Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

It wasn't rare back then either. Reggie was a personality... as has been said over and over, he was basically the equivalent of Klay Thompson as a player. I can't remember if you've mentioned how old you are, but I find it kind of hard to believe you actually watched a lot of Reggie in his "prime" because you are seriously overvaluing how good he was even back then.

I also don't accept the cop out of "there's no way for us to know" in this particular case. In a time when many are trying to claim stars of the past wouldn't even be relevant in today's game, we all agree that Reggie's skills would translate. But to suggest he'd be on par with a 2 time MVP who is was the center piece on a championship team (going far and above anything Reggie Miller did in his actual playing career) is just completely out of left field. I could suggest that if Bill Russell played today he'd lead the league in 3pt shooting. Can't prove me wrong but it's still a ridiculous hypothesis.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the MVPs, ring and many other things Reggie never dreamed of are why Curry will not be looked at the same way in the future either. It's just a bad comparison.

I saw Reggie play a lot. I started watching the NBA around 92 or 93.

Reggie did what he did in an era with hand-checking and you could impede a player's progress much more. I think in today's era which is favored towards the offense he would do even more. I could easily see him not only doing his catch and shoot thing but also running more pick and roll with the ball in his hands as well and making the defense pay for every mistake with a long ball. The guy had unmatched confidence and was one of the best 2-guards of the era. He had a perfect basketball body that attributed to excellent stamina and conditioning. So yes, I think he'd be great in today's NBA.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Reggie certainly did not have a "perfect basketball body" by any stretch, he played against a guy that did though...the one this thread is supposed to be about lol.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Even Klay, who I think very highly of would have to produce at his current level for another 10 years to match Reggie's longevity.

This is 100% true, but we aren't talking about longevity. I've already given him his credit for longevity. I've given him credit for consistency. But we're taking about him playing to the level of a player who just won unanimous MVP.

Maybe "slightly above average" isn't the best term. But idk what else to call it. He wasn't average, but wasn't a perineal All Star either. What should I call that? "fringe all star". Same thing, different wording.

Either way whether he played 18 years at his level or 5 years at that level, it was never anything remotely close to what I would consider Steph's level.

Steph is coming off a season where he was so dominant offensively that the only players to perform at that level, that efficiently, since advanced stats became a thing in the 70's are Jordan, LeBron, and the Admiral. And he did it with over half his attempts coming from beyond the 3 point line.

Reggie Miller, even at his very best, was a swing man who could get you 20 a night. Since the year he entered the league up till now pretty much half the teams in the league have had a swing man that can get you 20 points. Obviously not all of them were as good as Reggie, but my point is that his production has never been anything that most starting-level players couldn't replicate.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I wish the term "hand-check" was never even coined to begin with so we wouldn't have this constant ridiculous over exaggeration of what a hand-check actually is/was.

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Reggie certainly did not have a "perfect basketball body" by any stretch, he played against a guy that did though...the one this thread is supposed to be about lol.

Who, MJ? Lebron has sort of changed the perception of a perfect basketball body, don't you think? And Kevin Durant has been pretty successful with a similar body type to Reggie (long/lanky) although obviously much taller. I think in general the perception of what a perfect body is is highly variable based on the individual and their skill set. But whatever, that's another discussion.

My point was that Reggie had the body of a long distance runner, which helped his excellent stamina and ability to move all game long with ease, slither off screens, get open, draw fouls, get his shot off whenever he wanted, etc. He had a bag of tricks, high IQ and as much confidence as any top star in the game does today.

And I find it amusing that people talk about Steph Curry doing things so remarkable, so unfathomable, for how long now? A few years? Hey, do you man. I was a fan of Curry when he was at Davidson and people were criticizing the draft pick. Later they'd go on to say he should have been traded instead of Monta Ellis, etc. At least let him perform at a consistent level for a longer period of time before we dub him the GOAT.

That's the thing with today's analytics and analysts. Everyone overreacts. On one hand you have older players who try and discredit younger ones, but then the exact opposite happens just as much.

And the Admiral is up there in that efficiency? Bruh...lol. Y'all kill me with these advanced stats. I saw a stat the other day that had Bruno Caboclo or some unknown dude ranked higher than Lebron. Mmk.

[elprez98]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I think it's safe to say the "old heads" names don't have the same impact as before.

[ojandpizza]

Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Who, MJ? Lebron has sort of changed the perception of a perfect basketball body, don't you think? And Kevin Durant has been pretty successful with a similar body type to Reggie (long/lanky) although obviously much taller. I think in general the perception of what a perfect body is is highly variable based on the individual and their skill set. But whatever, that's another discussion.

My point was that Reggie had the body of a long distance runner, which helped his excellent stamina and ability to move all game long with ease, slither off screens, get open, draw fouls, get his shot off whenever he wanted, etc. He had a bag of tricks, high IQ and as much confidence as any top star in the game does today.

