You Are Here > Basketball-Reference.com > BBR Blog > NBA and College Basketball Analysis

SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all Basketball-Reference content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.

Also, our existing Basketball-Reference blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.

Basketball-Reference.com // Sports Reference

For more from Neil, check out his new work at BasketballProspectus.com.

FAQ: Reggie Miller’s Hall of Fame Probability

Posted by Justin Kubatko on January 28, 2009

This morning I woke up to the following message in my inbox:

Can Reggie Miller's HOF chance really be .037? That seems inconsistent with traditional stats and modern stats.

That's a good question, and one I receive fairly often, so I thought I would address it in a blog post. Let me start by explaining that the Hall of Fame probabilities do not reflect my personal opinion. The method was developed to try to identify what factors the voters have deemed to be the most important over the years. Thus factors like points per game and championships won are included while factors like steals per game and field goal percentage are not. While you may not necessarily agree with that, the factors were chosen based on the past behavior of Hall of Fame voters.

That said, let's take a closer look at Reggie Miller. The reality is that he does not have the resume that the Hall of Fame voters have looked favorably upon in the past:

  • For a shooting guard, Miller's career scoring average of 18.2 points per game is good, but not great.
  • Miller's rebound (3.0/game) and assist (3.0/game) averages weren't particularly impressive.
  • Miller was selected to play in only five All-Star Games, a low total for a Hall of Famer. There are 22 players who have been selected to play in exactly five NBA All-Star Games and are eligible for the Hall, and only nine of them have been elected.
  • Miller received MVP votes in only two different seasons, finishing his career with a grand total of just 3 points in the MVP voting.
  • Despite being on numerous good teams, Miller was never on a team that won an NBA championship.

Personally, I like Miller, and I think he probably should be elected to the Hall of Fame. (Note to self: run Miller though the Keltner List soon.) But, as I said, he's lacking the accomplishments that usually get a player elected to the Hall of Fame.

What do you think? Is Reggie Miller a Hall of Famer?

ShareThis

61 Responses to “FAQ: Reggie Miller’s Hall of Fame Probability”

  1. Chris Says:

    He scored 8 points. In 6 seconds (or something like that). Against the Knicks. I say, punch his hall ticket.

  2. Ben Says:

    Clearly, he's very high profile and his probability of being elected is higher than that. But is there anyway for a stats model to pick that up? One can think of some stats that would highlight his efficiency, but it's hard to think of present HOF members that would make those stats signicant. Perhaps some stats on playoff performance? I wonder if spending your career with one team could help too.

  3. Luke Says:

    I think he probably will be inducted, just because his career point total is ridiculously high, and that's primarily due to how long he played (18 seasons) without suffering any serious injuries. There's something to be said for being in shape and consistently healthy, but I don't think it's enough to put him in the Hall of Fame. Reggie was basically a one dimensional player... very good at spotting up and shooting the three, but that's about it. And he only made three All-NBA teams, and they were all the 3rd team.

    Do a player comparison finder search for Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin, Mitch Richmond, and Glen Rice. The other three guys have better per game numbers than Reggie, in almost every category. Miller has higher totals, but he played in almost 400 more games than any of them. Richmond and Mullin are both eligible for the Hall and are not in (although I think they probably should be... Richmond for sure). And I know Glen Rice isn't getting in. So I just don't think Miller should get into the Hall just on the merit of his much longer career.

  4. Will Says:

    Reggie Miller - 18.4 PER, 121 Offensive Rating, 172.4 Win Shares
    Chris Mullin - 18.8, 115, 96.6
    Mitch Richmond - 17.6, 110, 81.4
    Glen Rice - 16.2, 112, 88.0

    One of these things is not like the others.

    I don't understand why Miller should be penalized for being incredibly durable and consistent. Longevity is a skill. Put him in the Hall, I say.

  5. PJ Says:

    He made more 3-pointers in his career than anyone else who has ever played. Ray Allen might pass him, but no one else is close. Longevity matters. Memorable performances matter. Star power matters. Reggie Miller, to my mind, is a Hall of Famer.

  6. PJ Says:

    Oh, and surely his Hall of Fame chances would register more heavily if stat totals, and not just percentages, were weighted (or were weighted more heavily if they're already in you formula? or considered separately)? Perhaps you need to make some allowance for truly remarkable specialists (in this case, a three-point shooter), by, say, giving credit to someone who holds a prominent record or something?

  7. Luke Says:

    I'm not saying Reggie didn't help his team win, because he certainly did. I'm just saying he wasn't dominant. If you want to use PER and Win Shares, If you look at every year between 1988 and 2005 (the year's Reggie played) his highest single season PER is 21.2. That places him 235th for single season PER in that time frame. (I only used seasons where the player qualified for the scoring title, too.) His highest win shares was 12.7, good for 97th using those same search parameters.

    I guess it comes down to the old baseball Hall of Fame argument of whether you'd rather have a player in the hall who was consistently good over a long period of time, or a player who was completely dominant for a short period of time. Or should only guys who were completely dominant for a really long time get into the Hall?

  8. mark i. Says:

    Reggie Miller is a Hall of Famer to me, though not an overwhelming choice. Kind of in the James Worthy category.

    Even though Reggie never won a title, for a long time (really between Larry Bird's retirement and the development of Kobe Bryant's 3-point shot) there was no one in the league who could make an opposing team feel as nervous about a three-point lead in the closing seconds than Reggie Miller. All-time, other than Bird, who else before Reggie would you want catching the ball in the corner down by 2 or 3 with a second left? Maybe Robert Horry, but Horry didn't also put up 20 a game over a 14-year span along with some pretty damn good playoff numbers when his Pacers were almost always undermanned and underfunded compared to the deeper pockets and bigger guns in Chicago, NY, Miami, Boston, and Detroit.

    The Basketball Hall of Fame is a bit of a joke anyway. Dominique Wilkins didn't even get in on his first eligible ballot.

    Anyway, maybe he's a borderline HoF'er, but Reggie Miller's career pros outweigh his cons. Put him in. Then again, Artis Gilmore and Bernard King aren't in there, so it's not like Reggie wouldn't have good company if he got left out in favor of all those memorable college coaches, international players, and women's players we can all name right off the bat.

  9. AYC Says:

    It's hall of FAME, folks; Reggie is absolutely a HOFer, based on his reputation alone, as one of the best shooters, and best clutch performers, in the history of the game. In terms of "clutchness", he's up there with MJ, Bird, Magic, Zeke, Hakeem, TD, D-Wade and Kobe.

    As for stats; Reggie has over 25,000 career points, the NBA equivalent of 500 homers. Of the 32 NBA players with over 20,000 points only 2(the last 2), Richmond and Tom Chambers, are eligible and not in. They are barely over 20K, while Reggie is over by 5,279 pts.

    Post-season play is what puts Reggie in; his career scoring avg in the playoffs is over 20 ppg and he was the best player on a team that went to the finals (like Kobe, who was never the best player on a finalist B4 last year, and didn't win it all when he was). Mullin, Rice, Richmond and Chambers all had underwhelming post-season careers; that's the difference.

  10. Johnny Twisto Says:

    Mark I., you could make the same argument about Steve Kerr. I sure didn't wanna see the ball in his hands for a last-second shot.

    And you're saying the HOF shouldn't induct anyone you haven't heard of? Perhaps they should take out those players from the '50s who we don't remember anymore?

    AYC, you're comparing Miller to Bryant? Give me a break.

