Mitch Richmond: MVP All-Star Game Performance (1995) [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Phoenix

11-09-2020, 09:22 AM

One of the forgotten 90s stars stuck on a woeful Kings squad. Would liked to have seen him in his prime on a team with a shot at actually being competitive every year.

Well, he's definitely behind Jordan and Drexler.
Depending on your ranking with Miller and Dumars he's 3, 4 or 5.

In terms of '90s' overall I would take him over Drexler whose last real superstar season was 92. Was better overall than Miller in my eyes as well( ISH has had 20 page topics covering that ). He didn't have the team success but look at who he was playing with most of the 90s.

Haymaker

11-09-2020, 11:47 AM

Mid Range God!

L.Kizzle

11-09-2020, 12:25 PM

One of the forgotten 90s stars stuck on a woeful Kings squad. Would liked to have seen him in his prime on a team with a shot at actually being competitive every year.

In terms of '90s' overall I would take him over Drexler whose last real superstar season was 92. Was better overall than Miller in my eyes as well( ISH has had 20 page topics covering that ). He didn't have the team success but look at who he was playing with most of the 90s.
No way, we're talking about a "star" player who played in the 2nd most Finals in the 90s not named Jordan or Pippen. 90-92-95 and was in the Conference Finals in 91 and 97.

He was better from 90-93. Richmond from 96-98. 99 is most as Drexler had retired. 94 I'd take Rock but 95 I'd take Clyde.

Clyde's seasons on top were better than Richmond's seasons on top.

pandiani17

11-09-2020, 01:05 PM

He was a nice player. Top 3 90's for sure.

Good defender.
Nice post play.
Great shooter.

Too bad his prime got wasted on a crap franchise.

I'd take him over any SG besides Jordan in that era.

You summed up his career. Also, he won the All-Star when it still had enormous value, when teams still played defense. Current All-Star MVPs are like winning the MVP in the local YMCA game.

Phoenix

11-09-2020, 02:49 PM

No way, we're talking about a "star" player who played in the 2nd most Finals in the 90s not named Jordan or Pippen. 90-92-95 and was in the Conference Finals in 91 and 97.

He was better from 90-93. Richmond from 96-98. 99 is most as Drexler had retired. 94 I'd take Rock but 95 I'd take Clyde.

Clyde's seasons on top were better than Richmond's seasons on top.

Clyde played on considerably better teams in the 90s so I'm not sure using team success as a barometer here is a fair argument, unless you think he's doing something with the Kings that Richmond couldn't. Clyde was obviously better 90-92 but after that he did fall off a bit and Mitch hit his prime. I don't agree that Clyde was definitively a better shooting guard over the duration of the 90s especially once you hit the middle of the decade. In 93 he was injured so Mitch was better that year. 94 and 95 I would take Mitch too but let's call it a toss up. 96 to 98 you concur that Mitch was better, and then Clyde retired while Mitch played out the decade. Of course by 99 Mitch was on the last legs of his prime too but when Clyde was better for 3 years, Mitch was better for 4-5 years, and Clyde didnt finish out the decade.......that doest equate to Glide being the clearcut 2nd best SG of the decade in my mind.

The big knock on Mitch was his lack of team success but he was playing with some crap rosters while Clyde played with some talented Portland teams and finished his career playing second fiddle to Hakeem and an aging Barkley, which is still more than Mitch had to work with. Mitch with his shooting on the 95 Rockets would have been absolutely deadly playing off Hakeem with other floor spacers on the wings with him.

Yes Clyde played in the 2nd most 90s finals but he was tied with Hakeem, Malone and Stockton in that department. And let's be real, without the Rockets trade he isn't playing in the 95 finals.

L.Kizzle

11-09-2020, 02:58 PM

Clyde played on considerably better teams in the 90s so I'm not sure using team success as a barometer here is a fair argument, unless you think he's doing something with the Kings that Richmond couldn't. Clyde was obviously better 90-92 but after that he did fall off a bit and Mitch hit his prime. I don't agree that Clyde was definitively a better shooting guard over the duration of the 90s especially once you hit the middle of the decade. In 93 he was injured so Mitch was better that year. 94 and 95 I would take Mitch too but let's call it a toss up. 96 to 98 you concur that Mitch was better, and then Clyde retired while Mitch played out the decade. Of course by 99 Mitch was on the last legs of his prime too but when Clyde was better for 3 years, Mitch was better for 4-5 years, and Clyde didnt finish out the decade.......that doest equate to Glide being the clearcut 2nd best SG of the decade in my mind.

