Is Reggie Miller a HOFer? (Poll - PLEASE Read Article B4 Voting)

[Rudechain]

Well when I think of Miller, his career and if he is worthy of the Hall I need to look at it from a few perspectives.

The first thing I think of is that game in New York. It was an absolute perfect moment for him and the way it played out in front of a national and even international audience.

But we are talking about Hall of Fame and I don't think "moments" are worthy. I need to look at his body of work in comparison to others both in the hall and not in. How does Reggie actually stack up? His NCAA career and it's accomplishments while noteworthy are not in this comparison. I concede Reggie Miller's college career was simply amazing at that time.

Ok, Reggie played for 18 seasons as a shooting guard and all for the same team. He scored 25,279 points averaging just over 18 points per game. He has 4,1015 assists in his career which averages out to around 3 per game. He's a career 47% shooter and 39% from the 3 point line. Of the 25,279 points, 6,237 came from the free throw line. Reggie attempted 7,026 for a free throw average of .888

Reggie had his moments like that day in New York, or the 57 he put up against Charlotte in 1992 but his collective numbers are no where near dominant. His points per game, field goal percentage and three point field goal percentage are nowhere near the top and suggest he was very good but not as dominant as I thought he was. Others have shown the All NBA selections or lack there-of during his career.

This leads me to the "clutch player" tag. I certainly had thought that but I also remembered him as dominant when the numbers certainly don't reflect that. This criteria is a bit subjective if you ask me and is kind of difficult to define. What I can remember of Reggie and his "clutch" moments

Well of course the 8 points in 16 seconds at the Garden. Game 4 of the 1998 East Conference finals ( note the Pacers still lost the series to Chicago though) There was that 4th quarter in game 5 of the 1994 East Finals. ( note the Pacers lost the series to the Knicks)

Since I was not really a Pacers fan, I can only comment on what I saw on a national or international stage for Reggie. He could certainly have many more "clutch" plays but i don't recall any more as prominent as the ones I mentioned above.

But here's my problem with the argument that he is a clutch player. Where are the rings? Where are the repeat finals appearances? I know it does not sound fair, but in my opinion if a guy is clutch he should have willed his team to victory. I think Reggie had the chance to will his team to a Finals appearance in 1994. In 1998 he went against the most "clutch" player ever in Jordan.

But the clutch argument is subjective in my book and I can understand how Reggie was given that tag.

In my opinion Reggie is borderline Hall worthy. His overall numbers look good but part of that is due to longevity of career. ( which is certainly worthy of praise as he was effective when he walked away) When you look at what he averaged he is slightly above average. But Reggie did have moments that are a part of NBA history and are worth merit.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But he still wasn't one of the best players of his era.

I mean looking at the stats, he's basically Nick Young + a good team + Spike Lee

Hall of FAME, not Hall of Great. He was an icon in the game during his era. I know that's not a real argument, but I love the guy and really hope he gets in. I would understand if he didn't get in, but I love me some Reggie Miller. He was my favorite player back then and those Pacer teams were very fun to watch.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 09:59 AM ----------

But here's my problem with the argument that he is a clutch player. Where are the rings? Where are the repeat finals appearances? I know it does not sound fair, but in my opinion if a guy is clutch he should have willed his team to victory. I think Reggie had the chance to will his team to a Finals appearance in 1994. In 1998 he went against the most "clutch" player ever in Jordan.

I don't understand...so in that era, only Rockets and Bulls can be considered "clutch" because they won the championships. You can have a clutch moment (or 100 of them) on a slightly smaller stage that doesn't ultimately will your team to a championship. Jordan is certainly more clutch than Reggie, but that doesn't mean Reggie can't be considered clutch himself.

[sjinhan]

I dont think Miller is HOF.. Great player sure... clutch player sure... but a HOF player no...

[adam@section118]

Also his PPG average rose in the playoffs, but I also think it is unfair to judge a career soly based on stats

[Sticksboi05]

Nick Young us a bad defender who averages 17.4 ppg this season.

