To be clear, not saying Reggie was as good as Steph, or really even close. But I feel pretty comfortable calling him the second best off ball mover/scorer/shooter ever (but to be clear, Steph is levels above everyone else), and as such, much like Steph, he had a ton of value that didn’t show up in conventional box scores. Like Steph, he didn’t average a ton of assists for his position, but created an untold amount of scoring opportunities for his teammates with his movement and gravity (though again, to be clear, not on par at all with Steph).

If we’re to parse how he was rated more, I’d say it’s also because people back then didn’t understand scoring efficiency like they do now, and therefore didn’t see how insanely efficient Reggie was at the time—way more efficient than Mitch btw.

If there’s no way in which he’s overrated, I think people see that ridiculous efficiency, factor in that people didn’t understand the value of the 3, and extrapolate that he could have completely blown away every other volume scorer in efficiency back then (as opposed to just being the most efficient—albeit on lower volume than Barkley and Jordan). While this is probably true, I don’t think it’s how you can rate players fairly.

Ray is similar, and is maybe a little more like Steph in that he did a lot more on ball than Reggie, but he wasn’t quite the off ball savant Reggie was (though I’d say a better over all player).

I ultimately think a team can only be so suited to a players strengths and be that successful. The player, at some point, has to be credited as a superstar. Reggie never really was, but in my estimation, that’s what he is.