And I find it amusing that people talk about Steph Curry doing things so remarkable, so unfathomable, for how long now? A few years? Hey, do you man. I was a fan of Curry when he was at Davidson and people were criticizing the draft pick. Later they'd go on to say he should have been traded instead of Monta Ellis, etc. At least let him perform at a consistent level for a longer period of time before we dub him the GOAT.

That's the thing with today's analytics and analysts. Everyone overreacts. On one hand you have older players who try and discredit younger ones, but then the exact opposite happens just as much.

And the Admiral is up there in that efficiency? Bruh...lol. Y'all kill me with these advanced stats. I saw a stat the other day that had Bruno Caboclo or some unknown dude ranked higher than Lebron. Mmk.

We aren't even ranking Steph's career vs. Reggie's career though, so there is nothing premature or over exaggerated in this discussion.

Steph could wake up paralyzed tomorrow and never play another game and it wouldn't change the context of this discussion.

Steph Curry at his current level of play, the level he's been at the past year and half or so, is a level that Reggie Miller at any point in his career was never even remotely close to reaching. Steph could never have a good game again for the rest of his career and that would not change.

And yes, in the 1993/94 season David Robinson led the league in PER, OWS, OBPM, BOM, and VORP. The only other players to do all of that in the same season are Curry, LeBron, and Jordan.. so he in fact did have one of the most efficient offensive seasons ever. For good measure he also led the league in scoring and dropped 71 points in a game that year.

And these aren't random BS stats to the equivalent of having Bruno over LeBron lmao.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I think it's safe to say the "old heads" names don't have the same impact as before.

Yeah, that's safe to say for sure. And the same thing is going to happen to Curry, Lebron, etc. eventually. It's a cycle. Some old heads don't care for the new school and vice versa, but it's like each side has to somehow prove that their group was better, etc.

The "BS stat" with Caboclo over Lebron was PER or something. It was an efficiency advanced stat that everyone uses, and it currently has some unknown guy (might not even be Caboclo) ahead of Lebron using this metric. Not the first time these stats have weird anomalies and results, either. I've personally seen it several times already. Anytime a stat can yield results like that means something is very wrong, IMO.

[ojandpizza]

Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

I think it's safe to say the "old heads" names don't have the same impact as before.

Yeah, that's safe to say for sure. And the same thing is going to happen to Curry, Lebron, etc. eventually. It's a cycle. Some old heads don't care for the new school and vice versa, but it's like each side has to somehow prove that their group was better, etc.

The "BS stat" with Caboclo over Lebron was PER or something. It was an efficiency advanced stat that everyone uses, and it currently has some unknown guy (might not even be Caboclo) ahead of Lebron using this metric. Not the first time these stats have weird anomalies and results, either. I've personally seen it several times already. Anytime a stat can yield results like that means something is very wrong, IMO.

The problem with this assumption in general is that Reggie Miller the player never lived up to Reggie Miller the name to begin with. His name is always lumped with the leagues elite, the superstars, despite he himself never being one. He had a few amazing playoff "moments" and his entire career is viewed as if those moments were every game Reggie.

Nobody in this discussion is even trying to say one era is better than another. You're comparing a top 20 player to a top 5 player. Regardless of hypotheticals, and matchups that can never happen, we do know for certain what each player did in their own eras. As of right now Steph Curry is a once in a generation type of scoring threat. Reggie was never at that level. You're accusing us of saying this era is better than that one but you're actually the one who's saying it by assuming Reggie would just step in and automatically become something he never was to begin with.

Also, I didn't just post one random meaningless stat though? That was every advanced offensive measure of the course of an entire season. Do you realize how consistently great you have to play to sustain that, or do you just not care lol.

Also, I don't know the exact formula but I don't think it's possible for a player who rarely plays to be ranked that highly in PER. Possibly ORtg because it's 100 possession based. A player could play the final 5 minutes of the game and make every shot and drop 10 points and lead the league in ORtg so long as he didn't play in any more games.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

All of those points I highlighted kind of speak to someone being better than "slightly above-average".

Reggie, if anything, was crazy consistent and one of the better competitors of that era. As someone who grew up during that era, he was easily Top 3 SG of the 90s which isn't bad considering he played in an era & conference with MJ. The same era where you could get more physical on defense, something we've seen be effective on Steph (although I personally think he wasn't near 100% for the Finals).

I don't think he's on Steph's level when it comes to shooting AND overall offensive game but at least put some respect in his name. The guy did it night in and night out (missed very few games) in the very definition of small-market.

Even Klay, who I think very highly of would have to produce at his current level for another 10 years to match Reggie's longevity.

Just reminding that this entire discussion is about Reggie being as good as Curry today. A general nitpicking discussion about Reggie, and you have a point (don't even think OJ would disagree). But really, it doesn't matter where we actually want to rank Reggie at his peak or use it to project who he'd be as a player today. Bottom line is it will be short of what Steph has been the last two years... far enough behind to make the comparison ridiculous even. I think you agree with that too?

