ESPN Top 100 list

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

AB- I’ve seen your takes on Dick Barnett, Sam Jones, Bill Sharman.. but what about some of the other way back guys like Cliff Hagan, Richie Guerin, Dick McGuire.

Maybe even some guys like Maurice Stokes, Dolphin Schayes, Paul Arizin, Harry Gallatin.

If those aren’t too far back. Really hard to find nearly as much on those guys as you can Cousy, Sharman, Pettit, etc.. some of the more well known names.

I know you have said you believe Cousy wouldn’t translate well going forward, any of those guys in that boat as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hagan was 6-4 and 215 pounds but played a power game and looked to post up everybody. He could pass and rebound but couldn't defend. Teams nowadays are not going to let a 6-4 guy post up 15 times a game. His relative lack of size and slow feet make it doubtful he could play today.

Guerin was probably the first great power guard to play in the NBA. He was similar to Oscar Robertson. His strength created mismatches and he could post and drive at will. His shooting range was about 18 feet. He could pass and rebound well. Defense was not his forte and he would struggle playing without the brutal hand-checks of the day. He would struggle to play today.

McGuire was a pure point guard. He couldn't shoot a lick so he focused on facilitating. He was a terrific passer and handler. Tough and relentless on defense too. He could maybe play a backup point role in today's game but his lack of a jump shot would make it tough for him.

Stokes was 6-6 and 245 pounds. He could shoot from 15 feet at a respectable level but he drove to the basket like gangbusters. His passing and handle was remarkable. Rebounded like a demon. Even played aggressive defense. Was definitely better than Charles Barkley and would make All Star games today.

Arizin was a scorer period. Pull ups going both ways. Tricky drives after using fakes. Deep shooting range. Sure-handed rebounder. Didn't pass. Defense was unacceptable. He might be able to make it in the present game as a fire-handed sub.

Schayes was a brute at power forward. He set up his inside game with savage elbow and shoulder thrusts. Shooting extended out to 18 feet. Once defenders were lured towards his deadly outside game it would set up his drives. Good rebounder. Savvy passer. He had slow feet which made his defense poor. With his slow feet vertically and laterally it is hard to envision Dolph being highly effective in todays NBA.

Gallatin was a terrific rebounder especially in a crowd. He could hit an occasional jumper but lacked serious ball skills. His defense left opponents with bruises but lateral movement was slow. At 6-6 and 235 pounds with limited scoring skills he wouldn't be able to play nowadays.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Interesting on Stokes, while on the topic of old Kings/Royals players what about Sam Lacey and Wayne Embry? Also feel free to just tell me to stop asking at any time lol

[ehh]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

49.) Reggie Miller
57.) Clyde Drexler

Man, that is embarrassing.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I guess it depends what you're arguing and why these lists are so difficult, Drexler was a better player but I think it would be a fair argument to say Reggie had a better career, and performed better in the playoffs.. Honestly it's the only reason we can really even justify Reggie for lists like this, and depending how much value your placing on those areas specifically I get why he makes a case even though I don't quite agree with that.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Interesting on Stokes, while on the topic of old Kings/Royals players what about Sam Lacey and Wayne Embry? Also feel free to just tell me to stop asking at any time lol

Those two were very different types. Lacey was a high post guy who was decidedly finesse. Outstanding passer. Grabbed mostly uncontested rebounds. He could shoot from 15-18 feet with accuracy. Ventured into the low post sometimes for some semi-hooks. Could block shots from the weak side but couldn't really guard man to man.

Embry was undersized at 6-8 but weighed 260 pounds and was one of the strongest players the game has known. Always initiating body contact. Mastered the art of screening. Scored on putbacks and screen/roll set ups. Great rebounder on both ends and provided stubborn resistance in low post defense. Not a shot-blocker.

[ehh]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I guess it depends what you're arguing and why these lists are so difficult, Drexler was a better player but I think it would be a fair argument to say Reggie had a better career, and performed better in the playoffs.. Honestly it's the only reason we can really even justify Reggie for lists like this, and depending how much value your placing on those areas specifically I get why he makes a case even though I don't quite agree with that.

