Minnesota Sports Forum

Any player that can put up 32 points in a half and put his team on his shoulders in a playoff game is a guy I want on my team. I don't need any other metrics to tell me that. Maybe it's becuz I've never experienced that with my team.

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:FNG is referring to Net ON/OFF which means the difference between net rating when he's on vs. off the court. When he's on, he does indeed have a positive net rating. When he's off, the team has an even better net rating, thus he goes in the negative on net on/off rating.

I think this metric is a bit dodgier on an elite team. The Jazz are truly an ensemble of talented players - Gobert, Ingles, Conley, Mitchell, O'Neale - so when any given starter goes on the bench, it actually is possible for the team to perform better just due to the sheer talent advantage over other team's bench. May be Mitchell had the most overlap with opposing team's starters and the least against benches? That can make a difference in this metric.

I'm not suggesting that Mitchell doesn't have defensive issues as FNG suggests, but I agree it's crazy to say he doesn't contribute positively to Utah.

OK, I'll amend my Mitchell conclusion. Donovan Mitchell contributes positively to the Jazz because of his volume (albeit not particularly efficient) scoring and especially positively compared to Jordan Clarkson and Derrick Favors, but does not make as positive an overall contribution as Gobert, Conley, Ingles and O'Neale. Good?

Well, I'll meet you in the middle on this one. I will agree that Gobert for sure makes more of a positive contribution because he is a game-changer defensively and has been for years now. I'm not so sure I'd rank the others above Mitchell, but willing to be convinced based on a more detailed analysis of the lineup data (which may be too painstaking to even bother looking at).

<sigh> Same ole Bucks

PorkChop wrote:Any player that can put up 32 points in a half and put his team on his shoulders in a playoff game is a guy I want on my team. I don't need any other metrics to tell me that. Maybe it's becuz I've never experienced that with my team.

FNG believes that Mitchell is the Jazz's 5th best player. Wait...

He forgot to mention Bojan Bogdanovic. So Mitchell is only the Jazz's 6th best player.

WAIT... George Niang has a +14.6 rating when on the court... but the Jazz rating differential plummets to +6.4 when he's on the bench. So... obviously, Mitchell is the Jazz's 7th best/most important/positive player.

Gotta love social media, where the guys with the craziest, most off-the-wall takes can be the snarkiest* and smuggest.*







* Ok. 2nd most snarky and smug.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:<sigh> Same ole Bucks

While it was disappointing watching the Bucks offense derail in the 2nd half to a bunch of predictable bad iso possessions in real time... the Nets were basically staging a spirited comeback with a bunch of iso possessions.

The difference? Kevin Durant. SWEET FANCY MOSES!!!!

16 - 23 fg
49 points
17 reb
10 assists

An all-time great performance. Remember when a torn achilles was supposed to be a career ender, or at least a career limiting injury? Durant was incredible.



[Note: And Jeff Green. (7 - 8 on three pointers!) I hate that guy. When he's on teams I like... he always seems to shit the bed. When he's on teams I don't like and playing against teams I want to see win (Bos/Mil) he comes through in the biggest moments. That's the Jeff Green experience for all 25 teams he's been on. You just hope you're one of the lucky franchises.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

PorkChop wrote:Any player that can put up 32 points in a half and put his team on his shoulders in a playoff game is a guy I want on my team. I don't need any other metrics to tell me that. Maybe it's becuz I've never experienced that with my team.

FNG believes that Mitchell is the Jazz's 5th best player. Wait...

He forgot to mention Bojan Bogdanovic. So Mitchell is only the Jazz's 6th best player.

WAIT... George Niang has a +14.6 rating when on the court... but the Jazz rating differential plummets to +6.4 when he's on the bench. So... obviously, Mitchell is the Jazz's 7th best/most important/positive player.

Gotta love social media, where the guys with the craziest, most off-the-wall takes can be the snarkiest* and smuggest.*







* Ok. 2nd most snarky and smug.

Excellent snarkiness and smugosity, Abe...my compliments ;-) !

But let's try a more objective, data-driven discussion to determine the relative value of Utah's many stars (especially now that it appears they will be around until the end with Kawhi out). I apologize in advance for the length of this post...there's a lot a data out there that helps me evaluate a complex team like Utah. I've mentioned before that this board is quite driven by one metric...points per game. Pork mentioned above that he doesn't need any other metrics to evaluate a guy who can put his team on his back with 32 points in a half. I agree...with two caveats. Does he regularly carry his team in an efficient manner, and did he give up 33 points while he was scoring his 32!

If a fan is strictly, or even primarily a points per game guy, it's logical that he is going to elevate the value of a guy like Mitchell or (gasp) D'Angelo Russell, and you might even find a vintage Monta Ellis, JR Smith or OJ Mayo jersey in his closet. I certainly don't ignore PPG...scoring is important on its face. But it's not the first metric I turn to. As I've mentioned many times here, I value efficient shooting, defense and protecting the ball, because as a decades-long NBA fan, I've learned that players that excel at all 3 are generally extraordinarily valuable players. I can admire a volume scorer like Mitchell or Ellis or our own beloved DLO, because they can get hot and carry a team to victory. But if they perform poorly, or even in a mediocre fashion, in the three areas I emphasize, they generally are not the most valuable players on their team.