  11. Luke Says:

    I wouldn't have a problem with Reggie getting in, but I don't think the voters could reasonably justify putting him in while keeping Mullin and Richmond out. (Let alone Gilmore and King).

    As for Reggie's playoff prowess, here's how his Pacers did during his career:
    88 no playoffs
    89 no playoffs
    90 lost first round
    91 lost first round
    92 lost first round
    93 lost first round
    94 lost conference finals
    95 lost conference finals
    96 lost first round
    97 no playoffs
    98 lost conference finals
    99 lost conference finals
    00 lost finals
    01 lost first round
    02 lost first round
    03 lost first round
    04 lost conference finals
    05 lost conference semis

    So, he missed the playoffs three times, lost in the first round eight times, Conference Semis one time, Conference Finals five times, and the Finals one time. So, take that for what you will.

    Then he's had five All-Star games, three All-NBA 3rd teams, and a grand total of 3 MVP votes for his entire career (2 in 98, 1 in 00). Plus I tried the Keltner List thing for him, and I was not impressed with what I came up with. There year quite a few years where Reggie wasn't even the Pacers best player (according to PER)

    88 Vern Fleming
    89 Fleming
    90 Miller
    91 Miller
    92 Detlef Schrempf
    93 Miller
    94 Miller
    95 Miller
    96 Miller
    97 Miller
    98 Miller
    99 Rik Smits
    00 Mark Jackson
    01 Jalen Rose
    02 Jermaine O'Neal
    03 O'Neal
    04 O'Neal
    05 This was actually Austin Croshere, but Reggie didn't play enough to qualify for the scoring title this year

    So, he was the best player on his own team 8 of his 18 years.

  12. Shep Says:

    You can run all the numbers you want, you can look back and say yeah he wasn't that great, look at his numbers!

    Numbers never lie but they never tell the whole story either. And I do not care about this PER ranking. I simply dont, Reggie made everyone on his pacers team better. So saying he wasn't the best player on his team is stupid. Reggie over the last 5 or so years played with other scorers.

    He scored over 25,000 points and hit more 3's than anyone. He was a big game player who was never in a big market, never played for a team with a big pay roll and he only managed to single handedly build the Pacers a new stadium.

    I took the liberty of hilighting some of the people who think Reggie's worthy of a HOF spot. As knicks fans they knew it was going in and it was still in his hands. And thats why they're upset.

  13. Shep Says:

    My bad, didn't post my pic. See if this works:

  14. 94by50 Says:

    Shep, tell us HOW Miller made his teammates better. Of course numbers don't tell the whole story, but then again, for mere numbers, the scoreboard is pretty important...

    Luke, your points about Miller's All-Star and awards voting history are considerable, but I for one think that a decade spent as a franchise's best player is a compelling argument in favor of a player's HoF status. Detlef Schrempf may have had one better season, in '92, but that doesn't mean he was the better player, necessarily.

    To address only one Keltner question (if I may be so intrusive), was a team, with Miller as its best player, capable of winning a championship? What I would like to have done, if I had time, is to find out how good a team usually is, if its best player is worth about 11 to 12 win shares. I don't have that time, so the next best thing is to check the Pacer's records during the '90s. In general, they range from about a .500 winning percentage to .700. They weren't always contenders, but they briefly were. I think it represents Miller's status in the league fairly well: at his best, he was very good, but a tier or two below the best players in the league.

    The first analogue that comes to mind, considering Miller's career and his particular value pattern, is Tony Gwynn. Like Gwynn, I don't think Miller was as great a player as is commonly thought, but I don't think there's anything so glaring that it justifies keeping him out. Yes, he was one-dimensional, but like Gwynn, he did that one thing so well that it made him a very valuable player.

  15. Mark I. Says:

    Johnny Twisto:

    Kerr was dangerous at the buzzer, not going to deny that.

    Still the thing about "players no one's ever heard of" was probably taken the wrong way. It's not that they're undeserving, but in the face of what Reggie Miller did in the NBA, it kind of underscores the fact that, yeah, he should be in there, if not as overwhelmingly as a Jordan or Magic. If Nique didn't get in his first year, then it's not a crime if Reggie doesn't...even though it was a crime Nique had to wait.

  16. Wally Says:

    Come on. We are talking about Reggie Miller here. Anyone who does not acknowledge his inclusion as a HOF'er is an idiot. Period. Reggie owns the title 'most clutch shooter in history'. Don't talk to me about Jordan/Kobe (whom I love), they're better players but on shooting alone, there 'is' no player with more moments, or bigger shooting moments then Reggie.

    As for his team's not winning, I think winning has to be one of the most over rated methods of measuring a player as there are so many factors that go into it besides themselves. Like, Smitts extensive foot injuries to name one and peaking when MJ did to name another.

    Which brings me to the last point about wether his teams were good. No one, and I mean no one, pushed MJ's teams (once MJ learned to win) closer to losing then Reggie Miller's Pacers. You can look at it as a 7 game series, or you can watch it and tell they were the only team that didn't play in fear of the bulls, but they brought it to MJ and 'almost' did him in. Anyone who can hang with MJ gets in the HOF, thats my rule.

  17. AYC Says:

    Luke, 5 conference finals and a league finals appearance is pretty good as far as I'm concerned. Richmond played in a total of 23 post-season games for his career; Tom Chambers avgd 15 ppg in post-season play; Mullin avgd 14 ppg.

    Mark, I compared Reggie to Kobe cuz both players were the leader of a finals team (that lost). How can we make such a big deal about winning titles, while giving ZERO credit for making the finals? Reggie gave his team a chance to win the title and that deserves to be recognized (Nique and Gervin never did it). Anyway, check it out; Kobe's postseason offensive stats aren't that much better than Reggie's:

    RM .449 .390 .893 20.6 ppg 36.9 mpg 144g
    KB .445 .325 .798 24.3 ppg 39.1 mpg 152g

  18. Johnny Twisto Says:

    "I think winning has to be one of the most over rated methods of measuring a player as there are so many factors that go into it besides themselves."

    I agree to an extent. I don't think you can dismiss a player simply because he never won a title. No one can win a title by themselves, and the best team doesn't always win. However, in basketball one great player can do an awful lot to make a team win. If a player's team never makes the playoffs, he's probably not truly elite (unless he's surrounded by complete bums). If a great player constantly comes up short in the playoffs, he may not be as great as we think he is. I'm speaking generally here, not about Miller specifically. I don't think Miller's lacking a title means much, because no one considers him the kind of elite player who could carry a team to a title, and I don't remember any of his teams being considered favorites to win a title.

    "No one, and I mean no one, pushed MJ’s teams (once MJ learned to win) closer to losing then Reggie Miller’s Pacers. "

    I think the Knicks would have something to say about that.

  19. Wally Says:

    "“No one, and I mean no one, pushed MJ’s teams (once MJ learned to win) closer to losing then Reggie Miller’s Pacers. ”

    I think the Knicks would have something to say about that."

    Yea, but they said it in 6 games or less. Reggie took them to 7, and if Travis Best was not on the team, probably would have beat them.

  20. Dave Says:

    I can't even believe this is a question.

    Again, we pushed the Bulls 2 a game seven when no one else could. Reggie did that. Did you miss the clutch 3's(that's plural?)?