The big knock on Mitch was his lack of team success but he was playing with some crap rosters while Clyde played with some talented Portland teams and finished his career playing second fiddle to Hakeem and an aging Barkley, which is still more than Mitch had to work with. Mitch with his shooting on the 95 Rockets would have been absolutely deadly playing off Hakeem with other floor spacers on the wings with him.

Yes Clyde played in the 2nd most 90s finals but he was tied with Hakeem, Malone and Stockton in that department. And let's be real, without the Rockets trade he isn't playing in the 95 finals.

He played in 3 Finals. 90, 92 and 95.
And they were actually both injured in 93, Mitch played 45 games and Clyde 49, so I guess you can call that one even as well.

I gave Clyde 95 because of his Playoff performance.

Clyde 90-92 >>> Mitch 96-98.
93 both injured.
94 Mitch
95 Clyde

dankok8

11-09-2020, 03:14 PM

Reggie Miller and Joe Dumars were both better than Mitch Richmond... These decade rankings are very arbitrary. Ends up penalizing players whose prime was the last half of one decade and first half of the next... makes no sense.

Phoenix

11-09-2020, 03:23 PM

He played in 3 Finals. 90, 92 and 95.
And they were actually both injured in 93, Mitch played 45 games and Clyde 49, so I guess you can call that one even as well.

I gave Clyde 95 because of his Playoff performance.

Clyde 90-92 >>> Mitch 96-98.
93 both injured.
94 Mitch
95 Clyde

Ok if you want to have 89-90 be part of the decade, fine. Not gonna debate the semantics of whether that should be considered the end of the 80s decade or the start of the 90s, but not worth debating. Again, in 95 can you really credit him for that when Hakeem was clearly driving the bus? The Rockets got to the finals in 94 without Clyde so how much credit does he deserve for 95? Not saying he wasnt a strong number 2, but he's not in the finals if he doesnt get traded so I dont see why that's a bullet point against Mitch.

So 90-92 Clyde. 3 seasons

You're calling 93 a wash. I think you can still make a conclusion about which 'injured' player was better but I'll play along.

Mitch is better in 94. I think he's better in 95 too but you want to use Clyde's playoffs as the barometer. I dont think that's fair based on what I said earlier but whatever.

So 96-98 goes to Mitch, then Clyde retires.

So TLDR; Clyde is better for 4 seasons( 90,91,92, 95) Mitch better for 4 seasons( 94, 96, 97, 98,) one season we're not counting(93) and then Mitch plays out the decade while Clyde retires. Yes, Clyde peaked higher but I'm talking about the totality of the decade. All of those mental gymnastics is merely to say its not a definitive edge for Clyde unless you count team success and I'm reasonably certain Mitch would have some of that as a second fiddle to Hakeem or playing on the early 90s Blazers.

Manny98

11-09-2020, 04:03 PM

Those Warriors with Mitch,Mullin and Tim were fun to use on 2k

Smoke117

11-09-2020, 04:22 PM

He was alright. He's become overrated because of some Jordan comments considering he never had much of a real impact when it came to actually playing winning basketball.

L.Kizzle

11-09-2020, 04:23 PM

Ok if you want to have 89-90 be part of the decade, fine. Not gonna debate the semantics of whether that should be considered the end of the 80s decade or the start of the 90s, but not worth debating. Again, in 95 can you really credit him for that when Hakeem was clearly driving the bus? The Rockets got to the finals in 94 without Clyde so how much credit does he deserve for 95? Not saying he wasnt a strong number 2, but he's not in the finals if he doesnt get traded so I dont see why that's a bullet point against Mitch.

So 90-92 Clyde. 3 seasons

You're calling 93 a wash. I think you can still make a conclusion about which 'injured' player was better but I'll play along.

Mitch is better in 94. I think he's better in 95 too but you want to use Clyde's playoffs as the barometer. I dont think that's fair based on what I said earlier but whatever.

So 96-98 goes to Mitch, then Clyde retires.

