The Donovan Mitchell Thread

[MHSL82]

I look forward to your answers to my questions in post #55, whenever you can.

Just so you know, I only use this site on my phone and so I never can see what post number you are referring to. I don’t know which one is number 55.

I wasn’t able to sort anything by field goal percent because it goes to the error page.

 

[nuraman00]

Just so you know, I only use this site on my phone and so I never can see what post number you are referring to. I don’t know which one is number 55.

I wasn’t able to sort anything by field goal percent because it goes to the error page.

That's fine. I was having the same problem. Ok, I guess we can't do it, for whatever reason.

 

[nuraman00]

2) Based on what we've seen right now, including this year's playoffs, do YOU think Mitchell is special?

This was the outstanding (as in still unanswered) question, from the post I was referring to.

This was what started the whole bump yesterday. You had (earlier) said you wanted to see special.

 

[MHSL82]

This was the outstanding (as in still unanswered) question, from the post I was referring to.

This was what started the whole bump yesterday. You had (earlier) said you wanted to see special.

Well, I was the one who told @Sackataters he was going to be special, before the draft. In fact, it was before Mitchell entered college. In fact, I told Sloan before Mitchell was even born.

 

[nuraman00]

Well, I was the one who told @Sackataters he was going to be special, before the draft. In fact, it was before Mitchell entered college. In fact, I told Sloan before Mitchell was even born.

Wow. So then Sloan remembered it all these years, then told Dennis Lindsey what you said?

 

[nuraman00]

Well, I was the one who told @Sackataters he was going to be special, before the draft. In fact, it was before Mitchell entered college. In fact, I told Sloan before Mitchell was even born.

So is he as special as you predicted?

 

[MHSL82]

Wow. So then Sloan remembered it all these years, then told Dennis Lindsey what you said?

No, he told Snyder.

 

[MHSL82]

So is he as special as you predicted?

Not yet. He’ll get better. His free-throw percentage jumped but his free throws per game dropped.

But I will say, my magic number is 25 points per game at least two seasons. None of this Duncan or Garnett one hit wonders. I’m obviously kidding, but I dislike averaging 20 to 23 points per game being treated like more than it is. It’s hard to average 25+. I was afraid Malone was going to ruin his career average.

To explain why those two only have one season between them both above 25 and two in total 24.2+ seasons is no John Stockton or more scoring help by others, minutes restriction, system, or being involved in other things. Malone has more points and assists than Duncan and comparable for rebounds, considering Duncan is taller. Blocks, no.

 

[nuraman00]

I kind of agree with you about Duncan's scoring.

I've always felt he could do more.

I was mad that I missed a 37 point playoffs game that he had. I didn't record it on the VCR either. So I just saw it through the box score. It was in their clinching game when they beat the Lakers in 2003.

I don't know why I didn't record it, as I usually record a lot of games. But I was also living with roommates, with one receiver, so maybe that had something to do with it.

So yes, when I saw that Duncan had a 37 point game, I knew I missed something that probably wouldn't be done again by him in a few years. Because I had known that he rarely scored more than 25-26.

 

[nuraman00]

Not yet. He’ll get better. His free-throw percentage jumped but his free throws per game dropped.

Thanks, I'll monitor his free throw rate.

 

[nuraman00]

Where do you factor in Garnett, Duncan, and Malone's defense?

All were good in their own way.

I would give Duncan the edge, then Malone, then Garnett.

Even though Garnett is the only one of the three to win DPOY.

Duncan should have won DPOY probably a few times.

Malone should have made more defensive 1st teams. 3 first teams isn't enough, especially when the first one was late in his career in 1997, lol.

 

[nuraman00]

My answers:

Mitchell is special on offense.

On defense, he's fine for this era.

But I really want to see the next Stockton/Payton/Artest.

I don't think he'll get there. But that's what I'm always aiming for.

Mitchell is not a liability. He's fine on defense. I just want to see special.

 

[nuraman00]

Just asking this question. What do you think of Nowitzki? Since he's another PF.

 

[nuraman00]

How do you feel about Malone's 24.7 ppg playoffs average?

 

[nuraman00]

Why is Duncan even being compared to Malone? Duncan's a center. So is Garnett.

 

[MHSL82]

Where do you factor in Garnett, Duncan, and Malone's defense?

All were good in their own way.

I would give Duncan the edge, then Malone, then Garnett.

Even though Garnett is the only one of the three to win DPOY.

Duncan should have won DPOY probably a few times.

Malone should have made more defensive 1st teams. 3 first teams isn't enough, especially when the first one was late in his career in 1997, lol.

Well, I know overall they are special, especially on defense. I know they both could score and I wouldn’t question them being able to if they needed to on any given day. I also think they’d score more if Stockton were at point and allowed to do what Stockton does. Ginobli and Parker took shots more and Robinson was there awhile. But I think the ability to have several 25+ seasons consecutively is sometimes overlooked. Malone noted that when he had a good game, he was “supposed to” but if he didn’t, it was his fault. It would be one thing if he were one dimensional or a chucker, but he was a hustler on both sides in great shape. I do wish he were more clutch, but I do think that people sometimes ignore the times that he was.

As far as the playoff average, I think it can be exaggerated. I think as a team the jazz could’ve done better. And that includes Malon. I don’t know if they would’ve won any championships, but they could’ve done better.

 

[nuraman00]

I also think they’d score more if Stockton were at point and allowed to do what Stockton does. Ginobli and Parker took shots more and Robinson was there awhile.

Maybe Duncan would have scored more, maybe not. I can't blame Ginobili or Parker.

Both were hall of famers who did the right thing.

There was one year where Parker was top 5 in the league in points in the paint. And his overall FG% was comparable to power forwards and centers, some years.

