RealGM

I have beem watching reggie pacers games recently and noticed smits is actually a very, very skilled scorer

He seems like a unremarkable (not awful but not particularly good) defensive center with adequate passing and legitemately great post up skill and smooth midrange jumper

Would this be an accurate description? How good do you think he was ?

He was very good, but never elite. Excellent scoring repertoire on offense, solid passing and decent enough rim protection (though lacking in other aspects of defense).

At his peak, probably a low level all-star is a good way to summarize him. I really like what he bring up on the basketball court though.

All star caliber but a weak rebounder for being 7'4". Still was a fun player to watch.

prolific passer wrote:All star caliber but a weak rebounder for being 7'4". Still was a fun player to watch.

People assume height is the be-all in rebounding, but for decades, we have watched players not that tall get it done. Witness Reggie Evans or Danny Fortson, or Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Ben Wallace, Zach Randolph, Antonio McDyess, right? At some point, height becomes a hindrance because guys can get into your base and your mobility is limited, etc.

As a big Reggie fan growing up I hated me some Rik Smits. My middle school mind couldn't grasp why Larry Brown was content to let Smits shoot so much when Reggie was both the far superior scorer and not shooting nearly enough for my liking. I thought it was a major injustice that Reggie and this goofy oaf were basically 1a and 1b in terms of FGAs (even co-equals during the RS) when it seemed obvious to me that Miller should've been a featured clear-cut #1 and given a usage level on par with the other top SGs of the time who were robbing Reggie of accolades

In retrospect Reggie obviously was by far the #1 who anchored that offense even on those possessions where he didn't even touch the ball in favor of Smits. Turns out I simply had zero awareness of offball strategy or gravity concepts at the time

I can also now see that Smits was actually a pretty decent fit for what they did with Miller because Rik was a reasonably reliable release valve for when Reggie was getting smothered offball. At 7'4" with a super high release and range out to about 15 feet, he didn't need to pound the ball deep into the paint so it was easy to get it to him in scoring position at any point in the shotclock as he could literally just catch and shoot faceup or turnaround over most matchups. Even if Smits wasn't elite at converting these opportunities, he was still good enough that it was something opponents had to consider when deciding whether to throw their entire frontcourt into defending Reggie's action. And let's face it, Indiana literally had no other offensive options on the roster to warrant any kind of defensive attention whatsoever

Brown did have a tendency tho of trying to establish Smits early with designated post ups that too often resulted in bricked hook shots or turnovers or broken plays. It wasn't as extreme or unnecessary as PJ's predictably scripted opening possessions for Bill Cartwright, and I get what Brown was going for, but it still irks me just thinking about it lol

tsherkin wrote:

prolific passer wrote:All star caliber but a weak rebounder for being 7'4". Still was a fun player to watch.

People assume height is the be-all in rebounding, but for decades, we have watched players not that tall get it done. Witness Reggie Evans or Danny Fortson, or Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Ben Wallace, Zach Randolph, Antonio McDyess, right? At some point, height becomes a hindrance because guys can get into your base and your mobility is limited, etc.

I'm always a bit perplexed when someone says "Weak rebounder for someone 7' 4".

Have you actually looked at all players 7' 3" and up and compared their rebounding percentages? If not, where is the claim "Weak Rebounder" coming from?

BenoUdrihFTL wrote:As a big Reggie fan growing up I hated me some Rik Smits. My middle school mind couldn't grasp why Larry Brown was content to let Smits shoot so much when Reggie was both the far superior scorer and not shooting nearly enough for my liking. I thought it was a major injustice that Reggie and this goofy oaf were basically 1a and 1b in terms of FGAs when it seemed obvious to me that Miller should've been a featured clear-cut #1 and given a usage level on par with other top SGs of the time

In retrospect Reggie obviously was by far the #1 who anchored that offense even on those possessions where he didn't even touch the ball in favor of Smits. Turns out I simply had zero awareness of offball strategy or gravity concepts at the time

