Mitch Richmond Compared to 90's Shooting Guards

[Roundball_Rock]

Richmond has become the forgotten star of the 90's. Whenever the discussion turns to the best perimeter players of the era his name oddly does not come up. He was the best SG of the second half of the 90's not named Jordan. Here is how he compares to other HOF SG's of his era, with the exclusion of MJ for obvious reasons.

Prime Statistical Comparison

Richmond (89'-98') 23/4/4 56% TS 26.4% usage
Drexler (88'-95') 23/7/6 55% TS 26.6% usage
Dumars (89'-95') 20/2/5 55% TS 23.5% usage
Miller (90'-00') 21/3/3 62% TS 23.2% usage
Hornacek (90'-95') 18/4/5 58% TS 20.8% usage

Richmond compares well here. Only Drexler had clearly better numbers and the margin there is driven by Drexler having a superior all-around game. In scoring they were the same. (I threw Hornacek, the best non-HOF SG of the 90's, in here to show how good he was in his prime since he has become a meme.)

Accolades

All-NBA: Richmond/Drexler 5, Dumars/Miller 3
All-NBA 1st: Drexler 1, Richmond/Dumars/Miller 0
All-NBA 1st/2nd: Richmond/Drexler 3, Dumars 1, Miller 0
All-star: Drexler 10, Richmond/Dumars 6, Miller 5
Top 10 MVP: Drexler 4, Dumars 1, Richmond/Miller 0

Richmond compares well, except in MVP. It isn't surprising Richmond never got any real MVP consideration since his teams were bad for most of the 90's and when he was on a good team Mullin was the first option and they also had Tim Hardaway.

Ultimately the lack of team success hurt his legacy but is it his fault he was traded away from Mullin/Hardaway to the Kings? (He did win a ring in 02', his final season, but as a role player.) Playing his peak years in a small market didn't help either.

It could be argued his stats were inflated due to bad teams but the data doesn't support that.

Richmond in Golden State (89'-91'): 23/5/4 56% TS
Richmond in Sacramento (92'-98') 23/4/4 56% TS

He was the same guy on the Kings as he was on playoff teams in Golden State.

[Phoenix]

Mitch was a really good player. As you pointed out the bulk of his prime was spent on bad teams that never really had the cast around him to be that competitive. He'd probably be remembered more if he played for the Knicks or at least had a few chances to make enough noise in the playoffs for people to remember him. In that class of guard I think he was better than Reggie ( more well rounded anyway) and by the time the mid 90s rolled around he was probably better than Clyde in a vacuum. People may slightly remember someone like Glen Rice a bit more but they were in the same ballpark.

[StrongLurk]

Richmond has become the forgotten star of the 90's. Whenever the discussion turns to the best perimeter players of the era his name oddly does not come up. He was the best SG of the second half of the 90's not named Jordan. Here is how he compares to other HOF SG's of his era, with the exclusion of MJ for obvious reasons.

Prime Statistical Comparison

Richmond (89'-98') 23/4/4 56% TS 26.4% usage
Drexler (88'-95') 23/7/6 55% TS 26.6% usage
Dumars (89'-95') 20/2/5 55% TS 23.5% usage
Miller (90'-00') 21/3/3 62% TS 23.2% usage
Hornacek (90'-95') 18/4/5 58% TS 20.8% usage

Richmond compares well here. Only Drexler had clearly better numbers and the margin there is driven by Drexler having a superior all-around game. In scoring they were the same. (I threw Hornacek, the best non-HOF SG of the 90's, in here to show how good he was in his prime since he has become a meme.)

Accolades

All-NBA: Richmond/Drexler 5, Dumars/Miller 3
All-NBA 1st: Drexler 1, Richmond/Dumars/Miller 0
All-NBA 1st/2nd: Richmond/Drexler 3, Dumars 1, Miller 0
All-star: Drexler 10, Richmond/Dumars 6, Miller 5
Top 10 MVP: Drexler 4, Dumars 1, Richmond/Miller 0

Richmond compares well, except in MVP. It isn't surprising Richmond never got any real MVP consideration since his teams were bad for most of the 90's and when he was on a good team Mullin was the first option and they also had Tim Hardaway.

