Minnesota Sports Forum

Mitchell is one of my favorite players to watch, but I think Ainge is being too greedy in thinking he can get a Gobert-like haul for him. Mitchell is a marvelous offensive player, but his defense is so substandard he simply doesn't have the overall 2-way impact on the game that Rudy does. Here's how I compare them:

Gobert is known as a defensive star, while Mitchell is known as an offensive star. But while Gobert is a consensus top 3 defender, Mitchell is not a top 3 offensive player...he barely cracks the top 10 in most ratings. So Gobert's defense > Mitchell's offense.

And when you compare their "weaker" side, there's no question that Gobert's offense > Mitchell's defense. By almost any measure, Mitchell is a poor defender. For example, he was rated a bottom 20 defender in the NBA by 538's RAPTOR. On the other hand, while clearly not a shooter, Gobert is very effective on the offensive end of the court. He is renowned as one of the best screeners in the game, a skill that makes his teammates more effective on offense. He averaged 15.6 PPG last season with a remarkable 73.2 TS%. And he keeps offensive possessions alive with nearly 4 offensive rebounds per game. There are a lot of reasons why BasketballReference gave him a 137 ORtg last season (compared to 114 for Mitchell).

BasketballReference gives Gobert 11 win shares last season compared to Mitchell's 7.2. And finally, since wins and outscoring your opponent are what really matter ultimately, Gobert absolutely blows Mitchell away in Cleaning the Glass measures. Utah outscored its opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions while Rudy was on the court versus off, while they were outscored by 1.1 for Mitchell. And this all added up to an impressive 14 expected wins for Rudy last year, while Donovan had an expected wins of -3.

All NBA GM's have access to these stats, and know there is no comparison of the impact these two Utah players have on a game. But these are stats, and stats don't necessarily put butts in the seats. And that's why Ainge is looking for a huge return for Mitchell. I don't believe Mitchell is the kind of player who is going to take you to a championship...I mean advanced stats have to matter, don't they? But far more typical fans are going to say "let's go out and see Donavan Mitchell tonight" than "let's go see Rudy". Watching a terrific offensive player is much more entertaining for the average NBA fan than watching a guy block and alter shots and almost single-handedly change an opponent's offense. And the NBA is ultimately a business. So Ainge's best chance to get the return he seeks for Mitchell is to find a GM who wants to immediately increase attendance, but isn't expecting to be in the NBA championship conversation. It's rumored that a deal is done (could be the Knicks, or maybe not), and may be announced today. It will be very interesting to see what Ainge actually gets. But I'll predict that if the Knicks give Ainge what he's asking for, they may be destined to be entertaining, but mediocre. Maybe that's enough for them.

I thought Boston was the best team in this year's playoffs but they ultimately got beat by the best player in Steph Curry. I mean, what the hell can you do when a guy can pull up from 30 feet and swish it like it's nothing? He is probably more dangerous offensively than Jordan or LeBron ever were at their peak because of the sheer gravitational pull of his shooting and his high TS%.

My point is that usually if there are two great teams matched up, the team with clearly the best player usually wins.

Every once in a while, you have what I would call ensemble championship teams, meaning there isn't one clear top 5 player on the team and its truly an ensemble of three or four really good, but not Top 5, players. The Spurs in 2014 might be a good example because it was an older Tim Duncan and still emerging Kawhi Leonard. I think both versions of the Pistons title runs (meaning '89 and '90 and then 2004) are good examples of ensemble team victories as well.

But most of the time the team that wins the title has a player that proves to be a clearly dominant talent that particular year. I agree that Mitchell isn't going to be that guy. He is in the next tier down of stars. And as we've seen, that next tier down has a lot of great players. But a guy like Curry or Giannis is just on a whole other level.

FNG wrote:Mitchell is one of my favorite players to watch, but I think Ainge is being too greedy in thinking he can get a Gobert-like haul for him. Mitchell is a marvelous offensive player, but his defense is so substandard he simply doesn't have the overall 2-way impact on the game that Rudy does. Here's how I compare them:

Gobert is known as a defensive star, while Mitchell is known as an offensive star. But while Gobert is a consensus top 3 defender, Mitchell is not a top 3 offensive player...he barely cracks the top 10 in most ratings. So Gobert's defense > Mitchell's offense.

