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.
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
Re: Mitch Richmond Vs. Reggie Miller
