Replace Reggie Miller with Mich Richmond on the '90s Pacers

[tsherkin]

Reggie has become vastly overrated. He was a similar player to Richmond.

Are they? Large difference in actual approach to the game. More on-ball, more effective playmaker. Not as good a shooter, not as effective off-ball, not as efficient.

Don't know that I'd call them very similar at all.

[migya]

Richmond played well, on and off ball, for the warriors but ofcourse didn't stay there long and was buried on one of the worst teams that decade. His abilities weren't able to be seen in the ps.

Richmond was a very good player, but he also didn't meaningfully surpass Reggie as a volume scorer (and indeed, didn't even meet Reggie's career-high in RS PPG). He was suppressed some with Run TMC, to be sure, but not with the Kings, so it's odd to look at him as some sort of crazy volume superior to Miller.

Richmond's single season high was better than Reggie's, don't know how you missed that, and for career Richmond is much higher too. Reggie's was only marginally ahead in percentages also. Richmond carried almost all the scoring load in Sacramento, Reggie would have been swamped there and not been anywhere near as impactful as he was. Richmond scored easier in GS with two other very good scorers, though noone else, and it took much burden off him. Reggie had some good scorers in Indy, though not as good but much more well rounded team, especially defensively which was less burden on him.

[tsherkin]

Richmond's single season high was better than Reggie's, don't know how you missed that, and for career Richmond is much higher too. Reggie's was only marginally ahead in percentages also. Richmond carried almost all the scoring load in Sacramento, Reggie would have been swamped there and not been anywhere near as impactful as he was. Richmond scored easier in GS with two other very good scorers, though noone else, and it took much burden off him. Reggie had some good scorers in Indy, though not as good but much more well rounded team, especially defensively which was less burden on him.

Oh, so it is. 1 ppg higher, that's my mistake. But then you look at their postseason PPG and it's a lot closer, isn't it?

I don't think it's easy to say Reggie would have been swamped. He wasn't really put in the position where he had to find out, again, because volume isn't an end in and of itself if the team is winning.

[One_and_Done]

Reggie has become vastly overrated. He was a similar player to Richmond.

Are they? Large difference in actual approach to the game. More on-ball, more effective playmaker. Not as good a shooter, not as effective off-ball, not as efficient.

Don't know that I'd call them very similar at all.

Similar impact not game, though there are some similarities there also.

[tsherkin]

Reggie has become vastly overrated. He was a similar player to Richmond.

Are they? Large difference in actual approach to the game. More on-ball, more effective playmaker. Not as good a shooter, not as effective off-ball, not as efficient.

Don't know that I'd call them very similar at all.

Similar impact not game, though there are some similarities there also.

Fairly notable difference in impact stats outside of Richmond's 97 peak, though. Generally, everything shows that Reggie was notably higher-impact on O.

[DukeLecker]

Why was Miller always a part of winning teams and Richmond was always part of losing teams. Don’t you think each had a significant role in the outcome of their teams results?

[One_and_Done]

Are they? Large difference in actual approach to the game. More on-ball, more effective playmaker. Not as good a shooter, not as effective off-ball, not as efficient.

Don't know that I'd call them very similar at all.

Similar impact not game, though there are some similarities there also.

Fairly notable difference in impact stats outside of Richmond's 97 peak, though. Generally, everything shows that Reggie was notably higher-impact on O.

I don't really care about impact stats though.

[One_and_Done]

Why was Miller always a part of winning teams and Richmond was always part of losing teams. Don’t you think each had a significant role in the outcome of their teams results?

The Pacers averaged about 40 wins for Reggie's first 8 or so years in the league. They only became a contender when dripping with talent, and Reggie was part of an ensemble cast. Mitch showed he could succeed quite well on the run TMC Warriors, to the level of early Reggie anyway, but then spent the rest of his career on loser teams.

Don't get me wrong, neither of these guys were superstar players, but the team success point is a bit much when you look at the 98 Pacers and see 3 all-star bigs next to Reggie, defensive stud Derrick McKey at the SF spot, former all-stars like Mullin & M.Jax playing the role of savy vets, and a young Jalen Rose coming off the bench (2 years later he'd be the highest scorer on a finals team). Even their 9th and 10th men were solid role players.

Mitch would actually be better today in a way Reggie would not, because he could create separation better and go to the basket. Reggie is more of a Klay type.

[tsherkin]

I don't really care about impact stats though.

That's your failing with which to contend.

Ultimately, it's pretty clear that Reggie exerted a very strong positive impact on Indiana's offense, and that there are a lot of things which indicate it was stronger than Richmond's.

[One_and_Done]

I don't really care about impact stats though.

That's your failing with which to contend.

Ultimately, it's pretty clear that Reggie exerted a very strong positive impact on Indiana's offense, and that there are a lot of things which indicate it was stronger than Richmond's.

Advanced stats aren't a science. They can be wrong. Even proponents will tell you that, as you no doubt know. To act like you have to be into advanced stats to have a valid opinion is clearly wrong.

I think some of them are an interesting data point among many to note, but I'd never rank a player over another based on one guy having higher advanced stats. Certainly not when player A is surrounded by great talent, and player B is on the most hopeless franchise of the 90s for most of his prime.

I'm more interested in context than people posting walls of numbers that could easily be wrong. Mitch had arguably a better skillset than Reggie. He just had worse circumstances.

[migya]

Richmond's single season high was better than Reggie's, don't know how you missed that, and for career Richmond is much higher too. Reggie's was only marginally ahead in percentages also. Richmond carried almost all the scoring load in Sacramento, Reggie would have been swamped there and not been anywhere near as impactful as he was. Richmond scored easier in GS with two other very good scorers, though noone else, and it took much burden off him. Reggie had some good scorers in Indy, though not as good but much more well rounded team, especially defensively which was less burden on him.

Oh, so it is. 1 ppg higher, that's my mistake. But then you look at their postseason PPG and it's a lot closer, isn't it?

I don't think it's easy to say Reggie would have been swamped. He wasn't really put in the position where he had to find out, again, because volume isn't an end in and of itself if the team is winning.

Richmond didn't play many playoff games, not really a significant factor for him, but Reggie was very good in ps and that is a big plus for him. At their peaks Richmond scored significantly more.

[Verticality]

We are worse. I think Reggie is disrespected here.

[tsherkin]

Richmond didn't play many playoff games, not really a significant factor for him, but Reggie was very good in ps and that is a big plus for him. At their peaks Richmond scored significantly more.

"Significantly" is a big word, especially when you say "peaks." Their average PPG over their primes differs by a couple points, but it's very clear that Miller COULD score at that volume and was working inside the system instead. And that worked out just fine for them.

[migya]

Richmond didn't play many playoff games, not really a significant factor for him, but Reggie was very good in ps and that is a big plus for him. At their peaks Richmond scored significantly more.

"Significantly" is a big word, especially when you say "peaks." Their average PPG over their primes differs by a couple points, but it's very clear that Miller COULD score at that volume and was working inside the system instead. And that worked out just fine for them.

Certainly true and maybe they wouldn't have fared better with him scoring more than he did but I don't think he could have season after season.

[tsherkin]

Certainly true and maybe they wouldn't have fared better with him scoring more than he did but I don't think he could have season after season.

I can't really see a reason why he couldn't, to be honest. He was scoring at a pretty steady rate north of 21 PTS36 for almost a decade, after all.