And when you compare their "weaker" side, there's no question that Gobert's offense > Mitchell's defense. By almost any measure, Mitchell is a poor defender. For example, he was rated a bottom 20 defender in the NBA by 538's RAPTOR. On the other hand, while clearly not a shooter, Gobert is very effective on the offensive end of the court. He is renowned as one of the best screeners in the game, a skill that makes his teammates more effective on offense. He averaged 15.6 PPG last season with a remarkable 73.2 TS%. And he keeps offensive possessions alive with nearly 4 offensive rebounds per game. There are a lot of reasons why BasketballReference gave him a 137 ORtg last season (compared to 114 for Mitchell).

BasketballReference gives Gobert 11 win shares last season compared to Mitchell's 7.2. And finally, since wins and outscoring your opponent are what really matter ultimately, Gobert absolutely blows Mitchell away in Cleaning the Glass measures. Utah outscored its opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions while Rudy was on the court versus off, while they were outscored by 1.1 for Mitchell. And this all added up to an impressive 14 expected wins for Rudy last year, while Donovan had an expected wins of -3.

All NBA GM's have access to these stats, and know there is no comparison of the impact these two Utah players have on a game. But these are stats, and stats don't necessarily put butts in the seats. And that's why Ainge is looking for a huge return for Mitchell. I don't believe Mitchell is the kind of player who is going to take you to a championship...I mean advanced stats have to matter, don't they? But far more typical fans are going to say "let's go out and see Donavan Mitchell tonight" than "let's go see Rudy". Watching a terrific offensive player is much more entertaining for the average NBA fan than watching a guy block and alter shots and almost single-handedly change an opponent's offense. And the NBA is ultimately a business. So Ainge's best chance to get the return he seeks for Mitchell is to find a GM who wants to immediately increase attendance, but isn't expecting to be in the NBA championship conversation. It's rumored that a deal is done (could be the Knicks, or maybe not), and may be announced today. It will be very interesting to see what Ainge actually gets. But I'll predict that if the Knicks give Ainge what he's asking for, they may be destined to be entertaining, but mediocre. Maybe that's enough for them.

That's a pretty good breakdown FNG. I would be interested to hear what people's other takes on Mitchell's defense is. That's something I've been wondering the past few days. Some of the numbers certainly aren't good and he is playing with Gobert at least a good chunk of the time I would assume. I can't say I've watched enough the last couple years to know how good or bad he is at on that end of the floor.

FNG wrote:Mitchell is one of my favorite players to watch, but I think Ainge is being too greedy in thinking he can get a Gobert-like haul for him. Mitchell is a marvelous offensive player, but his defense is so substandard he simply doesn't have the overall 2-way impact on the game that Rudy does. Here's how I compare them:

Gobert is known as a defensive star, while Mitchell is known as an offensive star. But while Gobert is a consensus top 3 defender, Mitchell is not a top 3 offensive player...he barely cracks the top 10 in most ratings. So Gobert's defense > Mitchell's offense.

And when you compare their "weaker" side, there's no question that Gobert's offense > Mitchell's defense. By almost any measure, Mitchell is a poor defender. For example, he was rated a bottom 20 defender in the NBA by 538's RAPTOR. On the other hand, while clearly not a shooter, Gobert is very effective on the offensive end of the court. He is renowned as one of the best screeners in the game, a skill that makes his teammates more effective on offense. He averaged 15.6 PPG last season with a remarkable 73.2 TS%. And he keeps offensive possessions alive with nearly 4 offensive rebounds per game. There are a lot of reasons why BasketballReference gave him a 137 ORtg last season (compared to 114 for Mitchell).

BasketballReference gives Gobert 11 win shares last season compared to Mitchell's 7.2. And finally, since wins and outscoring your opponent are what really matter ultimately, Gobert absolutely blows Mitchell away in Cleaning the Glass measures. Utah outscored its opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions while Rudy was on the court versus off, while they were outscored by 1.1 for Mitchell. And this all added up to an impressive 14 expected wins for Rudy last year, while Donovan had an expected wins of -3.

All NBA GM's have access to these stats, and know there is no comparison of the impact these two Utah players have on a game. But these are stats, and stats don't necessarily put butts in the seats. And that's why Ainge is looking for a huge return for Mitchell. I don't believe Mitchell is the kind of player who is going to take you to a championship...I mean advanced stats have to matter, don't they? But far more typical fans are going to say "let's go out and see Donavan Mitchell tonight" than "let's go see Rudy". Watching a terrific offensive player is much more entertaining for the average NBA fan than watching a guy block and alter shots and almost single-handedly change an opponent's offense. And the NBA is ultimately a business. So Ainge's best chance to get the return he seeks for Mitchell is to find a GM who wants to immediately increase attendance, but isn't expecting to be in the NBA championship conversation. It's rumored that a deal is done (could be the Knicks, or maybe not), and may be announced today. It will be very interesting to see what Ainge actually gets. But I'll predict that if the Knicks give Ainge what he's asking for, they may be destined to be entertaining, but mediocre. Maybe that's enough for them.