When he is shooting that well, that is the best thing for the team. Even Duncan would be a worse option, because if fouled Duncan would miss free throws, compared to Parker getting an and-one (or Ginobili).

And it would be silly to pass when one of those two guards would have an open 2 foot shot.

Duncan averaged 14.6 FGAs and 6.1 FTAs for his career.

The Spurs also shot more 3's, than a team like the Jazz.

So even if Stockton was the PG, some of those passes to Duncan would have still ended up to guys in the corner for 3's.

You once created the "A question for Nuraman" thread on the ESPN boards, I think, asking if the Jazz should take more 3's.

So I'm not sure if things would have changed for Duncan much with different teammates, because:

1) Duncan himself left points at the free throw line, with his bad free throw shooting.

2) Spurs played at a slower pace. Stockton would have played more like some of the years the Jazz played slower (which only happened a few times). Most Jazz teams played faster than most Spurs teams.

3) The Spurs spaced the floor more than the Jazz, and would have still had guys taking 3's. Whether they came on passes directly from Stockton, or if they came from their bigs, that would have remained the same.

4) Data isn't available prior to 1996-1997. But at the first available data, 1996-1997, it appears Stockton shot more shots from 0-3 feet during that year, than he would later in his career. Even if you account for a slight dropoff in overall FGA attempts.

I think if Stockton were on the Spurs, Popovich would have encouraged him to take a few more of those layups that he was good at taking and making.

Also, having watched the Frank Layden 1988 Jazz team, it also appears Stockton was much more aggressive with his shot, than I remembered. That didn't affect his assist numbers either, as he still averaged 16 apg against the Lakers.

From looking at his overall shooting data that is available with regards to distance, which again starts at 1996-1997, it appears Stockton took more shots from further out, as the years went by, and less from close.

So I think a younger Stockton on the Spurs, would have taken more of his shots at the rim, a little bit like Parker, and less from further out.

I think the Sloan's teams had Stockton take more midrange shots, while Layden's Stockton had him take/get more layups. No change in overall FGAs, just where he took them.

5) It's possible the Spurs still would have had multiple ball handlers anyways, even with Stockton. Overall, I think it's a good thing, as it keeps things more unpredictable for the defense.

So in summary, I don't know if having different teammates would have helped Duncan score more. Some things would still have remained the same. The Spurs probably would have still played slowly. Duncan would have still bricked free throws. The Spurs would have still looked for 3-pointers. Their guards would have still taken open 3 foot shots at the rim. There probably would have still been multiple ball handlers.

I feel that the Spurs played the best way they could. If it would have been better for Duncan to score more somehow, they would have tried that.

They did try that in the 2002 playoffs, because Robinson was hurt for most of it. Duncan averaged a career high ppg, 27.6, in those playoffs. But watching it, it wasn't good. He was taking a few more harder shots.

Duncan needed others to help make things easier for him, that year. That didn't happen.

So even if Stockton was on that team, I think the same hypothesis would have been true. It's not a good thing for one player to take more shots, if they're not easier shots.

Others would have needed to make some shots, to balance things out.

So when I said a few posts ago, I felt Duncan could have scored more, I'm not blaming the system, or his teammates, or anything. It was a feeling I had. But ultimately, I think the Spurs did what was best for them as much as they could. I don't know if there was much of a way to make Duncan score more either.

I guess this sounds contradictory, and it probably is.

Ok, let me put it this way. Duncan did the best with what he could, and if he didn't do more, nothing would have changed that. He wasn't like Jokic, who probably could score more. I guess I both think Duncan could have scored more, but that I don't know what could have been done to make him score more. Because I think simply taking more shots, would have probably had an adverse affect, like it did in 2002.

Both things can be equally true, even if contradictory.

I guess I'll just put it on Duncan. Make your FTs, and you average more. Simple as that.

 

[nuraman00]

If Stockton were on the Spurs, he probably would have gotten a greater percentage of his assists from 3-point shooters.

So not necessarily a big man.

So that probably still wouldn't have resulted in Duncan scoring more. Because the Spurs have been more about open 3's, so Stockton would have found shooters more than he did on the Jazz.

As I said earlier, the best thing Duncan could have done is become a better free throw shooter, if he wanted to raise his scoring average.

 

[MHSL82]

Stockton, I believe was more aggressive in the playoffs in general and when he succeeded in being aggressive, that obviously brought us good things. My question for you is if you think that Stockton‘s aggressiveness made Malone less aggressive so that he averaged 24.7 points instead of more? Or was Malone just playing better teams with a smaller sample size with more match ups against superstar players and more focus on him? Stockton could also benefit in being aggressive when people are focusing on Malone. If so, was this a conscious decision by Stockton, Malone, or Sloan?

 

[nuraman00]

I'll need to re-watch a playoffs game or two to have a better answer. Outside of the aforementioned 1988 series, I haven't watched a Jazz playoffs game with those guys since 2003.

And when they were at their best, in the mid 90s, I wasn't as smart of a fan.

The one thing which is really bothering me right now, is Sloan's reluctance to use 3's on set plays.

The Jazz were almost always 28th, 29th, 30th, etc. in 3-point attempts.

The Jazz were pretty good at getting to the foul line. But they weren't so good at it, that I thought they were doing it at the expense of 3's. They could have maintained the same free throw rate, but looked for 3's more.

Plus, the Jazz didn't really have that many great foul shooters. I'm not sure if they had enough 3-point shooters either, they might have needed to get more if necessary.

The other thing that's ALWAYS bothered me is those Sloan teams fouled too much. Take 1995-1996 for example. The Jazz were 27th in giving up the worst free throw rate.

The best defenses can force misses without fouling.

I understand having a "no layups" rule, but there is a balance to be had.