Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Yeah…and they can name a Reggie Bar-kley after him…
NBA TV has a show called “Open Court” that stars Miller, Shaquille O’Neal, Steve Kerr, Steve Smith, Chris Webber, Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley and Ernie Johnson. It’s an interesting roundtable discussion that encompasses all sorts of talk about the game.
During one segment, Johnson asked the guys if they could have played another sports professionally outside of basketball. Miller claims he was an “all-world pitcher” and that “he could play Major League Baseball today.” Miller is currently 46-years old, but considering that Jaime Moyer is pitching for the Rockies at 49, this might not be far-fetched. Although Miller believes he could be an outfielder that gets on base and can steal bases.
There is baseball in Miller’s genes as his brother Darrell was a catcher/outfielder/first baseman for the Angels from 1984-1988.
Repoz
Posted: April 03, 2012 at 09:00 AM | 68 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
history
|
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.
1. Rally Posted: April 03, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4095267)Except for the small detail that Moyer has been, you know, actually god damn pitching for the past 30 years.
Reggie would get my vote, but he's not the no-brainer choice that Pacer fans (or even casual fans) think he was. He was actually a pretty one-dimensional player.
Never underestimate the value of annoying Spike Lee.
I'm sure a unicorn has been spotted somewhere since 2005.
I'm biased, as he's probably the first and last NBA great that I give a damn about, but he was far and away the best player on a team that made six Conference Finals appearances and one Finals trip in an 11-year-span. As one-dimensional players go, I'm not sure there was ever anyone who's come close to leading his team to as much success Reggie's Pacers teams had.
True. And to Reggie's credit, that 8 points in 8 seconds or whatever it was against the Knicks back in, what, 94 or 95, was the stuff of legend.
When that one dimension involves being really, really good at scoring, I don't see how this is a problem.
The 90's were far and away my favorite era of NBA basketball (mostly cuz I'm a Jazz fan and that was their most successful stretch), and I've always thought that era's Pacers were criminally underrated. I actually remember watching the 1998 and 1999 eastern conference finals and thinking Indiana got jobbed in both series (which happened a lot to small market teams back then), which would have given them 3 straight Finals appearances.
That said, the Pacers were deeper than most people gave them credit for, and they ranked up there with the 1999-2000 Blazers and the mid 2000's Pistons as some of the few teams in recent memory that were true contenders without having any of the top superstars in the game. Chauncey Billups has less of a HOF argument than Reggie, yet he was probably the best player on most of those Pistons teams, and they enjoyed even more success than the 90's Pacers.
Like I said, Reggie would get my vote. But he wasn't the sole reason his teams were good, and being the best player for a perennial contender doesn't necessarily make you a true superstar. Usually, but not always. Like Billups, he was one of the rare exceptions.
But he wasn't one of the best scorers of his era. Did he ever crack the top 10 in points per game? (Sorry, I'm at work and can't take the time to look it up)
I didn't say it was a "problem" per se, but not getting rebounds or assists or playing great D usually does keep you off the list of true superstars. Ranking NBA players off scoring alone is about as accurate as ranking MLB players based on RBI or pitcher wins (Iverson, for example, was probably the most overrated NBA "superstar" I've ever seen).
Actually, his best skill was flopping.
Let me guess - Knicks fan.
Well, then, it's only fair that I counter with this riddle: If I foul Larry Johnson on Tuesday and he shoots the ball on Thursday, does the basket count?
Horrible, horrible call. That was one of the main incidents I was referring to in post 13 when I said the Pacers got jobbed in that series.
Exactly.
Speaking of this, can we pass a law banning Clark Kellogg from doing college basketball and replacing him permanently with Steve Kerr? I was seriously impressed with Kerr the last few weeks.
8 points in 18 seconds. I was there. I was 8. I was very, very sad.
Smiles. Seriously, do they pay Kellogg by the word or by the cliche. I thought CBS had done a good thing when they finally got rid of Billy Packer but now I'm not so sure. Listening to Clark Kellogg's "commentary" is enough to make one wish for Dick Vitale. Well, maybe not but some occasional silence would add a lot to the NCAA telecasts.