Thanks FNG. Great information. Those advanced stats are fascinating because Mitchell came out of college known for his defense. That was his calling card and the question mark at the time was his offense.

I think, however, Mitchell's premium value compared to Gobert stems from more than simply his ability to puts butts in seats. Donovan Mitchell can carry a team offensively like few others. He's had at least 8 games with over 40 points including two 50+ games. And I'm not sure he's hit his peak yet. Those types of players command a premium because they can single-handedly change the trajectory of a game in ways a defensive stalwart like Gobert can't.

lipoli390 wrote:

FNG wrote:Mitchell is one of my favorite players to watch, but I think Ainge is being too greedy in thinking he can get a Gobert-like haul for him. Mitchell is a marvelous offensive player, but his defense is so substandard he simply doesn't have the overall 2-way impact on the game that Rudy does. Here's how I compare them:

Gobert is known as a defensive star, while Mitchell is known as an offensive star. But while Gobert is a consensus top 3 defender, Mitchell is not a top 3 offensive player...he barely cracks the top 10 in most ratings. So Gobert's defense > Mitchell's offense.

And when you compare their "weaker" side, there's no question that Gobert's offense > Mitchell's defense. By almost any measure, Mitchell is a poor defender. For example, he was rated a bottom 20 defender in the NBA by 538's RAPTOR. On the other hand, while clearly not a shooter, Gobert is very effective on the offensive end of the court. He is renowned as one of the best screeners in the game, a skill that makes his teammates more effective on offense. He averaged 15.6 PPG last season with a remarkable 73.2 TS%. And he keeps offensive possessions alive with nearly 4 offensive rebounds per game. There are a lot of reasons why BasketballReference gave him a 137 ORtg last season (compared to 114 for Mitchell).

BasketballReference gives Gobert 11 win shares last season compared to Mitchell's 7.2. And finally, since wins and outscoring your opponent are what really matter ultimately, Gobert absolutely blows Mitchell away in Cleaning the Glass measures. Utah outscored its opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions while Rudy was on the court versus off, while they were outscored by 1.1 for Mitchell. And this all added up to an impressive 14 expected wins for Rudy last year, while Donovan had an expected wins of -3.

All NBA GM's have access to these stats, and know there is no comparison of the impact these two Utah players have on a game. But these are stats, and stats don't necessarily put butts in the seats. And that's why Ainge is looking for a huge return for Mitchell. I don't believe Mitchell is the kind of player who is going to take you to a championship...I mean advanced stats have to matter, don't they? But far more typical fans are going to say "let's go out and see Donavan Mitchell tonight" than "let's go see Rudy". Watching a terrific offensive player is much more entertaining for the average NBA fan than watching a guy block and alter shots and almost single-handedly change an opponent's offense. And the NBA is ultimately a business. So Ainge's best chance to get the return he seeks for Mitchell is to find a GM who wants to immediately increase attendance, but isn't expecting to be in the NBA championship conversation. It's rumored that a deal is done (could be the Knicks, or maybe not), and may be announced today. It will be very interesting to see what Ainge actually gets. But I'll predict that if the Knicks give Ainge what he's asking for, they may be destined to be entertaining, but mediocre. Maybe that's enough for them.

Thanks FNG. Great information. Those advanced stats are fascinating because Mitchell came out of college known for his defense. That was his calling card and the question mark at the time was his offense.

I think, however, Mitchell's premium value compared to Gobert stems from more than simply his ability to puts butts in seats. Donovan Mitchell can carry a team offensively like few others. He's had at least 8 games with over 40 points including two 50+ games. And I'm not sure he's hit his peak yet. Those types of players command a premium because they can single-handedly change the trajectory of a game in ways a defensive stalwart like Gobert can't.

I liken Mitchell a little to Zach Lavine, Lip. Didn't you tell us Flip thought he would be an elite defender too?

FNG wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

FNG wrote:Mitchell is one of my favorite players to watch, but I think Ainge is being too greedy in thinking he can get a Gobert-like haul for him. Mitchell is a marvelous offensive player, but his defense is so substandard he simply doesn't have the overall 2-way impact on the game that Rudy does. Here's how I compare them:

Gobert is known as a defensive star, while Mitchell is known as an offensive star. But while Gobert is a consensus top 3 defender, Mitchell is not a top 3 offensive player...he barely cracks the top 10 in most ratings. So Gobert's defense > Mitchell's offense.

