NBA Playoff Thread

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

FNG -

The Jazz were 5-0 when Ingles didn't play and 15-6 when Conley didn't play (and by the way, Donovan Mitchell slid over to the starting PG role in a number of those wins that Conley didn't play in). So in fact, the Jazz had an even better win percentage when either of those two guys were out.

Also, those 40% shooters you love so much may be 40% shooters partially because guess who is drawing the opposing team's best defenders and creating a lot of the space that frees up those shooters? You should be smart enough to know that these things can't be looked at in a total vacuum. If we use your logic, why shouldn't Joe Ingles take every single shot for the Jazz on every single possession? After all, he is more efficient than everyone else!

Bottom line is this:
- The Jazz are a deep team with a LOT of good to great players. If one of them is out for a period of time, it obviously doesn't cripple the team in the same way KAT's injury did.
- Mitchell is a positive contributor to the Jazz and the most capable player to create something out of nothing. Every team needs someone like that and he can carry a big load offensively, freeing up other guys to play the role they are best suited for.
- I freely acknowledge that he is not in the pantheon of current greats - Durant, LeBron, Leonard, etc.- but he is a damn good player that is one of the key components on one of the top NBA teams.

[Monster]

Mitchell missed 19 games this year, so we actually have some fairly recent data on how the team does when he misses entire games. The Jazz were 13-6 this season when Mitchell didn't play, for a 68% win percentage. They were even better when he did play, as they ended the year at 72% overall which means it was an even higher percentage when he played.

Again, I think without question he is a net POSITIVE to the team and no one should doubt that. You absolutely need a guy like him that can make shots and create off the dribble.

And FNG, one of the reasons his efficiency is lower than the others is because guess who gets the ball when all other options are exhausted? Mitchell is the one leaned on to create a bunch of offense and often is the one that gets the hot potato when the shot clock is running down.

What do you think would happen to Joe Ingles' efficiency if he was asked to be the #1 offensive option and get 25 per night? I can guarantee you it would not stay that high. Mitchell's high usage helps offload the pressure on the other guys.

Mitchell is a tier or so lower than Durant, Kawhi, or LeBron. But a team needs a guy that can go get buckets without a ton of table setting from team mates. We can only hope Edwards gets as good as him some day.

Hmm...some interesting points, Q, but also some that make me think the other way. A team should win many fewer games when the guy who is far and away their best scorer is out, right? Look at the difference in the Wolves' record with and without KAT. Disaster! And how often do the Warriors win when Steph is out. The fact that Utah's winning percentage barely changes whether Mitchell plays or not speaks volumes to me. I don't think you'd find the same result if you looked at with and without winning percentages for Conley or Gobert. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more significant drop off when Ingles sat out. Doesn't the fact that Utah hardly misses a beat when Mitchell is out evidence that his value isn't nearly at the same level as Conley or Gobert, or even Ingles?

I get the efficiency argument, but it would be stronger if there weren't so many other #1 options who also have great efficiency. Who did the Warriors look to as the clock was running down...Wig? No, it's Steph, and he still had a 60.5 eFG% this season without Klay next to him. LeBron was certainly the #1 option with AD out so much this season, but he was at 57.6% for the year. The Bucks knew exactly who was going to take most of the shots last night and had Tucker constantly hanging on him, but Durant's eFG% was sky high last night. I would argue that the Jazz are a great shooting team with many more efficient options...treating Mitchell as your primary option when you have so many 40+% shooters out there seems like bad strategy to me. For a scorer to be very valuable to me, he better at least have a league-average eFG%.

Look, I enjoy watching Mitchell's high-scoring performance...very entertaining, even if not efficient. And I appreciate the point that the beauty of the game has value too, and analytics tend to take away some of the natural beauty of the game. But this discussion is about winning and value, not optics. And I think it's valid to point out the many deficiencies in Donovan's game that reduce his value in mu opinion. I'm high on Edwards, but have much higher hopes for him than Mitchell. I believe he averaged close to 24 PPG the last three months of the season, so he's already a better volume scorer than Mitchell was at the end of his first season, despite having two other volume scorers to share the scoring with. His shooting efficiency consistently rose as the season progressed, and I would like to see him more of a 55% guy rather than the closer to 50% guy I believe Mitchell is. And my eye test tells me he is going to be a far superior defender to Mitchell...still a long way to go, but he's only 19 after all. I will be disappointed if Ant's ceiling is Mitchell...I think he has the potential to be much more efficient while also defending much better.