Yup, laid back and not full of himself.
Yes, and he actually points out things about basketball I don't know, like what defense the team is running, what play they are running, and stays away from stupid cliches anyone could point out like "Kentucky is playing with intensity" or "KU needs a stop and a score here!" It seems like everything Kerr says is for a reason, while Kellogg talks because he thinks he shouldn't be silent for more than two minutes.
And yes, Reggie was quite awful on his telecasts.
1. I probably knew at one time, but I completely forgot that Darrell Miller was part of the famous Miller family.
2. How many black catchers can you name (including or not including Latinos)?
Roy Campanella, Elston Howard, John Roseboro, Earl Battey, Charles Johnson, Darrell Miller, Terry McGriff, Phil Clark (briefly), Manny Sanguillen, Carlos Delgado (briefly)...
Please continue.
Ahem, Charles Johnson!
Another famous black catcher: Moses Walker
I believe James Skelton is African-American. He seems like he should get some MLB at bats sometime. Yusuf Carter is in the minors too although its kinda doubtful he ever reaches the big leagues.
I saw a couple of episodes of Henry Louis Gates' show on PBS last week. That's quite a good show.
In the one, he traced Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, and John Lewis, the venerable civil rights leader. They solved a gap in Booker's lineage from DNA -- a white doctor. There was a heart-warming "reunion" of he and his parents and their white cousins and second cousins.
In one of the episodes, he visited a classsroom of AA students, had them guess their %of AA, White and Native American ancestry. There was one very dark girl who was shocked to find out that she was 51% AA, 44% White and 5% NA. You could see the brains of those kids churning as they tried to make sense of race, culture, how they were raised and where they fit.
I didn't say it was a "problem" per se, but not getting rebounds or assists or playing great D usually does keep you off the list of true superstars. Ranking NBA players off scoring alone is about as accurate as ranking MLB players based on RBI or pitcher wins (Iverson, for example, was probably the most overrated NBA "superstar" I've ever seen).
Reggie hit 3's, and he drew fouls and hit free throws. And that's about it. Now that's not a bad thing - hell, I sure would've wanted him on my team - but IMO that's not enough to make him one of the truly elite players of his era, or a "no-brainer" HOFer. He'd make my personal hall, but he's on the lower end of it (my personal NBA HOF would be a lot smaller than the real one).
He was also very good at not turning the ball over. Basically he was an incredibly *efficient* scorer, which isn't the same thing as being a prolific scorer. Only once finished in the top 10 in PPG but routinely among the league leaders in anything relating to shooting or offensive efficiency, including Offensive Win Shares. I think he's exactly the kind of player who is typically underrated in the NBA -- particularly before the popularization of fantasy basketball (which I think got people more focused on shooting percentages).
He was also durable - he almost never missed a game despite being listed at 6'7, 185.
He doesn't have a great peak HOF argument, but given his consistency, durability and length of his career, I think he's a no-brainer HOFer.
He's one of those guys that was really underrated for a long-time, then became overrated after the Spike Lee Game. And since he's been pretty visible on TV since his career ended, I think he tends to get overrated. But you're right, at his peak he really wasn't overrated at all.
No, not by the actual voters, he wasn't. Those numbers seem just about right. IMO, he was overrated by the fans that considered him a "no brainer" HOFer, despite the very good but not great numbers you mentioned above. A lot of players have more impressive all star/MVP voting/All-NBA team resumes than that, and those are the guys that would qualify in my mind as being "no brainer" HOFers.
I think Reggie was a "review the numbers again, think about it for a minute, and ultimately decide yes" HOFer. Or, what post#23 said, basically.
This anecdote reminds me to recommend the novel Pym, by Mat Johnson. An entertaining read, with Poe's "Narrative of Gordon Pym" as its jumping-off point.
Johnson has a lot of fun early on with AAs claiming Native American heritage.
I'm not a big fan of the NBA, but watching that movie was quite entertaining.