Reggie was a rather bad defender who averaged 18.2 ppg for his career.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:27 AM ----------

He never lead the league in 3 pt percentage. was only in the top 10 once in his career. Clutch player? His teams didn't win championships, nor did they go particularly deep into the playoffs. Good at drawing fouls? They don't put floppers into the HOF. Reggie was a good player on an average, or little above average team in a state which took their basketball very seriously. Reggie was not a great player, Reggie was certainly not a hof player.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:58 AM ----------

I don't even think he was a great player. He was a good player... Dr. Jay, George Gervin, Dominique, Clyde Drexler. Those were great players who played on good teams but either didn't win any or won few championships because they were blocked by greater talents....

Reggie and his 18 ppg shooting from the outside without really many other good scoring options on his team; doesn't really compare. Dominique is the kind of guy you put in the hall of fame who never won a championship. 9 time allstar, consistantly in the top 5 scorring in the league, rookie of the year, Averaged greater than 20 ppg for 11 consecutive seasons and lead the league in scoring with 30 ppg in 85.

Reggie averaged 18 ppg because he played till he was 40. Look at the numbers in his prime. 20 + ppg. Yeah he also took way more threes than say Steve Kerr. Easier to keep that percentage up with far less threes. When you attempt as many threes at Miller did and stay at 40 % in your career it's a phenomenal percentage.

Yeah clutch. Seriously? You forgetting two threes in a matter of what 10 seconds? The 25 point 4th quarter? The game winner over Michael Jordan in the 98 ECF's? 2002 playoffs where he banked that like 40 foot three to send Game 5 into overtime vs. the Nets and dunked it with a few seconds left to put it into double overtime. His playoff numbers are great.

I don't think he is a "must have" in the Hall of Fame by any means but at least have decent arguments.

It's amazing those who criticize others for calling basketball such an individual sport then go on to say you aren't clutch if you didn't win a championship. A championship is a TEAM accomplishment. He made the ECF's with decent teams six times (throwing out your comical "they never made it deep into the playoffs argument), had a shot at a title and lost to Kobe and Shaq, one of the best duos of all-time. Jerry West was lucky to win a championship his final season on the shoulders of Wilt Chamberlain. He failed what six times in the Finals before that as the go to guy? Yet he's known as Mr. Clutch really because of that one shot.

Now I'm not comparing West to Miller as an all around player, West outclasses Miller. But the argument could be said for many players.

The Mariners didn't win the 95 World Series so do we then throw out Griffey's "Double" to save baseball in Seattle?

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 11:12 AM ----------

[pjfootballer]

I really thought his stats were better than the article pointed out. But Sticks had some pretty good stats to at least sway a couple of voters. I'm on the fence after reading this, but I could give him the nod based on his longevity, the number of points he scored in his career and the star power he had during his time.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I really thought his stats were better than the article pointed out. But Sticks had some pretty good stats to at least sway a couple of voters. I'm on the fence after reading this, but I could give him the nod based on his longevity, the number of points he scored in his career and the star power he had during his time.

That's the biggest factor to me. I realize this is a different discussion, but I believe the HOF should be like a museum. It should capture what was important or noteworthy about each era. I don't think the HOF should necessarily just enshrine the best x players from each era but should try to represent the era as a whole. Someone like Reggie Miller should be included because of the memorable moments that he had. Someone like Dennis Rodman as well. Fame, by definition, has nothing to do with greatness.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Not a dominate, hall of fame career imo.

Kemp was dominate.

I'm with you on Reggie not being a particularly convincing candidate... but for god's sake stop using "dominate" as an adjective.

[Rudechain]

I don't understand...so in that era, only Rockets and Bulls can be considered "clutch" because they won the championships. You can have a clutch moment (or 100 of them) on a slightly smaller stage that doesn't ultimately will your team to a championship. Jordan is certainly more clutch than Reggie, but that doesn't mean Reggie can't be considered clutch himself.

Well now there were other teams that contended time and again during Miller's time with the Pacers. Just off the top of my head, Drexler, Stockton, Magic Johnson and Isaiah Thomas were more clutch. I also stated that I did not follow the Pacers and he may have had more plays that I don't recall, or that I can also understand how some have tagged him with the "clutch" label.