    I can't believe he is even in the same discussion as Horry or Kerr. Those two guys get big shots because the defense is focused on Kobe, Shaq, Mj and Scotty (or about 1/2 dozen other players ahead of Horry and Kerr in their respective rotations). EVERYBODY knew Reggie was getting the ball and he still managed to get free, get the ball and make the shot? Has to make me wonder about your Bball IQ if you don't realize the difference between Reggie, the #1 option on his offense and Kerr or Horry, the #3-5 option on their offense (also I question the inability to grasp how much easier and more likely it is for Kerr or Horry to be open).

    amazing

  21. AYC Says:

    Wally, the Knicks took the bulls 7 games in 92; and why the rip on Travis Best? As I recall, Best gave the bulls fits in that series with his quickness; I remember thinking at the time that Indy lost game 7 because they abandoned the strategy that got them there: using M.Jackson and Best as a tandem. In game 7 they kept Best on the bench and gave all the crunch-time minutes to Jackson, who didn't have the speed to break down the Bulls D.

    But I digress; my final thought on Reggie is this: he's Sam Jones w/o Russell and Hondo; take those guys away and Jones doesn't have any rings either, BUT he'd be no less a great shooter/scorer/clutch performer for it.

  22. bigzizzo Says:

    based on his clutch playoff performances he should def be in

  23. Wally Says:

    # AYC Says:
    Wally, the Knicks took the bulls 7 games in 92;
    ****

    Heh, really now? 1. the 92 bulls vs the best bulls team of them all. I think theres no comparison. 2. Heres two numbers Reggie would like to bring up. 110-81. That was the score in game 7 with the knicks. Do you really want to count that as a game?

    ***
    and why the rip on Travis Best? As I recall, Best gave the bulls fits in that series with his quickness; I remember thinking at the time that Indy lost game 7 because they abandoned the strategy that got them there: using M.Jackson and Best as a tandem. In game 7 they kept Best on the bench and gave all the crunch-time minutes to Jackson, who didn’t have the speed to break down the Bulls D.
    ***

    They lost game 7 because for some reason, they stopped using Reggie off screens. Travis Best is brutal. He's the reason they lost games. The only way he was ever effective was to dominate the ball, and once you throw it to him forget getting it back. Travis Best FORCED shots from his mediocre mid range game and lost so many games. Including the end of game 7. Travisty is what we used to call that chump. He's been integral to every major Pacers loss from that era. Best clutch shooter in histroy coming off a screen... I think its a good time to take a pull up off balance 15 footer. Yea, great player. I hate Best. Not as much as Kobe, but almost as much as Karl Malone.

    ***
    But I digress; my final thought on Reggie is this: he’s Sam Jones w/o Russell and Hondo; take those guys away and Jones doesn’t have any rings either, BUT he’d be no less a great shooter/scorer/clutch performer for it.
    ***

    Reggie is the best shooter in history. Sam Jones is not. But I agree: if he had real teams around him, he'd have won, and almost did anyway. The finals he made was a lot closer then anyone remembers.

  24. Luke Says:

    Alright... I think I've been swayed, here's why: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=millere01&y1=1999&p2=worthja01&y2=1994
    (I only looked at Miller's first 12 years since Worthy only played 12 years)

    According to that, Reggie Miller was basically James Worthy without Magic Johnson. If you swapped the two guys, where Miller had a shorter career but played with the Lakers from 83-94, and Worthy had a longer career but played with the Pacers from 88-05, then it seems like Miller would be an absolute lock to get into the Hall of Fame, and Worthy would be the borderline candidate.

  25. AYC Says:

    The 92 Bulls won 67 games, the 98 team won 62 (against weaker comp); there are a lot of people who think the first 3-peat team was better than the second (Rodman himself suggested this at the time); MJ and Pippen were better, Ho Grant was comparable to Rodman, Pax and BJ were equal to Harper and Kerr, and Cartwright was better than Longley. To say there's no comparison is ridiculous; the 92 team might have been better than the 96 team that won 72, and they were definitely better than the 98 squad that looked old.

    Those old bulls teams struggled against quick penetrating guards like Best; I'm not saying he was great, but Best was a big match-up problem for the bulls in that series.

    Finally, Sam Jones was a deadly clutch shooter/scorer like Reggie. They are similar players; both belong in the HOF.

  26. Bob M. Says:

    I must first say i am a Pacer fan, and Reggie should be in the hall because he could be counted on in huge moments and his numbers look unimpressive because he did not care about pouring in 55 points in meaingless regular season games. he is a tad bit one dimensional, but the best pacer player i'd say from 1989 through 2000 which involved 1 NBA finals and 4 conference finals. and no stat is out there that counts game winning shots. he is the opposite of jermaine o'neal who could fill up a stat sheet with 30 pts, 15 boards, 5 blocks in a worthless game vs the clippers but act scared of rasheed and ben wallace in game 6 of a playoff series.

    Bob

  27. Wally Says:

    # AYC Says:
    February 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    The 92 Bulls won 67 games, the 98 team won 62 (against weaker comp); there are a lot of people who think the first 3-peat team was better than the second (Rodman himself suggested this at the time);"

    Heh, suggested, maybe, but this is stupid. Observe.

    ***
    MJ and Pippen were better
    ***

    Both eras were ridiculously awesome, but the second era mj/pip were undeniably smarter and better defenders.

    ***
    , Ho Grant was comparable to Rodman
    ***

    What kind of comparison? You mean like this?
    Rodman/Grant
    13.1/8.1 RPG
    2/0 DPOY
    7/0 all nba defensive teams
    7/0 straight years leading the league in rebounds
    19/10 RPG highest average
    5 rings with two all time teams over whole career/never meant jack shit after leaving MJ for money

    Sure, they're comparable, but its kind of like comparing the arguement you just made to the one I'm making.

    ***
    Pax and BJ were equal to Harper and Kerr
    ***

    EQUAL!!!! ;0 WHAT!?!

    Pax/BJ?

    Did they average over 23 PPG or 20 for most of their career? Were they ever 'the man'? Were they wicked great defenders? Did they ever achieve success when they were not admittedly riding Jordan's coat tails shooting open 3's off MJ double teams???? Were they perennial all stars? Cuz Ron Harper was all of those and more.

    Oh, and were they ever the best 3 point shooters in history? Or win it all with multiple teams? Or have careers that lasted? Or make the worst trade of an athletic swing man who could defend 5 positions in his prime who was the glue guy of your team for an aging center way past his prime causing you to restructure your entire team out of contention? Cuz Steve Kerr did all that.

    ***
    and Cartwright was better than Longley
    ***

    And waht about Robert Parish? ;0 But seriously, they also had Toni Kucoch who you didn't even mention. And Randy Brown who was LOCK DOWN.

    And by saying their middle was weaker cuz Longly was not as good as Cartwright, thats just plain dumb. Rodman was their big. He pulled down 15 freaking boards a game and ALWAYS guarded the other team's bigs. He guarded Shaq and gave Mutombo fits. I remember Mutumbo having temper tantrums. But hey, why not say that Bill Cartwright, the role player center, was better then the best defensive specialist big in history with a weak ass argument that Horace Grant can even get to Rodman's level enough to even smell his jock.

    Everyone loves to try and diminish the later teams by saying things like...

    ***
    To say there’s no comparison is ridiculous; the 92 team might have been better than the 96 team that won 72, and they were definitely better than the 98 squad that looked old.
    ***

    which is retarded. The real reason people say this is because the later bulls teams, and by teams people mean Jordan, were not as athletic therefore not as good. Jordan didn't demolish people on dunks on half the plays because he developed one of the best post games in the L and a perfect mid range game to replace it. Old, and slightly less athletic does NOT mean not as good when its replaced with smarter and WAY more fundamentally sound. Pippen was undeniably in the P of his prime in 98. Remember what he did to Malone in the finals? Yet the Bulls looked old? How is that when you've got two of the best defenders in history demolishing the competition? And yes, 15 RPG and destroying the confidence forever of the #2 scorer in NBA history IS demolition. Tell me it is not.