I saw Reggie play a lot. I started watching the NBA around 92 or 93.

Reggie did what he did in an era with hand-checking and you could impede a player's progress much more. I think in today's era which is favored towards the offense he would do even more. I could easily see him not only doing his catch and shoot thing but also running more pick and roll with the ball in his hands as well and making the defense pay for every mistake with a long ball. The guy had unmatched confidence and was one of the best 2-guards of the era. He had a perfect basketball body that attributed to excellent stamina and conditioning. So yes, I think he'd be great in today's NBA.

Hand checking? Reggie rarely got to the line (and stayed as healthy as he did) because he never drove. Other than running off screens for shots, his offensive game wasn't aggressive at all. He was a shooter in the truest sense of the word, and hand checking was a bigger factor for drivers. And in the same sense, what more do you think he would do? His handle doesn't magically get better, nor does his drive to attack off the bounce. I will admit that at this point the comparison is not fair to Reggie, but in terms of style of play, Klay is literally who he was. He was better at it, and did it consistently for a very long time, but his approach to the game wouldn't suddenly change.

Most importantly, "great" is a far cry from equal to the 2 time MVP who won just last year unanimously. If you're walking back the Curry comparison to just saying "great" then we can all stop this discussion on the same page.

[elprez98]

Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

The funny thing is that all I disputed was Reggie's range, as I would any great shooter from that day.

Look I think Steph is the best shooter we've seen in this generation, bar none. I just find it wild that you guys think that even though he was a great shooter for almost two decades, Reggie wouldn't be able to hit shots consistently from 30 feet like nobody else practiced shots from beyond 23 feet before Steph came around. Watching guys play over decades, I just think it's disingenuous to act like pure shooters like Nash, Allen and Miller couldn't hit from out there consistently if it was acceptable to do so in their day.

I have no idea how this morphed into a Reggie is a better player/shooter discussion.

[wwharton]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

The funny thing is that all I disputed was Reggie's range, as I would any great shooter from that day.

Look I think Steph is the best shooter we've seen in this generation, bar none. I just find it wild that you guys think that even though he was a great shooter for almost two decades, Reggie wouldn't be able to hit shots consistently from 30 feet like nobody else practiced shots from beyond 23 feet before Steph came around. Watching guys play over decades, I just think it's disingenuous to act like pure shooters like Nash, Allen and Miller couldn't hit from out there consistently if it was acceptable to do so in their day.

I have no idea how this morphed into a Reggie is a better player/shooter discussion.

OJ responded to that and I just didn't think there was any need to expand on his explanation but I'll say it again...

No one is arguing those guys couldn't extend their range, but I feel you're ignoring the efficiency Steph is making these shots... he's hitting them at a clip higher than most you'd mention did from normal 3 point range.

You just stated "if it were acceptable to do so in their day" as if it's acceptable now. We have literally one guy taking and making these shots on a consistent basis. In today's era, he's doing things that no one else is doing, so yes, I think it's a stretch to say you can drop someone from any era out there today and have them match a feat that 99.9% of today's NBA isn't doing. Then add to that that guys like Nash, Allen and Miller mostly shot when open... the latter two off a pass after running off screens that got them open. I'm shooting from the hip on percentages but we could say 50% of Steph's 3's would be considered ill-advised shots in today's NBA if taken by anyone else... yet he still is hitting them at an insane rate.

As OJ said, this isn't a conversation about eras. It's about suggesting that players could perform above the stars of today's NBA in ways they couldn't do when they were actually playing.

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

Actually my point was that Reggie would be hitting 3s at the same clip as Curry today. I think we would see similar output and if he didn't match Curry he would be right up there. IMO. I also think he'd be shooting more than Klay. When you factor in that the guy was a dynamite shooter before everyone in the league was really doing it, there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't be ahead of the shooting game if he were playing today.

As for what more he would do, I could see him playing much more in the pick and roll heavy league today with the ball in his hands. Any time a defender went under he'd pop. Not to mention transition 3s and all the 3-ball heavy offenses ran today. Dude would have a field day. I also would see him handling the ball more on occasion and could definitely see him doing a few dribble "lull them to sleep" and pop in their face that is so popular to do today.

And since it's 100% hypothetical my opinion is just as good as y'alls.

[elprez98]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

You guys started talking about All-Star appearance, MVPs, borderline star players and all-around skill sets. I simply said that pure shooters that played at the level they did, for as long as they did, had more range than given credit for. That's it.

Ill go back to watching ya'll argue. This mess is way too stressful. [emoji1474]

[fluent2332]

Re: Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

You guys started talking about All-Star appearance, MVPs, borderline star players and all-around skill sets. I simply said that pure shooters that played at the level they did, for as long as they did, had more range than given credit for. That's it. [emoji1474]

Word. He definitely had range and that's simple enough, but I'm taking it one further and saying dude would be even more prolific of a shooter in today's NBA than he even was in his era.