User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7911 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Plus, once again, Miller's just a better shooter, which is saying a lot in this case.
For pure offense, KJ is probably better than any PG between Oscar and Nash. Price and Hardaway? Meh.
Here's a neat series he had against the Knicks in '93
7-for-18, but 17 of 17 from FT for a nifty 32 points
7-for-15, 8 of 10, for 25 points
14-for-22, 6 of 6, for 36 points
12-for-20, 5 of 5, for 33 points
******
JVG had a great line about Bosh after Game 1 vs. OKC. Someone asked him about Bosh continuing to bomb from outside, and he said (paraphrasing):
"When he makes those shots, people say he's 'spreading the floor.' When he misses, they call it, 'settling.'"
A big part of Reggie Miller's greatness is his longevity. He was great from about his 3rd year and maintained it for about 12 years. There are a lot of guys who had bigger impact all-around than he did but didn't last. Ron Harper briefly was comparable to Clyde Drexler for the honor of 2nd best 2 guard after Jordan. Then he blew out his knee and was never the same. He did the high volume, low efficiency scorer thing for a while with the Clippers then did a great job of picking the right teams to be a role player with, winning 5 rings in his last 6 years with the Bulls and Lakers.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/harpero01.html
Missed complete seasons on 3 different occasions and still took home those 5 rings. IIRC, he reinvented himself as a defensive stopper with the Bulls and Lakers?
He is. He was just elected this year.
While certainly acknowledging that he was an amazing standstill shooter, I have very serious trouble believing he is one of the top offensive players of all time. Players with obvious limitations often end up looking remarkably "efficient" statistically. I don't take that very seriously. I wonder if Meggie Riller would be in the Fall of Hame at all if the Pacers-Knicks matchup hadn't achieved amazing notoriety for an in-conference rivalry between two teams neither of which was the class of the conference. I guess he still would have obliterated the three-pointer record, and that would still be big. But Allen did pass him there before the vote came up, and if Miller were a guy who averaged 19 ppg with no significant non-scoring contributions on the Dallas Mavericks of that era or something... even if he played as well in those postseason games as he did against the Knicks and others... I still wonder if it happens. It is strange and rare that he established himself as a universally acknowledged "clutch" "winner" despite playing for a no-market team and usually being sent home relatively early in the postseason. But I think it did work out that way, and it made a huge difference.
EDIT: I totally forgot the Pacers did lose a Finals. Honestly, I don't even remember it after being reminded, but apparently it happened.
First off, scoring 19 points per game is pretty important. Scoring is one of the key skills a basketball player has. This is like saying, "I can't believe Wade Boggs is a great hitter because he's a slow singles hitter."
Second, Miller is not just some guy who scored 19 points per game. He did it in the most efficient manner possible. There aren't nany guys who score 19 points per game on 13 shots.
Also, I'm astounded that people on the most saber-friendly site on the Internet are talking about stuff like this without even considering context and league/era adjustments. Miller played in the deadball era of basketball; I'm fairly certain if you compare across eras, Miller is going to come out as the No. 1 shooter of all time, probably by a wide margin. It'd be like someone putting up a .440 OBP in the 1960s.
You watch games all the time where some bench player gets hot and scores 20 points on 8-for-14, nailing 3 or 4 3-pointers and say, "Wow, nice game for Shane Battier or Kyle Korver, he was really key. But he can't do that every night." Miller was the guy who did that every night.
Last, one of the top analysts in the field already talked in this thread about the positive effects of having long-range shooters on the floor. When you see Miller or Ray Allen running around the floor, disrupting defenses that MUST honor their ability to run to a spot and stick the 3, it has a visible and measurable effect on the defense, even if it doesn't show up in individual stats.
My favorite part was where John Stockton got off the bus because they were stuck in traffic and started walking around like a tourist, with his family and a camcorder. Being a 6-foot-1 white guy, he was the only one who could do that and not get noticed. He started talking to an American woman who was wearing a Dream Team T-shirt and asked her if she had met any of the players. "Only Barkley," she said. Then his kid pointed to Stockton on her shirt and said, "That's my Dad!"
