Originally Posted by ReturnOfJimi
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.
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.