Ultimately the lack of team success hurt his legacy but is it his fault he was traded away from Mullin/Hardaway to the Kings? (He did win a ring in 02', his final season, but as a role player.) Playing his peak years in a small market didn't help either.

It could be argued his stats were inflated due to bad teams but the data doesn't support that.

Richmond in Golden State (89'-91'): 23/5/4 56% TS
Richmond in Sacramento (92'-98') 23/4/4 56% TS

He was the same guy on the Kings as he was on playoff teams in Golden State.

90's players like Mitch have to be so jealous at the current ability of NBA players to switch teams. Guys like Mitch could have had their profiles greatly raised if they could find their way easier onto contenders.

[insidious301]

The second best SG in that era tbh. I remember a topic years ago asking if the Bulls would win with a player like Richmond (instead of Jordan). Nobody said that Richmond would produce equal results, but a handful of posters said the Bulls win MULTIPLE championships. On a contender, he would have been a legitimate threat to Jordan.

Richmond's defense also gets overlooked.

[Roundball_Rock]

Mitch was a really good player. As you pointed out the bulk of his prime was spent on bad teams that never really had the cast around him to be that competitive. He'd probably be remembered more if he played for the Knicks or at least had a few chances to make enough noise in the playoffs for people to remember him. In that class of guard I think he was better than Reggie ( more well rounded anyway) and by the time the mid 90s rolled around he was probably better than Clyde in a vacuum. People may slightly remember someone like Glen Rice a bit more but they were in the same ballpark.

Agreed on all those points. Rice shows how much some playoff appearances can help. Rice had a couple and two of those came against the popular Bulls to get him some attention. He also was the third option on the Lakers when they win in 00'. By the time Richmond got to a contender he was washed up in 02'. Richmond was a clearly better player than Rice but Rice is remembered more (not to say that Rice is remembered a lot, just more relative to Richmond).

Reggie is a good comp. Richmond was consistently better than him in the 90's but now Reggie is considered better than him decades later.


The second best SG in that era tbh.

You have him over Drexler? I can see the case for the 90's since Drexler fell off after 92' and then fell off even more after 95' but career wise Drexler is much more accomplished than Richmond. For the 90's I'd still take Drexler because his peak was so high--arguably the 2nd best player in the NBA--and Richmond was never more than a back of the top 10 guy.


On a contender, he would have been a legitimate threat to Jordan.

Yeah, that could have been a good rivalry. Jordan clearly is on another tier but Richmond would give him competition to a degree Dumars, Miller, Starks, and co. could not.

[insidious301]

You have him over Drexler? I can see the case for the 90's since Drexler fell off after 92' and then fell off even more after 95' but career wise Drexler is much more accomplished than Richmond. For the 90's I'd still take Drexler because his peak was so high--arguably the 2nd best player in the NBA--and Richmond was never more than a back of the top 10 guy.

Drexler was more accomplished (greater) and clearly better in the early 90s (his prime began in the late 80s). The decade as a whole though? Richmond was just as good imo, but with more range and accuracy. They were only regular-season games, but I felt Richmond and Jordan had some great h2h matchups. MJ could intimidate Drexler to some degree. Never felt he could with Mitch who I believe he genuinely respected.


Yeah, that could have been a good rivalry. Jordan clearly is on another tier but Richmond would give him competition to a degree Dumars, Miller, Starks, and co. could not.

I agree. Richmond was a stronger version of Reggie Miller, and could get his own shot more consistently. His nickname was "The Rock".

[L.Kizzle]

The second best SG in that era tbh. I remember a topic years ago asking if the Bulls would win with a player like Richmond (instead of Jordan). Nobody said that Richmond would produce equal results, but a handful of posters said the Bulls win MULTIPLE championships. On a contender, he would have been a legitimate threat to Jordan.

