Rik Smits vs Ewing in the playoffs...

[stalkerforlife]

Forget the regular season, Ewing dominates him there.

However, in the playoffs, Rik Smits stepped up and held his own against the great Ewing.

Smits - 17.4ppg, 5.9rpg, 53.9%.

Ewing - 18.8ppg, 9.1rpg, 45.6%.

Ewing blocked more shots by about a block a game.

Smits was 16-12 against Ewing in the playoffs.

Just how underrated is Smits? He was pretty damn good.

[stalkerforlife]

Oh and Smits remarkably put up those numbers in only 27 minutes a game compared to 35 a game for Ewing.

[fpliii]

Smits was a quality player. Fun fact...in both 94 and 95, Hakeem was gameplanning not only for Ewing/Shaq, but Smits as well. From his autobiography:

[QUOTE]I went back and forth between Indiana and New York, I really didn

[Reggie43]

Reggie Miller on the play of Rik Smits in 1995

You've got to give the guy (Smits) credit. He's a great low-post threat. ... He was our MVP this year. He was the one that allowed us to win a division championship and 52 games. He carried us on his back."

[hawkfan]

In his prime, best jump shooter at the 5 during his era.

[L.A. Jazz]

Watching them run up and down the court made it tough to root for them. in the mid 90s both were banged up and stiffs. but both tried everything to help their teams win and thats all you can ask.

[Round Mound]

Would Be An All Star Center Today

[East_Stone_Ya]

Would Be An All Star Center Today

mos def

[west]

Love smits' soft touch, his game was smooth but bad rebounder though.

[Stringer Bell]

In the 1995 series, particularly games 1 and 5, Smits was just making Ewing look silly.

[Rake2204]

I think Rik's career was bit underrated, perhaps due to the depth at the center position in the 90's. He tends to fall right under that Dikembe Mutombo platform, which I suppose is about right. Still, heck of a career, even with retiring at just age 33. His buzzer beater against Orlando is one of my all-time faves, in large part thanks to his fist-pump jump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMr2hpfd2Tw

[hawkfan]

mos def

If the Pacers had him last year, they would have made the playoffs, possibly beat the Spurs.

[Gotterdammerung]

If the Pacers had him last year, they would have made the playoffs, possibly beat the Spurs.
:biggums:
:coleman:
:kobe:

[hawkfan]

:biggums:
:coleman:
:kobe:

Meaning if he was in his prime, not the retired version.

:rockon:

[wakencdukest]

Smits was better than Hibbert will ever be.

[niko]

In the 1995 series, particularly games 1 and 5, Smits was just making Ewing look silly.
Making shit up is fun.

[Stringer Bell]

Making shit up is fun.

"Rik Smits is simply eating up Patrick Ewing"- Marv Albert in game 5 after Smits dunked it on Ewing's head.

Smits owned Ewing in games 1 and 5, although Ewing did make the game winner in game 5 after the refs let him take 4 steps. Smits was scoring in all sorts of ways and dunked it in Ewing's face.

Smits had the better offensive series than Ewing. Ewing, as expected, got more rebounds and blocks than Smits.

[Soundwave]

Smits wasn't a bad player at all. Little weak on the boards, but really nice shooting touch and decent mobility for a guy his size. Good passer out of the post too as I recall.

[CJ Mustard]

What's impressive about those numbers? If anything it just seems like Ewing underperformed. Not like Smit's "holding his own" against an underperforming Ewing is something to write home about

[Big#50]

One thing about being 7'4 275 was he had bad stamina. Bit too slow off the jump. Reason why he was a bad rebounder. But he had good foot work on offense. Pacers and Knicks always put on a good show.

[DonDadda59]

Would Be An All Star Center Today

Not really saying much. :oldlol:

Hibbert :facepalm

[Gotterdammerung]

Meaning if he was in his prime, not the retired version.

:rockon:
My response is more about your implication that the Pacers missed the playoffs last season. They made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. ;)
That Rick Smits would've gotten them over the Miami Heat hump and beat what might be the best title team since the 2001 Lakes is just the hyperbole of homer logic.
:hammerhead:

[Hey Yo]

The Flying Dutchman did have a nice shot. Watching him run the floor was pretty entertaining.