He did get his teams to playoffs in 1990 and was swept in the first round by Detroit. The Pacers made the playoffs in 1990, 91, 92 and 1993 but never made it out the first round. They only won a combined 3 games in those four seasons while being swept twice.

I think Miller really started to come into his own during the 93-94 season and where he began to develop the "clutch" label. It's just my opinion, but his most productive years were between the 93-94 and right around the turn of the century. But Miller and the Pacers could not overcome the Knicks and the Magic in the conference finals in back to back years ( team had the Davis' and Rik Smits with Larry Brown coaching). And losing to the Hawks in the first round the following year (1996).

The Pacers with Miller did not make the playoffs in the 96-97 season but did return the following year under the coaching of Larry Bird reaching the conference finals only to lose to Jordan.

The following season they again reached the conference finals but lost to the Knicks.

Finally the following season Miller and the Pacers reached the Finals where they lost to the Lakers.

The following three seasons Miller and the Pacers lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Millers final two seasons he went to the conference finals and the semifinals.

It's actually impressive that he went to at least the conference finals 6 times in 18 years. But during his prime years (1993-2001) he had three chances against someone not named Michael Jordan and he could not get it done. Is he clutch? Sure he is clutch but not as much as the guys I mentioned earlier. Maybe his level of "clutch-ness" is not as high as those guys and why he not in the HOF.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Very good post...but I would say that those other players had a stronger supporting cast than Miller did (in most cases).

[TheDane]

Miller deserves to be in the conversation every year, but there will be better candidates than him every year.

Also, it's not fair to Miller to use his career stats. Should be looking at his stats in his prime, not including when he was 37 years old and up.

That said, he's the cream of the crop in the Hall of Very Good. Whether or not he joins the Hall of Fame may come down to voter nostalgia and/or pity.

P.S. Shawn Kemp was nasty, if you don't know, you better axe somebody.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:39 PM ----------

Also, if you want to talk clutch, Big Shot Rob was more clutch than Reggie.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I'm with you on Reggie not being a particularly convincing candidate... but for god's sake stop using "dominate" as an adjective.

Dominate, dominant, whatever. Even God made mistakes.

[Sticksboi05]

Miller deserves to be in the conversation every year, but there will be better candidates than him every year.

Also, it's not fair to Miller to use his career stats. Should be looking at his stats in his prime, not including when he was 37 years old and up.

That said, he's the cream of the crop in the Hall of Very Good. Whether or not he joins the Hall of Fame may come down to voter nostalgia and/or pity.

P.S. Shawn Kemp was nasty, if you don't know, you better axe somebody.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:39 PM ----------

Also, if you want to talk clutch, Big Shot Rob was more clutch than Reggie.

Why? Because he happened to be on stacked teams that won rings? He hit that shot in L.A., in Houston and in San Antonio. It just so happens that those teams were stacked and they went on to win rings. Don't get me wrong, Horry, as far as I'm concerned, should have a little place for himself in the "wasn't that good but damn he was clutch" section of the Hall of Fame but I think you guys are underestimating how many big shots and 4th quarters Reggie had. Not winning rings isn't any more his fault than it was Dominik Hasek's until he got on the loaded Red Wings.

I mean was Sean Elliott more clutch than Barkley because of the Memorial Day Miracle?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

That's the biggest factor to me. I realize this is a different discussion, but I believe the HOF should be like a museum. It should capture what was important or noteworthy about each era. I don't think the HOF should necessarily just enshrine the best x players from each era but should try to represent the era as a whole. Someone like Reggie Miller should be included because of the memorable moments that he had. Someone like Dennis Rodman as well. Fame, by definition, has nothing to do with greatness.

First off Dennis Rodman is undoubtedly a HOFer. He's on another level from Reggie.

Secondly, HOF's are museums. That's why they have memorabilia from special moments in the sports. That's why, say, a hat and ball from Strasburg's debut is already in Cooperstown. To be enshrined as a player is something else though. That's a celebration of the player and his career. That he was one of the best to ever play his sport. That he was special beyond mere moments.

If Gilbert doesn't hurt his knee there's a very good chance he puts up better career numbers than Reggie. And he's had as many clutch moments as anyone in the last 10 years. Is he a HOFer?

