Mitch Richmond Vs. Reggie Miller [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

EuJazz

08-30-2007, 01:31 PM

[QUOTE][Why? He's just better. Common knowledge.
/QUOTE]

Common trend, not common knowledge...Mitch Richmond IS the better all around player, hopefully this thread will educate certain people.

It's not his fault he played for Golden State & Sacramento his entire career and made the playoffs 3 times through out his career. What exactly made Miller better? Outside of his clutch ability, nothing really.

Why didn't you make the thread "Mitch Richmond is better than Reggie Miller, and I'm going to make you people realize that" instead of asking who is better. Seems odd.

And I already told you, Reggie Miller is better.

I closed the thread before, but I'll do it again, thanks to my stellar argument.

/thread.

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 01:33 PM

Why is Reggie Miller better, explain.

EuJazz

08-30-2007, 01:35 PM

Why is Reggie Miller better, explain.

http://spyhunter007.com/Images/reggie_miller_playoffs.jpg

Dizzle-2k7

08-30-2007, 01:36 PM

Reggie was better on defense too.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:36 PM

It's not his fault he played for Golden State & Sacramento his entire career and made the playoffs 3 times through out his career. What exactly made Miller better? Outside of his clutch ability, nothing really.

Yeah... he only made the playoffs 3 times.

So, he wasn't even really a very good regular season player.

Miller used to make the playoffs every year and usually won at least one series each time. His best teammates were Chuck Person, Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Jalen Rose, and finally Jermaine O'Neal/Ron Artest.

I'd say Reggie had a lot to do with getting the Pacers in and advancing them throughout his career. He's the type of player that makes a team successful by being there and it showed.

Mitch Richmond makes Mitch Richmond successful and it shows.

Myth

08-30-2007, 01:37 PM

His leadership and his ability to take it to the next level when necessary.

Edit: That was for Reggie even though to most that should be obvious.

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 01:41 PM

So, he wasn't even really a very good regular season player.

Are you suggesting that Richmond had the same level of talent around him as Miller?

Reggie was better on defense too.

Not really, why do you say that? Miller was never known for his defense.

His leadership and his ability to take it to the next level when necessary.

I agree, Miller was the better leader and was obviously more clutch...but I think Richmond was the better play maker and a more effecient rebounder. Mitch's shooting ability is often overlooked...he was a terrific shooter from any where on the court.

L.Kizzle

08-30-2007, 01:41 PM

Two totally different types of shooting guards who always took a backseat to MJ and Clyde.

Mitch played in 6 NBA All-Star games and made 5 All-NBA teams includinf (I believe 3 2nd teams). Reggie played in 5 All-Star games and made 3 All-NBA 3rd teams. Reggie was great throughout his years as you can tell by how spread out his All-Star appearances were. His first was in 90 and his last was in 2000. Mitch made his All-Star appearances one after another form 1993 to 1998.

The better talent is of course Mitch Richmond, he could do things of the court that Reggie couldn't. But who is the greater player, probally Reggie Miller, for his longer career, clutchness and playoff sucess.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:43 PM

Are you suggesting that Richmond had the same level of talent around him as Miller?

How much talent does one need to make the playoffs in a league where almost half of the teams make the postseason? (more than half in some of their years)

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 01:43 PM

The better talent is of course Mitch Richmond, he could do things of the court that Reggie couldn't. But who is the greater player, probally Reggie Miller, for his longer career, clutchness and playoff sucess.

I can't disagree with that statement, I'm glad someone recognizes how terrific of a player Mitch was...hardly ever gets mentioned.

How much talent does one need to make the playoffs in a league where almost half of the teams make the postseason?

Ask Dominique Wilkins...he played on Sacramento & Golden State, you can picture the rest.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:44 PM

more effecient rebounder

This doesn't matter at all.

Get real.

EuJazz

08-30-2007, 01:45 PM

Not really, why do you say that? Miller was never known for his defense.

I agree, Miller was the better leader and was obviously more clutch...but I think Richmond was the better play maker and a more effecient rebounder. Mitch's shooting ability is often overlooked...he was a terrific shooter from any where on the court.

So if Miller was never known for defense, and he's better than Richmond, what does that say about Mitch Richmond's D?

So Richmond drove better and rebounded better (in the regular season)?
You're going to argue Mitch Richmond's SHOOTING ability against Reggie Miller? That's a terrible approach.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:45 PM

Ask Dominique Wilkins...

Didn't Wilkins score 50 + points in a playoff game against one of the best teams in NBA history while that team's best player was having one of the best games of his career?

