Mitch Richmond in place of Michael Jordan from 1991-1998

[fpliii]

Assuming Jordan is on another team, 0 titles. Assuming Jordan doesn't exist, perhaps 1 title.

MJ is winning rings with Sacramento? He's levels better than Richmond, but those teams were winning 20 or 30 something games each year.

[mehyaM24]

The team was at a high level with a D-Leaguer and you add an elite SG and they don't win rings? This is the same thing as the Wade thread. People are unknowingly suggesting Wade and Richmond=Myers when they say the team would not get over the hump with either of them in place of a D-Leaguer. Several people in the Wade thread actually said the Bulls would lose to the Knicks with Wade--a series where even a minuscule improvement at SG would have put the Bulls over the top since the series was essentially a draw (Hue Hollins put the Knicks over the top). Richmond was the second best SG of his era.

1991 champs
1992 ECSF
1993 ECF
1994 champs
1995 ECF (higher seed so they avoid ORL until the ECF)
1996 champs
1997 Finals
1998 ECF

That team was going to win with any all-star caliber SG. The real question is how often? If you add an all-star caliber SG to an all-star caliber PF and a superstar SF along with the GOAT coach you will win at some point during your title window.

Imagine a similarly constructed team today with a superstar SF like Durant/Carmelo along with a Klay or Butler at SG and someone akin to Gasol at PF. Keep that team together for a decade. Would they win at some point?

Keep in mind an underrated element of the 90's Bulls' success was their specialists. They had the best three point shooter (Kerr), the best 6th man (Kukoc), best rebounder (Rodman) along with Jordan and Pippen. They were weaker in these areas in the first threepeat but they still had BJ Armstrong, Grant and Paxson. Add Pippen plus Richmond/Wade/Reggie Miller/et al. to them core and the team would win at some point. They just wouldn't win 6 rings and go 72-10, 69-13 and 67-15 without MJ or another GOAT-caliber player in his place (i.e. KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, LeBron).

exactly. i see no reason why the bulls don't win 4-6 titles with another ELITE sg who was fantastic on defense and didn't need to have the ball in hand to dominate (over dribbling).

richmond would be a souped-up version of reggie miller IMO, but chicago remains solid in all categories. you still have pippen running the show on defense, playmaking on offense, and being the captain & leader he is - i mean, you would be hard pressed to find another ELITE sg from that era that fits in better than richmond.

[Roundball_Rock]

MJ is winning rings with Sacramento? He's levels better than Richmond, but those teams were winning 20 or 30 something games each year.

Shhh...in this "without MJ" scenarios MJ stans always place MJ on another contender. Good catch. MJ, if not a Bull, is just as likely to be around scrubs than on a team with a great "supporting cast" and the odds are he would have an average team around him. Granted, MJ would elevate any squad to a competitive level but there is a huge difference if MJ spent the 90's on the Kings versus on a 0.500 team versus on a contender like the Knicks or Pacers.

i see no reason why the bulls don't win 4-6 titles with another ELITE sg

The difference between a superstar and a top 10-15 type is the extra gear the former have. Richmond would not be able to get the Bulls past the Knicks in 92' and 93' or the Jazz in 97' or Pacers in 98'. MJ was not just a superstar but a GOAT-caliber one. With a decline to Richmond, albeit a quirky upgrade for 94' since MJ averaged 0/0/0 in 94', the Bulls would win 3 rings in this alternative scenario.

94' is important. The Bulls actually are better in one season under these "X in place of MJ" scenarios since MJ did not play that year--so you have to add a 23 ppg top 10 player at SG to a team that nearly won the #1 seed and battled the Knicks to a draw with a D-league SG.

[3ball]

this is why i think so highly of myself in the forum.

you guys ACTUALLY THINK "well, jordan won 6, so mitch is at least a third of the player jordan was, so let's give him 2 rings."

the first ring is the most important one - most players don't get that one - can you see why that's the most important one?

if mitch can get that first one, than there's a pretty solid chance he could get all 6.

but lemme guess.. you guys don't see that...