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 09:13 PM ----------

I think much of this debate is really more an argument about what exactly a Hall of Fame is and should be, and less about how good Reggie Miller was.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

[/color]I think much of this debate is really more an argument about what exactly a Hall of Fame is and should be' date=' and less about how good Reggie Miller was.[/quote']

I agree with that and apologize for bringing that into this conversation.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I agree with that and apologize for bringing that into this conversation.

Na definitely no need to apologize. I think that's a crucial element and a huge part of any "HOF-worthy" debate. I think most of the time it's an unsaid and should be acknowledged more.

[adam@section118]

A interesting sub debate to this is "Should we get rid of the Basketball HOF" and make a separate "NBA HOF"

_________

NM. I will no argue Horry because everything I thought has been said

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 09:57 PM ----------

FWIW, Reggie was only eligible ONCE

Not sure if it is just poor wording, but some of you are saying "reason X is why he is not in"

He will have many chances to get in, this past year was just one of many....

[adam@section118]

FWIW, Reggie was only eligible ONCE

Not sure if it is just poor wording, but some of you are saying "reason X is why he is not in"

He will have many chances to get in, this past year was just one of many....

[CrypticVillain]

First off Dennis Rodman is undoubtedly a HOFer. He's on another level from Reggie.

Secondly, HOF's are museums. That's why they have memorabilia from special moments in the sports. That's why, say, a hat and ball from Strasburg's debut is already in Cooperstown. To be enshrined as a player is something else though. That's a celebration of the player and his career. That he was one of the best to ever play his sport. That he was special beyond mere moments.

If Gilbert doesn't hurt his knee there's a very good chance he puts up better career numbers than Reggie. And he's had as many clutch moments as anyone in the last 10 years. Is he a HOFer?

That's not a fair question, but I do understand why you compared the two.

[skinfan2k]

And yes Robert Horry was more clutch than Reggie Miller. I am robert horry's biggest fan. he is my favorite player of all time

[adam@section118]

If you broke it down I think Horry and Reggie probably had about equal clutch shots, it was just Horry ALWAYS hit clutch shots in the biggest games (he also had amazing supporting casts around him to be in this huge games)

I can not take any thing away from him. He could be sucking the first 46, but man the last 2 it was like he was a different guy. Nothing but respect for Big Shot Rob

[Sticksboi05]

And yes Robert Horry was more clutch than Reggie Miller. I am robert horry's biggest fan. he is my favorite player of all time

Why? We know he's hit big shots. So have other players, shots of much greater difficulty. He happened to be on three championship quality teams so his shots weren't in vain. That's the difference.

[Rudechain]

Very good post...but I would say that those other players had a stronger supporting cast than Miller did (in most cases).

There's a lot to be said about the supporting cast and I think it would be a stronger argument if Miller's averages were higher.

It's strange because my selective memories over-hyped Miller than when I actually looked at his numbers and his averages are above average but no where what I had thought they were. One thing not listed in those numbers are intangibles like his heart. It was evident watching him play.

If Reggie had another strong player maybe it would have been different. He did get close but the Davis boy's offensive shortcomings along with Rik Smit's lack of interior presence hamstrung the team.

[adam@section118]

There's a lot to be said about the supporting cast and I think it would be a stronger argument if Miller's averages were higher.

It's strange because my selective memories over-hyped Miller than when I actually looked at his numbers and his averages are above average but no where what I had thought they were. One thing not listed in those numbers are intangibles like his heart. It was evident watching him play.

If Reggie had another strong player maybe it would have been different. He did get close but the Davis boy's offensive shortcomings along with Rik Smit's lack of interior presence hamstrung the team.

Antonio had offense, and Dale was a beast in the middle. But yeah, if Dale would have had any O that would have helped. Rik having healthy feet would have helped.

I think his best shot was with koo koo Ron and "Wanna be franchise guy" Jermaine O Neal. God, thinking back to those years makes me mad. Almost as mad as Mo-Ron winning a ring in LA.....but I digress

[Heisenberg]

This brings up an interesting question - is Ray Allen a HOFer?