Clyde actually won a championship ('95 Houston)
Clyde went to more Finals (3 > 1)
Clyde had better career averages (20.4 / 6.1 / 5.6 compared to 18.2 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde had a way better five-year peak (24.8 / 6.9 / 6.0 compared to 20.7 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde was a x10 All-Star, Reggie was x5
Clyde was x5 All-NBA (x1 1st, x2 2nd, x2 3rd), Reggie was x3 (and only ever 3rd Team)
Clyde was Top 10 in assists x1 ('86)
Clyde was Top 5 in steals x4 ('86-'89)

I'm not sure Reggie performed better in the playoffs but that can be quite an in-depth discussion. I guess Reggie went to five Conference Finals, while Clyde went to four. Clyde was pretty great in his three Finals appearances.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Clyde actually won a championship ('95 Houston)
Clyde went to more Finals (3 > 1)
Clyde had better career averages (20.4 / 6.1 / 5.6 compared to 18.2 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde had a way better five-year peak (24.8 / 6.9 / 6.0 compared to 20.7 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde was a x10 All-Star, Reggie was x5
Clyde was x5 All-NBA (x1 1st, x2 2nd, x2 3rd), Reggie was x3 (and only ever 3rd Team)
Clyde was Top 10 in assists x1 ('86)
Clyde was Top 5 in steals x4 ('86-'89)

I'm not sure Reggie performed better in the playoffs but that can be quite an in-depth discussion. I guess Reggie went to five Conference Finals, while Clyde went to four. Clyde was pretty great in his three Finals appearances.

Another factor to consider is that Clyde would make sure the diagrammed play would be executed on the court as the coach drew it up. Reggie was known for aborting plays to air out a long-ball.

[jfsolo]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I guess it depends what you're arguing and why these lists are so difficult, Drexler was a better player but I think it would be a fair argument to say Reggie had a better career, and performed better in the playoffs.. Honestly it's the only reason we can really even justify Reggie for lists like this, and depending how much value your placing on those areas specifically I get why he makes a case even though I don't quite agree with that.

Reggie was a better shooter, had more career points, and most importantly for the people who rate him so high IMO, had a couple of high profile clutch playoff shooting performances. Overall I don't feel like he had a better career, or necessarily was a better playoff performer outside of those previously mentioned famous shooting games.

I admit to being biased as a big Drexler fan, but I don't think Reggie is close to Clyde as a player.

Drexler to me has the same stigma that David Robinson has, the iconic performances that Jordan and Hakeem gave them in those playoff series has a lot of people(not saying that you are) applying that as negative judgement to their entire career. Neither of them actually played badly in those series.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Clyde actually won a championship ('95 Houston)
Clyde went to more Finals (3 > 1)
Clyde had better career averages (20.4 / 6.1 / 5.6 compared to 18.2 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde had a way better five-year peak (24.8 / 6.9 / 6.0 compared to 20.7 / 3.0 / 3.0)
Clyde was a x10 All-Star, Reggie was x5
Clyde was x5 All-NBA (x1 1st, x2 2nd, x2 3rd), Reggie was x3 (and only ever 3rd Team)
Clyde was Top 10 in assists x1 ('86)
Clyde was Top 5 in steals x4 ('86-'89)

I'm not sure Reggie performed better in the playoffs but that can be quite an in-depth discussion. I guess Reggie went to five Conference Finals, while Clyde went to four. Clyde was pretty great in his three Finals appearances.

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the ranking, more so agree with yours, I've often posted here in the past that I think Reggie is one of the most overrated players to ever play the game. BUT I have read a few Reggie Miller arguments in the past that have at least made me understand that angle as well. Most of them are more so an analytical approach, but it does help provide a bit of context as to why people do make arguments for, and why he was so successful.