So TLDR; Clyde is better for 4 seasons( 90,91,92, 95) Mitch better for 4 seasons( 94, 96, 97, 98,) one season we're not counting(93) and then Mitch plays out the decade while Clyde retires. Yes, Clyde peaked higher but I'm talking about the totality of the decade. All of those mental gymnastics is merely to say its not a definitive edge for Clyde unless you count team success and I'm reasonably certain Mitch would have some of that as a second fiddle to Hakeem or playing on the early 90s Blazers.
Rockets don't make the playoffs without the Drexler-Thorpe trade.
And let's say they do make it, they're not winning in 95.

Clyde had two 40 point games in the in playoffs I believe.
They don't get past Utah and Phoenix again in 95 without Clyde

Smoke117

11-09-2020, 04:24 PM

Ok if you want to have 89-90 be part of the decade, fine. Not gonna debate the semantics of whether that should be considered the end of the 80s decade or the start of the 90s, but not worth debating. Again, in 95 can you really credit him for that when Hakeem was clearly driving the bus? The Rockets got to the finals in 94 without Clyde so how much credit does he deserve for 95? Not saying he wasnt a strong number 2, but he's not in the finals if he doesnt get traded so I dont see why that's a bullet point against Mitch.

So 90-92 Clyde. 3 seasons

You're calling 93 a wash. I think you can still make a conclusion about which 'injured' player was better but I'll play along.

Mitch is better in 94. I think he's better in 95 too but you want to use Clyde's playoffs as the barometer. I dont think that's fair based on what I said earlier but whatever.

So 96-98 goes to Mitch, then Clyde retires.

So TLDR; Clyde is better for 4 seasons( 90,91,92, 95) Mitch better for 3 seasons(96, 97, 98,) one season we're not counting(93) and then Mitch plays out the decade while Clyde retires. Yes, Clyde peaked higher but I'm talking about the totality of the decade. All of those mental gymnastics is merely to say its not a definitive edge for Clyde unless you count team success and I'm reasonably certain Mitch would have some of that as a second fiddle to Hakeem or playing on the early 90s Blazers.

Yeah, I don't know about all that. Drexler was just a plain higher impact player, period, even in the mid to late 90s.

Phoenix

11-09-2020, 04:34 PM

Yeah, I don't know about all that. Drexler was just a plain higher impact player, period, even in the mid to late 90s.

In the early 90s yes. Dont agree about the mid and especially the late. Had some really talented teams for the bulk of his prime, and never played on any team as woeful as those Kings squads Mitch had to assess the extent of his impact with shit talent. 92 Drexler was better than any version of Richmond, but that's the last year we saw him at that level.

fsvr54

11-09-2020, 06:21 PM

One of my all time favorites. That pull-up was silky smooth.

Richmond
Rice
Chapman

The holy trinity of awesome 90s players who are somewhat forgotten and underrated

L.Kizzle

11-09-2020, 09:00 PM

In the early 90s yes. Dont agree about the mid and especially the late. Had some really talented teams for the bulk of his prime, and never played on any team as woeful as those Kings squads Mitch had to assess the extent of his impact with shit talent. 92 Drexler was better than any version of Richmond, but that's the last year we saw him at that level.
Looking back at it, I'm definitely taking him (Clyde) in 95. And the only reason I'm taking Mitch in 96 and 97 was Clyde's low total of games played.

95 Clyde was 22/6/5 in 76 games. (Playoffs 21/7/5)
95 Mitch was 23/3/4 in 82 games.

Mitch 96 and 97. 24 / 3.5 / 3.5 on 37 wins avg
Drexler 96 and 87. 19 / 7.5 / 6 on 52 wins avg

Smoke117

11-09-2020, 10:55 PM

L.Kizzle

11-09-2020, 11:28 PM

Was really surprised to find out Richmond was actually in the hof He did absolutely nothing to deserve being in, but whatever. Kind of annoying, too, when Ben Wallace isn't in and he is far, far more deserving.

Richmond may be the least successful NBA player in the HoF. He made ONE playoff appearance as the man in Sacramento.
Two other times as the 3rd best player in Golden State.