Now can I see that Smits was actually a pretty decent fit for what they did with Miller because Rik was a reasonably competent release valve on possessions where Reggie was getting smothered offball. At 7'4" with a super high release and range out to about 15 feet, he didn't need to pound the ball deep into the paint so it was easy to get him the ball in scoring position at any point in the shotclock as he could literally just catch and shoot faceup or turnaround over most matchups. Even if Smits wasn't elite at converting these opportunities, he was still good enough that it was something opponents had to consider when deciding whether to throw their entire frontcourt into defending Reggie's action. And let's face it, Indiana literally had no other offensive options on the roster to warrant any kind of defensive attention whatsoever

Brown did have a tendency tho of trying to establish Smits early with designated post ups that too often resulted in bricked hook shots or turnovers or broken plays. It wasn't as extreme or unnecessary as PJ's predictably scripted opening possessions for Bill Cartwright, and I get what Brown was going for, but it still drives me crazy just thinking about it lol

Smits was a savvy passer who synergized exceptionally well with Reggie.

Colbinii wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

prolific passer wrote:All star caliber but a weak rebounder for being 7'4". Still was a fun player to watch.

People assume height is the be-all in rebounding, but for decades, we have watched players not that tall get it done. Witness Reggie Evans or Danny Fortson, or Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Ben Wallace, Zach Randolph, Antonio McDyess, right? At some point, height becomes a hindrance because guys can get into your base and your mobility is limited, etc.

I'm always a bit perplexed when someone says "Weak rebounder for someone 7' 4".

Have you actually looked at all players 7' 3" and up and compared their rebounding percentages? If not, where is the claim "Weak Rebounder" coming from?

I think he was looking at that height and expecting Smits to be better overall, better than he was?

tsherkin wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
People assume height is the be-all in rebounding, but for decades, we have watched players not that tall get it done. Witness Reggie Evans or Danny Fortson, or Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Ben Wallace, Zach Randolph, Antonio McDyess, right? At some point, height becomes a hindrance because guys can get into your base and your mobility is limited, etc.

I'm always a bit perplexed when someone says "Weak rebounder for someone 7' 4".

Have you actually looked at all players 7' 3" and up and compared their rebounding percentages? If not, where is the claim "Weak Rebounder" coming from?

I think he was looking at that height and expecting Smits to be better overall, better than he was?

There has been lots of 7 foot+ bigs who weren't good rebounders but a good majority of those weren't as good as Smits was at his best. Smits was able to hold his own against the likes of Shaq and Ewing in the 90s on both ends.

I am a bit doubtful of judging players rebounding on total rebounds alone tho

Lots of bigs have a huge effect on rebounding percentage without actually getting all that many rebounds (steven adams comes to mind)

Not sure if that was the case with rik smits tho, just pointing that out

prolific passer wrote:There has been lots of 7 foot+ bigs who weren't good rebounders but a good majority of those weren't as good as Smits was at his best. Smits was able to hold his own against the likes of Shaq and Ewing in the 90s on both ends.

So... just to set some context, for dudes 7'2+ playing 60+ games and averaging 11+ REB100, Smits first shows up 84th on that list with his 95 campaign (top 40 if you change it to 7'3). It isn't inappropriate to look at his rebounding at size and be a LITTLE disappointed. He peaked at 8.0 rpg in the 93 playoffs in 35.8 mpg. Against New York, as Ewing averaged 11.0 rpg. Now, had Indiana been a strong defensive rebounding team, it might have been better, but no. Speaking strictly about rebounding, he didn't "hold his own" at all, he got trampled. He contributed in other ways, but rebounding wasn't really his strength. He was hot on the offensive glass in game 4 of that series as they lost, and was a solid offensive rebounder in general, but yeah, he was not an amazing rebounder, even relative to size.