A big thing for Reggie was longevity and it was longevity that was steady. Reggie ends his career at 24th All-time in scoring, but was so efficient that he's 2nd in league history in offensive rating. He's the only player with 25,000+ points to have a TS% of 60 or above. Another crazy stat is he's second to only Kareem in seasons with at least 19 points (per 75poss.) with a rTS% of +8 or better. Kareem has 9 while Reggie (tied with Barkley, KD, Oscar, and Dantley) had 6. In many ways he was the efficiency king before Steph due to how well he shot from 3 and the free throw line.

Their scoring is also a bit closer/more even than it seems. Reggie's career points per 75 is 20.6 on .614 TS%, while Clyde's career at Portland is 21.6 at .545 TS%. Reggie also played about 3 years too long, if you want to change that to a range of years 89/90 - 99/00 (first and last year he was voted an All-Star) he's at 22.4 at .623%, you can also cut Clyde down to 85/86 - 94/95 (last year at Portland/first year with Houston) is 22.2 at .542%.

Reggie in the playoffs is a bit of a jump. his career is 22.9 at .601%, Clyde's career with Portland 20.6 at .526%. Again though Reggie played a few too many years, from 92-2002 he was at about 25 on .604% for about a decade stretch. That's pretty elite considering as of now there are only 5 players in league history (1973-current) who on their career are averaging 25+ on .55%+, and that is Steph, Jordan, LeBron, KD, Gervin, and of that group Steph is the only one who is .60+%. Steph's career is 26.1 on .609% which is roughly the same as Reggie's production in his peak decade stretch.

Drexler was a better all around player, and is a stronger overall box score player. But most of the arguments for Reggie mostly are backed on the idea of how well him playing so much of his game off ball helped create so many openings for his teammates and maximize team offense. Steph might be the most closely comparable today where the fear of him getting an open look leads to wide open lay-ups for teammates. Thus his motion off ball is creating looks without actually generating "assists" for him. A lot of this correlates to a plethora of really strong offensive teams for Indiana. That would be a lengthy type, but in short one example of this is Reggie is one of only 3 players in NBA history (Magic and Kobe) to play on two separate teams with 5-year stretches of +5 rORtg in the playoffs. Biggest difference here is Kobe's first 5-year includes the 97 and 98 seasons where he was far from a focal point and the other 3 years still include Shaq, and Magic's first 5-year team is the 5 seasons that pre-date the 1985 season where Kareem was a massive factor still.. Meaning Reggie would be the only player ever to have offenses with two 5-year stretches like this where he was unquestionably the focal point of those offenses. 91-95 and 97-01.

The general idea behind that argument would be that hypothetically Reggie would translate better to better teams as well, where as Drexler is more talented and could better raise the floor of otherwise mediocre teams.. Personally I would argue that Drexler going to Houston and winning a ring next to Hakeem provides at least a small glimpse of proof that he can do both, but still I understand the Reggie argument as well.

Below is also a few interesting charts comparing him to similar rated shooting guards. These kinda peg him right in the mix with those guys while his NBA Teams, All-Star selections, and per game numbers more so point to him being a notch below instead. Like I said originally I think it does depend a bit what you're basing the argument on, I've always considered Clyde ahead of Reggie (and probably by a larger margin than maybe I should have), but I can understand some arguments against that as well. To me for it to be completely outlandish I would need to say Clyde was a far superior defender and I just don't quite see that type of separation on that end.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Reggie was a better shooter, had more career points, and most importantly for the people who rate him so high IMO, had a couple of high profile clutch playoff shooting performances. Overall I don't feel like he had a better career, or necessarily was a better playoff performer outside of those previously mentioned famous shooting games.

I admit to being biased as a big Drexler fan, but I don't think Reggie is close to Clyde as a player.

Drexler to me has the same stigma that David Robinson has, the iconic performances that Jordan and Hakeem gave them in those playoff series has a lot of people(not saying that you are) applying that as negative judgement to their entire career. Neither of them actually played badly in those series.