Richmond's defense also gets overlooked.

He's definitely under Clyde.

The thing is he played with the Run-TMC Warriors who had nice teams in the late 80s'-early 90s. A team of Mullin, Tim and Mitch won 44 games in 91. That's the most games Mitch ever won with the Warriors (and Kings and Wiz for that matter.) The next season, he's traded to the Kings and the Warriors win 55 games.

Six years later Mitch is traded for Chris Webber after leading the Kings to a 27 win season. Webber also leads them to 27 wins the next season. Only difference is that was the shortened lockout season good enough for a playoff birth.

After Mitch leaves the Wizards, Jordan makes his return and they improve their record by 18 games and just miss the playoffs.

Maybe Mitch Richmond just had bad luck.

[tpols]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qwq7BYOnDrM/hqdefault.jpg

[Roundball_Rock]

Drexler was more accomplished (greater) and clearly better in the early 90s (his prime began in the late 80s). The decade as a whole though? Richmond was just as good imo, but with more range and accuracy. They were only regular-season games, but I felt Richmond and Jordan had some great h2h matchups. MJ could intimidate Drexler to some degree. Never felt he could with Mitch who I believe he genuinely respected.

Got it, yeah I can see the case for Richmond over Drexler for the 90's.

[insidious301]

Got it, yeah I can see the case for Richmond over Drexler for the 90's.

:cheers:

[L.Kizzle]

Got it, yeah I can see the case for Richmond over Drexler for the 90's.

Drexler went to the Finals 3 times and playoffs every year in the 90s (and 2 other Western Conference Finals appearances to go along with the Finals) while Mitch made the Playoffs twice in the 90s. Hell, Tracy McGrady has more playoff games than Mitch Richmond. When McGrady has triple your playoff games, that's pretty bad.

[insidious301]

Hey OP.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6Cg1Nz05QU

Check this video out when you get the opportunity. Some of the stuff has been covered ITT but more nuance never hurt anyone. The narrator argues that Richmond is the most underrated player in the 90s (with numbers along with tangible impact), and arguably of ALL TIME. Hard to disagree.

[tpols]

Hey OP.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6Cg1Nz05QU

Check this video out when you get the opportunity. Some of the stuff has been covered ITT but more nuance never hurt anyone. The narrator argues that Richmond is the most underrated player in the 90s (with numbers along with tangible impact), and arguably of ALL TIME. Hard to disagree.

From your video.




When i ask you who were the greatest scorers of the 1990s, what names come to mind? Jordan, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Miller.


Damn...

[insidious301]

From your video.Damn...

You disagree with that statement?

[Roundball_Rock]

Drexler went to the Finals 3 times and playoffs every year in the 90s (and 2 other Western Conference Finals appearances to go along with the Finals) while Mitch made the Playoffs twice in the 90s

I am taking Drexler but I get the argument. The argument basically is Richmond was better than Drexler more often than vice versa in the 90's.

Drexler had more team success but he had better teams. His teams didn't falloff at all without him when he missed time in 93' and 94'.


Check this video out when you get the opportunity. Some of the stuff has been covered ITT but more nuance never hurt anyone. The narrator argues that Richmond is the most underrated player in the 90s (with numbers along with tangible impact), and arguably of ALL TIME. Hard to disagree.

:applause: Good video! If he had better luck in terms of team or if his playoff appearances came in more high profile spots he would be better remembered. Jordan coming back also hurt him. If MJ didn't, he would have been known as the best SG of the second half of the 90's. 2nd best isn't as memorable no matter who it is to.


When i ask you who were the greatest scorers of the 1990s, what names come to mind? Jordan, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Miller.

Only Reggie could score 21 PPG for his prime and be in a "greatest scorers" discussion. :lol How overrated this guy has become is ridiculous. He should send Spike Lee a check every week.