It's worth mentioning that Mitchell turns 25 in September. He is still a fairly young player.

Mitchell's TS% this season is about league average. He gets to the line 6 times a game and shoots a high percentage from there. What brings down his efficiency is that he doesn't take another of shots at the rim and then he takes a decent chunk them from 3-10 feet and shoots under 42% on those shots. Still the guy shoots ober 40% from every area besides 3 and he isn't taking a crazy amount of long 2's/midrange. He actually shot a higher percentage on 3's this year that were not from the corners so that pretty significant especially since he took Barry ober 10% of his 3's from the corners. There is some evidence that Mitchell is becoming a better shooter espcially from 3 he is going to be an even bigger problem to defend and that's probably going to open up even more passing. Considering he scored 26ppg and dishes out over 5 assists his turnovers certainly aren't a problem. Look up his efficiency in the playoffs this year and last. It's pretty damn good.

I haven't watched Michell a ton the last few years but I have wondered if some people had overrated his defense and whether he was a 2-way player. It would be pretty disappointing if he had dropped off on that end as much as some have suggested but it wouldn't completely shock me. Mitchell is not a big guard so that can be a factor but there are plenty of guys his height or smaller that have been effective defenders at that position without Rudy Gobert backing them up.

The bottom line is I would be THRILLED to have a Donovan Mitchell on my roster even if he wasn't that good at defense. There is still upside for him offensively and he is already a good player. Allen Iverson is not May type of player. He was pretty inefficient was mostly a scorer and wasn't exactly a great defender. He did have use on defense he wa sales ways a threat to anticipate and steal the ball and coaches would use that ability to their advantage when the set up their team. I had a lot of respect for AI though. I though the teams he played on he just made them go in a lot of ways. Dude just balled out and I think a lot of guys followed him. Maybe that wouldn't work in today's game but there would probably be more spacing too...so...yeah. It's not always about scoring but sometimes a guy that can get some buckets and take a lot of shots can have a lot of value. Some players play their roles well but ask them to do too much more for more than a few games...it doesn't work. Sometimes it does and you find out you have a guy that can do more than you thought. Also I'll mention that if Utah did well without Mitchell but Conely was healthy that isn't surprising. He is one of those guys that just does good things like a better scoring shooting version of Rubio or a lesser version of Chris Paul. Dude is a really good player and he and Gasol are 2 guys that are not going to have super awesome stats but people that watched them play know they were VERY good basketball layers and I think we all can appreciate those guys...and Players like Mitchell or someone like Demarr Derozen.

[FNG]

Mitchell missed 19 games this year, so we actually have some fairly recent data on how the team does when he misses entire games. The Jazz were 13-6 this season when Mitchell didn't play, for a 68% win percentage. They were even better when he did play, as they ended the year at 72% overall which means it was an even higher percentage when he played.

Again, I think without question he is a net POSITIVE to the team and no one should doubt that. You absolutely need a guy like him that can make shots and create off the dribble.

And FNG, one of the reasons his efficiency is lower than the others is because guess who gets the ball when all other options are exhausted? Mitchell is the one leaned on to create a bunch of offense and often is the one that gets the hot potato when the shot clock is running down.

What do you think would happen to Joe Ingles' efficiency if he was asked to be the #1 offensive option and get 25 per night? I can guarantee you it would not stay that high. Mitchell's high usage helps offload the pressure on the other guys.

Mitchell is a tier or so lower than Durant, Kawhi, or LeBron. But a team needs a guy that can go get buckets without a ton of table setting from team mates. We can only hope Edwards gets as good as him some day.

Hmm...some interesting points, Q, but also some that make me think the other way. A team should win many fewer games when the guy who is far and away their best scorer is out, right? Look at the difference in the Wolves' record with and without KAT. Disaster! And how often do the Warriors win when Steph is out. The fact that Utah's winning percentage barely changes whether Mitchell plays or not speaks volumes to me. I don't think you'd find the same result if you looked at with and without winning percentages for Conley or Gobert. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more significant drop off when Ingles sat out. Doesn't the fact that Utah hardly misses a beat when Mitchell is out evidence that his value isn't nearly at the same level as Conley or Gobert, or even Ingles?

