Mitch Richmond compared to alltime great SGs

[migya]

Mitch Richmond is underrated alltime. He is not on most fan's to 10-15 SGs list. He was among the best scorers in the 90s and played Jordan better than anyone else, according to Jordan himself. He was a good defender and shooter and was unlucky to be on bad Kings teams most of his career. Had he stayed on the Warriors he would've played in the playoffs more and therefore had a more winning in his career.

How does he compare to other alltime great SGs and why is he not top 15?

[Jaivl]

IDK, I've always though of him as a Bradley Beal type of guy, but he has better impact numbers (on terrrrrrrible teams). Never really looked that deeply into him.

[NbaAllDay]

Mitch Richmond was an absolute beast in the early NBA games and for that reason I have him just behind MJ.

[migya]

Mitch Richmond was an absolute beast in the early NBA games and for that reason I have him just behind MJ.

As in number 2 behind MJ or number 20?

[Colbinii]

Mitch Richmond was an absolute beast in the early NBA games and for that reason I have him just behind MJ.

As in number 2 behind MJ or number 20?

He has him #2 right behind MJ for the 1990s Video Games.

[Stalwart]

I don't think you can put him in the the top 15. Off the top of my head you have:

Jordan, Kobe, West, Wade, Harden, Drexler, Iverson, Gervin, Miller, Allen, Jones, Sharman, Monroe, Mcgrady, Carter, Manu, Moncrief, K Thompson, D Thompson...

[70sFan]

Yeah, he's definitely outside top 15, likely outside of top 20 as well (though it's closer).

[migya]

I don't think you can put him in the the top 15. Off the top of my head you have:

Jordan, Kobe, West, Wade, Harden, Drexler, Iverson, Gervin, Miller, Allen, Jones, Sharman, Monroe, Mcgrady, Carter, Manu, Moncrief, K Thompson, D Thompson...

What makes Miller, Allen, Mcgrady, Carter, Jones, Sharman, Monroe, Moncrief, K Thompson, D Thompson and Ginobili higher ranked than Richmond?


I know the liking for Reggie and Ginobili, and the advanced stats are big for them, but both weren't near the volume that Richmond was and both were on far better teams. I've always thought that Reggie would've won less on the Kings than Richmond did, as Richmond was a more versatile and complete scorer than Reggie. Ginobili also just couldn't carry such a load like Richmond did. Richmond with a great big like Duncan would've probably scored more but much better efficiency..



Sharman and Monroe, though greats in various forms in their eras, weren't the scorers Richmond was. David Thompson could score but his career was short. Similar with Moncrief, though his short prime was very high level, particularly defensively, it doesn't amount to Richmond's total career. Mcgrady and Carter had very good primes but they were also short.

Allen and Klay look like good and similar comparisons. Klay I think is a great shooter and very good defender but isn't as multi skilled and impactful as Richmond. Allen has similar numbers to Richmond and I think it's defense that's in favor of Richmond. Both had far better teams in their careers than Richmond and thus far less load on them.


It really would've been interesting had Richmond stayed on the Warriors with RunTMC. With a decent big they could've had some playoff runs.

[Snakebites]

The difference in volume scoring between Reggie Miller and Mitch Richmond was pretty marginal when you adjust for pace.

And Reggie did it with six percent higher TS percentage- which is a massive gulf. I realize I’m cherry picking Reggie out of multiple guys you mentioned, but I do think that it really points out how dubious a metric volume scoring is in general. As to whether he’s top 15 overall, I’d need to sit down with that list some more.

[Stan]

It's one thing to not win playoff series with bad teams, hell, we saw that even happen to Jordan. But to legitimately miss the playoffs year after year after year for almost a decade, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is, that's an indictment on the star in question.

[70sFan]

I don't think you can put him in the the top 15. Off the top of my head you have:

Jordan, Kobe, West, Wade, Harden, Drexler, Iverson, Gervin, Miller, Allen, Jones, Sharman, Monroe, Mcgrady, Carter, Manu, Moncrief, K Thompson, D Thompson...

