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

[SportsGuru08]

Replace Reggie with Mitch Richmond on the 1993-2000 era Pacers. Would they have won more, less, or about the same?

[One_and_Done]

Pretty similar results probably.

[migya]

Richmond scored in more ways and was a better defender. Pacers needed a volume scorer as they didn't have alot and Richmond scored more and in a worse system.

[penbeast0]

RIchmond might lead them to a better regular season record on the average depending on how much Reggie's superior spacing significantly helped teammates like Rik Smits. Richmond was the better one on one player. Reggie's heroics against the Knicks led to his inferior team upsetting a superior team and no indication that Richmond would have that kind of series so probably less ECF appearances.

[Warspite]

RIchmond might lead them to a better regular season record on the average depending on how much Reggie's superior spacing significantly helped teammates like Rik Smits. Richmond was the better one on one player. Reggie's heroics against the Knicks led to his inferior team upsetting a superior team and no indication that Richmond would have that kind of series so probably less ECF appearances.

Excellent point:

Mitch was a better all-round player who would have made a difference in the regular season giving the Pacers more home court advantages, but Reggie has the potential to do the impossible in a game. I don't think Mitch would have even tried to do some of the things Reggie did to the knicks.

[SportsGuru08]

Richmond is a difficult player to judge since we saw so little of him in the playoffs during his better years. But I don't believe Reggie would have fared

[Doctor MJ]

Replace Reggie with Mitch Richmond on the 1993-2000 era Pacers. Would they have won more, less, or about the same?

Well, I’d say first and foremost, no one played like Reggie until Reggie, and there’s really only one guy in the 20 years after Reggie to do it better (Steph).

Now, Reggie would have been more successful than he was if his teams had embraced more pace and space offense, and I want to be careful not imply he was already having that MVP level impact, but in general, replacing Reggie with worse shooters, shorter shooters, and less lean for the constant cardio, you make it worse.

So Mitch as Reggie will be a significantly worse Reggie.

Now, could they have reformulated the team around Richmond’s strengths instead and been better? I think that’s very unlikely in practice, but a meaningful discussion would need to have a plan.

The good news is that Richmond was stronger and more explosive while still having solid enough height. Maybe that combination could have done better than what Indy did with Reggie.

On the other hand, it’s a guarantee that Indy could have done better with Reggie than he already did, and he already led his team to serious contention for many, many years that Mitch’s career can’t touch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHAQ32]

Definitely worse.

But even though Reggie has never gotten his proper just due, I would say that Pacers frontcourt was arguably tops in the league for a few years.

[Doctor MJ]

Richmond scored in more ways and was a better defender. Pacers needed a volume scorer as they didn't have alot and Richmond scored more and in a worse system.

Are you under the impression that Reggie didn’t score more because he couldn’t? I’d object to that assessment.

They didn’t play without volume scoring in the regular season because they tried and failed, they played how they played because it was working pretty well.

And of course, come playoff time, when needed, Reggie was known for precisely that.

Re: worse system. I would object to trying to dismiss Reggie as any form of system player. He played his own way, and we still don’t have enough NBA players who can do it well.

Meanwhile everyone who wants a volume score just lets somebody volume shoot. The 76ers got Jahlil Okafor to 17 ppg as a rookie and he’s nowhere near an actual NBA level player. The Orlando Magic are horrendously ineffective when they let Paolo do it, but they are convinced they have the answer to their prayer because it’s just that easy to manufacture shooting volume for whoever you tell the coach to make a volume scorer.

All that said, not looking to knock Mitch who was a great player, and whose different body type (thicker, stronger) avoids some of Reggie’s vulnerabilities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[migya]

Richmond scored in more ways and was a better defender. Pacers needed a volume scorer as they didn't have alot and Richmond scored more and in a worse system.

Are you under the impression that Reggie didn’t score more because he couldn’t? I’d object to that assessment.

They didn’t play without volume scoring in the regular season because they tried and failed, they played how they played because it was working pretty well.

And of course, come playoff time, when needed, Reggie was known for precisely that.

Re: worse system. I would object to trying to dismiss Reggie as any form of system player. He played his own way, and we still don’t have enough NBA players who can do it well.

Meanwhile everyone who wants a volume score just lets somebody volume shoot. The 76ers got Jahlil Okafor to 17 ppg as a rookie and he’s nowhere near an actual NBA level player. The Orlando Magic are horrendously ineffective when they let Paolo do it, but they are convinced they have the answer to their prayer because it’s just that easy to manufacture shooting volume for whoever you tell the coach to make a volume scorer.