[hawkfan]

My response is more about your implication that the Pacers missed the playoffs last season. They made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. ;)
That Rick Smits would've gotten them over the Miami Heat hump and beat what might be the best title team since the 2001 Lakes is just the hyperbole of homer logic.
:hammerhead:

Typo.
I meant missed the Finals.

[Nowitness]

Really overrated, he was a decent shooter but in truth today he is the equivalent of Jared Sullinger.

[niko]

"Rik Smits is simply eating up Patrick Ewing"- Marv Albert in game 5 after Smits dunked it on Ewing's head.

Smits owned Ewing in games 1 and 5, although Ewing did make the game winner in game 5 after the refs let him take 4 steps. Smits was scoring in all sorts of ways and dunked it in Ewing's face.

Smits had the better offensive series than Ewing. Ewing, as expected, got more rebounds and blocks than Smits.
You've already changed what you said and now are admitting Ewing hit game winning shot and your proof is ONE Marv Albert quote that doesn't address more than a small section of game.

Like i said, making shit up is fun.

[Gotterdammerung]

Typo.
I meant missed the Finals.
Even with Smits the 2014 Pacers would only take a game from the Spurs, at best. In fact I think the 1998 or 2000 Pacers was a much better team than the 2014 Pacers.

[CelticBalla32]

Smits was very underrated and one of the post offensively polished bigs in the game in his heyday. If he were in the league right now, there's no way he only makes one All-Star game. Had such a soft touch at 7'4", big time pick n' roll/pop threat, effective off either shoulder, got that hook over anyone.

NBA TV played one of these games the other day, the one where Reggie went nuts and knocked down those two legendary threes. Smits was giving Patrick the business. He took it back to him, but Smits was especially big down the stretch of that game. That was a perfect example of that quote from Reggie on page 1 of this thread - there were stretches he was featured as the #1 guy and the offense ran through him in the post.

[Reggie43]

The Dunking Dutchman did have a nice shot. Watching him run the floor was pretty entertaining.

fixed

[ILLsmak]

Would Be An All Star Center Today

All nba even. His game is very suited for this.

-Smak

[Dro]

fixed
Beat me to it.......

Anyway, everyone is pretty much on point. I can tell you, my grandmother used to get PISSED a Smits whenever he missed, lol. She never expected him to miss. She's like, "he's 7'4"!, lol. My issue was never with him. I think he was a very good center. He was not a good defender but he was still underrated I think. He could block shots if he wasn't too tired at that point in the game to do so. I've seen him go and block shots, like go get the block the way great shot blocking centers do, but the problem is he didn't/couldn't perform those blocks as much as I would've liked. But on offense, I generally felt like he couldn't be stopped by anyone. He could shoot over anybody so I generally felt he would score unless he got pushed a little too far off the block or he just missed. I think Shaq is the only player I've actually seen block his jump-shot/or hook/post move(I've seen people block other layup/dunks but not these types of shots I was describing.) I felt like his mid-range game was MONEY, I mean Million Dollar Man money, like it felt he never missed jump shots.

My issue is that he never seemed to actually get enough looks/shot attempts for my liking. Reggie was always the #1 option. Rik may have outscored him many times but Reggie was still always the #1 option. Rik drew double teams often and was a willing/good passer. I would have had no problem with a more inside/outside attack with Rik as the first option and Reggie as the second option versus the other way around. Those guys may have a ring somewhere in there. They had games where they focused on Rik and went to him, especially in the playoffs. But it wasn't consistent enough make the other team go, "ok, we're going drop our game plan and focus on him". They would still play him 1 on 1 sometimes and he would just get his and we may still be barely winning or even still losing.

Rik also had a habit of committing bad fouls, like fouls that would PISS you off. Slapping at the ball, things like that. He's an intelligent player, most of the time, all he had to do was keep good position and challenge the shot, and he would be straight.

