So says Bill Simmons...
We need to tackle Reggie Miller today, if only because I can't imagine anything worse than feuding with people in Indiana – the same place that gave us Hickory High, Letterman and Bird. Here's how I described Reggie in yesterday's Cowbell:
"A memorable offensive player who also happens to be the most overrated 'superstar' of the past 20 years, but that's a whole other story."
Well, Pacers fans went crazy. And I understand why – they love Reggie and it seemed like I was taking a shot at him. Actually, I was taking a shot at Kenny and Charles on "Inside the NBA," who kept throwing around the word "superstar" in their postgame discussion about Reggie and the Pacers on Monday night. Calling Reggie Miller a "superstar" is so ridiculous, I'm not even sure how to properly react. Just because the referees give someone "superstar" treatment doesn't make him a superstar. But since I enjoyed Reggie's career so much, I want to tackle this rationally.
Here were the superstars from Reggie's era: MJ, Bird, Barkley, Magic, Isiah, Hakeem, Robinson, Mailman, Moses, Ewing, Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Garnett and Duncan. Each of them was a mortal lock for the All-Star team in his prime, whereas there wasn't any point in Reggie's career when you could have anointed him one of the top two shooting guards in the league. For instance, check out the All-Star Game appearances and 1st/2nd-team All-NBA appearances for everyone on the aformentioned list (as well as Stockton, Pippen and Dominique):
**SUPERSTARS FROM REGGIE'S ERA**
Jordan – All-Star (14) ... 1st-team (10) ... 2nd-team (1).
Bird – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (9) ... 2nd-team (2).
Magic – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (9) ... 2nd-team (1).
Hakeem – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (6) ... 2nd-team (3).
Barkley – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (5) ... 2nd-team (5).
Isiah – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (3) ... 2nd-team (2).
Moses – All-Star (12) ... 1st-team (4) ... 2nd-team (4).
Robinson – All-Star (10) ... 1st-team (4) ... 2nd-team (2).
Mailman – All-Star (14) ... 1st-team (11) ... 2nd-team (2).
Ewing – All-Star (11) ... 1st-team (1) ... 2nd-team (6).
Shaq – All-Star (11) ... 1st-team (6) ... 2nd-team (2).
Stockton – All-Star (10) ... 1st-team (2) ... 2nd-team (6).
Dominique – All-Star (8) ... 1st-team (1) ... 2nd-team (4).
Pippen – All-Star (7) ... 1st-team (3) ... 2nd-team (2).
**SUPERSTARS CURRENTLY IN THEIR PRIMES**
Kobe – All-Star (6) ... 1st-team (3) ... 2nd-team (2).
Iverson – All-Star (5) ... 1st-team (2) ... 2nd-team (3).
Garnett – All-Star (7) ... 1st-team (3) ... 2nd-team (2).
Duncan – All-Star (6) ... 1st-team (7) ... 2nd-team (0).
**REGGIE'S NUMBERS**
Miller – All-Star (5) ... 1st-team (0) ... 2nd-team (0).
Does that mean he wasn't a great player? Of course not. Like Worthy, McHale, Dumars, DJ, Drexler, Pippen, Dominique and even Stockton, he cracked that class of "Guys Who Had Great Careers & Weren't Quite Franchise Players." Which isn't a bad thing. With MJ removed from the picture, Reggie would have been remembered as the premier clutch shooter of his era, a superb scorer who saved his best for last (making him a significant weapon on a good team). His flair for The Moment made him more fun to watch in big games than just about anyone else – Reggie was the closest thing in the NBA to having a Hall of Fame baseball closer, someone who could absolutely become the crunch-time scorer on a top-four team (which Indiana was in '94, '95 and '00). If Indiana was protecting a lead in the final minute, you couldn't foul him because he was a mortal lock to drain both free throws. And nobody – repeat: nobody – received more ridiculous calls over the last 12 years, so the officials certainly enjoyed watching him.