    ***
    Those old bulls teams struggled against quick penetrating guards like Best; I’m not saying he was great, but Best was a big match-up problem for the bulls in that series.
    ***

    Travis Best 'missed' the shots that cost them multiple games. He 'gave them fits' when he could score cuz the bulls knew the pacers wouldn't win with Best shooting instead of Reggie, so they let them have Second Best and trapped the poo out of Reggie.

    ***
    Finally, Sam Jones was a deadly clutch shooter/scorer like Reggie. They are similar players; both belong in the HOF.
    ***

    Yea, except Reggie was the best clutch shooter of all freaking time, and Sam Jones was a decent shooter on a team of HOF'ers/all stars in an era before the double team 'existed' not to mention only two centers were over 6'9" (one was a celtic), never averaged over 33 minutes a game and often under 30, scored 10,000 fewer points and hit 2560 fewer 3's because the 3 point line had not even been 'invented' yet.

    Anyway, am I harsh? Maybe, and I even had to diss some of my favorite players to do it, but thats got to be one of the weakest most hopeful points of view on ball I've read in an age or two. Now, hey, I'm pretty sure its just because you tried to defend Travis Best in a column where people are saying Reggie should not be in the HOF, and IMHO the only reason there is debate on the issue is because of Travis Best. Yea, I'm bitter still. But you also said things like Rodman and Grant were compareable. And that BJ Armstrong and a career spot up shooter compared to Ron Harper who's got a respectable 'star' career.

    Okay, I'm done, if you want to show your face again to admit how wrong you are, I accept. :)

  28. Craig Says:

    I think Miller is borderline and should probably get in. If your formula puts his chances at 4%, the formula is flawed.

    You can argue that the formula represents what HOF voters have done in the past, and I would agree, but I think the factors they use now are different. For the early HOF inductees (players in the 40's and 50's), career stat totals were much lower, because careers were shorter and scores were lower.

    For players up for inclusion now, voters are going to look at career scoring, assist, and rebound totals. Anyone who scores 20,000+ points will be automatically considered, and anyone scoring 25,000+ will be a shoe-in, not a 4% candidate.

  29. AYC Says:

    Wally, I notice you ignored one indisputable fact from my last post; the 92 Bulls won 5 more games than the 98 squad! And the overall level of comp was higher in the early 90's!

    You said MJ and Pip were "undeniably smarter and better defenders"; smarter, my ass! They were already smart players, and they were already great defenders! Please explain how a drop-off in athleticism made them better. Check the stats and it's obvious that they were more productive in the first 3-peat (on defense as well as offense). I'll take the team with MJ in his prime, thank you. The fact that the 98 bulls struggled against a pacers team with dubious talent is proof that they were old; that's why MJ retired at the end of the season.

    As for the supporting cast:Cartwright was a former all-star; BJ Armstrong was an all-star in 94. Meanwhile, Ron Harper was never an AS (neither was Kukoc), and he was a role-player for the bulls; he averaged under 7 ppg for the 96 squad; BJ and Pax BOTH avgd more ppg in 92. Rodman was useless on offense, and he wasn't as good defensively by the time he reached the bulls; Ho Grant was a good defender and rebounder, AND a scoring threat if you left him alone; also, he won as many titles with MJ as Rodman did, and he got a 4th before he retired.

    Finally, learn a little about the history of the game; Sam Jones was a deadly long-range shooter and scorer (his career best is higher than Reggie's), and one of the great clutch performers in history. Comparing Reggie to him should be taken as a compliment.

  30. Wally Says:

    ***
    Wally, I notice you ignored one indisputable fact from my last post; the 92 Bulls won 5 more games than the 98 squad! And the overall level of comp was higher in the early 90’s!
    ***

    Uh, indisputable fact? I kind of thought I ignored a pretty irrelevant point. You kind of sound like those people who said Jordan was useless because the Bulls only lost a few more games without him after his first retirement. So ok, I'll give you 5 games.

    ***
    You said MJ and Pip were “undeniably smarter and better defenders”; smarter, my ass! They were already smart players, and they were already great defenders! Please explain how a drop-off in athleticism made them better.
    ***

    Jordan was for sure smarter as a defender. I would say that his team defense went through the roof. Before he would physically overwhelm people and then he learned that he could out think his opponents and use his team to kill them. Aside from this, Pippen was still in his prime and Rodman was a much, much better defender then anyone on the 92 squad.

    ***
    Check the stats and it’s obvious that they were more productive in the first 3-peat (on defense as well as offense).
    ***

    Okay superstar, lets check those stats then, shall we? And lets remember here, that you claimed the first three peat team vs the second, using the best of the the first and the worst of the second, right? So we'll stick with that, but I'm guessing if we took the 96/97 team and put it against the 93/94 team like you're suggesting, you'd sound even more foolish. But hey, here come the stats.

    defensive efficency
    98 team had 96.7 a wopping 4.6 better, for third best in the league to the 92 team's fourth best.

    PPG Allowed
    98 allowed 89.6 ppg whle 92 allowed 99.5. Thats another wopping stat: 10 PPG. This is not fair really considering pace, but its a fact that the latter teams won much more with defense then offense.

    FG %
    The 98 team allowed 43% shooting, good for fourth in the league. 92 team allowed 46% shooting, good for 9'th in the league. Did you read that? See where this is going, again?

    Steals
    Hate to use this cuz I think its a myopic way of measuring defense, but its noteworthy that this slower, less athletic 98 team got 20 more steals then the 92 team. Maybe cuz as smarter defenders they played the passing lanes better? The 92 team was 3'rd last in the league for steals, actually.

    Anyway, point being that the later Bulls were statistically, and empirically a better defensive team. It defined them. They were better at it because they had guys like Pippen and Randy Brown who would funnel players into Rodman. Not to mention Michael Jordan. Holy crap what a defensive line up that is. 3 all time defenders at their position on the floor at the same time. Gotta give a shout out to guys like Wennington too. He's by no means great, but he filled his role and played D too.

    ***
    I’ll take the team with MJ in his prime, thank you. The fact that the 98 bulls struggled against a pacers team with dubious talent is proof that they were old; that’s why MJ retired at the end of the season.
    ***

    Dubious talent? Hmm... Larry Bird as your coach/leader. Right there. Reggie Miller who's HOF. Rik Smitts who was amazing that year (and uninjured). Both Davis guys were in their prime and pretty fantastic role players for their part. Jalen Rose in his prime. Oh now who else, maybe throw in another HOFer... why not. Chris Mullin. Maybe throw in a marquee point guard who could also post up, Okay, check Marc Jackson. Maybe have a guy like Austin Crochere have a career year and even a shooter or two like Hoiberg to round out the bottom of your roster. Man, why DIDN'T they win?

    Oh yea, you have a Travisty bombing pull ups that clang off the rim in crunch time. Forgot about him. :/

    ***
    As for the supporting cast:Cartwright was a former all-star;
    ***

    Yea, but you're comparing him to Rodman, one of the best big defenders of all time. Come on! I even do think Parish deserves credit: he was in the rotation.