And when you compare their "weaker" side, there's no question that Gobert's offense > Mitchell's defense. By almost any measure, Mitchell is a poor defender. For example, he was rated a bottom 20 defender in the NBA by 538's RAPTOR. On the other hand, while clearly not a shooter, Gobert is very effective on the offensive end of the court. He is renowned as one of the best screeners in the game, a skill that makes his teammates more effective on offense. He averaged 15.6 PPG last season with a remarkable 73.2 TS%. And he keeps offensive possessions alive with nearly 4 offensive rebounds per game. There are a lot of reasons why BasketballReference gave him a 137 ORtg last season (compared to 114 for Mitchell).

BasketballReference gives Gobert 11 win shares last season compared to Mitchell's 7.2. And finally, since wins and outscoring your opponent are what really matter ultimately, Gobert absolutely blows Mitchell away in Cleaning the Glass measures. Utah outscored its opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions while Rudy was on the court versus off, while they were outscored by 1.1 for Mitchell. And this all added up to an impressive 14 expected wins for Rudy last year, while Donovan had an expected wins of -3.

All NBA GM's have access to these stats, and know there is no comparison of the impact these two Utah players have on a game. But these are stats, and stats don't necessarily put butts in the seats. And that's why Ainge is looking for a huge return for Mitchell. I don't believe Mitchell is the kind of player who is going to take you to a championship...I mean advanced stats have to matter, don't they? But far more typical fans are going to say "let's go out and see Donavan Mitchell tonight" than "let's go see Rudy". Watching a terrific offensive player is much more entertaining for the average NBA fan than watching a guy block and alter shots and almost single-handedly change an opponent's offense. And the NBA is ultimately a business. So Ainge's best chance to get the return he seeks for Mitchell is to find a GM who wants to immediately increase attendance, but isn't expecting to be in the NBA championship conversation. It's rumored that a deal is done (could be the Knicks, or maybe not), and may be announced today. It will be very interesting to see what Ainge actually gets. But I'll predict that if the Knicks give Ainge what he's asking for, they may be destined to be entertaining, but mediocre. Maybe that's enough for them.

Thanks FNG. Great information. Those advanced stats are fascinating because Mitchell came out of college known for his defense. That was his calling card and the question mark at the time was his offense.

I think, however, Mitchell's premium value compared to Gobert stems from more than simply his ability to puts butts in seats. Donovan Mitchell can carry a team offensively like few others. He's had at least 8 games with over 40 points including two 50+ games. And I'm not sure he's hit his peak yet. Those types of players command a premium because they can single-handedly change the trajectory of a game in ways a defensive stalwart like Gobert can't.

I liken Mitchell a little to Zach Lavine, Lip. Didn't you tell us Flip thought he would be an elite defender too?

That's right. Flip told me he loved LaVine's defensive potential based on Zach's defensive metrics in college. But LaVine played limited minutes in college and wasn't' generally known for his defense. Donovan Mitchell, on the other hand, played substantial minutes in college and was widely touted for his defense.

Chris Fedor: The Cavs have made what I'm told is a multi-year contract offer to Collin Sexton, one that they feel is reasonable based on the fact that he has no market and he has no other offers. - via Spotify

I've been surprised at the apparent lack of interest in Sexton around the League. I say apparent because we don't know what activity or conversations have been taking place behind the scenes. And honestly, we haven't seen much interest around the League in restricted free agents generally. In any event, the Cavs have apparently offered Sexton a 4-year/40 million deal - which would be around $13.3 million per year.

That's even slightly short of Malik Beasley money. That offer seems lower to me for a young PG who has averaged 20 points per game while shooting 46% from the field and 38% from behind the arc. He was viewed as a really quick, explosive small guard coming out of college. I haven't seen a lot of him in games, but watching his video highlighted this morning I saw a very crafty three-level scorer with a terrific floater and very good pull up jumper to go with great 3-point range off the catch and the bounce. He's also a very crafty finisher at the rim. He's only averaged 3.3 assists per game, but I saw him make some nice reads and passes in the video's I saw.

He hasn't been a good defender, but he's not even 24 years old yet and missed nearly all of last season in his development. Also, consider the following excerpt from Draft.net's review of Collin coming out of college, which is typical of all his draft reviews generally:

"His aggressive style combined with his explosiveness point towards high upside on the defensive end at the next level ... Sexton also is not afraid of the big moment and does not back down from tougher competition ... He plays with tremendous passion and seems to perform his best in big games ... With his two-way skillset and determination, Sexton has a chance to be a quality lead guard in the NBA ..."