All that said, not looking to knock Mitch who was a great player, and whose different body type (thicker, stronger) avoids some of Reggie’s vulnerabilities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Reggie could've scored more he would've. He had few very good scoring seasons. Efficient from percentages standpoint but he was never among the best scorers.

The Pacers only became a prominent team, one that won anything in the playoffs, after 1993, that's quite a few seasons into Reggie's career. It was Larry Brown and then Bird, the coaching. that was largely responsible for that team getting better.

Reggie, like most players, was a system player in that he played in whatever style the coaching implemented. He was a shooter and not much else. He could take it to the basket reasonably but wasn't fast, strong or athletic, actually among the bottom half of SGs physically in those years. He needed screens to get off his shots, as almost any shooter does.

The Pacers were well built; One of the best playmakers and floor generals Mark Jackson, among the best frontlines Schrempf/McKey, the Davis duo and Smits. Those teams were good and weren't a top team any season, not top 2 that I can think of. Reggie had the teammates to let him flourish at what he was best at, which was shooting and scoring.

Richmond was stuck on bad teams in Sacramento, put in place of Reggie and he feasts. He was among the best shooters himself but has a much more diverse scoring game than Reggie and was able to score more regularly.

[Doctor MJ]

Richmond scored in more ways and was a better defender. Pacers needed a volume scorer as they didn't have alot and Richmond scored more and in a worse system.

Are you under the impression that Reggie didn’t score more because he couldn’t? I’d object to that assessment.

They didn’t play without volume scoring in the regular season because they tried and failed, they played how they played because it was working pretty well.

And of course, come playoff time, when needed, Reggie was known for precisely that.

Re: worse system. I would object to trying to dismiss Reggie as any form of system player. He played his own way, and we still don’t have enough NBA players who can do it well.

Meanwhile everyone who wants a volume score just lets somebody volume shoot. The 76ers got Jahlil Okafor to 17 ppg as a rookie and he’s nowhere near an actual NBA level player. The Orlando Magic are horrendously ineffective when they let Paolo do it, but they are convinced they have the answer to their prayer because it’s just that easy to manufacture shooting volume for whoever you tell the coach to make a volume scorer.

All that said, not looking to knock Mitch who was a great player, and whose different body type (thicker, stronger) avoids some of Reggie’s vulnerabilities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Reggie could've scored more he would've. He had few very good scoring seasons. Efficient from percentages standpoint but he was never among the best scorers.

The Pacers only became a prominent team, one that won anything in the playoffs, after 1993, that's quite a few seasons into Reggie's career. It was Larry Brown and then Bird, the coaching. that was largely responsible for that team getting better.

Reggie, like most players, was a system player in that he played in whatever style the coaching implemented. He was a shooter and not much else. He could take it to the basket reasonably but wasn't fast, strong or athletic, actually among the bottom half of SGs physically in those years. He needed screens to get off his shots, as almost any shooter does.

The Pacers were well built; One of the best playmakers and floor generals Mark Jackson, among the best frontlines Schrempf/McKey, the Davis duo and Smits. Those teams were good and weren't a top team any season, not top 2 that I can think of. Reggie had the teammates to let him flourish at what he was best at, which was shooting and scoring.

Richmond was stuck on bad teams in Sacramento, put in place of Reggie and he feasts. He was among the best shooters himself but has a much more diverse scoring game than Reggie and was able to score more regularly.

Okay we were probably just going to have to agree to disagree if you think Reggie was trying and failing to be a traditional volume scorer. His 3-point-rover-based approach was revolutionary imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsherkin]

If Reggie could've scored more he would've. He had few very good scoring seasons. Efficient from percentages standpoint but he was never among the best scorers.

This is volume fetishism. Evaluating scorer quality by volume alone isn't sensible. And to that, Reggie averaged 21.4 ppg from 90-97 during the RS, and 24.7 ppg over that same period in the playoffs. He clearly elevated his scoring when it mattered. There often wasn't a point to him just shooting for the sake of shooting, though, so he didn't. Their D was their larger issue, as was their coaching turnover.

[Doctor MJ]

If Reggie could've scored more he would've. He had few very good scoring seasons. Efficient from percentages standpoint but he was never among the best scorers.

This is volume fetishism. Evaluating scorer quality by volume alone isn't sensible. And to that, Reggie averaged 21.4 ppg from 90-97 during the RS, and 24.7 ppg over that same period in the playoffs. He clearly elevated his scoring when it mattered. There often wasn't a point to him just shooting for the sake of shooting, though, so he didn't. Their D was their larger issue, as was their coaching turnover.

Just to piggy back here:

When you’re not the go-to on-ball guy, you get the ball when you get the ball, and if the team can score without getting you the ball, they will.