But here's the thing: Superstars carry their teams on both ends of the floor, and superstars can affect games on nights when they can't make a shot. Reggie may have been a reliable scorer, but he was also a subpar defensive player who didn't rebound or create shots for other players, someone who needed to play in an offense constructed in a specific way so he could succeed. Since Reggie could never consistently beat good defenders off the dribble, the Pacers have always sprinted him around a series of picks – almost like a mouse going through a maze – to spring him for open shots. Their big men needed to keep setting those picks, their point guard needed to kill time on the top of the key waiting for him to get open ... basically, everyone else was tailoring their games to his game. And I'm not sure you can win a le that way.
In fairness to Reggie, he was always asked to do too much for his team. Unlike Stockton, McHale, Worthy, Drexler, DJ and Pippen, he never played with a teammate who was better than him, the biggest reason Indiana never won a le in his prime. Reggie also wins points for excelling over an exceptionally long period of time, and since he was such a unique player, it felt like he had more of a historical impact. The guy was an absolute assassin in the last three minutes – nobody had bigger stones than him. He made enough game winners over the years that NBA TV ran a Reggie Mini-Marathon earlier this season. And he pretty much saved professional basketball in Indiana, which is why everyone loves him so much there.
Still, how do those things make him a superstar? In his prime, Reggie gave you 21 a night, with 3 rebounds, 3 assists and some thoroughly mediocre defense. During his best playoff run in 1995, he averaged 25.5 points over 17 games as the Pacers fell one game short of the Finals. In the 2000 playoffs, he averaged 24 points over 22 games as the Pacers lost to the Lakers in six. He was what he was – a streaky shooting guard who scared the out of you when it mattered. On a very good team, he could be the difference between "45 wins and out in the first round" and "55 wins and playing in the conference finals." But that doesn't make him any different than Pippen, Drexler, Worthy or even Dennis Rodman.
Was Reggie Miller a great player? Absolutely. Did he have a great career? No question about it. Was he terrifying at the end of games? You betcha.
Then again, so was Andrew Toney ... and he wasn't a superstar, either.
I actually agree with Simmons. The term "superstar" gets thrown around too loosely anymore (much like the word "great"). If being a "superstar" means that you are among the greatest of the great, then the term has to be reserved for only those who are truly in that class. Reggie Miller has had a wonderful career and his exploits in certain situations are legendary. But night-in and night-out, Reggie is not on the same level as the "superstar" players of his era or of all-time.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 04-28-2005 at 03:15 PM.
I agree. He still didn't have as much impact on the game as the superstar has. If he had a true superstar next to him in the previous years he would get that ring and more.
I don't know that he was the MOST overrated of the last 20 years, but he was certainly no superstar. I'm not convinced he's a Hall of Famer.
That said, he's definitely one of my all time favorite non-Spurs.
he thinks Pippen is a superstar??? and not reggie? Pippen wouln't have been half as great if not for MJ.
Reggie is a legend...period. Simmons doesn't now . Some of the NBA's most memorable moments were provided by Reggie, I'm assuming Mr. Simmons is watching something other than Indiana basketball.
But that's his point, pooh. Reggie is the author of many legendary moments -- but he hasn't been a player of "superstar" caliber throughout his career. He's never been First team All-NBA. He's never even been Second Team All-NBA. He's a great, great clutch shooter -- no doubt, and Simmons acknowledges that. But Reggie is not one of the dominant players of this era and beyond his knack for hitting the big shot, he really wouldn't have much of a legacy outside of Indianapolis.
by the way, if you're going to argue that someone "doesn't know ," you might at least bother to spell the key word in that phrase correctly. (while I guess that could be one of those "I'm a published author so screw grammar" things, in this case, I sincerely doubt it.)
Read the post again -- Simmons doesn't say that Pippen is a superstar. Simmons' group of superstars is very limited: MJ, Bird, Barkley, Magic, Isiah, Hakeem, Robinson, Mailman, Moses, Ewing, Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Garnett and Duncan. It's very hard to argue against that list.
As for Pippen (and Reggie), he explains: "Like Worthy, McHale, Dumars, DJ, Drexler, Pippen, Dominique and even Stockton, he cracked that class of "Guys Who Had Great Careers & Weren't Quite Franchise Players." From that, he says that Reggie is more like Scottie or Drexler than like Michael or Kobe.