Those players don't collectively create larger-than-expected disparities in +/- with those skills. This is easier to think about if you describe specific players. If you have Shaq, he creates opportunities on offense and helps his teammates because of his post skills. If you add Tim Duncan to the Shaq team, you add a lot of redundancy with two prolific scorers who need to occupy basically the same area. If you have Shaq and add Derrick Rose, that gives you a guy who can create off dribble penetration and take it to the hole or kick out to shooters. If you add Russell Westbrook to this team, his skills are somewhat redundant. You can see that having Shaq + Duncan or Rose + Westbrook may not have a huge net positive impact. For a real-life example, 'Melo and Stoudamire don't seem to maximize either player's value.
A long-range shooter can work in any offense, and adding more of them isn't going to reduce the effectiveness of the other.
(The effectiveness of Durant, Westbrook and Harden may cause us all to reevaluate what we think we know about having multiple scorers though.)
(I will say that, although Miller like anyone else needed his teammates, it's certainly worlds apart from a lot of other three-point shooters -- Dennis Scott, Ryan Anderson, etc. -- who leech off a big man whose presence gets them open. Miller was "the guy" on the team. Although Rik Smits was a very skilled offensive player, he didn't exactly command the attention of a Shaq/Howard/etc., and if he did get the ball, he probably wasn't gonna pass it back out.)
That's fair, and this discussion has caused me on some level to evaluate Miller differently. That said, having guys that can stretch the court is nice. But that doesn't contribute to other people's stats the way having someone like Shaq or any of the great bigs is going to generate good looks for the rest of the team that they can't generate themselves. Same goes for the great point guards we're talking about whose job it was to generate good looks for the entire team and just happened to be good scorers too. I guess this is a long winded way of saying that I don't see how his offensive game helped his teammates anywhere near as much as a great passer or great big man would.
I'm not claiming that it does (or doesn't) - but I will cast my lot with those that give some extra credit for hitting threes (that open up the floor for others - raising their numbers), an effect for which there is both statistical evidence (in the abstract, not saying with Miller specifically) and narratively.
And is Zo a HOF? He doesn't have a lot of games, but is 8 seasons of an efficient 20 PPG, 10 boards, and excellent defense enough?
Does any site keep track of TS%+ or something similar?
How do you know this? Remember the shooting differentials for LeBron with Bosh on the floor and without him, when Bosh was draining 3s?
The contributions that great point guards make that generate good looks for the entire team are accounted for. They're called assists. At the least, players who tend to generate good looks and make good passers rack up assist totals, and assist totals are generally correlate with a guard's ability to do these things. (I think high-scoring guards tend to get ripped off on the deal because they often make plays that help the offense but don't lead to assists. For example, the way a defense reacts to Derrick Rose is a lot different than how it plays Rondo.)
Reggie Miller doesn't get an assist when he draws a defender from the lane.
efg% is listed on basketball reference. As usual, Sean Forman has you covered.
This is a really big overreach.
2011-2012 eFG%: .487
2010-2011 eFG%: .498
2009-2010 eFG%: .499
1989-1990 eFG%: .489
1990-1991 eFG%: .487
1991-1992 eFG%: .487
1992-1993 eFG%: .491
1993-1994 eFG%: .485
1994-1995 eFG%: .500
1995-1996 eFG%: .499
1996-1997 eFG%: .493
1997-1998 eFG%: .478
1998-1999 eFG%: .466
1999-2000 eFG%: .478
2000-2001 eFG%: .473
This isn't Dodger Stadium in 1968.
It pretty much was exactly Dodger Stadium in 1968. No idea why you would use eFG% instead of TS%, or ignore points per game, for instance.
The height of the deadball era came around the late'90s/turn of the millennium.
2011-12 TS% .527 PPG 96.3
2010-11 TS% .541 PPG 99.6
2009-10 TS% .543 PPG 100.4
2000-01 TS% .517 PPG 94.8
1999-00 TS% .523 PPG 97.5
1998-99 TS% .511 PPG 91.6
1997-98 TS% .524 PPG 95.6
Here's the height of Showtime Era:
1987-88 TS% .538 PPG 108.2
1986-87 TS% .538 PPG 109.9
1985-86 TS% .541 PPG 110.2
It was easier for me to find it on BBref. No hidden motive.