What is your point?

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 01:49 PM

You're going to argue Mitch Richmond's SHOOTING ability against Reggie Miller?

Are you implying that Miller's shooting is far superior? I'll give him the edge, but he's hardly the superior shooter.

What is your point?

As great of a player Wilkins was he still had very little playoff success, you need talent to win games period...Richmond played for bottom feeders his entire career, I'm glad he won a ring with LA.

Myth

08-30-2007, 01:51 PM

I can't disagree with that statement, I'm glad someone recognizes how terrific of a player Mitch was...hardly ever gets mentioned.

Despite everything said, I really did like Mitch and I agree he doesn't get much recognition. Much of that is because the playoffs is where legends are born.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:57 PM

As great of a player Wilkins was he still had very little playoff success

But he had some. And he played well in the playoffs.

Mitch never really played well in the playoffs...

Partly because he never got his teams into the playoffs. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

If you have ZERO playoff significance... you have much less overall significance.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 01:58 PM

I believe Richmond had just had a stellar offensive year with the Kings before he got traded for CWebb.

Then CWebb.. makes Sacramento a perennial contender.

:confusedshrug:

dejordan

08-30-2007, 01:58 PM

i think kizzle nailed it.

reggie is an odd player to look at because he was very effective in the team game and really a sort of average 1 on 1 player for the nba. so when you look at his style sometimes you feel like he wasn't that talented and needed great picks and timely passes to excel in the league. but if you step back and consider his ability to play without the ball, his excellent movement and tireless wearing down of his opponents, his ridiculously quick release, and his clutch shot making, you start to see that even though his 1 on 1 skills weren't the best, he was one of the most effective players ever at the position.

i don't see how reggie's defense was superior to mitch's. someone could enlighten me on that one. neither was that great at staying in front of serious athletes and mitch was stronger in the post.

i just ran their head to heads and they are pretty even with mitch taking advantage of rookie miller and miller taking advantage of aging mitch. the pacers won more often, but they were always a significantly superior team to the kings and wizards.

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 01:59 PM

What are you even talking about? Do you honestly even know who Mitch Richmond was, have you seen him play?

20 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 3.0 APG on 48% shooting was his playoff stats.

Mitch never really played well in the playoffs...

Yeah you nailed that one.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 02:00 PM

20 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 3.0 APG on 48% shooting was his playoff stats.

Wow, that's freaking amazing!

I've never seen playoff stats so.... amazing.

Try making a good point next time, dumbace.

BTW, how many games?

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 02:02 PM

Miller's playoff stats:

20.6 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.5 APG on 45% shooting...

I've never seen playoff stats so.... amazing.

By your standard Miller was even worse?

Try making a good point next time, dumbace

Take your own advice next time, how exactly did Mitch "not" play well in the post-season?

Optimus Prime

08-30-2007, 02:03 PM

Someone is actually trying to say Mitch Richmond is the better player than Reggie Miller? Wow.

Mitch was a cool player and all, no doubt, but Reggie defines clutch and might as well be called Mr. Playoffs. How often was Reggie NOT in the playoffs?

Besides, isn't Reggie one of the most accurate 3 point shooters in NBA history? What is Mitch? :confusedshrug:

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 02:05 PM

Besides, isn't Reggie one of the most accurate 3 point shooters in NBA history? What is Mitch?

I believe Mitch is a career .388 3 point shooter...Miller is a .395 career 3 point shooter.

Optimus Prime

08-30-2007, 02:06 PM

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 02:07 PM

By your standard Miller was even worse?

You were the one trying to claim the stats were good.

My standard is not amazing stats, it's amazing PLAY.

Watch some basketball.

Find me all the famous Richmond playoff highlights.

Like when Shaq handed him his Championship ring and said... "To the best assistant coach we have....Mitch Richmond"

dejordan

08-30-2007, 02:10 PM

Over how many games? Out of how many attempts? Mitch being like .007 less accurate that Reggie isn't very impressive if he shot 5000 less shots.

Seems like you're only telling half of the story in your arguments...
here's the player comparison through age 36 (didn't want to drag down any of reggie's averages or boost his totals too much by adding the extra 3 years)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&***=1&p1=richmmi01&y1=2002&p2=millere01&y2=2002

Darkess

08-30-2007, 02:10 PM

Wow, some people really love to hang onto stats until death

Optimus Prime

08-30-2007, 02:11 PM

Wow. According to that link, Reggie shot substantially more shots than Mitch...

here's the player comparison through age 36 (didn't want to drag down any of reggie's averages or boost his totals too much by adding the extra 3 years)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&***=1&p1=richmmi01&y1=2002&p2=millere01&y2=2002

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 02:14 PM

Over how many games? Out of how many attempts?