Can anyone (other than maybe pooh or some other Pacer homer) really argue that Reggie is better than Pippen?
If you think Reggie was a legit super star in his days , you are sadly mistaken. Ive seen many of his great moments and they`ve had me change my mind about him time ansd time again about this question. But if you look at his rebounding numbers for an SG there down.Not just that but other times he seems to only be an offensive player. Play some defence! Hes realy cool but I dont think he cuts it as a super star.
i think hes a superstar
the man is sick, clutch, and cunning
33 pts from a 39 yr old tonight...oh yeah he's NOT a superstar...
No he is not a superstar. He never was an above average defender or playmaker. He was alyways a very efficient scoring specialist who could score in the clutch. That does not neccesarily make him an automatic hall of famer.
and i agree that reggie is nowhere even close to being near that class of player.
never been a fan of Reggie...always thought he acted like a on the court...but I will give him respect for his game. Unlike Pippen...Reggie never refused to go back into a game because the play wasn't called for him. Also Reggie made himself, Jordan made Pippen.
If that's the definition for superstar, then Yao Ming is a Hall of Fame center right now.33 pts from a 39 yr old tonight...oh yeah he's NOT a superstar...
are we talking about hall of famer, or super star
those are different aren't they?
They sort of go hand in hand. A Hall of Famer is one who maintained a superstar level of play for a significant period of time.
He's been the cornerstone of the franchise and has literally put the team on his back this season and put them into a position to advance to the second round of the playoffs. Not bad for a 39 yr old...did Jordan do that? No. Case closed.
You are not saying Miller is better than Jordan are you?
I'd say Jordan's 6 rings and multiple MVP's, to say nothing of his annual inclusion on the All-NBA First Team pretty much trump Reggie's efforts (even if successful) to get a team to the second round.
And if the comparison is Wizards Jordan and current Reggie -- Reggie is surrounded by much better players at 39 than Jordan ever was while in Washington -- the Wiz made the playoffs only after adding guys like Arenas and Jamison, neither of whom was in Washington during Jordan's playing days.
When Reggie makes the All-NBA First or Second team, even once, I'll think about relenting, but until then I can't see how a guy who is an above-average scorer, a nice shooter, a lousy defender, and who has never really won anything to speak of, can ever be considered a superstar.
It comes down to this: in their primes, Reggie Miller vs. Mitch Richmond is pretty much a toss-up. If you're a toss-up with Mitch Richmond, you're a very good player, but you're not a superstar.
At this stage (age wise) in his career...yes. Overall, no.
so because a player is better than a legitmate superstar was at an advanced age, he's a superstar? Somehow I don't see that. Kevin Willis will have been better at 40 than either Jordan or Miller ( , he will have contributed to les at that age, unlike either Miller or Jordan), but he's certainly never going to be regarded as a superstar just by that fact.
It's about the prime, pooh. At what point, during his prime, was Reggie Miller clearly better than Mitch Richmond, Clyde Drexler, or Scottie Pippen. The All-NBA voting totals say just about never. If he wasn't better than those guys in his prime, he can't be a superstar. Q.E.D.
Reggie is a legimate Superstar, 'nuff said. I didn't see Kevin Willis putting up 33 points when he was 39 or even starting for that matter. Jordan had a decent squad, where as Reggie didn't have anything...with the suspensions and different lineups night in and night out. What he's done this year has been amazing.
mj>>miller
but miller just had one problem
his name was MJ
MJ would not be denied
Prove it. Simmons at least tries. All you do is say it. Give me some facts, other than your opinion, to support that assertion. About all you've pointed to is the fact that Reggie hits some big shots, but Simmons concedes that. You also point to one playoff game the guy played at age 39. Unlike you, however, Simmons points to rock-solid, objective proof to support his argument.
Give me something here besides what the guy has done at 39. Give me something that makes me believe that over the course of his career, Reggie was among the top 10-15 players in the NBA.
Tell me why Reggie belongs on the list of superstars while guys like Pippen, Drexler, and Richmond don't.
Give me something besides your opinion!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