[mehyaM24]

This topic is a joke, btw, from a notorious joke of a poster. There is an ENORMOUS gulf between Jordan and someone like Richmond, and acting like Jordan didn't have to ROUTINELY be Jordan for them to win every one of their titles, and that a significantly lesser player could replace him and win even half those titles, is a JOKE.

If you said a guy like Kobe or Lebron - that level of player - sure, maybe they win 2-4 titles in the same 6 seasons Jordan won titles in. But Richmond? No.

the bulls were ONE bad call away from beating arguably the best team that year (had starks not shot 2-17 in game 7 of the finals, the knicks would be champs - they were THAT good).

plugging in richmond, who by NO means is ball dominant, actually makes them worse? jordan specifically called him the best sg in the league and his toughest indivudual matchup. aside from your hyperbole, there is simply no reason to think the bulls don't win AT LEAST 3 championships with richmond in jordan's place. NONE.

[Roundball_Rock]

this is why i think so highly of myself in the forum.

you guys ACTUALLY THINK "well, jordan won 6, so mitch is at least a third of the player jordan was, so let's give him 2 rings."

the first ring is the most important one - most players don't get that one - can you see why that's the most important one?

if mitch can get that first one, than there's a pretty solid chance he could get all 6.

but lemme guess.. you guys don't see that...

The first one was also the easiest one...The Bulls had no competition at any point that year. They walked through the East (11-1 including sweep a #2 seed which won 10 less games than them) and then faced an injured Lakers squad in the Finals. That is why I find it amusing to see MJ stans constantly invoke the weak East vis-a-vis LeBron. The Bulls walked their way to 2 rings (91' and 96') yet LeBron had it easy in 12' and 13'?

[mehyaM24]

Shhh...in this "without MJ" scenarios MJ stans always place MJ on another contender. Good catch. MJ, if not a Bull, is just as likely to be around scrubs than on a team with a great "supporting cast" and the odds are he would have an average team around him. Granted, MJ would elevate any squad to a competitive level but there is a huge difference if MJ spent the 90's on the Kings versus on a 0.500 team versus on a contender like the Knicks or Pacers.



The difference between a superstar and a top 10-15 type is the extra gear the former have. Richmond would not be able to get the Bulls past the Knicks in 92' and 93' or the Jazz in 97' or Pacers in 98'. MJ was not just a superstar but a GOAT-caliber one. With a decline to Richmond, albeit a quirky upgrade for 94' since MJ averaged 0/0/0 in 94', the Bulls would win 3 rings in this alternative scenario.

94' is important. The Bulls actually are better in one season under these "X in place of MJ" scenarios since MJ did not play that year--so you have to add a 23 ppg top 10 player at SG to a team that nearly won the #1 seed and battled the Knicks to a draw with a D-league SG.

very true - although 4-6 is just my personal opinion.. i have no problem with anyone saying 3 (that would be my betting figure, btw)

[Roundball_Rock]

very true - although 4-6 is just my personal opinion.. i have no problem with anyone saying 3 (that would be my betting figure, btw)

Yeah there is obviously no way to know for sure.

The MJ scenarios are a lot different than those for other legends simply because there is no year where adding a lesser superstar/star in place of a legend, say, Ewing in place of Shaq or Carmelo in place of LeBron represents an upgrade. Having Richmond, Miller, or even Hornacek (who the Bulls almost got in a trade that year but Krause wanted to keep a low first round pick), Hawkins or Majerle>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pete Myers. Yet people ignore the massive upgrade for a key year and assume a downgrade for the entirety of the period. When you factor in how strong that team was and how little they needed to get over the hump it is unrealistic to say they would never win in these scenarios where people add Wade, Richmond or Reggie Miller at SG. Many people here actually think the Bulls with Wade in place of Myers would still narrowly lose to the Knicks.

[3ball]

The first one was also the hardest one... (fixed)

you know why mitch can't get that first one?... here's why:


1991-1998 Regular Season

Mitch[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR]: 23.4 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 4.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 2.9 TO, 45.8% FG, 56.4% TS, 110 ORtg, 0.122 WS/48, 18.4 PER
Jordan: 30.3 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.2 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 2.4 TO, 49.7% FG, 56.9% TS, 119 ORtg, 0.280 WS/48, 28.3 PER



now if mitch had it like MJ did, he'd have gotten his first, and his seconds, and his third..... and on and on and on..

at least both guys had to face [COLOR="Blue"]paint-camping[/COLOR]..