I get the efficiency argument, but it would be stronger if there weren't so many other #1 options who also have great efficiency. Who did the Warriors look to as the clock was running down...Wig? No, it's Steph, and he still had a 60.5 eFG% this season without Klay next to him. LeBron was certainly the #1 option with AD out so much this season, but he was at 57.6% for the year. The Bucks knew exactly who was going to take most of the shots last night and had Tucker constantly hanging on him, but Durant's eFG% was sky high last night. I would argue that the Jazz are a great shooting team with many more efficient options...treating Mitchell as your primary option when you have so many 40+% shooters out there seems like bad strategy to me. For a scorer to be very valuable to me, he better at least have a league-average eFG%.

Look, I enjoy watching Mitchell's high-scoring performance...very entertaining, even if not efficient. And I appreciate the point that the beauty of the game has value too, and analytics tend to take away some of the natural beauty of the game. But this discussion is about winning and value, not optics. And I think it's valid to point out the many deficiencies in Donovan's game that reduce his value in mu opinion. I'm high on Edwards, but have much higher hopes for him than Mitchell. I believe he averaged close to 24 PPG the last three months of the season, so he's already a better volume scorer than Mitchell was at the end of his first season, despite having two other volume scorers to share the scoring with. His shooting efficiency consistently rose as the season progressed, and I would like to see him more of a 55% guy rather than the closer to 50% guy I believe Mitchell is. And my eye test tells me he is going to be a far superior defender to Mitchell...still a long way to go, but he's only 19 after all. I will be disappointed if Ant's ceiling is Mitchell...I think he has the potential to be much more efficient while also defending much better.

It's worth mentioning that Mitchell turns 25 in September. He is still a fairly young player.

Mitchell's TS% this season is about league average. He gets to the line 6 times a game and shoots a high percentage from there. What brings down his efficiency is that he doesn't take another of shots at the rim and then he takes a decent chunk them from 3-10 feet and shoots under 42% on those shots. Still the guy shoots ober 40% from every area besides 3 and he isn't taking a crazy amount of long 2's/midrange. He actually shot a higher percentage on 3's this year that were not from the corners so that pretty significant especially since he took Barry ober 10% of his 3's from the corners. There is some evidence that Mitchell is becoming a better shooter espcially from 3 he is going to be an even bigger problem to defend and that's probably going to open up even more passing. Considering he scored 26ppg and dishes out over 5 assists his turnovers certainly aren't a problem. Look up his efficiency in the playoffs this year and last. It's pretty damn good.

I haven't watched Michell a ton the last few years but I have wondered if some people had overrated his defense and whether he was a 2-way player. It would be pretty disappointing if he had dropped off on that end as much as some have suggested but it wouldn't completely shock me. Mitchell is not a big guard so that can be a factor but there are plenty of guys his height or smaller that have been effective defenders at that position without Rudy Gobert backing them up.

The bottom line is I would be THRILLED to have a Donovan Mitchell on my roster even if he wasn't that good at defense. There is still upside for him offensively and he is already a good player. Allen Iverson is not May type of player. He was pretty inefficient was mostly a scorer and wasn't exactly a great defender. He did have use on defense he wa sales ways a threat to anticipate and steal the ball and coaches would use that ability to their advantage when the set up their team. I had a lot of respect for AI though. I though the teams he played on he just made them go in a lot of ways. Dude just balled out and I think a lot of guys followed him. Maybe that wouldn't work in today's game but there would probably be more spacing too...so...yeah. It's not always about scoring but sometimes a guy that can get some buckets and take a lot of shots can have a lot of value. Some players play their roles well but ask them to do too much more for more than a few games...it doesn't work. Sometimes it does and you find out you have a guy that can do more than you thought. Also I'll mention that if Utah did well without Mitchell but Conely was healthy that isn't surprising. He is one of those guys that just does good things like a better scoring shooting version of Rubio or a lesser version of Chris Paul. Dude is a really good player and he and Gasol are 2 guys that are not going to have super awesome stats but people that watched them play know they were VERY good basketball layers and I think we all can appreciate those guys...and Players like Mitchell or someone like Demarr Derozen.