But I definitely enjoyed watching him play, I saw his entire career and we used to hate on him and say he sucked early on, just like we do with many other foreign born players. Many of them get better the longer they are in the league and don't really show how good they are until several years in. I definitely think he would score more ppg today than he did then. I think he would still struggle on defense against the mobile, quick centers/power forwards of today.

[CelticBalla32]

Beat me to it.......

Anyway, everyone is pretty much on point. I can tell you, my grandmother used to get PISSED a Smits whenever he missed, lol. She never expected him to miss. She's like, "he's 7'4"!, lol. My issue was never with him. I think he was a very good center. He was not a good defender but he was still underrated I think. He could block shots if he wasn't too tired at that point in the game to do so. I've seen him go and block shots, like go get the block the way great shot blocking centers do, but the problem is he didn't/couldn't perform those blocks as much as I would've liked. But on offense, I generally felt like he couldn't be stopped by anyone. He could shoot over anybody so I generally felt he would score unless he got pushed a little too far off the block or he just missed. I think Shaq is the only player I've actually seen block his jump-shot/or hook/post move(I've seen people block other layup/dunks but not these types of shots I was describing.) I felt like his mid-range game was MONEY, I mean Million Dollar Man money, like it felt he never missed jump shots.

My issue is that he never seemed to actually get enough looks/shot attempts for my liking. Reggie was always the #1 option. Rik may have outscored him many times but Reggie was still always the #1 option. Rik drew double teams often and was a willing/good passer. I would have had no problem with a more inside/outside attack with Rik as the first option and Reggie as the second option versus the other way around. Those guys may have a ring somewhere in there. They had games where they focused on Rik and went to him, especially in the playoffs. But it wasn't consistent enough make the other team go, "ok, we're going drop our game plan and focus on him". They would still play him 1 on 1 sometimes and he would just get his and we may still be barely winning or even still losing.

Rik also had a habit of committing bad fouls, like fouls that would PISS you off. Slapping at the ball, things like that. He's an intelligent player, most of the time, all he had to do was keep good position and challenge the shot, and he would be straight.

But I definitely enjoyed watching him play, I saw his entire career and we used to hate on him and say he sucked early on, just like we do with many other foreign born players. Many of them get better the longer they are in the league and don't really show how good they are until several years in. I definitely think he would score more ppg today than he did then. I think he would still struggle on defense against the mobile, quick centers/power forwards of today.

Good post, I appreciate it especially coming from a Pacers fan.

I think the biggest reason Smits didn't get more touches was the same reason he played under 30 mpg for his career. He didn't have the physical stamina for the offense to run through him every night, otherwise it would take away from other aspects of his game and wear him out even quicker. It's too bad, because he was so highly skilled, but I see why it was the way it was. Reggie was the alpha dog, but Smits couldn't have done it like that.

[Droid101]

charliewardblocksriksmits.gif



Not being a dick, I love Smits. I just remember that block very clearly.

[Reggie43]

Beat me to it.......

Anyway, everyone is pretty much on point. I can tell you, my grandmother used to get PISSED a Smits whenever he missed, lol. She never expected him to miss. She's like, "he's 7'4"!, lol. My issue was never with him. I think he was a very good center. He was not a good defender but he was still underrated I think. He could block shots if he wasn't too tired at that point in the game to do so. I've seen him go and block shots, like go get the block the way great shot blocking centers do, but the problem is he didn't/couldn't perform those blocks as much as I would've liked. But on offense, I generally felt like he couldn't be stopped by anyone. He could shoot over anybody so I generally felt he would score unless he got pushed a little too far off the block or he just missed. I think Shaq is the only player I've actually seen block his jump-shot/or hook/post move(I've seen people block other layup/dunks but not these types of shots I was describing.) I felt like his mid-range game was MONEY, I mean Million Dollar Man money, like it felt he never missed jump shots.

My issue is that he never seemed to actually get enough looks/shot attempts for my liking. Reggie was always the #1 option. Rik may have outscored him many times but Reggie was still always the #1 option. Rik drew double teams often and was a willing/good passer. I would have had no problem with a more inside/outside attack with Rik as the first option and Reggie as the second option versus the other way around. Those guys may have a ring somewhere in there. They had games where they focused on Rik and went to him, especially in the playoffs. But it wasn't consistent enough make the other team go, "ok, we're going drop our game plan and focus on him". They would still play him 1 on 1 sometimes and he would just get his and we may still be barely winning or even still losing.