As Q mentioned above, Utah is an interesting team in that they have so many players who contribute in different ways...when they are all healthy, they are about as complete a 2-way team as any in the league. And I think it's worthwhile to evaluate the metrics that are most meaningful to us as fans (and they will differ) to rank their stars in terms of value. You mentioned Bogdanovic. I admit he is also a contributor to this team, but I rank him below Mitchell and the other 4 Jazz I'm going to evaluate...although I don't think I'm alone in being pleasantly surprised by his defense in the playoffs. Where did that come from? I like Georges Niang a lot too, but I'll leave him out of the analysis because he doesn't get the minutes the other guys get. But let's look at the other 5:

Raw numbers per 36:
PPG Assists Rebounds
Gobert 16.7 1.5 15.8
Conley 19.9 7.3 4.3
Ingles 15.6 6.1 4.7
Mitchell 28.5 5.6 4.8
O'Neale 8 2.9 7.8

Mitchell is the clear winner in points per 36, and also the most likely winner in the raw stats derby because of his scoring. And O'Neale is clearly the least impressive. But then we get to other measures by which he lags all four teammates. I like efficient scoring...most coaches do. How do the five measure up in eFG%:

Gobert 67.5%
Conley 55.2%
Ingles 65.2%
Mitchell 52%
O'Neale 58%

Utah is a very efficient shooting team...unfortunately Mitchell lags the pack by a significant amount, as his scoring efficiency is below average for an NBA SG.

How about some of the Basketball Reference measures that try to incorporate total game?
ORtg Drtg WS/48 VORP
Gobert 131 101 .248 3.6
Conley 123 109 .197 2.4
Ingles 129 111 .180 2.5
Mitchell 115 110 .167 2.5
O'Neale 121 108 .121 1.4

Basketball Reference doesn't help Mitchell's standing when you move beyond raw points. He clearly ranks behind Gobert, Conley and Ingles in these measures by a large amount, and you can even make a case to put him behind O'Neale because of his dominance in ORtg and DRtg.

Finally, the object in basketball is not to score as many points as you can personally, but to outscore your opponent. And even though it is much maligned on some corners of this board, I find that the on/off stats on Cleaning the Glass almost always match my eye test as to who I think is giving their team the most overall value...especially when taken over an entire season. And the 2020-21 on/off numbers are even less kind to Mitchell than the Basketball Reference numbers.

Gobert +14.6
Conley +11.9
Ingles +1.9
Mitchell -5.9
O'Neal -1.4

These numbers actually surprise me a little, because Mitchell starts and finishes games and thus plays a lot of his minutes with two guys who regularly destroy the other team...Gobert and Conley. Kekgeek is better than me at digging into the on/off numbers, but my guess (and my eye test when I watch the Jazz) is that Mitchell is effective when he has Gobert/Conley next to him, but close to a disaster when he doesn't.

So by the measures that are most important to me, Mitchell is at best the 4th most valuable contributor on this deep team, and it's not that easy to make a case for him even contributing more than O'Neal using my favorite metrics. Remember the qualities I value highest...efficient shooting, defense and protecting the ball? Mitchell ranks dead last in all three among these 5 players (no knowledgeable Jazz fan would rank call Mitchell a better defender than Ingles), and correspondingly dead last in on/off.

So, that's my (I believe) objective analysis of the relative value of these 5 very good players. But I come to this board to learn, so I'm also interested in what metrics you use to evaluate players, and how they allow you to rank Mitchell any higher than 4th in overall value on the Jazz given some of his poor metrics. If the measures I value are irrelevant and measures like points per game are more meaningful, I want to hear your argument. I draw the line at buying a DLO or Monta Ellis jersey though :) .

I'm gonna use the old guy yelling at clouds approach here to counter FNG... have you ever played basketball? At a somewhat competitive level?

That's not meant to be snarky. It's a genuine question as I try to craft a response about why basketball is a beautiful game with a soul that can get crushed under an avalanche of carefully picked metrics at times.

In the interim... I think we need a good-natured clip that sort of touches on my take on the subject of NBA players who can consistently post 30+ ppg in the NBA playoffs...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg [/youtube]


[Note: As I was/am the guy who passes... and overpasses... and hits the occasional open three or driving layup and sets picks and pesters people on defense and may compile exceptional On/Off stats at the local YMCA or men's league... does that make me more of a Kaffee or Weinberg? I dunno. But I do know every team I ever played on needed a Colonel Jessup.]

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.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm gonna use the old guy yelling at clouds approach here to counter FNG... have you ever played basketball? At a somewhat competitive level?

That's not meant to be snarky. It's a genuine question as I try to craft a response about why basketball is a beautiful game with a soul that can get crushed under an avalanche of carefully picked metrics at times.

In the interim... I think we need a good-natured clip that sort of touches on my take on the subject of NBA players who can consistently post 30+ ppg in the NBA playoffs...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg [/youtube]


[Note: As I was/am the guy who passes... and overpasses... and hits the occasional open three or driving layup and sets picks and pesters people on defense and may compile exceptional On/Off stats at the local YMCA or men's league... does that make me more of a Kaffee or Weinberg? I dunno. But I do know every team I ever played on needed a Colonel Jessup.]

Ha, good stuff, Abe. Yes to your question. HS basketball in a not-very-great conference and then 3 years of low-level D3 out east. Undersized and not extremely athletic forward. Playing days over except for occasionally taking a few shots at Lifetime...I don't join in the pickup games anymore. As you might expect from the type of player I admire, I was not a high volume scorer...more of a lunch pail guy who only took shots I had a good chance of making and always intent on shutting my guy down. I'm also likely much older than you, and there's no question the game has changed a lot since my playing days. I rather doubt I would make a D3 team these days with the game I had.

Q12543 wrote: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.