We're going to have to disagree on Mitchell, monster...but you have the comfort of having Abe and Q in your corner though as they agree with you on Mitchell's value! I follow the Jazz as close as any other team other than the Wolves, and the guy who wrote the attached article about Mitchell's defensive struggles is the best I see out there in writing about the Jazz (by the way, he's quite high on how Donovan has stepped up in the playoffs). Here's the bottom line for me. I'm a huge fan of Conley, Gobert and Ingles, and I'm never going to be convinced that a 25-year-old with a career eFG% of 50% and the defensive struggles Utah fans see in him is more valuable than them. Let's leave it there.

https://www.slcdunk.com/the-downbeat-latest-jazz-news/2021/2/8/22270315/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-donovan-mitchells-defense-utah-jazz

One final point in response to Q's hope that Ant gets to Mitchell's level: Dane Moore tweets that Ant averaged 23.3 points on an very efficient 58.6 eFG% over the last 22 games of the season. He then reports that 299 NBA players had a lower eFG% over that stretch, including names like Beal, Westbrook, Doncic, James, DLO, Middleton, Randle, Mitchell, and yes, even my guy Ingles! We need to set our sights much higher when it comes to Ant's potential to be a huge-volume, efficient scorer. I mean optimism about the Wolves...what could go wrong? ;-)

[AbeVigodaLive]

Mitchell missed 19 games this year, so we actually have some fairly recent data on how the team does when he misses entire games. The Jazz were 13-6 this season when Mitchell didn't play, for a 68% win percentage. They were even better when he did play, as they ended the year at 72% overall which means it was an even higher percentage when he played.

Again, I think without question he is a net POSITIVE to the team and no one should doubt that. You absolutely need a guy like him that can make shots and create off the dribble.

And FNG, one of the reasons his efficiency is lower than the others is because guess who gets the ball when all other options are exhausted? Mitchell is the one leaned on to create a bunch of offense and often is the one that gets the hot potato when the shot clock is running down.

What do you think would happen to Joe Ingles' efficiency if he was asked to be the #1 offensive option and get 25 per night? I can guarantee you it would not stay that high. Mitchell's high usage helps offload the pressure on the other guys.

Mitchell is a tier or so lower than Durant, Kawhi, or LeBron. But a team needs a guy that can go get buckets without a ton of table setting from team mates. We can only hope Edwards gets as good as him some day.

Hmm...some interesting points, Q, but also some that make me think the other way. A team should win many fewer games when the guy who is far and away their best scorer is out, right? Look at the difference in the Wolves' record with and without KAT. Disaster! And how often do the Warriors win when Steph is out. The fact that Utah's winning percentage barely changes whether Mitchell plays or not speaks volumes to me. I don't think you'd find the same result if you looked at with and without winning percentages for Conley or Gobert. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more significant drop off when Ingles sat out. Doesn't the fact that Utah hardly misses a beat when Mitchell is out evidence that his value isn't nearly at the same level as Conley or Gobert, or even Ingles?

I get the efficiency argument, but it would be stronger if there weren't so many other #1 options who also have great efficiency. Who did the Warriors look to as the clock was running down...Wig? No, it's Steph, and he still had a 60.5 eFG% this season without Klay next to him. LeBron was certainly the #1 option with AD out so much this season, but he was at 57.6% for the year. The Bucks knew exactly who was going to take most of the shots last night and had Tucker constantly hanging on him, but Durant's eFG% was sky high last night. I would argue that the Jazz are a great shooting team with many more efficient options...treating Mitchell as your primary option when you have so many 40+% shooters out there seems like bad strategy to me. For a scorer to be very valuable to me, he better at least have a league-average eFG%.

Look, I enjoy watching Mitchell's high-scoring performance...very entertaining, even if not efficient. And I appreciate the point that the beauty of the game has value too, and analytics tend to take away some of the natural beauty of the game. But this discussion is about winning and value, not optics. And I think it's valid to point out the many deficiencies in Donovan's game that reduce his value in mu opinion. I'm high on Edwards, but have much higher hopes for him than Mitchell. I believe he averaged close to 24 PPG the last three months of the season, so he's already a better volume scorer than Mitchell was at the end of his first season, despite having two other volume scorers to share the scoring with. His shooting efficiency consistently rose as the season progressed, and I would like to see him more of a 55% guy rather than the closer to 50% guy I believe Mitchell is. And my eye test tells me he is going to be a far superior defender to Mitchell...still a long way to go, but he's only 19 after all. I will be disappointed if Ant's ceiling is Mitchell...I think he has the potential to be much more efficient while also defending much better.

It's worth mentioning that Mitchell turns 25 in September. He is still a fairly young player.