Not sure how his Run-TMC buddy Tim Hardaway isn't in yet as well. Was better then Richmond the majority of his career.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 12:02 AM

Looking back at it, I'm definitely taking him (Clyde) in 95. And the only reason I'm taking Mitch in 96 and 97 was Clyde's low total of games played.

95 Clyde was 22/6/5 in 76 games. (Playoffs 21/7/5)
95 Mitch was 23/3/4 in 82 games.

Mitch 96 and 97. 24 / 3.5 / 3.5 on 37 wins avg
Drexler 96 and 87. 19 / 7.5 / 6 on 52 wins avg

As I said before, considering the teams they were playing for, I dont know why you're bringing wins into it. 96 and 97 Drexler isnt avg 50 games on the Kings nor is Mitch those years winning 37 with the Rockets. If you want to say Drexler those years was better because he just was, whatever..... but wins avg is a non-point in this instance.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 12:08 AM

Richmond may be the least successful NBA player in the HoF. He made ONE playoff appearance as the man in Sacramento.
Two other times as the 3rd best player in Golden State.

Not sure how his Run-TMC buddy Tim Hardaway isn't in yet as well. Was better then Richmond the majority of his career.

That alone should say how good a player he was individually that the HOF voted him in despite lack of team success. Maybe some people have the ability to rationalise when a players circumstances prevented better team results. I bet most couldn't name 3 of his Kings teammates without googling it.

Pretty sure Tim isn't in because of his anti-gay rant some years back, but there are also other HOF level points from his generation like Price and KJ who didn't get in. All of those guys got derailed by injuries but did enjoy some great seasons when healthy so who knows what the criteria is.

L.Kizzle

11-10-2020, 12:15 AM

As I said before, considering the teams they were playing for, I dont know why you're bringing wins into it. 96 and 97 Drexler isnt avg 50 games on the Kings nor is Mitch those years winning 37 with the Rockets. If you want to say Drexler those years was better because he just was, whatever..... but wins avg is a non-point in this instance.
I liked Mitch growing up maybe he just had bad luck.
After he gets traded from Warriors to Kings, Warriors win 55 games.
After he get traded from Kings to Wizards, Kings make the playoffs with Webber.

Drexler was just a more complete player. He never missed the playoffs in his 15 year career while Richmond missed the playoffs 10 times in his 14 year career. That's just something you have to look at.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 12:56 AM

I liked Mitch growing up maybe he just had bad luck.
After he gets traded from Warriors to Kings, Warriors win 55 games.
After he get traded from Kings to Wizards, Kings make the playoffs with Webber.

Drexler was just a more complete player. He never missed the playoffs in his 15 year career while Richmond missed the playoffs 10 times in his 14 year career. That's just something you have to look at.

On the flipside the Warriors won 20 games the year before he joined, then went up to 43 his rookie year. I was young when Mitch came into the league so I won't speak with authority how much impact he had as a rookie, but it should be noted that the team record did jump when he came in if you're going to note that it improved when he left.

I agree Drexler overall was the more complete player. Mostly I'm saying I don't think there was some drastic difference especially as the 90s wore on and Drexler left his prime while Mitch entered his. We never saw him in his prime on a team that had much chance to be competitive. The Kings were a far cry from the Blazer and Rockets rosters that Clyde had to work with. That needs to be factored in when talking about team success as a means of distinguishing the two.

L.Kizzle

11-10-2020, 01:15 AM

On the flipside the Warriors won 20 games the year before he joined, then went up to 43 his rookie year. I was young when Mitch came into the league so I won't speak with authority how much impact he had as a rookie, but it should be noted that the team record did jump when he came in if you're going to note that it improved when he left.

I agree Drexler overall was the more complete player. Mostly I'm saying I don't think there was some drastic difference especially as the 90s wore on and Drexler left his prime while Mitch entered his. We never saw him in his prime on a team that had much chance to be competitive. The Kings were a far cry from the Blazer and Rockets rosters that Clyde had to work with. That needs to be factored in when talking about team success as a means of distinguishing the two.
If that's the case EVERYONE in the 90s had a better team than Mitch. Of all the 90s All-Star guards/wings, he has the worst teams. So than how do you decide who's better out of:

Mitch vs
Drexler
Jordan
Miller
Dinars
Mullin
Hardaway (Tim and Penny)
Payton
Hill
Glen Rice
Sprewell
Kevin Johnson
Price
Pippen
Kidd
Eddie Jones
Starks
Nique
Terrell Brandon
Steve Smith

houston

11-10-2020, 02:27 AM

Mitch Richmond is underrated. He better than Reggie Miller and Dumars. He also better than Ray Allen.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 03:14 AM

If that's the case EVERYONE in the 90s had a better team than Mitch. Of all the 90s All-Star guards/wings, he has the worst teams. So than how do you decide who's better out of:

Mitch vs
Drexler
Jordan
Miller
Dinars
Mullin
Hardaway (Tim and Penny)
Payton
Hill
Glen Rice
Sprewell
Kevin Johnson
Price
Pippen
Kidd
Eddie Jones
Starks
Nique
Terrell Brandon
Steve Smith

You seem like a good enough poster to be able to isolate how good a player is from how good his team is around him.

Question is how many SGs in his place do better? MJ obviously. Early 90s Drexler? Sure. Reggie? I don't think so. Eddie Jones? Nope. What's John Starks doing as the man on the Kings? Jackshit, so him winning 50 games on the Knicks playing behind Ewing means nothing. Give Mitch Anthony Mason and Divac in 97, I'm reasonably confident the team isn't worse than it was with Rice. Sprewell? One All-NBA nod compared to Mitch who got picked 5 times and they were basically in their primes in the same time window. The Warriors were finishing behind the Kings at the bottom of the Pacific with no less talent( I would argue Golden State had a slightly better roster in the mid 90s if anything).

You think Mitch wouldnt be winning 50 games a year with the Knicks? You don't think Mitch as the Lakers shooting guard in 97 with Shaq, Van Exel and co. isn't winning tons of games? Come on dude, you're name dropping alot of guys there that Mitch was clearly individually better than, and boiling it down to team record is really simplistic when alot of those players played with better talent and you know that.

light

11-10-2020, 03:19 AM

Of course he was a boss. There was something about Mitch Richmond that made you respect him - a quiet strength - and even the look on his face had some sort of influence on you.

He was cool. It was cool to say you liked him.

And Run-TMC was definitely the coolest Big Three in the land when he was still on Golden State.

L.Kizzle

11-10-2020, 05:32 AM

You seem like a good enough poster to be able to isolate how good a player is from how good his team is around him.

Question is how many SGs in his place do better? MJ obviously. Early 90s Drexler? Sure. Reggie? I don't think so. Eddie Jones? Nope. What's John Starks doing as the man on the Kings? Jackshit, so him winning 50 games on the Knicks playing behind Ewing means nothing. Give Mitch Anthony Mason and Divac in 97, I'm reasonably confident the team isn't worse than it was with Rice. Sprewell? One All-NBA nod compared to Mitch who got picked 5 times and they were basically in their primes in the same time window. The Warriors were finishing behind the Kings at the bottom of the Pacific with no less talent( I would argue Golden State had a slightly better roster in the mid 90s if anything).

You think Mitch wouldnt be winning 50 games a year with the Knicks? You don't think Mitch as the Lakers shooting guard in 97 with Shaq, Van Exel and co. isn't winning tons of games? Come on dude, you're name dropping alot of guys there that Mitch was clearly individually better than, and boiling it down to team record is really simplistic when alot of those players played with better talent and you know that.
Trust me I think Mitch was better than a majority of the guys I just listed. But his win-loss total can't go without mention.
I don't think Smitty is a better player than Mitch (mad underrated 90s player tho) but Steve was in the playoffs damn near every year. It's just something that happened.
The same people that mention Rocks lack of playoff appearances are the same that would mention T Mac not getting out the first round. Or CP3 not getting past the second round, ect.

L.Kizzle

11-10-2020, 05:52 AM

To he fair, a player like Adrian Dantley did just as bad a Mitch in the winning department until he joined the Pistons.

The only difference with AD/Rock is AD was winning scoring titles on his bad teams lol. But those early 80s Jazz teams were equally as bad as Mitchs Sac years in the 90s.