Defenses didn't start cracking down until the 1998-1999 season (and a lot of that was the lockout). Reggie's peak ends two years later. He spends maybe five years at most in the higher defense era and most of his time in a context very similar to that of today's game.
For example, you show the height of the Showtime Era, but Reggie's two best years were the two right after that: 1989-90 and 1990-91. Teams were scoring 107 and 106 per game.
It's tempting to say they are equal, but player 2 gives his team 6 more chances to rebound the ball, likely resulting in 2 extra possessions. But then, if opponents score more often after a miss and transition then they do taking the ball out from under the basket, that would change the results. Anyone know if this has been studied and published?
The contributions that great point guards make that generate good looks for the entire team are accounted for. They're called assists. At the least, players who tend to generate good looks and make good passers rack up assist totals, and assist totals are generally correlate with a guard's ability to do these things.
It correlates, but there's still a lot of times where the first, most important pass doesn't get the assist. Also, some of your comments have got me thinking you're not giving enough credit to them, even if they are a stat.
How do you know this?
I don't. I haven't run a comprehensive NBA study on the matter, and I'm not going to. From years of watching basketball, almost all teams that can play through the post do so a fair amount because the double team opens up open shots for the rest of the team.
It's tempting to say they are equal, but player 2 gives his team 6 more chances to rebound the ball, likely resulting in 2 extra possessions. But then, if opponents score more often after a miss and transition then they do taking the ball out from under the basket, that would change the results. Anyone know if this has been studied and published?
Longer rebounds are more likely to lead to offensive rebounds, too. Though I guess they're more likely to lead to runouts for the other team. In theory, I think what you're suggesting is probably true but it's (almost) never going to be this simple as you know since taking that number of 2 pointers is going to lead to more free throw attempts.
This is a very funny way to refer to missed shots. I may have to start using it during pickup games. "I was just giving you guys more chances to rebound the ball!"
Not a criticism, but this amused me - the ts% and efg% columns are next to each other.
***
Threes are, all things considered, less likely to result in free throws than twos as well. (Which may not matter for this specific example, but does for the idea at hand).
***
In all seriousness, I remember being on a team with poor playmakers but strong offensive rebounders - we were less trigger shy accordingly, it was a way to feed the post.
Where are you finding league total ts%?
I found EFG% on the Season Summary pages under "Miscellaneous Stats." There wasn't a listing for TS%.
I suppose ORTG would have been even better, right? Since that encompasses everything?
I remember Larry Johnson as a poor man's Charles Barkley. Small for the position, but very strong and he was quick and explosive and a fairly good shooter; not nearly as efficient as Barkley though. Defensively he seemed like the sort of guy could hide on a good defensive team, but could be exposed on a worse team.
I think Mourning is a hall of famer, he was a great defender, was one of the better players on a lot good teams, had good rate stats and had a good college career as well.
1. After his success with Ewing was John Thompson:big men::Calipari:likely lottery picks?
2. How the hell was it possible to get a shot off against a Georgetown team with Mourning and Mutombo?
3. What was the media perception of those Georgetown teams?
Defenses started cracking down way before that. The Bad Boys and Bulls ended the most efficient shooting period in league history. Pat Riley's arrival in New York created more slugests and arguably some of the ugliest basketball ever played, particularly in rivalries with Chicago, Indiana and Miami. When the Knicks went to the Finals in 1994, the Knicks averaged 98.5 ppg and gave up 91.5
To be precise, the Western Conference was still more of a run-and-gun game, particularly in Denver and Phoenix, for many years after the Bad Boys.
Even with the hand-check rules, today's game is a low-scoring environment. In the 1960s, the game featured a lot of inefficient shooting, but the pace was frenetic, resulting in league averages of 115+ per game. This dipped in the late-60s, and points per game were around 105-109 in the 1970s. The game was slowing down and shooting percentages were on the rise.
In 1967-68, the league averaged 116.6 ppg on just .446 shooting on 8293 attempts. In 1987-88, the league averaged 108.2 ppg on .480 FG% on 7193 attempts. By 1992-93, it was down to 105.3/.473/7050 attempts, more in line with 1970s rates. Five years later, it was 95.6/.450/6536.