Mitch took 3417 3 point shot in 976 games
Reggie took 6486 3 point shots in 1389 games

Miller of course took a lot more shots, he also played more games...but Mitch was known as a prolific 3 point shooter through out his career.

My standard is not amazing stats, it's amazing PLAY.

I don't think you seen many of Mitch's games, he was the better all around player...I don't disagree that Miller had more playoff success, he was more clutch and probably more of a leader.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 02:16 PM

I don't think you seen many of Mitch's games,

Oh, yeah.. like that time he lit up the Clippers.

They show his stuff on ESPN Classic practically every day.

He's Mitch Richmond, f*ck Ryan out loud.

Glove_20

08-30-2007, 02:16 PM

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 02:17 PM

he was the better all around player

So, you prove this by showing stats that aren't impressive?

I would think a better "all-around" player would help his team win more.

dejordan

08-30-2007, 02:20 PM

Richmond is better at all aspects of the their individual's game except shooting. And shooting is PART of scoring (Which Richmond has the edge in)

Richmond > Miller. Richmond also has had more award accomplishments I believe.
he wasn't better at moving without the ball, wearing out his opponents, or delivering daggers in the clutch.

quick note - the two of them were crucial to the success of team usa in 1996 as the designated floor spacers. that team's only real plays were get it to shaq / hakeem, kick out to penny / pip / hill for quick drive and dish to either sideline for the auto-three by mitch and reggie. if they missed charles and karl would take it off the glass and kick it back to start the whole process over. fun team to watch.

Loki

08-30-2007, 02:38 PM

Reggie was better on defense too.

You've got to be kidding...

LAZYBOY

08-30-2007, 02:45 PM

Richmond is better at all aspects of the their individual's game except shooting. And shooting is PART of scoring (Which Richmond has the edge in)

Richmond > Miller. Richmond also has had more award accomplishments I believe.

Finally, somebody who actually watched Richmond play before talking about him.

Hands down Richmond was better it's really not even a debate. The only thing I'll give Miller is being a clutch shooter.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 02:54 PM

I don't know about this Miller being a better defender stuff... they both couldn't cover "Happy Birthday"

However...

Miller CLEARLY gets more Papoose Points.

Da KO King

08-30-2007, 03:26 PM

Mitch Richmond is easily the better player. Reggie had far more postseason success. On this board playoff success is the be all end all.

ReturnOfJimi

08-30-2007, 03:28 PM

On this board playoff success is the be all end all.

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Showtime

08-30-2007, 03:42 PM

I believe Richmond had just had a stellar offensive year with the Kings before he got traded for CWebb.

Then CWebb.. makes Sacramento a perennial contender.

:confusedshrug:
First of all, it was a series of good moves that got talent in sactown that made them contenders. Don't act like the exit of Mitch and arrival of Webber was the only thing that got them where they were. They had one of the most talented rosters, and Mitch never got the chance to play with a team like that during his prime.

Also, Richmond was on the same level of shooting that Miller was. Reggie is better, because he had to be since his game was more perimeter oriented than Mitch's, but he isn't on a whole other level. Most won't agree, just on the basis of Miller's clutch playoff performances. Mitch was physically a beast of a 2 guard, and he was able to post up defenders as well as get to the basket. Miller relied more on his shooting ability to put up points. Mitch had the overall game, and MJ said Mitch was the hardest guy to guard, because he could score on a defender in a variety of ways.

IMO, Mitch the better individual player, and Miller's "greatness" will always be there to put him over Mitch in most people's minds. With that being said, Reggie had Smits, Davis, Mullin, Rose, Jackson, etc.

Who were the best that Richmond had on the Kings? Lionel Simmons, Wayman Tisdale, Olden Polynice, and Corliss Williamson.

You forget that the Pacers were mediocre in Reggie's early career, and they didn't even win a first round series in his first 6 seasons with the team. I'm not saying Mitch Richmond could do much better in his place, but I know he wouldn't be much worse either.

Jakez On Point11

08-30-2007, 03:51 PM

Just look at how many more people know Reggie than Mitch. Obvious question.

loot

08-30-2007, 04:25 PM

i think MJ named mitch as one of the thoughest players he went up against.