RoundMoundOfReb

11-10-2020, 08:25 AM

One of those guys - like Chris Mullin - who was money on long twos and suffered from the stigma against 3 pointers (and slow pacing) in his era. A guy you picture pump faking a three and stepping in for the "easier shot" like they used to say. He shot a pretty high volume for his time, but put him in this NBA and he's chucking 10 a game probably. Mullin too.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 08:55 AM

Trust me I think Mitch was better than a majority of the guys I just listed. But his win-loss total can't go without mention.
I don't think Smitty is a better player than Mitch (mad underrated 90s player tho) but Steve was in the playoffs damn near every year. It's just something that happened.
The same people that mention Rocks lack of playoff appearances are the same that would mention T Mac not getting out the first round. Or CP3 not getting past the second round, ect.

It can be mentioned but any argument like that requires context. If we're just looking at the team records of the best 90s SGs then yeah Mitch comes out near the bottom, but if we agree he's better than most guys on that list then clearly other factors are involved beyond how good he is at the game of basketball. You give Mitch Mutumbo, Laettner and Blaylock, then put Steve Smith on the Kings. Wouldn't be pretty for the latter.

Reggie43

11-10-2020, 09:25 AM

Richmond was good but you cant say he was clearly better than his peers unlike obviously Jordan or Drexler.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 11:46 AM

Richmond was good but you cant say he was clearly better than his peers unlike obviously Jordan or Drexler.

That's not specific to him though. Very often there's a couple of standouts at every position, the cream at the top, and then alot of guys who may roughly be at or near the same level. Wait till L. Dizzles shooting guard vote pops up, after MJ, Kobe, West and Wade without question make the top 4 you're gonna want a barrel of popcorn and a 6pack ready.

Smoke117

11-10-2020, 01:16 PM

That's not specific to him though. Very often there's a couple of standouts at every position, the cream at the top, and then alot of guys who may roughly be at or near the same level. Wait till L. Dizzles shooting guard vote pops up, after MJ, Kobe, West and Wade without question make the top 4 you're gonna want a barrel of popcorn and a 6pack ready.

Not really. Guys like Drexler, Harden, and Allen are all clearly greater all time. Then you got the Reggies, Iversons, Tmacs, and Vinces if you consider him a sg. There’s a good possibility Richmond isn’t even top 10.

nightlight

11-10-2020, 01:29 PM

This Phoenix guy posts a lot but doesn't really say anything. Thinks he's freshening up this debate with context nobody else considered. Mitch Richmond played on bad teams. :roll:

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 01:31 PM

Not really. Guys like Drexler, Harden, and Allen are all clearly greater all time. Then you got the Reggies, Iversons, Tmacs, and Vinces if you consider him a sg. There’s a good possibility Richmond isn’t even top 10.

My comment wasn't suggesting Richmond belongs in the top 10. I was saying there's basically an undisputed top 4 ( Jordan, Kobe, Wade, and West) and after that there's probably 7 or 8 guys who could legitimately vie for spots 5 through 10. Same with the SF position. You got a clear cut case of guys like Lebron, Bird, Dr.J and Durant then a handful of guys who have decent cases to be 5th and so forth. Every position basically has 3 or 4 guys who clear cut stand out above the rest.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 01:35 PM

This Phoenix guy posts a lot but doesn't really say anything. Thinks he's freshening up this debate with context nobody else considered. Mitch Richmond played on bad teams. :roll:

Firstly who are you again? I don't recall you saying anything ever of note. Secondly, if people are trying to drop Richmond down a peg because of his lack of team success then yes, the context that he did play on alot of bad teams is a point that needs to be raised. If that context was evident in some of the arguments I'm seeing then I wouldn't have to state the obvious. Now you can go back under whatever rock you came from.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-10-2020, 07:04 PM

From '92-98, Mitch averaged 23ppg on 45/40/85 splits. Guy was a sniper who could BOTH play off the ball and create his own shot.

They called him the "The Rock" because he was a BULL in the post, and moved dudes twice his size. Its been talked about ad nauseam, but his teams WERE trash. If you isolate impact though, per position, he was always tops among the league.

~Top 10 in OBPM, All-NBA 2nd Team in '94 and '95, 3rd Team in '96, 2nd Team in '97, and 3rd Team in '98. So for TWO guards, and after Mike, Mitch was definitely in contention for next best.

He never made an All-Def team altho he was really good on that end too. Great all-around player and better than Glide post '95.

Phoenix

11-10-2020, 07:35 PM