In the past few years, attempts per game have started to creep up. That changed this past year -- for whatever reason, scoring is at a premium in labor-shortened seasons. Shooting percentages are still very low although scoring is somewhat higher than in the late-90s/early 2000s; both probably due to the increased reliance on 3-point shooting.
1. "They're (Thunder) worried about the 3 from Battier and the 3 from Chalmers, that's why Bosh has two layups."
2. After Bosh drives and misses a layup, Miller crashes and gets a putback basket. JVG: "To me, that's as good as an assist."
Edit: Wade comes in on the first stoppage of play and LeBron goes out. Just crazy minutes.
The rebounds under the basket? Combined with the outlet passes? This is the LeBron I was hoping to see four years ago.
LeBron has also looked like Moses Malone on a few offensive sequences, getting the ball in the paint and getting his own rebound multiple times.
Point of clarification...do you mean you see this role as the start of something new where there will be others?
EDIT: Nice job, Wilbon.
Thanks. That's certainly how I pictured him mostly based off of his size. It's too bad he couldn't keep his explosiveness.
And that's what I was thinking about Mourning too, though I really don't know what the typical standard is for the basketball HOF.
Well, obviously the talent level makes it difficult, but yes. I do see there being more.
I had a friend who rooted for the Hornets and he said their problem was getting outrebounded because they playing 4-on-5 with Bogues. You can see how having two undersized guys on the court (Bogues and LJ) would be a problem, and Mourning was not an elite rebounder for his position.
VanGundy: "We're getting the time-outs for dummies."
I think this is in large part due to matchups (and Collison's foul problems). Chalmers is not a threat to drive.
The Thunder are choosing between playing 3 guards or playing two bigs right now. They have fewer matchup problems playing 3 guards than they do playing two bigs. Ergo: Fisher.
Very lost.
Yes. The play where Durant picked up his 5th, for instance.
Edit: Wade continues his streak of deciding to be useless. No one's going to be able of accusing LeBron of getting a ring easily with this team.
Yet, if they somehow lose people will blame him for not controlling the ball during Wade's late mishaps.
It's funny because it's true!
Van Gundy was talking about having a defensive philosophy--Harden's philosophy is always to flop. So no surprise there.
Yes, that's a T. No, it didn't affect the outcome of the game.
Westbrook should have just dribbled into him.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one totally baffled by the calls. If there was a crucial call/non-call, it was the highly questionable fourth foul on Durant that put him on the bench and stopped OKC's momentum in the third. I think Brooks exacerbated the problem by putting Westbrook on the bench during this time, making Derek Fisher one of the primary ballhandlers on the court. Durant went out with a 5-point lead and came back -2.
We should make note of the fact that Harden has not been very good in this series. Wade has been at best the fourth-best player in this series, and arguably worse.
This. In particular, I don't know if it's some sort of funneling to the pain strategy by MIA/LeBron, but KD has been able to get by with the first step almost at will when he faces up.
Battier +11
Haslem +10 (14 mins)
James +8
Ibaka +8 (22 mins)
Jones +5 (12 mins)
Westbrook +3
Perkins +3
Wade +2
Miller +1 (6 mins)
Cole +1 (6 mins)
Chalmers -1
Durant -3
Cook -5 (3 mins)
Harden -5
Bosh -7
Fisher -9
Collison -11 (13 mins)
Sefolosha -11
Of course, the Twitterati are saying that OKC's best lineup only has one big and he's named Ibaka, and it's tough to argue with that.
You don't have to go to Twitter for that hard-hitting analysis. You could have stayed right here, baby.
I was trying hard to think who he looks like out there.
On offense, he seems to be playing the role of Charles Barkley in the Phoenix offense. On D, he looks like a cross between Jordan and Ben Wallace.
That was my first favorite team as well. Dell Curry was a personal hero-he had the best goatee in the league.
LJ was a bit of a jumping jack for his first two seasons, but the back injury really dulled his explosiveness
(SI story). Especially once he was traded to the Knicks, it seemed like he hung around the perimeter a lot more. I see from that story it was a herniated disc, which is painful as hell.
Depends - who is my best player?
With Lebron, I'd take Pippen.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main