Mitchell's TS% this season is about league average. He gets to the line 6 times a game and shoots a high percentage from there. What brings down his efficiency is that he doesn't take another of shots at the rim and then he takes a decent chunk them from 3-10 feet and shoots under 42% on those shots. Still the guy shoots ober 40% from every area besides 3 and he isn't taking a crazy amount of long 2's/midrange. He actually shot a higher percentage on 3's this year that were not from the corners so that pretty significant especially since he took Barry ober 10% of his 3's from the corners. There is some evidence that Mitchell is becoming a better shooter espcially from 3 he is going to be an even bigger problem to defend and that's probably going to open up even more passing. Considering he scored 26ppg and dishes out over 5 assists his turnovers certainly aren't a problem. Look up his efficiency in the playoffs this year and last. It's pretty damn good.

I haven't watched Michell a ton the last few years but I have wondered if some people had overrated his defense and whether he was a 2-way player. It would be pretty disappointing if he had dropped off on that end as much as some have suggested but it wouldn't completely shock me. Mitchell is not a big guard so that can be a factor but there are plenty of guys his height or smaller that have been effective defenders at that position without Rudy Gobert backing them up.

The bottom line is I would be THRILLED to have a Donovan Mitchell on my roster even if he wasn't that good at defense. There is still upside for him offensively and he is already a good player. Allen Iverson is not May type of player. He was pretty inefficient was mostly a scorer and wasn't exactly a great defender. He did have use on defense he wa sales ways a threat to anticipate and steal the ball and coaches would use that ability to their advantage when the set up their team. I had a lot of respect for AI though. I though the teams he played on he just made them go in a lot of ways. Dude just balled out and I think a lot of guys followed him. Maybe that wouldn't work in today's game but there would probably be more spacing too...so...yeah. It's not always about scoring but sometimes a guy that can get some buckets and take a lot of shots can have a lot of value. Some players play their roles well but ask them to do too much more for more than a few games...it doesn't work. Sometimes it does and you find out you have a guy that can do more than you thought. Also I'll mention that if Utah did well without Mitchell but Conely was healthy that isn't surprising. He is one of those guys that just does good things like a better scoring shooting version of Rubio or a lesser version of Chris Paul. Dude is a really good player and he and Gasol are 2 guys that are not going to have super awesome stats but people that watched them play know they were VERY good basketball layers and I think we all can appreciate those guys...and Players like Mitchell or someone like Demarr Derozen.

We're going to have to disagree on Mitchell, monster...but you have the comfort of having Abe and Q in your corner though as they agree with you on Mitchell's value! I follow the Jazz as close as any other team other than the Wolves, and the guy who wrote the attached article about Mitchell's defensive struggles is the best I see out there in writing about the Jazz (by the way, he's quite high on how Donovan has stepped up in the playoffs). Here's the bottom line for me. I'm a huge fan of Conley, Gobert and Ingles, and I'm never going to be convinced that a 25-year-old with a career eFG% of 50% and the defensive struggles Utah fans see in him is more valuable than them. Let's leave it there.

https://www.slcdunk.com/the-downbeat-latest-jazz-news/2021/2/8/22270315/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-donovan-mitchells-defense-utah-jazz

From that guy you dig... and that article...

"To be clear, Donovan Mitchell is a borderline top-20 NBA player DESPITE his poor defense."

Nobody here is claiming Mitchell is a great defender. Nobody here is claiming Mitchell is an elite player along the likes of Curry or Durant or James or Harden or any of those guys. Nobody here has even mentioned him as a surefire All NBA player. Nobody here has even written that he's the best player on the team (I don't think).

But we're just countering your take that he's the 4th or 5th or 6th best player on the Jazz. And that inside-the-Jazz writer seems to agree... unless he also has Conley, Gobert, Ingles and possibly others as top 20 NBA players. And if he does... that's a terrible take that makes him irrelevant as an NBA writer.

[FNG]

Mitchell missed 19 games this year, so we actually have some fairly recent data on how the team does when he misses entire games. The Jazz were 13-6 this season when Mitchell didn't play, for a 68% win percentage. They were even better when he did play, as they ended the year at 72% overall which means it was an even higher percentage when he played.

Again, I think without question he is a net POSITIVE to the team and no one should doubt that. You absolutely need a guy like him that can make shots and create off the dribble.

And FNG, one of the reasons his efficiency is lower than the others is because guess who gets the ball when all other options are exhausted? Mitchell is the one leaned on to create a bunch of offense and often is the one that gets the hot potato when the shot clock is running down.

