in the same same class as Patrick Ewing (who was projected to be much better than he was... although he always amongst the top in the game). I could see him averaging 26/9 (pts/rebounds) sooner than I could see him averaging 22/13 like Tim Duncan. He's a poor/average defender, although I'll be quick to point out that when you're a man of his size, you're probably doing enough to change the way the other team plays it on the offensive end (I suppose that makes him a "defensive presence"); his 1-on-1 skills are weak. He's not Hakeem in any sense of the word. I see him having a much longer and healthier career than Brad Daugherty, who I would have to think he has a game that most resembles his own. A star player, and arguably the most valuable center at this time (Oden just got there/SHAQ is in the heavy decline phase), unless you count the high volume of PF who're able to shift to center (think: Duncan/Garnett/Stoudemire).



I like Yao, he's easy to root for, and certainly worthy of being drafted 1st overall. He's still improving, and he wants to do better because that's honor to him. I just don't think he's changed the way the game's being played. I truly doubt he'll ever crack that Top-10 All-Time great centers list.


Off the top of my head, it would look something like this...


1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Height, length, stamina, longevity, and plenty of championships. His name seems to come up 3rd/4th on many people's lists these days, but he an astounding talent with a high skill set; with an unstoppable hook-shot.


2. Wilt Chamberlain - A great athlete with so much strength and length. He's often considered the greatest center, but I happen to fall under the belief that he cared too much for his numbers and winning wasn't always #1 to him.


3. Bill Russell - Sure, he's #3 on this list, but I happen to think he's the greatest "player" amongst the centers. Not exactly a pure center (probably overly based on his size), although probably the games greatest defensive player and "team" player/leader. I think only Michael Jordan was greater...


4. Hakeem Olajuwon - I have no problem if he's #1 in people's minds. I don't think any center had a greater peak than Olajuwon did from '93-95, and he could play any center/power forward (no matter the name) straight up and make them dance.


5. Shaquille O'Neal - Difficult for me to root for, because his passion and commitment aren't always where they should be. The media finds his quotes funny, and I NEVER did. Far more athletic than people realize, and combined with his size, THAT's why he was such a force. Not just his size, but w/great quickness in the pivot.


6. Moses Malone - Came to play every game. He was never outworked. Hard points, and a lot of them...


7. George Mikan - The first great center. Probably couldn't keep up with anyone on this list, but he got the center position rolling (historically speaking).


8. David Robinson - A sculptured body, an athlete above athletes, and a graceful beauty who could run and jump like a small-forward. And in the end, a soft-soft-soft player who became absolutely secondary once Duncan came into the league. He was once thought of to be the greatest of the centers of the late '80s/early '90s, but few think that now.


9. Patrick Ewing - Probably the most criticized center, and the one with some of the most unfulfilled promise. He was a great jump shooter from 28-feet in, a solid rebounder/shot-blocker, and a player who came to play each day. He didn't fulill what was expected of him, but he was a worthy franchise player/1st overall pick.


10. Bill Walton - Could rank much higher on this list had he had a healthy career. He may never have been a 20 ppg player, but I think that a line of 18 ppg/13 rbs/3 blks/4.5 assists, a bunch of 1st/2nd team All-Star/Defensive Awards, and a lot of winning would have been about right.



Steed

***

 

[tennis_balls]

i think Yao is still playing catch-up with the mental game in the NBA. i can't imagine he was ever challenged on the playground growing up in China. the NBA is such a grind mentally especially for a big man. where else can a guy with half your talent go right over you and jam and make you look like a chump and then yell in your face about your mother on the way back down the court? even Tim Duncan is involved in these mind games though it's hard to see it watching him in most games. I'm not sure Yao will ever embrace this aspect of the game, but IMHO he needs to do it if he wants to become a dominant player.

i think Yao could still be effective with a running game. i don't think he's half as slow as he appears (bracing myself in case Steed has some obscure stats on his sprint times.)

 

[tennis_balls]

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[tennis_balls]

gotta bump this Reggie thread every few months to make sure that JOHN STEED is still lurking.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)