    ***
    BJ Armstrong was an all-star in 94. Meanwhile, Ron Harper was never an AS (neither was Kukoc), and he was a role-player for the bulls; he averaged under 7 ppg for the 96 squad; BJ and Pax BOTH avgd more ppg in 92.
    ***

    Uh, its obvious Ron Harper accepted a reduced role to win titles. It was a decision he made, not an indication of his talent level. There are plenty of games/quarters Ron took over as the third option on that team in a big time way. Ron was there to be the star on the floor when Pippen/Jordan needed someone else to be. BJ/Paxon were there to play off of Michael Jordan's double teams and hit open jumpers. There is no debate comparing them and its blatent intentional ignorance to do so.

    Ron Harper averaged 20 PPG a game for 10 years, scored 20.1 for LA, then came to chicago to be on a championship team and scored 6.9 PPG (to make it obvious to you), then won two more titles with PJ in LA. BJ peaked at 14 a game hitting open jumpers. The bulls let him go via the freaking expansion draft.

    John Paxon averaged 4.2 PPG on the 92 bulls. 7.2 PPG career. Great role player. Great shooter. But...

    Look at this line. 22 PPG. 7 boards. 7 assits. 2 steals. 1.5 blocks. Thats not Lebron James's Cleaveland stats, its one of of Ron Harpers seasons. Of all the rebuttals you could come up with, I'm amazed you picked BJ/Paxon were better then Ron Harper. They wern't. Both of them together were not better.

    ***
    Rodman was useless on offense, and he wasn’t as good defensively by the time he reached the bulls
    ***

    Useless? ;0 WTF? Granted, Rodman was arguably the best defender of his generation, but I don't think he was useless. His team had MJ/Pippen/Toni/Harper/shooters. Rodman didn't need to score and didn't want to. I'm sure a 55% career player could have been a scorer if he wanted to be. Like when he scored 11 a game on 56% shooting, or 9 a game on 60% shooting.

    Beyond that, on offense? Do you forget how many offensive boards Rodman got for them? He didn't care to be a scorer, but Rodman was very much an elite offensive player. He had over 5.5 offensive boards a game, and 15.5 boards a game in chicago. You do realize also, that fast breaks are always started by a defensive rebound and a good outlet pass. Which rodman specialized at. Sure, he didn't break guys down off the dribble, but saying he was detrimental offensively because he didn't try to get his own points constantly is ridiculous. Rodman's hands were on lots and lots of points. I dunno, I think the notion that he was useless is ridiculous. Guy didn't try to score. Theres a difference.

    ***
    Ho Grant was a good defender and rebounder, AND a scoring threat if you left him alone; also, he won as many titles with MJ as Rodman did, and he got a 4th before he retired.
    ***

    Grant averaged 11 PPG on 50% shooting. Rodman averaged 7.3 on 56%. I think 3 or 4 points is a lot to quibble about when you're talking about a guy who's an 'incredible' defender and pulls down twice as many boards. Especially when you kind of pretend that Grant wasn't playing off of Michael too.

    ***
    Finally, learn a little about the history of the game; Sam Jones was a deadly long-range shooter and scorer (his career best is higher than Reggie’s), and one of the great clutch performers in history. Comparing Reggie to him should be taken as a compliment.
    ***

    One game does not define a player. Career bests? I dunno man. 'learn a little'? Sure, Sam Jones was cool, but I still say that being a shooter in a league with virtually no big men over 6'9" and on a team with like, 80 HOFers is a little different then being the man on a great modern team. I'm not trying to insult Sam Jones, but Reggie would have killed him. I know they say you can't compare eras, but watch the way games were then. Their contested shots are today's open jumpers. Double teams had not been invented. The 3 pointer didn't exist. Reggie is the best clutch shooter in history, period. I think saying he's comparable to a guy who's never actually taken a 3 is kind of off base.

    Anyway, cheers and later. I think you've been owned. And hey, check those stats!

  31. Johnny Twisto Says:

    Your combination of arrogance and sloppy writing makes that very painful to read. The only point I care to respond to right now is Ron Harper. The guy was broken down when he got Chicago. He never put up a line of 22-7-7 like you claimed, and when he was anywhere close to that it was several years and knee injuries earlier. Yes, he did score 20 ppg the season before he came to Chicago -- on 42% shooting for a terrible team. He didn't choose to be role player. That's all he was capable of being on a good team at that point. There are "plenty of games" he took over? When were these games? Preseason? He had 11 20-point games in his Bulls career. After Jordan and Pippen left, he had to shoot 38% from the field just to push his scoring average all the way up into double digits. And the team was terrible. Harper was a solid player for the Bulls. He was NOT some star purposely holding back for the good of the team.

  32. Wally Says:

    # Johnny Twisto Says:
    February 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Your combination of arrogance and sloppy writing makes that very painful to read.
    ***

    My 'sloppy' writing? Sorry if my internet 'prose' has not been submitted to my editor first. ;0

    ***
    The only point I care to respond to right now is Ron Harper. The guy was broken down when he got Chicago.
    ***

    Got TO Chicago, Mr Sloppy! Oh dear.

    Before he got to Chicago? Ron Harper was on the Clippers the year before he went to Chi Town. In 93-94 he averaged 20.1 points, 6.1 boards and 4.6 assists 2 steals and almost a block in 38 minutes a game. How the hell is that broken down? He went to chicago and accepted a role to win championships, played 20 minutes a game less at 19 (almost cut in half) and averaged much less as he adjusted to his role. His minutes/numbers steadily increased over time though. And hey, when you're a swingman on a team with MJ and Pippen, do you really think you're going to be taking lots of shots every game? His shots went from 18 to 6 a game. Knocking a guy's talent for deferring to Michael Jordan and Scotti Pippen is what I call a sloppy argument. Harper won plenty of games and contributed, just not on his usual star level that he maintained for 10 years before he came.

    ***
    He never put up a line of 22-7-7 like you claimed, and when he was anywhere close to that it was several years and knee injuries earlier.
    ***

    Tsk tsk me Mr. Technicality. He put up 22 points, 7 assists, and gasp, 6.9 rebounds. Forgive me for rounding up .1 boards on a statistical season only players like Magic/Bron/Jordan/James have had. And hey, his 18 PPG, 5 boards 5 assists ain't so bad after the knee injury.

    ***
    Yes, he did score 20 ppg the season before he came to Chicago — on 42% shooting for a terrible team.
    ***

    Hmm... I seem to remember his clips teams being the only respectable ones ever, honestly. They were hot when it was Ron, Marc Jackson and Danny Manning. What happened was they got Nique and Danny Manning got hurt. But thats hardly Ron's fault.

    ***
    He didn’t choose to be role player. That’s all he was capable of being on a good team at that point. There are “plenty of games” he took over? When were these games? Preseason? He had 11 20-point games in his Bulls career.
    ***

    Ron Harper played huge in plenty of games in their title runs. He didn't score massive points because MJ and Pippen were there. Its just plain dumb to use per game stats to slag a guy who's playing reduced minutes. I distinctly recall lots of times when Ron Harper contributed in big ways, especially defensively. I never said he was a 20 PPG scorer on the bulls: he had and accepted a different role on that team. That does not mean he was incapable of scoring or didn't know how. He averaged 20 PPG for 10 years as the main option. You're suggesting he 'forgot' because he played with better teammates?

    ***
    After Jordan and Pippen left, he had to shoot 38% from the field just to push his scoring average all the way up into double digits. And the team was terrible. Harper was a solid player for the Bulls.
    ***

    Oh, come on! You're going to take a guy in his 13'th year and say "look at how much he sucks! When he was past his prime and 35 years old he couldn't produce lots on a horrendous team." Its just cheap. Screw it: under those circumstances, when Toni Kucoch is your star, 11 ppg, 5 boards and 3 assists is freaking good or 35.