What makes Miller, Allen, Mcgrady, Carter, Jones, Sharman, Monroe, Moncrief, K Thompson, D Thompson and Ginobili higher ranked than Richmond?


I know the liking for Reggie and Ginobili, and the advanced stats are big for them, but both weren't near the volume that Richmond was and both were on far better teams. I've always thought that Reggie would've won less on the Kings than Richmond did, as Richmond was a more versatile and complete scorer than Reggie. Ginobili also just couldn't carry such a load like Richmond did. Richmond with a great big like Duncan would've probably scored more but much better efficiency..



Sharman and Monroe, though greats in various forms in their eras, weren't the scorers Richmond was. David Thompson could score but his career was short. Similar with Moncrief, though his short prime was very high level, particularly defensively, it doesn't amount to Richmond's total career. Mcgrady and Carter had very good primes but they were also short.

Allen and Klay look like good and similar comparisons. Klay I think is a great shooter and very good defender but isn't as multi skilled and impactful as Richmond. Allen has similar numbers to Richmond and I think it's defense that's in favor of Richmond. Both had far better teams in their careers than Richmond and thus far less load on them.


It really would've been interesting had Richmond stayed on the Warriors with RunTMC. With a decent big they could've had some playoff runs.

The better start would be to make the case for Mitch over all of them, because it's quite easy to understand why Mitch isn't ranked higher than them.

[penbeast0]

Not sure why Allen and Klay are the comps. Mitch Richmond was a strong, athletic 2 guard who liked to body people. He wasn't great at anything (not a great outside shooter, great finisher, great rebounding, great handles, great defense) but was good at almost everything and a hard worker, even in Sacramento where it would have been easy to quit on the team. Reminds me more of a shorter Jimmy Butler with more range.

[migya]

It's one thing to not win playoff series with bad teams, hell, we saw that even happen to Jordan. But to legitimately miss the playoffs year after year after year for almost a decade, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is, that's an indictment on the star in question.

If the supporting cast is bad then not making the playoffs is not unreasonable and is expected.

Garnett had bad teams but they weren't as bad as Richmond's and he was a lower seed and lost in the 1st round seven straight years. He is liked around here and is a great player.

[Stan]

It's one thing to not win playoff series with bad teams, hell, we saw that even happen to Jordan. But to legitimately miss the playoffs year after year after year for almost a decade, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is, that's an indictment on the star in question.

If the supporting cast is bad then not making the playoffs is not unreasonable and is expected.

Garnett had bad teams but they weren't as bad as Richmond's and he was a lower seed and lost in the 1st round seven straight years. He is liked around here and is a great player.

Bro, c'mon, you can like Richmond as a player, but to do this over 7 years of your prime

29-53
25-57
28-54
39-43
39-43
34-48
27-55

is frankly inexcusable. He couldn't even lead his team to 30 wins in most of these years. Maybe we just have different expectations, but I expect a star player, regardless of supporting cast, to at minimum lead their teams to an 8 seed on an annual basis. Winning less than 30 games that consistently is a pretty damning trend.

[migya]

It's one thing to not win playoff series with bad teams, hell, we saw that even happen to Jordan. But to legitimately miss the playoffs year after year after year for almost a decade, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is, that's an indictment on the star in question.

If the supporting cast is bad then not making the playoffs is not unreasonable and is expected.

Garnett had bad teams but they weren't as bad as Richmond's and he was a lower seed and lost in the 1st round seven straight years. He is liked around here and is a great player.

Bro, c'mon, you can like Richmond as a player, but to do this over 7 years of your prime

29-53
25-57
28-54
39-43
39-43
34-48
27-55

is frankly inexcusable. He couldn't even lead his team to 30 wins in most of these years. Maybe we just have different expectations, but I expect a star player, regardless of supporting cast, to at minimum lead their teams to an 8 seed on an annual basis. Winning less than 30 games that consistently is a pretty damning trend.

You think Reggie or Ginobili could have? How about even a giant like Doncic, even Magic? Those teams were horrid