Michael Jordan said Richmond was one of the hardest players to defend in the NBA. "There really are no weaknesses in his game," said Jordan. "He can drive to the hoop as well as take the outside jump shot. He reminds me a lot of me in his overall offensive display."

loot

08-30-2007, 04:28 PM

Just look at how many more people know Reggie than Mitch. Obvious question.

Yeah and Britney Spears is a better singer than Billie Holiday was.

Force

08-30-2007, 04:50 PM

Only 7 players in the HISTORY of the NBA ever averaged at least 21 points in their first 10 seasons in the NBA. Mitch of one of them...

Mitch was unstoppable when he the ball and posted up...just unstoppable... he wasn't just a guy who could shoot a jumper..you should hear how Micheal Jordan used to talk about Mitch...always ones of the harder guys Jordan played against and MJ's always really really thought highly of his game.

Yeah he didn't do much to win a ring in Los Angeles, but he taught Kobe a lot.... he was Kobes main partner in practice and Kobe used to talk about how much he learned from him... When the Lakers won the title that year, I loved it when Mitch got to play in the final seconds and hit a sweet 20 foot fadeaway in garbage time...then he tripped while backpedaling to go back on defense, LOL. BTW, Shaq had to beg Phil Jackson in the final timeout of that game to convince him to insert Mitch Richmond into the game. I thought that was cool because Mitch had so much respect from the best players in the game.

While Reggie had the better career and will likely get into the HOF much easier than Mitch...Mitch was without much of a doubt, the better player of the two.

Los Angeles

08-30-2007, 05:18 PM

:cheers: Good to see that people haven't forgotten about the man!!

White Chocolate

08-30-2007, 05:30 PM

When you play on a team where Chris Mullin plays no more than 65 games and Tim Hardaway is the only other option, your team is not going to be that great. The Kings were no different. Mitch was the better overall player, but Reggie had better teammates and was more clutch and had more team success.

Uchiha_Hai

08-30-2007, 08:18 PM

Mitch was better as a player but I would take Reggie over him any day.

Da KO King

08-30-2007, 08:40 PM

Jimi don't applaud my comment. I didn't mean it in a complimentary way.

I think people like you who ignore the obvious solely because one guy was on a better team than another are foolish. Blatant difference in skill-set/skill level shouldn't be negated because one guy played in June while the other guy didn't.

loot

08-31-2007, 08:04 AM

mitch played on the kings.

the kings people. who'se biggest names were brian grant, hurley, williamson, polynice, simmons, owens and tyus edney

disco

08-31-2007, 08:35 AM

If you say Reggie was better defender than Richmond you simply haven't seen enough games from these two to voice your opinion.

disco

08-31-2007, 08:38 AM

mitch played on the kings.

the kings people. who'se biggest names were brian grant, hurley, williamson, polynice, simmons, owens and tyus edney

Don't forget The Wizard.

08-31-2007, 09:50 AM

Have Miller and Richmond swap places.

All of a sudden Miller never makes an allstar team and Richmond is thought of in the same breath as Drexler.

Mitch Richmond is a far better player than Miller. All Miller did was hit shots off multiple screens at the highest level. He couldn't guard anyone, was a dirty bastard, and didn't bring much to a team except for shooting and flopping.

Indiana always had far better constructed teams. Over the course of Miller's career he played with Detlef Schrempf, Rik Smits, Mark Jackson, Derreck McKey, Dale Davis, Antonio Davis, Chuck Person, Micheal Williams, Jalen Rose, Jermaine O'Neal, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Al Harrington, Jamaal Tinsley and Stephen Jackson. A very nice supporting cast at all times. Good defenders and role players generally.

Richmond had what? Brian Grant for a year or too. Wayman Tisdale who couldn't guard anyone. Tim Hardaway i nhs first two years along with prime Chris Mullin (they made the playoffs the 2nd year of TMC). Then all he really had was Walt Williams, Lionel Simmons and Spud Webb. Talk about crap teams.

ReturnOfJimi

08-31-2007, 05:24 PM

Richmond had what? Brian Grant for a year or too. Wayman Tisdale who couldn't guard anyone. Tim Hardaway i nhs first two years along with prime Chris Mullin (they made the playoffs the 2nd year of TMC). Then all he really had was Walt Williams, Lionel Simmons and Spud Webb. Talk about crap teams.

Yeah... but...

Guys like Trenton Hassell and Derek Fisher are BUMS until they play with Shaq or KG.