    ***
    He was NOT some star purposely holding back for the good of the team.
    ***

    Dude, look at his numbers. Are you stupid?

    Over the 10 years before he came to Chicago he averages 20 points, over 5 boards, over 5 assists, and over 2 steals and just under a block a game. Kobe, right now, is putting up 7.5 more points, .7 fewer steals, .7 fewer blocks, fewer boards AND fewer assists. And Ron Harper did most of that after knee injuries took his speed or maybe he would have been Kobe level talent. But seriously, you're going to tell me 7.5 more PPG and lesser stats in all other cats over 10 seasons does NOT equate to 'he's a star'? He had seasons that compare with Bron/Bird/Kobe/Jordan/you name it.

    Either way, this guy knew how to play basketball. He came to the bulls. They said "Hey, Ron, we have Scottie. We have Toni. We have BJ. We have Paxon. It's their team but we lost Jordan. Want to try to fit in? And admittedly, he didn't at first, and I expect learning to play in the triangle had lots to do with that and I know learning to be productive without being the man and having the ball in your hands all the time took some adjusting too.

    Its just a shame. I don't think I really understood how under rated Ron Harper really was till I read the replies to this thread. People have pretended he was no better then Paxon, a career open jump shooter, denied the existence of a ridiculous all time season, and suggested that his play at 35 on a horrendous team that obviously mailed it in after a decade of dominance should be used to judge his play. Its silly. Riggity Ron baby. Great player.

  33. Wally Says:

    Just thought too, if Ron had nothing to offer anymore, if he was as washed up as you said he was, why did Phil Jackson recruit him to come to LA where he played the same role and put up the same numbers, even though he was 36-38 years old?

  34. Johnny Twisto Says:

    I have no idea what you're looking at. Harper never averaged more than 6.1 REB or 5.4 AST. You're just making stuff up. Go on thinking Harper was still a star because he scored 20 points for a bad team.

  35. Johnny Twisto Says:

    I didn't say he had nothing to offer. I said he was a role player. You can bloviate all you like against some made up argument, but my thoughts are right there in plain text.

  36. Neil Paine Says:

    You're both right (kind of)... Harper was massively overrated as a "star" during his Cavs/Clippers days: yes, he scored 20 PPG a few times, but he did it by taking 25-30% of the team's shots when he was on the floor. Aside from 88-89 and 89-90, his efficiency numbers were really not that good; he was basically your garden-variety "guy who inflates his scoring numbers at the expense of his percentages on a bad team". But during the Bulls' 2nd 3-peat, he was incredibly efficient (ORtgs of 117, 120, & 111) in a greatly reduced role (he went from using 25% of the team's possessions to 15%). That allowed him to pick his spots and contribute more on defense without having the burden of carrying a team's scoring load, which was a role he was ill-suited for anyway.

    So, to recap: he was never a "star", he just scored a lot because he was one of the only creators on a bad team. At the same time, he wasn't really "broken down" when joined the Bulls -- with the Clips in '94, he had basically the same season as in '91 or '92. Theoretically, he could have kept being that overrated low-% scorer for a few more seasons, but he chose to sacrifice those numbers by accepting a smaller role on the Bulls, he got a lot more efficient as a result, and he helped Chicago win 3 titles in the process (plus 2 more in L.A.).

  37. Wally Says:

    # Johnny Twisto Says:
    February 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    I didn’t say he had nothing to offer. I said he was a role player. You can bloviate all you like against some made up argument, but my thoughts are right there in plain text.
    ***

    He was a star who accepted a role on a championship team. He's Ray Allen on Boston (but not nearly as good). Whats a better comparison, Gary Payton on LA and on Miami. Or Michael Finley on the Spurs. Jerry Stackhouse on Dallas. Although Payton's career before was way better then Ron's, they were both much more capable players who provided star power in spurts instead of on an every day basis. Ron Ron 'accepted' a role and you're trying to say all he was was a role player.

    You can stroke your ego with self-obfuscatating 'big words' all you want, you are still wrong and nearly every fact you claimed is categorically false. I'd rather be arrogant, then ignorant.

  38. Wally Says:

    # Neil Paine Says:
    February 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    You’re both right (kind of)… Harper was massively overrated as a “star” during his Cavs/Clippers days: yes, he scored 20 PPG a few times
    ***

    He averaged 20 PPG every time, for 10 years. not a few times. There was one year of 15 (cancels out 23?) and lots of 18's to 22's.

    ***
    but he did it by taking 25-30% of the team’s shots when he was on the floor. Aside from 88-89 and 89-90, his efficiency numbers were really not that good; he was basically your garden-variety “guy who inflates his scoring numbers at the expense of his percentages on a bad team”.
    ***

    I appreciate that you're trying to be fair, but I think you're mistaken.

    1. taking 25-30% of your teams shots is what a good player does.

    2. The cavs were not a 'bad' team. 31-51 on a team starting two rookies at guard and center. Mark Price only played 67 games and Craig Ehlo 44. The next year they were a winning team, 42-40, which is not bad at all. The next year they were 57-25, which was a great team. Harper scored 18/5/5 that year. Then 42-40 'because' Ron Harper got hurt (so how can that be a knock?). Harper left the next year and the team was 'bad' again. Cleveland's problem wasn't how good they were, it was how great Jordan and Chicago was at beating them.

    3. The Clips were not bad when he was there, at all really. His first two years with them he was hurt with his serious knee injury (that seriously did put a ceiling on his career). Then they were 45-37 in the first real year when he actually was healthy and pushed the 2 seed Jazz to a final game in round 1. Next year they were 500, but had something going with Marc Jackson/Danny Manning/Ron Harper and pushed the 2 seed Rockets to a final game. The next year they were bad, but I think thats got a whole lot to do with Larry Brown leaving the team falling apart.

    Anyway, all in all, I don't think it makes sense to say Harper's stats were padded by playing on bad teams. When he didn't play his teams were bad, and when he did they were maybe not elite, but good. Making your statement here:

    ***
    So, to recap: he was never a “star”, he just scored a lot because he was one of the only creators on a bad team.
    ****

    Totally wrong. I agree with you about the bulls, but I'd say that it was more his knee injuries that made him ill suited by the end. They just broke apart. Before that, he was incredibly suited to scoring.

  39. Neil Paine Says:

    I was talking about L.A., but that's fair, "bad" was a poor generalization for those Clippers (should have said "mediocre" or "ordinary"). Anyway, the fact remains that Harp only scored 20.0 PPG in 3 seasons (2 when he played >35 GP), and had a well-below-average .515 TS% when he shouldered the scoring load for Cleveland and L.A. From 1987-1994, here are the guards who played at least 500 games:

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=S4T1h

    Among that group, Harp ranked 8th of 36 in P/36, 32nd in TS%, 7th in R/36, 25th in A/36, 31st in fewest TOV/36, and 7th in STL/36. He wasn't a scrub by any means, but his turnovers and low shooting percentages (30th in FG%) meant he was suited for a smaller role in a team's offense than the 25-ish% of possessions he was using with the Clips (a fact which bore out when he went to Chicago and became very efficient). In the strictest sense, "stars" are able to take on as big a role as Harp had in Cleveland and LAC and shoot much higher %s with fewer TOs. His subpar performances in those categories show that he was in fact an above-average -- but sub-star-caliber -- player masquerading as a star before going to Chicago.