What do you think would happen to Joe Ingles' efficiency if he was asked to be the #1 offensive option and get 25 per night? I can guarantee you it would not stay that high. Mitchell's high usage helps offload the pressure on the other guys.

Mitchell is a tier or so lower than Durant, Kawhi, or LeBron. But a team needs a guy that can go get buckets without a ton of table setting from team mates. We can only hope Edwards gets as good as him some day.

Hmm...some interesting points, Q, but also some that make me think the other way. A team should win many fewer games when the guy who is far and away their best scorer is out, right? Look at the difference in the Wolves' record with and without KAT. Disaster! And how often do the Warriors win when Steph is out. The fact that Utah's winning percentage barely changes whether Mitchell plays or not speaks volumes to me. I don't think you'd find the same result if you looked at with and without winning percentages for Conley or Gobert. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more significant drop off when Ingles sat out. Doesn't the fact that Utah hardly misses a beat when Mitchell is out evidence that his value isn't nearly at the same level as Conley or Gobert, or even Ingles?

I get the efficiency argument, but it would be stronger if there weren't so many other #1 options who also have great efficiency. Who did the Warriors look to as the clock was running down...Wig? No, it's Steph, and he still had a 60.5 eFG% this season without Klay next to him. LeBron was certainly the #1 option with AD out so much this season, but he was at 57.6% for the year. The Bucks knew exactly who was going to take most of the shots last night and had Tucker constantly hanging on him, but Durant's eFG% was sky high last night. I would argue that the Jazz are a great shooting team with many more efficient options...treating Mitchell as your primary option when you have so many 40+% shooters out there seems like bad strategy to me. For a scorer to be very valuable to me, he better at least have a league-average eFG%.

Look, I enjoy watching Mitchell's high-scoring performance...very entertaining, even if not efficient. And I appreciate the point that the beauty of the game has value too, and analytics tend to take away some of the natural beauty of the game. But this discussion is about winning and value, not optics. And I think it's valid to point out the many deficiencies in Donovan's game that reduce his value in mu opinion. I'm high on Edwards, but have much higher hopes for him than Mitchell. I believe he averaged close to 24 PPG the last three months of the season, so he's already a better volume scorer than Mitchell was at the end of his first season, despite having two other volume scorers to share the scoring with. His shooting efficiency consistently rose as the season progressed, and I would like to see him more of a 55% guy rather than the closer to 50% guy I believe Mitchell is. And my eye test tells me he is going to be a far superior defender to Mitchell...still a long way to go, but he's only 19 after all. I will be disappointed if Ant's ceiling is Mitchell...I think he has the potential to be much more efficient while also defending much better.

It's worth mentioning that Mitchell turns 25 in September. He is still a fairly young player.

Mitchell's TS% this season is about league average. He gets to the line 6 times a game and shoots a high percentage from there. What brings down his efficiency is that he doesn't take another of shots at the rim and then he takes a decent chunk them from 3-10 feet and shoots under 42% on those shots. Still the guy shoots ober 40% from every area besides 3 and he isn't taking a crazy amount of long 2's/midrange. He actually shot a higher percentage on 3's this year that were not from the corners so that pretty significant especially since he took Barry ober 10% of his 3's from the corners. There is some evidence that Mitchell is becoming a better shooter espcially from 3 he is going to be an even bigger problem to defend and that's probably going to open up even more passing. Considering he scored 26ppg and dishes out over 5 assists his turnovers certainly aren't a problem. Look up his efficiency in the playoffs this year and last. It's pretty damn good.

I haven't watched Michell a ton the last few years but I have wondered if some people had overrated his defense and whether he was a 2-way player. It would be pretty disappointing if he had dropped off on that end as much as some have suggested but it wouldn't completely shock me. Mitchell is not a big guard so that can be a factor but there are plenty of guys his height or smaller that have been effective defenders at that position without Rudy Gobert backing them up.

