Mitch Richmond Vs. Reggie Miller

[Darius]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Mitch easily. One of the top players of the nineties

[EricForman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.