Colbinii wrote:

BenoUdrihFTL wrote:

Spoiler:

As a big Reggie fan growing up I hated me some Rik Smits. My middle school mind couldn't grasp why Larry Brown was content to let Smits shoot so much when Reggie was both the far superior scorer and not shooting nearly enough for my liking. I thought it was a major injustice that Reggie and this goofy oaf were basically 1a and 1b in terms of FGAs when it seemed obvious to me that Miller should've been a featured clear-cut #1 and given a usage level on par with other top SGs of the time

In retrospect Reggie obviously was by far the #1 who anchored that offense even on those possessions where he didn't even touch the ball in favor of Smits. Turns out I simply had zero awareness of offball strategy or gravity concepts at the time

Now can I see that Smits was actually a pretty decent fit for what they did with Miller because Rik was a reasonably competent release valve on possessions where Reggie was getting smothered offball. At 7'4" with a super high release and range out to about 15 feet, he didn't need to pound the ball deep into the paint so it was easy to get him the ball in scoring position at any point in the shotclock as he could literally just catch and shoot faceup or turnaround over most matchups. Even if Smits wasn't elite at converting these opportunities, he was still good enough that it was something opponents had to consider when deciding whether to throw their entire frontcourt into defending Reggie's action. And let's face it, Indiana literally had no other offensive options on the roster to warrant any kind of defensive attention whatsoever

Brown did have a tendency tho of trying to establish Smits early with designated post ups that too often resulted in bricked hook shots or turnovers or broken plays. It wasn't as extreme or unnecessary as PJ's predictably scripted opening possessions for Bill Cartwright, and I get what Brown was going for, but it still drives me crazy just thinking about it lol

Smits was a savvy passer who synergized exceptionally well with Reggie.

His passing never stood out to me, but again, I wasn't exactly an unbiased Smits observer in real time (or any kind of sophisticated basketball fan for that matter). He definitely assisted Reggie in terms of Smits being a very willing and effective screener (he seemed rather sturdy with functional lower-body strength for a guy of his height) which was obviously foundational to Indy's offense. Between that and Smits being a soft-shooting giant, I agree about the synergy. If your 90s offense relies on warping defenses by using your SG's perimeter gravity to drive offball chaos with action typically originating in the paint, you kinda have to concede burning some shotclock waiting for scoring opportunities to materialize, so Smits being what he was as a 7'4" catch and shoot finisher out to 15 feet was very nice for Indiana to have

So I think it'd be fair to say that Smits delivered allstar caliber value to Indiana. Perhaps even moreso since there probably wasn't another 7 footer in the league with his specific skillset

falcolombardi wrote:I am a bit doubtful of judging players rebounding on total rebounds alone tho

Lots of bigs have a huge effect on rebounding percentage without actually getting all that many rebounds (steven adams comes to mind)

It's true, though below are the Pacers' league rank by year:

'89: 17th (of 25) in OREB%, 17th in DREB%
'90: 24th (of 27) in OREB%, 21st in DREB%
'91: 21st (of 27) in OREB%, 18th in DREB%
'92: 17th (of 27) in OREB%, 15th in DREB%
'93: *6th (of 27) in OREB%, 18th in DREB% (*a young Dale Davis was inserted into the starting line-up)
'94: 5th (of 27) in OREB%, 12th in DREB% (Davis now 3rd in minutes played; also added rookie Antonio Davis [who was a good offensive rebounder])
'95: 7th (of 27) in OREB%, 12th in DREB%
'96: 7th (of 29) in OREB%, 15th in DREB%


I'll stop there, as we see an 8-year span in which they are never [even close to] an elite rebounding team. In terms of defensive rebounding, they're barely ever even above average. The only years in which they're kinda good on the glass [at least on the offensive glass] is after the Davis('s) have arrived on scene.

At any rate, it does not suggest he had a bigger imprint than his individual numbers imply (a la Marc Gasol or Yao Ming).

falcolombardi wrote:I am a bit doubtful of judging players rebounding on total rebounds alone tho

Lots of bigs have a huge effect on rebounding percentage without actually getting all that many rebounds (steven adams comes to mind)

Not sure if that was the case with rik smits tho, just pointing that out

Ya, its the Marc Gasol effect. Some bigs are simply much better at propping up team rebounds than others and then some like Smits, Dirk play more away from the rim on offense so their off reb obviously takes a hit but they also draw their man out which makes it easier for teammates to get them.

Smits' biggest problem was he couldn't stay out of foul trouble.

His first seven years in the league he played just 26 min/g because he committed 6.5 fouls per 48 minutes.