NLSC Greatest of All-time: #2

Over the first ten years of their career, which I chose because it's when Richmond's best years stop.

P/36	R/36	A/36	TS%	Ortg	Drtg	PER	WS/48	BPM	WS	VORP
22.3	4.1	3.7	.563	111	111	18.1	.117	+1.2	68.3	22.8
22.2	6.1	3.8	.560	108	102	21.4	.164	+3.9	93.9	40.7

The best teams of their era (2007-08 Celtics excluded):

2001-02 Boston Celtics: 48-34
Pierce WARP: 15.4 (46.4%)
Combined non-Pierce WARP: 17.8 (53.6%)
Non-Pierce Players
PER > 15: 1.5
WS/48 > .100: 5
BPM > 0: 2.5

1994-95 Sacramento Kings: 38-44
Mitch WARP: 8.1 (33.75%)
Combined non-Mitch WARP: 15.9 (66.25%)
Non-Mitch Players
PER > 15: 2 (Polynice at 14.7)
WS/48 > .100: 5
BPM > 0: 4

These stats are flawed because Mitch was an excellent individual defender but they just fail to grasp this fact. He played for the horrendous defensive Kings. This was an era with significant gaps between league top bigs and bottom dwellers. Giving up inside meant little to no chance to compete at all.

Had he been able to pad DWS on a good defensive team, WS/48 would look much more favorable to Mitch.

Mitch was an average at best defender, he was just big for the position which in the Riley/handcheck era made up for a lot of actual lack of defensive skills.

This is a lot more fair comparison than Pierce:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2010

He was not a bad defender by any standard. He was at the very least above average and team's go to defender at multiple positions. Michael Smith finally gave them inside toughness in Mitch's late years. But even then The Animal wasn't much, I've seen him closely in Vancouver and he wasn't somebody you want as a significant second best player.

Redd? Come on. Stats may look close enough but I don't believe stats tell everything in entirity when it comes to Richmond.