I've always had my eye on Sexton as a potential sign-and-trade candidate for the Wolves before the Gobert deal. I don't think Sexton is a particularly good fit next to Garland because it makes their backcourt too small. But I could see Sexton fitting well next to Edwards. Sexton would have to develop his playmaking in that situation, but I think that's doable. I don't see any possible deal to bring him here now and I'm sure that possibility is not on Connelly's radar. But it will be interesting to see what happens with Sexton over the next few years. I think there will be a lot of teams in two years wishing they had made an effort (or more of an effort) to acquire him.

lipoli390 wrote:Chris Fedor: The Cavs have made what I'm told is a multi-year contract offer to Collin Sexton, one that they feel is reasonable based on the fact that he has no market and he has no other offers. - via Spotify

I've been surprised at the apparent lack of interest in Sexton around the League. I say apparent because we don't know what activity or conversations have been taking place behind the scenes. And honestly, we haven't seen much interest around the League in restricted free agents generally. In any event, the Cavs have apparently offered Sexton a 4-year/40 million deal - which would be around $13.3 million per year.

That's even slightly short of Malik Beasley money. That offer seems lower to me for a young PG who has averaged 20 points per game while shooting 46% from the field and 38% from behind the arc. He was viewed as a really quick, explosive small guard coming out of college. I haven't seen a lot of him in games, but watching his video highlighted this morning I saw a very crafty three-level scorer with a terrific floater and very good pull up jumper to go with great 3-point range off the catch and the bounce. He's also a very crafty finisher at the rim. He's only averaged 3.3 assists per game, but I saw him make some nice reads and passes in the video's I saw.

He hasn't been a good defender, but he's not even 24 years old yet and missed nearly all of last season in his development. Also, consider the following excerpt from Draft.net's review of Collin coming out of college, which is typical of all his draft reviews generally:

"His aggressive style combined with his explosiveness point towards high upside on the defensive end at the next level ... Sexton also is not afraid of the big moment and does not back down from tougher competition ... He plays with tremendous passion and seems to perform his best in big games ... With his two-way skillset and determination, Sexton has a chance to be a quality lead guard in the NBA ..."

I've always had my eye on Sexton as a potential sign-and-trade candidate for the Wolves before the Gobert deal. I don't think Sexton is a particularly good fit next to Garland because it makes their backcourt too small. But I could see Sexton fitting well next to Edwards. Sexton would have to develop his playmaking in that situation, but I think that's doable. I don't see any possible deal to bring him here now and I'm sure that possibility is not on Connelly's radar. But it will be interesting to see what happens with Sexton over the next few years. I think there will be a lot of teams in two years wishing they had made an effort (or more of an effort) to acquire him.

I keep checking your math on my vintage 1958 Burroughs adding machine, and I keep getting a different answer than you. I'm sure you're probably right though. It's time I get one of those new-fangled electric calculators I see all the kids using.

All joking aside, it probably doesn't surprise members here who know the kind of players I value that I am NOT a Sexton fan. I see him as a very undersized SG who is one of the worst defenders in the league. I don't disagree with his draft profile that says he had the potential to be a good NBA defender, but he hasn't even come close to mediocrity. Heck, he makes Malik Beasley look like Gary Payton! He can score, but he's an on/off nightmare on Cleaning the Glass, and also an ORtg/DRtg failure on BasketballRefererence. And the Cavs have been hoping that he would improve his playmaking for four years, but he still has a horrible A:TO ratio...just like he did in college. I think he is what he is at this point- a short SG who can get you a lot of buckets at an average efficient rate (55 career TS%), but whose horrible defense and lack of playmaking will always make him a minus player for his team. I haven't seen the rumors of what Cleveland (or other teams) have offered him, but the reports you cite mirror how I view him.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Collin Sexton either and it's no surprise that there's little interest in him from other teams. It seems like Cleveland had been trying to trade him for value for a while now and had no takers. They were clearly unwilling to sign him to a big deal, but a salary around the mid-level would be decent value for him.

If the Cavs get Sexton for less than 15 million a year that could be quite the bargain. I can't speak to how bad his defense is but the guy is a 3 level scorer and a guy that can get you a bucket and do it with solid efficiency is worth something. I think him coming off an injury hurt him as well as other guards being available. Brunson emerging as a superior option likely hurt his chances. The Cavs seemed to have played this out well and if they can get him signed to top bench level money then that's gonna be nice for them. They have quite the group of guards.