This longer clip is even better. Not just for the shooting exhibition but for the choke signs he gives to Spike ("Who?") Lee, and Spike Lee's comical complaint to the referee about it. This is basketball at its absolute best.
And yes, he's a ####### Hall of Famer. Take that stat quibbling to the Basketball Hall of Merit.
#48 - To be fair I don't think Miller would have been considered a no-brainer by anyone when he was 31 either. Allen at age 31 also had not experienced Miller's level of team success up to that point. Part of both of their HOF cases is their ability to continue to play at a high level into their late-30s.
I think Allen is a more well-rounded and more athletic player than Miller, and obviously the more prolific scorer, but also less efficient. Ultimately I don't think he was more valuable. I agree they're both in "check the stats, and then decide yes" territory, 2008 title notwithstanding for Allen.
If this was directed at me, I think I've said 4 or 5 times in this thread that yes, Miller is a HOFer. It was the "no brainer" comment that I disputed. You must just have a broader definition of "no brainer" than I do, and that's cool.
Either way, Miller will make the HOF (if he hasn't already; I don't really pay attention). He's earned it, he deserves it, and I'll be happy for him when he does.
And I stand by my fugly comment. :)
If this was directed at me, I think I've said 4 or 5 times in this thread that yes, Miller is a HOFer. It was the "no brainer" comment that I disputed. You must just have a broader definition of "no brainer" than I do, and that's cool.
That comment wasn't directed at you or any particular person, only at the whole idea that the Hall of Fame can be reduced to a set of numbers. Of course Miller's not Jordan or Barkley, and if you were going to have a Small Hall based purely on statistics, he'd admittedly be somewhat more of a borderline candidate. But I guess I simply don't see that as being what the Hall of Fame should be all about.
Andy, I think the stats help Miller's case for the NBA HOF, not hurt it. Certainly the advanced stats do. One hardly needs stats to know that Miller wasn't Jordan or Barkley. Why do you think otherwise?
I don't think anyone has suggested that it is, or should be.
Of course Miller's not Jordan or Barkley,
And he doesn't have to be to be a deserving Hall of Famer. But these ARE the kinds of guys I think of as 'no brainer' HOFers. I don't think it's really a big criticism of Miller to say that you have to think about his case a little longer than you would with those two. All the comments in this thread seem to be in agreement that once you look at his argument for a minute, you ultimately decide that yes, he belongs.
I guess the confusion just stems from the term 'no brainer'. I tend to think of 'no brainer' as being pretty much a synonym for 'upper level'.
He is, and he may very well get some MLB PT, but he's not going to hit enough to be a regular.
Do you want to count the Molinas, or not?
-- MWE
I guess the confusion just stems from the term 'no brainer'. I tend to think of 'no brainer' as being pretty much a synonym for 'upper level'.
That must be the problem, since while I think of Reggie as a "no brainer" selection, I've never thought of him as "upper level". More like a Paul Molitor rather than a Jim Rice, but also more like a Paul Molitor rather than a Cal Ripken.
I agree with that. Only thing is, without the magic 3000 number, I'm not sure Molitor is widely viewed as a no brainer either. If someone asked me in the mid 90's before Molly hit number 3000 if he belonged in the HOF, I'd likely have given them the same answer that I'd have given if they asked me about Miller in the early 2000's. "Yeah, probably." Then I'd look up the numbers and decide for sure that yes, they definitely do.
So I don't think we're really in that much disagreement. It's just in my mind, if I have to think about the answer for even a second or do a quick double check of their numbers to make sure my gut feeling is correct, then that probably disqualifies them from "no brainer" status. And it only does take a quick glance at their records to know that both Miller and Molitor are solid lower level choices.
Skelton has got to be the smallest damn catcher in baseball.
I think the only slight difference between Molitor and Miller is that I saw Miller perform so well so many times in big games** that I wouldn't have felt any need to run his numbers. Whereas in Molitor's case I might not have felt that way for certain until after the 1993 World Series. It probably just boils down to the fact that Miller's Indiana teams played far more nationally televised postseason games than Molitor's teams.
**Add to that his well-known extraordinary foul shooting prowess.
I can't count that high.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main