The bottom line is I would be THRILLED to have a Donovan Mitchell on my roster even if he wasn't that good at defense. There is still upside for him offensively and he is already a good player. Allen Iverson is not May type of player. He was pretty inefficient was mostly a scorer and wasn't exactly a great defender. He did have use on defense he wa sales ways a threat to anticipate and steal the ball and coaches would use that ability to their advantage when the set up their team. I had a lot of respect for AI though. I though the teams he played on he just made them go in a lot of ways. Dude just balled out and I think a lot of guys followed him. Maybe that wouldn't work in today's game but there would probably be more spacing too...so...yeah. It's not always about scoring but sometimes a guy that can get some buckets and take a lot of shots can have a lot of value. Some players play their roles well but ask them to do too much more for more than a few games...it doesn't work. Sometimes it does and you find out you have a guy that can do more than you thought. Also I'll mention that if Utah did well without Mitchell but Conely was healthy that isn't surprising. He is one of those guys that just does good things like a better scoring shooting version of Rubio or a lesser version of Chris Paul. Dude is a really good player and he and Gasol are 2 guys that are not going to have super awesome stats but people that watched them play know they were VERY good basketball layers and I think we all can appreciate those guys...and Players like Mitchell or someone like Demarr Derozen.

We're going to have to disagree on Mitchell, monster...but you have the comfort of having Abe and Q in your corner though as they agree with you on Mitchell's value! I follow the Jazz as close as any other team other than the Wolves, and the guy who wrote the attached article about Mitchell's defensive struggles is the best I see out there in writing about the Jazz (by the way, he's quite high on how Donovan has stepped up in the playoffs). Here's the bottom line for me. I'm a huge fan of Conley, Gobert and Ingles, and I'm never going to be convinced that a 25-year-old with a career eFG% of 50% and the defensive struggles Utah fans see in him is more valuable than them. Let's leave it there.

https://www.slcdunk.com/the-downbeat-latest-jazz-news/2021/2/8/22270315/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-donovan-mitchells-defense-utah-jazz

From that guy you dig... and that article...

"To be clear, Donovan Mitchell is a borderline top-20 NBA player DESPITE his poor defense."

Nobody here is claiming Mitchell is a great defender. Nobody here is claiming Mitchell is an elite player along the likes of Curry or Durant or James or Harden or any of those guys. Nobody here has even mentioned him as a surefire All NBA player. Nobody here has even written that he's the best player on the team (I don't think).

But we're just countering your take that he's the 4th or 5th or 6th best player on the Jazz. And that inside-the-Jazz writer seems to agree... unless he also has Conley, Gobert, Ingles and possibly others as top 20 NBA players. And if he does... that's a terrible take that makes him irrelevant as an NBA writer.

Yeah, I dig this guy a lot...highly recommend him for anyone who likes a deep dive into the Jazz. And I actually agree that despite his defensive ineptness, Mitchell's prolific scoring makes him a borderline top 20 player. My point is that Gobert and Conley are the straws that stir the Jazz drink, and are clearly top 20 players (I understand your beauty over geek stats stance, but 538.com has Gobert 2nd and Conley 11th...he ranks Mitchell 24th, O'Neale 36th and Ingles 37th, which underscores just how deep and talented this Jazz team is), making Donovan at best the 3rd best player on the team. I've been having some fun with Ingles' outstanding 2-way metrics, but I'll concede that nobody (including me) would call a balding Australian a borderline top 20 player.

Fun discussion. Please understand that my opinion of Mitchell is colored by my relative disdain of high-volume, low-efficient scorers who don't play defense. And the intensity of my dislike of this type of player was increased the day Rosas gave up a first round pick and saddled us with DLO's max contract. We're doomed.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Your disdain for Russell shouldn't really have anything to do with Mitchell.

They are very different players on different tiers.

[FNG]

Your disdain for Russell shouldn't really have anything to do with Mitchell.

They are very different players on different tiers.

But are they really that different? I think it's worth comparing the two because they are primarily 1-way players who are absorbing a substantial portion of their team's cap with their max contracts. There's no question in my mind that Utah is getting far more value from their $30 million, and they didn't even have to yield a first round pick...so bitterness and despair has a lot to do with my lumping these two together. But I also see some striking similarities between the two. Tell me which of these you disagree with:

1) They are both young, perhaps still-developing SG's who also are comfortable playing PG

2) They are both high-volume scorers who are below the league average in eFG%...DLO averaged 24 per 36 on 52% eFG%, Mitchell 28 on the same 52% eFG%.

3) Both seem to be talented enough to get a shot off at any time without being set up by a teammate, even if sometimes their shot selection may be ill-advised

4) Both are clever, creative distributors, but unfortunately also lead their respective teams in TOs per 36., so neither one protects the ball very well.

5) Both struggle on defense, and at times show a mixture of disinterest and lack of awareness...a bad combination for a defender. This is opinion only because defensive stats are unreliable, but I think most analysts would agree that neither is very effective on defense.