And the thing is, the spacing impact of the rover specifically means that keeping him from getting the ball means leaving openings elsewhere, so you impact the game even when you don’t have the ball.

What happens in the playoffs with greater defensive intensity? Understandable to expect it all breaks down, but of course that’s not what happened for Indy. Playoff defense seemed to just make the Indy offense be a bit more patient, and this led to Reggie getting more shots rather than less, and made the team generally more resilient in the playoffs than other teams.

One of this means that building your offense around a rover is the best way to max out a star’s volume shooting, but a thing I always think we need to remember is that basketball narrative has done weird things to our perception.

We tend to view a 30 PPG guy as “unstoppable”, but in a sport where you’re scoring triple digits, 30 points means that most of the offenses success comes on possessions where guys other than the star scores. This then to say that no scorer is ever unstoppable, and it’s really just a question of what small fraction of the team’s total scoring will go to the star.

And that has everything to do with why there’s no real correlation between individual scoring titles and team championships. You win it all by finding the balance that works best, and just because a given star finds his balance at greater volume than another star, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a more valuable offensive player.

Basketball people understood this until Jordan, but then his combination of volume, team success, and popularity made people - including franchise decision makers - reject this previously known truth, and start convincing themselves that it made sense to let the Jerry Stackhouses battle for the scoring title as if it was simply Jordan’s PPG that made him the best, when it rally wasn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm going to echo some stuff already said and also say that the Pacers wouldn't come close to the same ORtg's and win totals they had in the rs and neither the same ps success. Mitch Richmond was fine if a team needed a guy to eat up 20+ shots a game on solid efficiency but he would not elevate an offense the way Reggie did along with the other effects like wearing down defenders and creating motion with his ability to shoot over guys on catch and shoots. Mitch is going to give you a static form of attack that works but look at how Reggie managed to lead teams to multiple #1 ORtg's while run tmc Warriors could only be top 5 despite having more talent I would say on that end. That's due mainly to Reggie and solid coaching I would say. Yes the Pacers had talent too but its similar to how Steph made the Warriors so good.

[OdomFan]

Knicks beat the Pacers in the playoffs.

[BusywithBball]

Perhaps from September to March there is discussion. But Reggie Miller is not legend because of March to June getting only 5 all-star nominations. He is what he is because when Jordan and Pippen are up with the game close to ending Reggie finds a way. Even facing invincible Bulls Reggie was unstoppable when he needed to be. Indiana was a different beast in the playoffs because Reggie was. It’s a shame he has no championships because he was made for April and May. Richmond no.

[migya]

If Reggie could've scored more he would've. He had few very good scoring seasons. Efficient from percentages standpoint but he was never among the best scorers.

This is volume fetishism. Evaluating scorer quality by volume alone isn't sensible. And to that, Reggie averaged 21.4 ppg from 90-97 during the RS, and 24.7 ppg over that same period in the playoffs. He clearly elevated his scoring when it mattered. There often wasn't a point to him just shooting for the sake of shooting, though, so he didn't. Their D was their larger issue, as was their coaching turnover.

Volume is one of the factors in a good scorer, if the efficiency, versatile skills and fit with team is at least quite good. As I said, the Pacers struggled for years and Reggie didn't improve his scoring to elevate his team during the season and took years to have a winning effect in the ps. One of Indy's problems was creation off the dribble to break down defenses, which Reggie had little skill at.

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.

Reggie was effective, but he wasn't some star that carried an offense to amazing heights and was scoring near top of the nba amounts to lead his team to victory. He had one of the best rosters at the time and they did well after 93 and Reggie was key to that.

[Braggins]

They would maybe win a couple playoff series but would be largely irrelevant imo. Reggie was clearly a more impactful player than Richmond.

[tsherkin]

Volume is one of the factors in a good scorer,

Volume can be produced in many ways, and isn't an end in and of itself if the overall offense is clicking. More to the point, complaining about Reggie's volume doesn't really make any sense.

if the efficiency, versatile skills and fit with team is at least quite good. As I said, the Pacers struggled for years and Reggie didn't improve his scoring to elevate his team during the season and took years to have a winning effect in the ps.

They struggled primarily due to their defense. By Reggie's second season as a starter and his first All-Star season in 89-90, they were already a +3.4 offense, and stayed that way or better until Larry Brown took over. Understanding how they were actually losing is relevant and important.

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.

Reggie was effective, but he wasn't some star that carried an offense to amazing heights and was scoring near top of the nba amounts to lead his team to victory. He had one of the best rosters at the time and they did well after 93 and Reggie was key to that.

Reggie's offensive impact is pretty clear from basically every measure that isn't "awww, he didn't score 25+ ppg," though.

[One_and_Done]

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