[Phoenix]

I recall Hardaway got into a controversy some years back and I couldn't remember the specifics, but here's an article speaking to it and why he believes it's kept him out of the Hall all this time:

https://www.sportscasting.com/why-tim-hardaway-accepts-he-wont-make-it-into-the-basketball-hall-of-fame/

Even though he's now supposedly a gay rights advocate, in this current climate there may still be some hesitation to put him in.

[Phoenix]

If he had better luck in terms of team or if his playoff appearances came in more high profile spots he would be better remembered. Jordan coming back also hurt him. If MJ didn't, he would have been known as the best SG of the second half of the 90's. 2nd best isn't as memorable no matter who it is to.





It's definitely the lack of any kind of playoff resume and spending his prime in a small market. Clyde was the 2nd best shooting guard in the late 80s/early 90s behind MJ and he's still remembered. Mitch has become obscure enough that people likely forget he was on dream team III( Atlanta) without seeing either a picture or a list.

I think the other thing is, he didn't really have much of a flashy game or much flair for the dramatic( which alot of Reggie's rep is built off). He just had a very solid, if unspectacular, skillset. Very consistent and reliable year over year, but didn't have the kind of game that ended up on sports center.

[Roundball_Rock]

5x all-star makes you borderline and then what he said could push you over the edge. What he said was terrible:


"Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

That was in 2007, though, and as you noted he has become a LGBT activist since. If voters wanted him in they have the permission slip, if you will, to do so given what he has done in the decade plus. I think it is more so his borderline playing record.

Richmond has a similar resume but was clearly the second best SG/best SG in the second half of the 90's (depending on if MJ was playing). Miller has an inferior resume but the whole Miller thing is fueled by Spike Lee and some big moments against New York (before Lee he was a 1x all-star, 0x all-NBA in 7 seasons yet suddenly becomes a perennial all-star at age 29 :oldlol: ). We can't use Miller as a comp for anyone because he is an outlier in many ways. Price is similar to Hardaway, just less longevity. If Hardaway gets in, then should Price? KJ? Part of the Hardaway thing may be to hold the line because if he is in then the door opens to those guys and at some point HOF voters have to draw the line.


It's definitely the lack of any kind of playoff resume and spending his prime in a small market. Clyde was the 2nd best shooting guard in the late 80s/early 90s behind MJ and he's still remembered. Miatch has become obscure enough that people likely forget he was on dream team III( Atlanta) without seeing either a picture or a list.

I think the other thing is, he didn't really have much of a flashy game or much flair for the dramatic( which alot of Reggie's rep is built off). He just had a very solid, if unspectacular, skillset. Very consistent and reliable year over year, but didn't have the kind of game that ended up on sports center.

Good points. One caveat on Drexler: he reached a higher peak so that is why he stuck out more, along with being on a contender, but agree with the rest of what you said.

[iamgine]

Would it be fair to compare Richmond to Lamarcus Aldridge? Someone who is really good, really solid. But not at the upper echelon.

[PeroAntic]

Mitch Richmond was Eric Gordon of the 90s.

[Phoenix]

Mitch Richmond was Eric Gordon of the 90s.

What is this based on?

[Roundball_Rock]

Would it be fair to compare Richmond to Lamarcus Aldridge? Someone who is really good, really solid. But not at the upper echelon.

Yeah I think so.


Mitch Richmond was Eric Gordon of the 90s.

Eric Gordon is a future HOFer?

[Phoenix]

Eric Gordon is a future HOFer?

I'm trying to figure the angle on that comparison as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm trying to figure the angle on that comparison as well.

Era bias I guess? The same type of people who say MJ would be DeRozan today, etc.? :confusedshrug:

[Phoenix]

Era bias I guess? The same type of people who say MJ would be DeRozan today, etc.? :confusedshrug:

It's just really random. I'm not sure what the best apples to apples comparison would be but it's not Gordon. I dont know if hes saying Mitch in this era is a Eric Gordon level player( or Gordon in 95 is a Richmond level player), or if hes talking about play style or what.