So, maybe if Mitch was a true superstar, he'd have made Lionel Simmons and Walt Williams look more like.... Dale Davis and... Derrick McKey (on the absolute tail end of his career) Michael Williams (hey, I had his Skybox card, too, but he was average)

Jamaal Tinsley

C'mon Ced... Jamaal Tinsley is a bum. Not worth noting, here. I'd take the late Mahmoud Abdul Rauf that Mitch played with over him.

XxNeXuSxX

08-31-2007, 05:25 PM

If you say Reggie was better defender than Richmond you simply haven't seen enough games from these two to voice your opinion.
This is true, sadly enough.

ReturnOfJimi

08-31-2007, 05:27 PM

Jimi don't applaud my comment. I didn't mean it in a complimentary way.

I was applauding your comment because..

A) it's true

and

B) it's how it should be

and

C) it's how I like it

Mitch Richmond over Reggie Miller... what a joke.

I remember this one time in a playoff game when Mitch Richmond....

:sleeping

EDIT : I remember this one time in a regular season game when Mitch Richmond....

:sleeping

ReturnOfJimi

08-31-2007, 05:32 PM

Didn't Mitch Richmond get traded for fellow legendary superstar Billy Owens?

Honestly, guys... why would the Kings and Warriors both trade this guy rather than build around him?

If he's so good?

The Kings know that they're coming up on some cash soon to build their team.. some good draft picks, etc...

So, they get rid of Mitch to bring in CWebb.

I don't think...

Either guy will ever be in the HOF.

But Reggie will.

baseketball4life

08-31-2007, 05:37 PM

Who's the better player and why?
For me it's Mitch Richmond...one of the most underrated NBA players of all-time.
easily reggie miller... wtf... lmao at this thread:hammerhead:

Darius

08-31-2007, 06:03 PM

LMAO

Los Angeles is taking "ReturnofJimi" out behind the woodshed in this thread.

Especially ironic since he is on the wrong side of the argument.

ReturnOfJimi

08-31-2007, 06:50 PM

LMAO

Los Angeles is taking "ReturnofJimi" out behind the woodshed in this thread.

Especially ironic since he is on the wrong side of the argument.

Why, because I believe that a player who only played on two or three good teams in his career doesn't compare to a guy the Pacers would NEVER trade for him in a million years?

ReturnOfJimi

08-31-2007, 06:51 PM

Basketball is one of the few team sports where one guy can elevate a team that is pretty bad.

At least for a year or two in his career.

At least.

Showtime

08-31-2007, 07:17 PM

Yeah... but...

Guys like Trenton Hassell and Derek Fisher are BUMS until they play with Shaq or KG.

So, maybe if Mitch was a true superstar, he'd have made Lionel Simmons and Walt Williams look more like.... Dale Davis and... Derrick McKey (on the absolute tail end of his career) Michael Williams (hey, I had his Skybox card, too, but he was average)

First off, nobody said Mitch was a "superstar". Reggie isn't either.

So you are saying that Reggie Miller is responsible for making his teammates play better, like Shaq was to the guys on the Lakers? Are you serious? Instead of arguing that point, how about looking at Reggie's first 6 years with the franchise, where the team was mediocre and never won a first round series. Yeah, Reggie made everybody better alright. :hammerhead:

Mitch Richmond over Reggie Miller... what a joke.

I remember this one time in a playoff game when Mitch Richmond....:sleeping

LOL that's funny, but again, if Mitch had played with the talent that Reggie had played with, would we even be discussing this?

idn't Mitch Richmond get traded for fellow legendary superstar Billy Owens?

Honestly, guys... why would the Kings and Warriors both trade this guy rather than build around him?

If he's so good?

Nelly said getting rid of Mitch was one of the biggest mistakes the warriors made. Also, why would the kings, a franchise with new ownership and dealing with a team that had so many losing seasons, build around a 33 year old that was about to start the downside of his career? Do you know of any GM, in that position, that would build a team around an aging Richmond instead of dealing for Webber? Name one, besides Ainge and McFail.

The Kings know that they're coming up on some cash soon to build their team.. some good draft picks, etc...

So, they get rid of Mitch to bring in CWebb.

Exactly, which was the smart move for the franchise. It's not a knock on what Mitch was. Shaq was traded, so I guess he's no good. KG was traded, but hey, KG sucks, right?