Rik also had a habit of committing bad fouls, like fouls that would PISS you off. Slapping at the ball, things like that. He's an intelligent player, most of the time, all he had to do was keep good position and challenge the shot, and he would be straight.

But I definitely enjoyed watching him play, I saw his entire career and we used to hate on him and say he sucked early on, just like we do with many other foreign born players. Many of them get better the longer they are in the league and don't really show how good they are until several years in. I definitely think he would score more ppg today than he did then. I think he would still struggle on defense against the mobile, quick centers/power forwards of today.

Nice post and I agree with most of it, but in regards to who the number one option when Rik was in his prime I believe it was pretty even and they did play the inside outside game. As Celticballa32 perfectly said it was really an issue about stamina with him. Funny thing is that if we based it on per minute averages Smits was actually taking as much as 4 more shot attempts than Miller both on their primes. Too bad he cant stay much longer on the court or those guys really could have had a ring somewhere in there.

[ILLsmak]

That team was huge when it had both davises, mckey and smits. My uncle always used to say you know that dude (smits) blow dries his hair at halftime lol for some reason I alwaysthink of that.

-Smak

[jayfan]

I think Rik's career was bit underrated, perhaps due to the depth at the center position in the 90's. He tends to fall right under that Dikembe Mutombo platform, which I suppose is about right. Still, heck of a career, even with retiring at just age 33. His buzzer beater against Orlando is one of my all-time faves, in large part thanks to his fist-pump jump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMr2hpfd2Tw

That shot wouldn't have counted today. No way he got it off in time. Still, great moment for him.







.

[Reggie43]

That shot wouldn't have counted today. No way he got it off in time. Still, great moment for him.







.

Here's a clearer video showing the ball leaving his hand with .1 seconds left. This is as close as it gets for a buzzer beater

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZZr4DTtkt0

[Stringer Bell]

You've already changed what you said and now are admitting Ewing hit game winning shot and your proof is ONE Marv Albert quote that doesn't address more than a small section of game.

Like i said, making shit up is fun.

Smits owned Ewing in games 1 and 5. The rest of the series was more evenly contested between the 2.

The Knicks wouldn't have been in position to choke away game 1 if Ewing wasn't getting destroyed by Smits and getting outscored on a 3 to 1 ratio. They should have been ahead by a lot more, but Ewing was getting so badly outplayed by Smits.

Smits kicked the crap out of Ewing thru most of game 5 also, but Ewing and the Knicks were able to pull it off in the end.

[Hey Yo]

fixed
Thanks for the correction.

I knew it didn't sound right when I typed it out, but went with it any way.

[Reggie43]

Thanks for the correction.

I knew it didn't sound right when I typed it out, but went with it any way.

No problem. The myth about the Flying Dutchman was were they probably based his nickname anyway so you are still partially right :D

[stalkerforlife]

Thanks to all the Pacer fans for their well thought out posts.

Good inside info.

[Stringer Bell]

Thanks to all the Pacer fans for their well thought out posts.

Good inside info.

Did you watch how bufuddled Ewing was looking when trying to guard Smits in games 1 and 5 in the 95' series?

Smits's offensive arsenal was pretty impressive for a big man.

[stalkerforlife]

Did you watch how bufuddled Ewing was looking when trying to guard Smits in games 1 and 5 in the 95' series?

Smits's offensive arsenal was pretty impressive for a big man.

The only game I recall, which is because I just watched it on NBA tv, was game 1, I believe. Smits had 34 on 13-19 from the field and Ewing was dominated.

Smits is underrated.