[Reggie43]

Dude is still taking shots at Miller in a "Richmond" thread :facepalm

Miller's prime playoff numbers (up to age 30) 49 games..

24.7ppg. .481 fg% .436 3p% 7.6 fta 3.2 rebs 2.6 apg. 1.1spg

.628 TS% 26.1 Usg%

All in a tougher more physical era without the help of the modern rule changes like no handchecking and freedom of movement bullshit.

While also having playoff wins against Shaq/Penny Magic, Ewing's Knicks etc.

Miller in interviews basically says that he uses the regular season to involve teammates more to help them build their confidence in preparation for the playoffs. When playoff time comes and he feels some players are not ready for the pressure he just involves himself in the offense more thus the big jump in production with him scoring almost five more point per game compared to the regular season.

[PeroAntic]

What is this based on?

Playing style. Stocky, good shooter, winning player, but no flash and most effective as a complementary piece.

[Whoah10115]

Dude is still taking shots at Miller in a "Richmond" thread :facepalm

Miller's prime playoff numbers (up to age 30) 49 games..

24.7ppg. .481 fg% .436 3p% 7.6 fta 3.2 rebs 2.6 apg. 1.1spg

.628 TS% 26.1 Usg%

All in a tougher more physical era without the help of the modern rule changes like no handchecking and freedom of movement bullshit.

While also having playoff wins against Shaq/Penny Magic, Ewing's Knicks etc.

Miller in interviews basically says that he uses the regular season to involve teammates more to help them build their confidence in preparation for the playoffs. When playoff time comes and he feels some players are not ready for the pressure he just involves himself in the offense more thus the big jump in production with him scoring almost five more point per game compared to the regular season.

Thru 36 he was still at 23.5. It's remarkable.

I'd take him overall over Mitch...but man had Mitch come to the Knicks? The Knicks would have won a title.

[Reggie43]

but man had Mitch come to the Knicks? The Knicks would have won a title.

No doubt they steal Olajuwon's ring and maybe a few more...

[Reggie43]

I actually dont mind somebody picking Mitch, Ray or Klay etc. over Miller but lets not act like Reggie doesnt have a case over his peers.

[L.Kizzle]

No doubt they steal Olajuwon's ring and maybe a few more...

No way. I made a reply on here that proved that teams got better once Mitch left. Before this thread, I would have taken Mitch over Miller but now I'm not so sure. Warriors, King and Wiz got better once Mitch left. You could say it was a coincidence.

First of all, he was traded for BILLY OWENS lets get that out the way and the Warriors improved their record by 11 wins. Not sure how much hype was surrounding Billy when he was drafted.

[Reggie43]

No way. I made a reply on here that proved that teams got better once Mitch left. Before this thread, I would have taken Mitch over Miller but now I'm not so sure. Warriors, King and Wiz got better once Mitch left. You could say it was a coincidence.

First of all, he was traded for BILLY OWENS lets get that out the way and the Warriors improved their record by 11 wins. Not sure how much hype was surrounding Billy when he was drafted.

I wont act like Im an expert on him, I just felt that a legit secondary star would help those Knicks. Too many things go beyond the numbers in basketball so I wont deny what youre saying.

[Phoenix]

No doubt they steal Olajuwon's ring and maybe a few more...

On the assumption that it was a close series in 94 and who knows what happens if Starks doesn't completely shit the bed at the end, it's quite possible they win with Mitch. There's no evidence of Mitch in that kind of environment to either prove or disprove that, but on the basis he was a better player than Starks we can fairly extrapolate the outcome.

[Phoenix]

No way. I made a reply on here that proved that teams got better once Mitch left. Before this thread, I would have taken Mitch over Miller but now I'm not so sure. Warriors, King and Wiz got better once Mitch left. You could say it was a coincidence.