It seems to me that comparing these young players is a worthwhile exercise, because they are similar in so many way and are both max salary players. Since I agree with you that they are in different tiers (I mean, 538.com has Mitchell the 24th best player in the league and DLO 190th for God's sake!) even though their stats and defensive struggles are remarkably similar, maybe the relevant question is this: why are these two max salary 25-year-olds with similar stats so remarkably different in their effectiveness? Or am I (and Nate Silver) significantly underrating DLO, since there is not a huge difference in their production or effectiveness. Or is there an intangible factor here that goes beyond the stats, and if so, what is it and can it be fixed?

Feeling especially hopeless about my Wolves this morning...

[thedoper]

Love Conley. He is no longer a top 20 player in the League.

Stats in basketball are always going to look this way. Someone has to take the hard shots, in spite of good offensive design. This falls on a talented offensive player with the stones to take them. If they're not elite (top 10 player in the league) those shots wont go in as much. Not having Mitchell in his role on the Jazz would leave the less efficient iso shot taking to Conley and Ingles, and would be a complete nightmare for that team.

Im not super high on Mitchell, I think hes somewhere in the good player range. I think Gobert and Conley are smart complimentary players on offense for Mitchell. But I would say that team without Mitchell would have real problems when they needed a bucket.

The reason there is even a term volume scorer is that its a necessary role, someone has to get the buckets and take the hard shots.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Your disdain for Russell shouldn't really have anything to do with Mitchell.

They are very different players on different tiers.

But are they really that different? I think it's worth comparing the two because they are primarily 1-way players who are absorbing a substantial portion of their team's cap with their max contracts. There's no question in my mind that Utah is getting far more value from their $30 million, and they didn't even have to yield a first round pick...so bitterness and despair has a lot to do with my lumping these two together. But I also see some striking similarities between the two. Tell me which of these you disagree with:

1) They are both young, perhaps still-developing SG's who also are comfortable playing PG

2) They are both high-volume scorers who are below the league average in eFG%...DLO averaged 24 per 36 on 52% eFG%, Mitchell 28 on the same 52% eFG%.

3) Both seem to be talented enough to get a shot off at any time without being set up by a teammate, even if sometimes their shot selection may be ill-advised

4) Both are clever, creative distributors, but unfortunately also lead their respective teams in TOs per 36., so neither one protects the ball very well.

5) Both struggle on defense, and at times show a mixture of disinterest and lack of awareness...a bad combination for a defender. This is opinion only because defensive stats are unreliable, but I think most analysts would agree that neither is very effective on defense.

It seems to me that comparing these young players is a worthwhile exercise, because they are similar in so many way and are both max salary players. Since I agree with you that they are in different tiers (I mean, 538.com has Mitchell the 24th best player in the league and DLO 190th for God's sake!) even though their stats and defensive struggles are remarkably similar, maybe the relevant question is this: why are these two max salary 25-year-olds with similar stats so remarkably different in their effectiveness? Or am I (and Nate Silver) significantly underrating DLO, since there is not a huge difference in their production or effectiveness. Or is there an intangible factor here that goes beyond the stats, and if so, what is it and can it be fixed?

Feeling especially hopeless about my Wolves this morning...

If 538 and seemingly every legit basketball analyst in the free world has Mitchell far far above Russell... maybe there's something to it.

- Russell scores more... even more in the playoffs. 30+ ppg in 15 of 32 playoff games.
- He gets to the line more.
- He turns it over less.
- His ppg, three point percentage and assists have improved each of his four seasons.
- He has a higher TS, PER, WS, DWS, OBPM, DBPM, BPM, VORP than Russell. (and those have also improved EVERY season for Mitchell)

So... at the end of the day, we have two similar players, only...

One has improved every season. One has a history of playoff success. One is better than the other at almost every part of the game (sans passing?).

As for defense, one is considered the worst defensive starter on one of the league's best defenses. The other is considered the worst defensive starter on one of the league's worst defenses.

So again, why are we comparing Mitchell to Russell?

[Monster]

FNG you can't say Mitchell is inefficient and ignore what he has been doing in the playoffs the last 2 years while also ignoring his ability to get to the line and convert which is not included in eFG.

Also if Russell is Donovan Mitchell we should keep him...at least till he becomes a Mitchell type that we can trade for a lot of value to all those GMs that don't get how These guys just aren't as valuable as other less sexy players.