Just to add these are direct quotes from me in this same thread back in 2016. I've for a long time echoed the same opinion as you on Reggie, I've just changed my tune a bit to realize I do think there is certain criteria in which you could make a case for Reggie.

Just glancing at this list, and with former evaluations, does anyone else think it's not much of a reach to say that Reggie Miller might be the most overrated player of all time?

I don't know if he's the most overrated player or not, there are plenty over/under rated guys and it would be a tough task to label how much considering it's opinion based to begin with.

But I am definitely comfortable in saying that Reggie is the least legendary "legend" that I can think of off the top of my head. The list of guys he's mentioned with, and maybe it's because of my age, he just belongs nowhere near being mentioned with.

Reggie had 3 things going for him:
1.) longevity. He played for a long time, and not just like those guys who drag out their careers with a short 2-3 year peak. He was at his "prime" for a good 12 or more years of sustained play.

2.) He was clutch. Not just in the sense of last second shots, he had huge playoff games, teams game-planned for his scoring, game winners, deep bombs, went toe to toe with some other great players.

3.) He's one of the best shooters ever. And often gets his bonus points for being one of the first great shooters who actually developed their offensive game around outside shooting.

Other than that he really doesn't stand apart from most "solid" guys I've watched, and definitely doesn't match up with the standard that players I would consider legends set. And it's not just me, he wasn't even considered that way from his peers when playing. He was rarely an All-Star, and most of his selections came in the late 90's when the likes of Dumars, Clyde, Richmond had somewhat faded. He only made 3 All-NBA teams (all 3rd team) again in the late 90's, the highest he ever finishes for MVP was tied for 13th, with one point total the same as Jalen Rose, Darrell Armstrong, Michael Finley..

Here is a bit of the deal breaker for me. Reggie's "star power" is revolved around him being a scorer. He wasn't really above average at anything else. He wasn't a great playmaker, rebounder, defender. He was a scorer. He's ranked 51 on this chart, but he's rank 116 in points per game. Reggie averaged 18ppg on his career. Keeping in mind he's a player only known to be great from his offensive abilities. Even if you take out his first two season and last 3 seasons, since those years don't really match up the the rest of his career, he's still only at 20ppg. How many players have been able to score like that, 20ish points per game? That's your run of the mill go-to scorer numbers. Not All-Time great numbers.

Just using guys playing right now his output is comparable to the likes of Jimmy Butler, DeRozan, Wiggins, McCollum, Klay, PG, Hayward, Kawhi.. Granted they haven't done it for 10 straight years. I'll go a step farther, is it even fair to consider him better than say Jimmy Butler, considering he can also give you 20ppg while also being your best defender? What about Klay, solid defender, equal scorer, possibly even a better shooter.. People would scoff at idea that they were playing a "legend" level game right now. I would even go as far as saying that now that I've seen Klay add that stop on a dime mid range pull-up, his post up game, and proven that he can score like that even when they don't have Steph, that this past season from him tops, or at least equals, any of Reggie's best years.

I'm sure I would be fine with him being somewhere in the 80-100 range. But I do believe that Mitch Richmond was definitely a better guard, playing in the same era under the same rules against the same competition, and unless I missed him I don't believe he's even on the list. I don't believe Reggie is a top 10 SG of all time, I think he's a stretch to make the back of the list and has no business being half way down it and consistently having his name mentioned with the likes of Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The 24th Letter]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Always been a big Drexler fan. Clydes got one of the best curtain call seasons ever to have a 12 year career.

70 games
18.4 ppg
1.8 steals
4.9 rebounds
5.5 assists

Still drawing 4 FTs a game.

Loved his game.

[Jeffx]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Another example, Carmelo Anthony.

He is considered a great player by Vox-Populi (including fans, journalists, players and coaches), to the point that his pal players are campaigning for him.

But yet inside the league there's an unspoken truth and feeling amongst players, coaches, GM's and people related to the business in general that he is a cancer to teams and their chemistry, doesn't pass the ball once he gets it, doesn't play defense, and will not provide the leadership and attitude to make the players around him better and contribute to win. Yes players, most coaches and GM's like Melo, but they don't want him on their team because the intangibles associated with him have long surpassed anything he can offer basketball talent-wise.