RainierBeachPoet

08-31-2007, 07:37 PM

Who's the better player and why?
For me it's Mitch Richmond...one of the most underrated NBA players of all-time.

i first noticed mitch richmond when he was playing for k-state in the late 80s. they guy was awesome from day one-- ROY and then a 20+ ppg guy for the next 11 years

reggie gets more props because he had more high profile games and played with much better teams than mitch. no question that reggie's legend rightfully grew with all the clutch shots he made and his famous series with the knicks where miller was the guy with the dagger

but if you had seen mitch, you would give him his proper respect. he was simply awesome

from my memory, he was a much more rounded player than reggie and a better defender. the thing i liked about richmond was that he could score in a variety of ways and was as strong as a bull if he wanted to post taller players

if the original question is simply who the better player was, i must say mitch

no doubt that reggie was the more legendary player though

Los Angeles

08-31-2007, 08:22 PM

o, maybe if Mitch was a true superstar, he'd have made Lionel Simmons and Walt Williams look more like.... Dale Davis and...

You're talking about teammates, why again?
I thought you would bring something valid in favor of Reggie Miller, you know the guy who's clearly a less superior play maker then Mitch, and that's one of the main ingredients to improving your team mates play.
Miller brought two things to a team, his ability to shoot the ball, his ability to break a team in the 4th...he was a terrific without the ball player. He never had the offensive arsenal that Mitch Richmond had, wasn't the better play maker or rebounder...could not guard players as well as Mitch could, he was physically unable to really contain a low post scorer.

If their career's were reversed, I'm almost positive Mitch would be right behind Clyde.

jazz12

08-31-2007, 08:40 PM

Reggie Miller is one of, if not THE most overrated player of all time. He was a scorer and he never was even a dominant scorer! Boy those jump shots were good. If he didn't play for 50 years he wouldn't have half the reputation he has. The guy made some big shots in the playoffs but ultimately how big were they if the Pacers never won a single championship in his 50 year career? But he's such a swell guy...

Mitch was a better individual player, Reggie had the better postseason career because he played on a good team.

Richmond is one of only seven players in NBA history to average at least 21 points per game for his first 10 seasons

disco

08-31-2007, 08:40 PM

Didn't Mitch Richmond get traded for fellow legendary superstar Billy Owens?

.

No, he was traded for a very promising nba prospect Billy Owens, who had just been picked as no 3.

G-train

08-31-2007, 09:33 PM

Mitch easily. One of the top players of the nineties

EricForman

09-01-2007, 12:19 PM

richmond better basketball player. miller better career.

if both played one on one in their prime, richmond would kill reggie 99 times out of 100. but if you were to rank them on the all time list, reggie is like 20-30 spots at least above richmond.

ReturnOfJimi

09-01-2007, 01:22 PM

if both played one on one in their prime

This is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Basketball... if anyone didn't notice... is NOT a one on one sport like you guys think it is.

Showtime

09-01-2007, 02:04 PM

This is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Basketball... if anyone didn't notice... is NOT a one on one sport like you guys think it is.
Right, but we are talking about individual talent. You can't say that is totally irrelevant. Reggie was the better ball player, just because his team won more? There are more factors in this argument, and although Reggie had better teams and did things in the playoffs Mitch never did, that doesn't mean that Reggie was the better player. Reggie = "greater" player, Mitch = more skilled player. If I had to choose just 1 guy to be on my team, Mitch would be it.

ukplayer4

09-01-2007, 02:27 PM

this is such a typical thread for this board these days, with people who know nothing about the players they are talking about throwing around statements like "reggie was a better deffender than mitch" which is just plain wrong.
as some of the people on here who have actually seen richmond play have said.... reggie will be remebered for longer, he had the better career and hes hit some of the alltime great shots in playoff history. i love reggie, but mitch richmond was just plain better at pretty much every aspect of the game to be honest, shooting is comparable but mitch was the better athlete/slasher/scorer/rebounder/deffender/passer.....it goes on.

Samurai Swoosh

09-01-2007, 02:30 PM

Mitch Richmond could do more than Reggie could, in terms of offensive production. He could get to the basket and he could hit jumpers like money.

Round Robin

09-01-2007, 02:31 PM

Who's the better player and why?
For me it's Mitch Richmond...one of the most underrated NBA players of all-time.

I loved Mitch Richmond and remember him on Golden State with Hardaway and Mullin (Run TMC) but Miller is just more proven, especially in the playoffs.

Richmond has the edge in some areas but Miller is a clutch player, a leader, and he lead teams deep into the playoffs on different occasions.

EricForman

09-01-2007, 03:08 PM

This is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Basketball... if anyone didn't notice... is NOT a one on one sport like you guys think it is.

returnofjimi... stop acting like an arrogant jackass like you have on this thread. neither richmond or reggie are that much above each other, someone can make a strong case for BOTH. Only condescending jackasses would talk like someone is dumb for having a different opinion on a case as arguable as this.