The Bulls walked their way to 2 rings (91' and 96') yet LeBron had it easy in 12' and 13'?

Do you really want to compare the stacked Shaq/Penny team to Hibbert/George?

Why do Lebron fans compare some garbage that took Lebron 7 games to take out, to the juggernauts Jordan swept away?
.

[Roundball_Rock]

ou know why mitch can't get that first one?... here's why:

1991-1998 Regular Season

Mitch..: 23.4 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 4.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 2.9 TO, 45.8% FG, 56.4% TS, 110 ORtg, 0.122 WS/48, 18.4 PER
Jordan: 30.3 PPG

Disingenuous. First, what were the margins of victories? Moreover, with Richmond in place of MJ some of the scoring difference, although obviously not all of it, would be made up by other players increasing their scoring.

The Bulls had zero competition in 91'. There is no reason to believe they would lose with Richmond. They went 3-0, 4-1, 4-0 (ECF), 4-1. They won 61 games that year. The Pistons were the #2 seed with only 50-51 wins. The Bulls were vastly superior to the rest of the East that year and only the Lakers and Blazers were comparable. The latter choked and the former were injured by the Finals.

the stacked Shaq/Penny team

Stacked without Grant? They were swept in 96'--just as they were in 95' and 94' (in the first round with HCA in 94' btw ). They were better on paper than on the court. They were hardly a juggernaut. They were a contender but never a dominant team (the Magic, Knicks, Pacers were all neck and neck in 95' and in 96' Orlando was clearly the #2 team in the East--much better than the next group but also a notch below Chicago, which won 12 more games than Orlando). Still, they would beat the Pacers. That is not the question, though. LeBron also did not have as superior a team as what MJ had when he faced the Pacers. The issue is the relative level of competition en route to those particular rings.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

exactly. i see no reason why the bulls don't win 4-6 titles with another ELITE sg who was fantastic on defense and didn't need to have the ball in hand to dominate (over dribbling).

richmond would be a souped-up version of reggie miller IMO, but chicago remains solid in all categories. you still have pippen running the show on defense, playmaking on offense, and being the captain & leader he is - i mean, you would be hard pressed to find another ELITE sg from that era that fits in better than richmond.

To simplify things:

They don't win 4-6 titles with Richmond because they could "only" win 6 with the greatest player ever. If they could "only" win 6 with MJ, they aren't winning anywhere near that with a player that is decidedly inferior to him, by any measure.

Nobody is disrespecting those Bulls teams by saying they'd only win 1 or 2 rings with a markedly worse 2 guard. If anything, that's HEAVY praise for his supporting cast.

How many teams can you say that about? How many teams would be expected to win two titles in a 7-8 year span if you replaced the best player of his generation, and their number 1 option, with a good-but-not-world-beating player in Richmond?

Those Bulls teams are getting their due. You are just too stubborn to see it my friend.

[jayfan]

0 titles.





.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Even as a Kings fan, I think Richmond is one of the most overrated players of his era. Granted, he played on crappy teams but if you're a 20-4-3 guy that never had a lick of postseason success, youre not in the same breath as a guy like Jordan.

Since we don't have team success to fall back on, seeing as Richmond's teams never won, what do analytics, generally good predictors of a teams success, say?

Well, his career WS/48 is .111 for his career. Dwarfed by Jordan's .250, and .275 with the Bulls.

His PER is 17.6, barely higher than that of an average player. This is despite the fact that he was a high usage player.

BPM and Wins Produced aren't too kind for him either.

And again, these are his stats on LOSING teams.

[juju151111]

0 show me Mitch putting up playoffs stats like Mj did.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Mitch Richmond played on a ****ing Kings team where Brian Grant and Walt Williams were like the second and third options on the team , yet still somehow managed to make the play-offs with that shitty ass team.