That intangible factor is a big one for me not to consider him as a top player in any sort of list (the same goes for Iverson). No matter how great the basketball talents of these players are/were, they will never truly embody the attitude and work ethic of real professionals, either to become a great player or an average Joe (Johnson).

Thank you. To me, he's one of the most overrated 'superstars' I've ever seen...great scorer, but that's it. But you wouldn't believe the number of Knick fans who worship this cat. Some in my neighborhood (and on social media) have actually told me he's on the same level as LeBron James....I swear I'm telling the truth.

These are the same clowns who think Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor, etc., weren't all that, because the competition was slow & unathletic. I just shake my head and remember what Mom told me about wasting my energy arguing with stupid people.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Thank you. To me, he's one of the most overrated 'superstars' I've ever seen...great scorer, but that's it. But you wouldn't believe the number of Knick fans who worship this cat. Some in my neighborhood (and on social media) have actually told me he's on the same level as LeBron James....I swear I'm telling the truth.

These are the same clowns who think Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor, etc., weren't all that, because the competition was slow & unathletic. I just shake my head and remember what Mom told me about wasting my energy arguing with stupid people.

Well, Anthony was a top five player in the game for me for a brief stretch of time. His best stretch of play was 2009 under the big time leadership of Chauncey Billups. Carmelo showed off his explosive scoring but he played aggressive bump and grind defense against Kobe in the playoffs and it was incredible. Too bad he couldn't keep up that outstanding two way performance in the years after that though.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

To me Melo was an overrated guy for stretches of his career, but now that people are looking back on him it often feels like he doesn't get his due.

I'ts pretty much standard belief to just say this guy is a cancer to every team he's on, doesn't pass, doesn't play defense, only offers scoring, teams, GMs, etc don't want him, etc. And while that is true as of recently that is absolutely not a reflection on his entire career, but more so just his last 5-ish or so years.

I've never understood what constitutes judging some players based largely on the best moments of their careers and others on just the low points in their careers. Melo wasn't always looked at as some cancer that nobody wanted on their team, at certain points in time pretty much anybody would have wanted him on their team.

He was an elite scorer with a great inside-out game, could handle the ball, play down at the 4, rebounded well, and could defend well enough that, while he was never a good defender, he wasn't a liability or destroying his team defense.

Sure the ball could stall with him, but the ball could also stall with a massive chunk of other All-Time great scorers as well, rarely do you see that held against them to the degree it is with Melo. Rarely do you see anyone have complaints about big men who held on to the ball, rarely kicking it back out, and taking slight hits on efficiency for tough shots coming off the end of 3 to 4 counter moves. How often does anyone ever discredit Hakeem for having moderate efficiency (for a great scoring center), stalling his offense for big chunks, often not moving the ball back out once it came in to him? You don't see it, instead it's just talk about his great footwork. Throw Kobe in that mix to a degree as well.. Well Melo also had great footwork too, and a lightning quick release coming off those strong jab steps to get separation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to compare Melo to Kobe and Hakeem. But he shouldn't be penalized for similar traits and habits to the degree that we can't acknowledge he was a great player either. For a good chunk of his Denver career and first few years with the Knicks Melo was a top tier scorer, strong rebounder for a 3, who had about a decade stretch of begin the best player on playoff level teams.

Perhaps Melo's career might look a bit different had he spent more time on veteran laden teams, he looked pretty great with Billups, Kidd, and Team USA. Not saying he should just crack his way into everyone's top 50 list, but I don't think it should be unrealistic for some people to have him sitting in their top 100. If I glance at a list and see that people are ok with Paul Pierce hovering around the top 50 but claiming Melo can't make the top 100, something is a bit off there. IMO

[Jeffx]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

^Yes, his best years in Denver & NY he was surrounded by solid leadership in Billups & Kidd. That's the key....he's more Robin than Batman.