  40. Wally Says:

    I don't think you have much of an argument about true shooting percentage. That stat is useful but is always going to rank slashers (like Harper was) behind shooters (like Reggie, for example). Really, in 92-93, MJ is ranked 21'rst in the league based on TSP, so are you going to say he wasn't an elite scorer too? Naw. And in your search, he's behind Stockton/Miller and Mark Price. All TSP really does is indicate how good a free throw shooter you are in comparison to your scoring. I don't think anyone is saying Harper was the best FT shooter in the league or anywhere near it but he shot 45% which is very much above average, not below, even more so when you consider the type of player he was.

    Its also really deceptive to bring up 25'th in assists when he was the team's primary scorer and gets ranked there with pure points when he's a 2. Same for turnovers. Jordan was 24'th in APG and 23'rd in fewest turnovers for the same reasons. If you're method was an accurate way to measure players, Jordan would not come out just as mediocre as Harper.

    You're also not factoring in that Harper just had a lot of plain dumb luck.

    1. knee injuries robbed him of his speed.
    2. His teams only had one or two seasons together and injuries to him and other players hurt their chances to grow together, or other factors like losing their coach.

    I agree his knee prevented him from carrying the load as effectively like he could do in Cleveland, and I don't think that Harper is really 'the best' from an era that was LOADED with great guards, but he was a star and did score the points and had a great all around game.

    I'd say star in decline due to injuries is much more accurate. He got hurt, it happens. But I will say this much. He was way, way, way better then BJ Armstrong and John Paxon. And he still averaged 20 PPG for a decade and despite massive knee injuries/bad luck. I don't think you can do that unless you're an elite scorer. Its not a stat you can really pad unless you are on bad teams for 10 years, which he really wasn't, unless he was injured in which case he wasn't taking shots anyway.

  41. Wally Says:

    Honestly, i think it was mostly bad luck, not bad talent in Ron's case.

  42. Ricardo Says:

    For a guy who wasn't a standout defender, creator, or slasher, it sure seemed like opposing coaches were game-planning against Miller an awful lot. And to me, that sort of thing has value - the extra attention paid to Miller allows better looks for his teammates.

    But the flipside - how was Reggie Miller helping you on those nights his shot wasn't on?

    Miller will get in because he had a high profile and some special moments that sportwriters don't forget, but it wouldn't be an injustice if Reggie Miller didn't get in.

  43. Wally Says:

    "Miller will get in because he had a high profile and some special moments that sportwriters don’t forget, but it wouldn’t be an injustice if Reggie Miller didn’t get in."

    I think there's a lot of ways to get in. Some are massive contributors like a sportscaster guy, and some are massive players like Jordan or Magic. But its a hall of 'fame' for people who got famous in some way with regard to basketball. And there's really no dispute that Reggie is one of the most famous players of his generation: its why he's in broadcasting for the sport. If Reggie doesn't get in and he's one of the most famous players of all time, I think it is an injustice. Because he does have many moments people will never forget. How else do you define fame other then people not forgetting you? Kareem might have 10k more points then Reggie, but thats cuz he played way past his prime. Reggie deserves to get in just cuz he is more famous and will always be more famous. Its not the basketball hall of career stat leaders. Ewing will be more famous for that matter, just cuz of the things Reggie did to him. :) (jk ;0 )

  44. Josh Says:

    Reggje belongs in the HOF, no question.

    Answering the question of what can he do to help the team when his shot is not on? The defense is focusing on him and following where he goes every single possession. He is constantly moving. No matter how cold he may be(which is rare), the defense is constantly worried about him first.

    Reggie has played almost 2 full seasons of playoff games, while being the best player on that team and he played extremely well in most of those games. Opponents feared Reggie. His success in the playoffs and at MSG over and over again should be enough by itself, but he also has 25k points and the most 3's made in history.

  45. пapaзит Says:

    Интересно. Вообще чтение вашего блога это не просто глупое пролистывание разных тем или чтениебреда про то, чем человек сегодня занимался, а нахождение реально полезной информации.

  46. steve norris Says:

    neil, i like your work, but i dont care what that list says, reggie is a HOFer. if you watched him play you know you had to slow him down. arguably the best shooter of his day. was a half away in game 7 of beating MJs 6 time champ bulls in the ECF.when he was in the zone he was as good as any player that played in his era. was a good villian and the game only has one two and thats kobe and artest. was the face of the franchise for 18 years and is the best player in franchise history. if you can say that much about a player and not even mention his heroic playoff moments than that should be enough.

  47. Maya Laku Says:

    Why is this a question,he already should be a HOFer,he has 25,279 points,2,560 3 pointers which is most all time, lead the Pacers to 16 playoff appearances,16!,Has a competitive spirit and was the only guy who could compete with Michael Jordan in the playoffs

  48. Dan Says:

    One thing people often miss out on Reggie is just by looking at his PPG, and not looking at his FGA per game.

    Career: 1389 (Games played) 8,241-17,499

    Which puts him at 12.598 FGA, averaging 18.2 ppg, which is amazing as a guard.

    Being the Number 1 threat on the team and only taking 12.6 shots per game, Reggie is clearly a team player who has high basketball IQ and take good quality shots. If he took more shots, he could clearly be in the 20-25+ ppg, but he chose team > individual.

  49. Kyle Says:

    Any one who doesn't think he belongs in the HOF either is too young to have ever seen him play, or never watched him play in his prime. This guy had the most intense work ethic that would make most people cry. he would always be the first one to any arena taking jump shots WAY before the game even started. He was such a small player compared to anyone else during that era.

    Most teams that won championships or did well in the playoffs year after year in the 90's and early 00's had HOF or future HOF duos. Jordan/Pippin, Malone/Stockton, Robinson/Duncan, Shaq/Kobe. One might argue that Robert Horry might get in just purely because of his high number of championships; which would give another pair of Olajuwon/Horry. Rik Smits is not going to the hall of fame, so who was Miller's HOF partner? Oh, that's right, he didn't have one. Yet he has a finals appearance, and 4 other conference finals appearances in the 90's alone.

    And as mentioned by many other posters, he is the ALL-TIME leader in 3 pointers made. That is considered a major category in the nba. So just like other major sports, the leader of the major categories are automatically HOF material. And unlike most major players in today's game and college basketball, HE MADE HIS FREE THROWS. top 5 all time in free throw percentage, led the league in percentage multiple time including HIS FINAL YEAR at the age of 39!

    Case closed

  50. Bryan Says:

    There has been discussion about the Pacers playoff success with Miller and whether it is enough success for Miller to be in the HOF. The 2nd part to that discussion is the lack of success for the franchise without Miller.

    77 no playoffs
    78 no playoffs
    79 no playoffs
    80 no playoffs
    81 lost first round
    82 no playoffs
    83 no playoffs
    84 no playoffs
    85 no playoffs
    86 no playoffs
    87 lost first round
    06 lost first round
    07 no playoffs
    08 no playoffs
    09 no playoffs
    10 no playoffs

    The NBA Pacers have won 3 playoff games without Miller on the roster. The other key is that an aging Chris Mullin is the only near HOF player that Miller ever played with. Even when he wasn't the focus of the offense in his later years he seemed to keep the team moving in the right direction.

    I'm a Pacers fan and don't follow basketball as closely as hockey or football so I am probably biased, but I had him pegged for a first or second year eligible HOFamer.

  51. Zech Says:

    Hall of famers are inducted not because of their resume, but because of their impact on the game of basketball. Few players have had the impact that Reggie has had. Also, few players have spent as much of their careers in the playoffs as he did. Though he did not win a championship, he was always close, and brought his team that close entirely on his own shoulders. Not one team in history has ever won a championship with only one "star" player on their team. Be that as it may, he stuck with his team his entire career. In my mind, thats what makes him a champion anyway.