Samurai Swoosh

09-01-2007, 03:10 PM

But I'm bias, cause me and Richmond share something ver close in common.

Round Robin

09-01-2007, 03:26 PM

I loved Mitch Richmond and remember him on Golden State with Hardaway and Mullin (Run TMC) but Miller is just more proven, especially in the playoffs.

Richmond has the edge in some areas but Miller is a clutch player, a leader, and he lead teams deep into the playoffs on different occasions.

After reading some people's comments maybe I should rephrase my stance a little bit...

I get the sense that this argument is being broken down into who is the better player as far as ABILITY goes and who is superior as far as overall SUCCESS goes.

Richmond is just one of those athletes who got some bad breaks because he wasn't blessed with playing on a great team. Everyone was accustomed to seeing Miller in the playoffs because he was always part of a solid core. Miller got attention for the things he did in the playoffs while with Richmond it was news if he simply made the Playoffs.

95-96 was a year where Richmond started getting some just deserved attention, as the Kings made it to the playoffs for the first time in years. I remember guys like Jimmy Jackson, who was early into his career and establishing himself as a player with a lot of promise, saying that Richmond was one of the hardest guards to defend because of his strength and versatility. I almost got the sense that the players themselves realized Mitch wasn't getting his proper respect because when asked about the top opposing guards to play against you could almost hear them say 'Don't forget about Richmond'

It's a bit like Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith. Yes, Smith was more proven in the playoffs and has the rings as proof, but he was fortunate to play on several great teams while Barry was forced to create his offense on much weaker teams. Despite Smith's rings and playoff appearances, I don't think too many will deny just how special Sanders really was.

So basically I feel that Miller was more fortunate to play on a lot of better teams year in year out than Richmond, but Miller also took full advantage of the situation by proving himself as a clutch player who brought his best game when it mattered most. With Richmond we can only speculate how his career would have went had things been different.

Richmond racked up great numbers during the regular season and overall i feel he was very underrated but Miller stands out more to a lot of people for performing at an elite level when all the chips where on the table.

It's like Apples and Oranges, which do you prefer?

Kblaze8855

09-01-2007, 03:55 PM

Mitch was simply better. The only thing Reggie did at an especially high level is someting Mitch was also top 5 or 6 in the league in. Sure Reggie was clutch but Mitch was a far better man to man defender(though off the ball reggie was underrated as a defender). Mitch was a better slasher. A better midrange player. A better go to scorer in general. A better playmaker. Mitch was the truth. Reggie at his peak wasnt really a better total player than Michael Finley at his.

ReturnOfJimi

09-01-2007, 04:34 PM

t's a bit like Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith. Yes, Smith was more proven in the playoffs and has the rings as proof, but he was fortunate to play on several great teams while Barry was forced to create his offense on much weaker teams. Despite Smith's rings and playoff appearances, I don't think too many will deny just how special Sanders really was.

Barry Sanders carried the Lions in a sport in which there's 21 other guys on the field.

Totally different.

When did Mitch carry a team?... in a 10 player sport, no less?

ReturnOfJimi

09-01-2007, 04:36 PM

eturnofjimi... stop acting like an arrogant jackass like you have on this thread

Stop acting like an ignorant jackass and read the whole thread.

btw... Who the f*** are you, again?

Get off my board.

BrooklynZoo

09-01-2007, 06:34 PM

reggies easily the "greater" player. hes done so much more

Los Angeles

09-01-2007, 07:08 PM

In all honestly, I enjoyed exposing certain people in this thread...and I knew quite a few people will make arrogant comments when they really have no clue about Mitch Richmond in the first place.

GOBB_Junior

09-01-2007, 07:24 PM

Round Robin

09-01-2007, 11:15 PM

Barry Sanders carried the Lions in a sport in which there's 21 other guys on the field.

Totally different.

When did Mitch carry a team?... in a 10 player sport, no less?

That's why I said it was a BIT similar to the Sanders-Smith situation, not COMPLETELY similar...

Just as Sanders was arguably the better, more dynamic athlete on considerably weaker teams, so too was Richmond arguably the better, more versatile athlete on a considerably weaker teams throughout his career

Just a BIT similar...

And you say Sanders carried his team but he was never able to carry them very far. Teammates matter and they help to define the star athletes around them

baby_jordan_23

09-01-2007, 11:59 PM

I think Mitch Richmond is better than Reggie Miller cuz Mitch is a way better scorer than Reggie. Mitch is underrated cuz he never had succes in the playoffs

White Chocolate

09-02-2007, 12:01 AM

I think Mitch Richmond is better than Reggie Miller cuz Mitch is a way better scorer than Reggie. Mitch is underrated cuz he never had succes in the playoffs

Oddly enough, Mitch is the one with the ring.