That's true, but situations like that are tricky. With Run TMC, you basically had three 23-25ppg guys on the team. Mitch gone made the pecking order much easier to figure out with Mullin and Hardaway, then you had Marčiulionis stepping up as a 19ppg super sub and Owens contributed 14ppg. It's a thin line between Mitch making them worse and the chemistry being better because you no longer had 3 mouth to feed, so to speak. The Kings got better when he left, but he was replaced with an ascending Webber, white chocolate came onboard and Divac. It wasn't just a case of the Kings getting better when Mitch, at the end of his prime, left without acknowledging the roster upgrades that occurred at the same time.

[Roundball_Rock]

First of all, he was traded for BILLY OWENS lets get that out the way and the Warriors improved their record by 11 wins. Not sure how much hype was surrounding Billy when he was drafted.

Owens was the #3 pick that year--so that shows how high Richmond's value was.


On the assumption that it was a close series in 94 and who knows what happens if Starks doesn't completely shit the bed at the end, it's quite possible they win with Mitch. There's no evidence of Mitch in that kind of environment to either prove or disprove that, but on the basis he was a better player than Starks we can fairly extrapolate the outcome.

Yeah in theory that happens. The other issue is how is the fit? Richmond was a comparable scorer to Ewing in the 90's, outside of 1990 and 1991. Is he willing to go from 24 PPG to 22 PPG to share the ball with Richmond who would be scoring 21-22 PPG?

[insidious301]

No way. I made a reply on here that proved that teams got better once Mitch left. Before this thread, I would have taken Mitch over Miller but now I'm not so sure. Warriors, King and Wiz got better once Mitch left. You could say it was a coincidence.

First of all, he was traded for BILLY OWENS lets get that out the way and the Warriors improved their record by 11 wins. Not sure how much hype was surrounding Billy when he was drafted.

This is a lazy take. You're ignoring context like teammates and coaching. Mitch had high impact (BPM and PER) because of his ability to stretch the floor. Take a look at the guys he played with in Sacramento though. In the seven seasons he played there, Richmond's best teammate was a young Corliss Williamson. You going to sit there with a straight face, and hold that against him?

[Phoenix]

Owens was the #3 pick that year--so that shows how high Richmond's value was.



Yeah in theory that happens. The other issue is how is the fit? Richmond was a comparable scorer to Ewing in the 90's, outside of 1990 and 1991. Is he willing to go from 24 PPG to 22 PPG to share the ball with Richmond who would be scoring 21-22 PPG?

Impossible to say really. In theory, Richmond 'should' be an ideal compliment to Ewing because of his shooting ability. If egos come together their actual on-court games should synergize effectively.

[Roundball_Rock]

Impossible to say really. In theory, Richmond 'should' be an ideal compliment to Ewing because of his shooting ability. If egos come together their actual on-court games should synergize effectively.

Agreed. I remember JVG saying Ewing was reluctant to give the reins to Allan Houston, and that was Ewing later in his career and Houston was a lesser player than Richmond. I am not sure if he would be willing to accept 1a/1b status with Richmond in his prime.

[Phoenix]

Agreed. I remember JVG saying Ewing was reluctant to give the reins to Allan Houston, and that was Ewing later in his career and Houston was a lesser player than Richmond. I am not sure if he would be willing to accept 1a/1b status with Richmond in his prime.

I didn't know that but if that's the case, 94 Ewing was closer to his prime than when Houston came onboard a few years later, so maybe it would have been an issue.

[Roundball_Rock]

I didn't know that but if that's the case, 94 Ewing was closer to his prime than when Houston came onboard a few years later, so maybe it would have been an issue.

He said it during a broadcast of a Spurs game where Robinson was in the crowd and he remarked how big a deal it was that Robinson was willing to gracefully turn over the keys to Duncan and he compared it to Ewing's reluctance (he prefaced it by praising Ewing, said Ewing made his career) at the some point in his career.