    ALL TIME IN 3pointers made leader, Top ten ALL TIME, in free through percentage, Top ten ALL TIME in minutes played, Top ten ALL TIME in points scored, One of only 6 members of the 50-40-90 club along with Larry Bird, Mark price, and three others, Member of the all rookie team, and has a career 3pt percentage of nearly 40%. If you can make more 3pointers then anyone in the league EVER, and do it at nearly 40%, thats astounding.
    Reggie Miller is a shoe-in for the hall of fame. This entire discussion has no merit.

  52. Chris Says:

    Granted...I am a die-hard Pacers fan and Reggie is my all-time favorite player but there are certain things that stats can measure in terms of whether he should be inducted. Among those are - memorable performances, clutch performances (the 8 points in 9 seconds or whatever, the half-court buzzer beater against the Nets, the GW-shot against MJ, etc.)

    And as for the whole not having a championship thing...fine, that's valid. But look at some of the other HOFers without a title - John Stockton, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, etc. But look at the road block Reggie and the Pacers had in their way --- they were a smaller market, meaning top free agents are tougher to attract and within the division was Michael Jordan and the Bulls - one of the best dynasties in the history of the NBA. By the time the Bulls' run was over, Reggie was almost 33 and on the way down.

    But he's one of the best 3-point shooters ever (will get passed by Ray Allen pretty soon), he stayed healthy all 18 years and did make it to the Finals only to get beat by another top dynasty in the Kobe/Shaq Lakers...and was the cornerstone of a successful franchise, albeit if he didn't win a title.

    Is he a first ballot HOFer? Don't know...depends who he's up against. But he's a personable, overall well-liked and respected player and one of the best of his generation.

  53. J.T. Jester Says:

    Numbers wise, Reggie is not a Hall-of-Famer. His stats indicate on of those guys like Chris Mullin, Reggie Theus, Mark Price, Jamaal Wilkes, Paul Westphaul, or Rolando Blackman who will always be on the edge but probably never get in. However, there is one thing about Reggie that makes that different. In their 11 years in the NBA before Reggie, the Pacers had made a 2 playoff appearances, both first round losses with win totals of 44 and 41. After Miller's first two years, the Pacers went on a streak of making the playoffs in 16 in out of 17 seasons (with Miller on all but the last), getting to 6 Eastern conference finals and 1 NBA final. They never won a championship, but when you consider that, other than Miller, the team consisted of mostly of higher quality role players, like Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Mark Jackson, and a well-past-his-prime Chris Mullin, there is no other reason that they could have been such a perennial contender but Miller. He is the end-all-be-all of Indiana Pacers basketball. I don't know who votes for the Hall of Fame, but if they consider the impact that a player had on his game, not to mention the success his team had as a result of himself, there is no question that Reggie Miller should be and probably will be in the Hall.

  54. matt Says:

    reggie miller scored 57 points in one game thats impessive, 29 in one quarter was a record till kobe broke it, most career three pointers, only player besides ray allen to have straight 90 percent free throw shooting season. many classic play off moments. miller will easily get into the hall

  55. SilentRat Says:

    Reggie Miller was the ultimate closer. As a kid I probably watched 20-30 Pacers games a year minimum and I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times he hit a game winning shot and it surprised no one. You were totally excited because they had won, but it was the expected result, much like when Mariano Rivera comes in for a save. They actually had a promotion sponsored by Miller Lite where every 4th quarter was "Miller Time" and they would donate so much money for each three he hit. He was the absolute definition of a "clutch player".

  56. bunny Says:

    There can't be any buts, ifs, when, coulds, shoulds, woulds, Reggie Miller goes to the HOF. When Shaq retires, a golden generation of NBA ballers who ambassadored basketball around the world will be gone. Miller was the second to last who left. He is a player that will ever be remembered because he was part of moments (even though this weren't championship moments). Moments that last long is what make professional sport so fascinating to most of us. Besides, Reggie needs to be elected just for stayin his whole career with the Pacers and never stopped believing. Usually I am really into stats, but this is just justice. Miller's memorabilia belong to the Hall of Fame of basketball just like Darth Vaders belongs to a movie Hall of Fame. He is the ultimate sports villain – just ask Spike Lee. Glen Rice, Mitch Ritchmond or Ray Allen could not have played that role.

  57. Skyler Says:

    He is the all-time 3 point scorer. Need I say more?

  58. Joeseph Says:

    If it weren't for those 2 Knicks playoff games, we wouldn't even be discussing his candidacy, so no I don't think he should be in the hall-of-fame. His numbers were good, but never great and he never won anything. Every once in a while a player gets a major media boost for whatever reason (and there are plenty in Miller's case) and that inflated reputation somehow sticks. The truth is he was never a top tier player even in his prime!

  59. Boris Says:

    @Joseph

    And if it weren't for Magic Johnson, James Worthy probably wouldn't even be in the the HOF!

    Please don't use "If's" to justify an argument. It is what it is, Miller's fame was propelled by a playoff game, and he's no less deserving of HOF than James Worthy is.

  60. MikeN Says:

    Lot of random ignorance in this thread.

    1)In the games the Pacers won against the Bulls in '98, Best played more in the 4th quarter. When Bird went to Mark Jackson, the Bulls won.

    2) For being a clutch, big-game player, Reggie had a lot of no-shows. On top of that he was like everyone else and missed game-winners, maybe the clutchiness was because he took more. He had a shot to make his Finals 2-2, and just missed. He came back from an eye injury to score 30 points and just missed a game winner against the Hawks in 96.

    3) His teams were not horrible. Ray Allen on the same teams probably does as well if not better. Rik Smits and the Davises as well as Mark Jackson. Also had Chuck Person, Travis Best, Jermaine Oneal, Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest, Detlef Schrempf, Derrick McKey.

  61. Ben Parker Says:

    I think that Reggie should be a hall of famer for a number of reasons. I'll probably blog more about why I think he got snubbed and should be in. But in short, I grew up in the 90's as a young kid watching the NBA. The Utah Jazz have always been my favorite team. When I grew up watching Stockton to Malone, here are other names as players that I think of when I think of that era: Michael Jordan (hall of fame), Karl Malone (hall of fame), John Stockton (hall of fame), Patrick Ewing (hall of fame), Gary Payton (future hall of famer), Shaquille O'Neal (future hall of famer), Hakeem Olajuwan (hall of fame), Shaquille O'Neal (future hall of famer), Shawn Kemp (hall of fame caliber, don't know if he's got the numbers), and last but not least, I think of Reggie Miller. Reggie Miller in my opinion is often uttered and spoken of in the same sentence, breath, and conversation as all of those guys. All those guys are Hall of famers or future hall of famers, and so to not have Reggie get in on a first go around is a crime. Did I mention Rodman? NO! Yet Rodman got in ahead of Reggie. That is a joke. Rodman shouldn't be a hall of famer ahead of Reggie Miller, that is ridiculous. Gimme a break. If I am making a list of shooting guards to build my team around, outside of Jordan, Reggie would be #2, and #1 for pure shooter of all time. If I had to have one guy hit a clutch shot for my team with the game on the line, I'd take Reggie Miller over anybody including Jordan. He was that clutch. Reggie should be in the Hall of Fame first go around, and he will eventually get in. Reggie was a model face of the Indian Pacers and NBA for his entire career. Put in the the Hall of Fame right now!