ReturnOfJimi

09-02-2007, 12:03 AM

And you say Sanders carried his team but he was never able to carry them very far.

He took them where they went. Advanced in the playoffs due to Barry Sanders.

Scott Mitchell was the reason they couldn't advance any further.

The Lions were a playoff team a lot of years with Barry while he carried the team. you can't say the same for Mitch Richmond. Guy just barely even made the dance in a league where it's a LOT easier to make the dance.

Right?

ReturnOfJimi

09-02-2007, 12:04 AM

Oddly enough, Mitch is the one with the ring.

As an assistant coach with the Lakers?

:roll:

White Chocolate

09-02-2007, 12:05 AM

As an assistant coach with the Lakers?

:roll:

As a reserve. He did net a fade away with about 30 seconds left in game 4. I'll give him that.

XxNeXuSxX

09-02-2007, 12:07 AM

I take the cake on Reggie Miller on this one
:oldlol:

ReturnOfJimi

09-02-2007, 12:07 AM

As a reserve. He did net a fade away with about 30 seconds left in game 4. I'll give him that.

Kurt Rambis could've come off the pine and given more production.

White Chocolate

09-02-2007, 12:14 AM

Kurt Rambis could've come off the pine and given more production.

What did you expect Richmond to do? He was already in the league 13 years at that point.

EricForman

09-02-2007, 12:15 AM

Stop acting like an ignorant jackass and read the whole thread.

btw... Who the f*** are you, again?

Get off my board.

your board?

I've been here longer and am probably more well known than your clown ass.

EricForman

09-02-2007, 12:18 AM

As a reserve. He did net a fade away with about 30 seconds left in game 4. I'll give him that.

come on now... Richmond did not play any significant minutes at all in the playoffs. I remember specifically thinking Phil Jackson was being cold by not playing Mitch at all even thoguh the Lakers were killing the Nets. If your right on game 4, then Mitch probably played in the final 2 mins of game 4 or something.

That's the thing.. people want to group GP with the Mitch and the Steve Smiths about howt hey got their ring... but GP was actually still an efficient rotation player, while Mitch and Steve Smith literally sat on the bench and averaged 3 minutes a game when they got their rings...

and returnofjimi, get off "your board"? Since when did this become your board? If so, ISH is even more dead than I thought cause you're a moron.

ReturnOfJimi

09-02-2007, 02:59 AM

and returnofjimi, get off "your board"? Since when did this become your board? If so, ISH is even more dead than I thought cause you're a moron.

I'm an old ISH board HOFer.

Sorry you aren't familiar with the talents of the greatest psychedelic guitarist in the rock game, E Willems.

Actually, this board WAS mine. It probably isn't anymore.

But I'm not a moron. I'm one of the people that keeps this place relevant.

Take it to the bank, sucka!

ukplayer4

09-02-2007, 10:53 AM

I take the cake on Reggie Miller on this one the guy is probably one of the best clutch shooters of all time. Not hating on Mitch Richmond who is one of the best scorer in the 1990's but Miller is the Heart and Soul of a winning team since the Indiana Pacers drafted him in the 1987 NBA Draft.

As far as i can remember Richmond was a part of a winning team when he was with the GS Warriors but since he was traded to the Kings and the Wizards he never took this team to greater success.

:wtf: lmao sorry but its painfully obvious from what you always write, or rather quote from nba.com that you started following the nba about 2 years ago. i always thought you were about 11, id actually be suprised if you even saw reggie miller play let alone mitch richmond.

GOBB_Junior

09-02-2007, 01:34 PM

:wtf: lmao sorry but its painfully obvious from what you always write, or rather quote from nba.com that you started following the nba about 2 years ago. i always thought you were about 11, id actually be suprised if you even saw reggie miller play let alone mitch richmond.

We'll just because you read some of Applenadumbs comments doesn't mean it was a pure fact. Beside i was born in 1987, i literally saw Mitch Richmond played for the Sacramento Kings and the Washington Wizards. So before you use your sock account might as well suck your middle finger because i am done talking with a bunch of wussy.

Mitch Richmond original number is 23 then he switch to number 2 while playing for the Kings and Knicks, then in his last stint in the NBA playing a reserve role for the LA LAKERS he switch back to number 23.