[Dro]

Nice post and I agree with most of it, but in regards to who the number one option when Rik was in his prime I believe it was pretty even and they did play the inside outside game. As Celticballa32 perfectly said it was really an issue about stamina with him. Funny thing is that if we based it on per minute averages Smits was actually taking as much as 4 more shot attempts than Miller both on their primes. Too bad he cant stay much longer on the court or those guys really could have had a ring somewhere in there.
I agree, his stamina was an issue. Whats funny is I have the same issue with both of them, I never felt like either of them took enough shots, lol. Rik because of stamina issues, and Reggie because he's a very unselfish teammate in general. He would generally defer throughout the game. He was almost most aggressive either at the beginning or in the 4th quarter. He generally just let the game come to him and chose to take over in the 4th.

Rik was very good at running the court too. I've probably never seen someone at least 7'4 run the court as well as him, maybe a young Sabonis but he's 7'3 I believe......

People always ask me which team do I think had the best chance a ring and I always say the '98 team. I think the 2000 team was the best team overall but I think the '98 team had a better chance to beat Utah than the 2000 team did of beating the Lakers. Shaq was just too much. Utah has Malone and Stockton but they don't have anybody thats as dominant as Shaq. Shaq makes you change your entire defensive gameplan. We probably would have played Malone 1 on 1 with the Davis boys alternating against him, have Mullin on Russell. Stockton is a great PG but he's not the type of quick PG that would have probably ran circles around Mark Jackson. Rik matches up with Ostertag or whoever, lol. And Reggie on Hornacek. I think we matched up great with them.

There is really no matchup for Shaq/Kobe.

[smoovegittar]

Smits gave us FITS. I've nothing but respect for him; highly under-rated. The "Dunking Dutchman".

[Reggie43]

I agree, his stamina was an issue. Whats funny is I have the same issue with both of them, I never felt like either of them took enough shots, lol. Rik because of stamina issues, and Reggie because he's a very unselfish teammate in general. He would generally defer throughout the game. He was almost most aggressive either at the beginning or in the 4th quarter. He generally just let the game come to him and chose to take over in the 4th.

Rik was very good at running the court too. I've probably never seen someone at least 7'4 run the court as well as him, maybe a young Sabonis but he's 7'3 I believe......

People always ask me which team do I think had the best chance a ring and I always say the '98 team. I think the 2000 team was the best team overall but I think the '98 team had a better chance to beat Utah than the 2000 team did of beating the Lakers. Shaq was just too much. Utah has Malone and Stockton but they don't have anybody thats as dominant as Shaq. Shaq makes you change your entire defensive gameplan. We probably would have played Malone 1 on 1 with the Davis boys alternating against him, have Mullin on Russell. Stockton is a great PG but he's not the type of quick PG that would have probably ran circles around Mark Jackson. Rik matches up with Ostertag or whoever, lol. And Reggie on Hornacek. I think we matched up great with them.

There is really no matchup for Shaq/Kobe.

Yeah loved that 2000 team but the loss of Antonio Davis really stung for me as a fan. Add in the fact that we could have really used him to defend Shaq in the Finals though we probably would have lost anyways, maybe extend it to seven who knows

Best team for me was 1998 because that was the deepest team the Pacers ever had. Pretty certain that Antonio Davis, Derrick Mckey, Travis Best and Jalen Rose would have been starters somewhere else if they were not playing for the Pacers at that time. Hall of Famer Scottie Pippen even paid them the ultimate compliment at the end of game seven clinching Bulls playoff victory in 1998 by saying something along the lines of " Im not sure if the better team won"

The thing I always told my friends is that those Pacers really could have won a championship but was a victim of very bad timing. Their best teams ever coincided with the end of one dynasty (Bulls) with the start of another (Lakers)

[Stringer Bell]

The only game I recall, which is because I just watched it on NBA tv, was game 1, I believe. Smits had 34 on 13-19 from the field and Ewing was dominated.

Smits is underrated.

Yes, he was so efficient and effective in that game, as well as game 5.

He had a good assortment of moves and I enjoyed watching his arsenal. Nice touch on mid-range shots, pivots and fakes for dunks and lay-ins, fadeaways, etc...Not much more than a decent rebounder and shot-blocker (8.2 rebounds and 1.7 blocks per 36 minutes for his career), but I liked his offense.