He only took 47 shots.

Wilt took 62 in his first two playoff games. Scored 35 and 28.

So, it looks like the tweet was wrong as well.

fwiw - Wilt went for 53 in his third playoff game.

Also lol Wilt playing 48 minutes in a game they won by 20+

My four key is broken.

If Utahs GM called up your teams GM today and offered D Mitch, not one player would be a deal breaker.

Not Jalol Murray, not Scary Harris, and certainly not that scrub loljokic.

Take your Bumver talk to the offseason thread, this one heres for the playoff teams bub.

The upcoming Jazz - Sixers finals to crown the ROTY will be really awesome

Hating a rookie for having a top 5 rookie season in the last 10 years is a thing, hating the fact that he does the same in playoffs means the wrong path has been chosent by the d00d

Hes's right. Mitchell was 10-25 and 0-7 from 3 in game 2 and people are using it to support their arguments. This guy's hype is getting out of control.

He should feel so grateful that he fell to Utah. It was the perfect situation for him.

Clutch factor, D.Mitch has it like all the greatest scorers. Sure sometimes the MJs/Kobe/D.Wades of the world miss some shots but when the games on the line they get it done.

Haters get all your hate out while you can when the dudes a rookie. He'll be even better next season and you wont have any straws to hold onto.

He better work on getting to the line at a better rate if he wants to really be elite. His o is great for a rookie but there have been a lot of great rookies in the last 10 years that have been considerably better than Donovan but most were bigs.

I don't think the term "a lot" is correct.

Brah

[Spoiler][/spoiler]

If he has the same shooting splits in 5 years it will not look good. But don't compare a Rookie with what a Vet guard number 1 option in a playoff team should do.

So far he's showing Wade with a 3 point shot potential thats amazing there's not 5 guard in the last 40 years that were as good as him when rookie

Clearly > Mitchell's Rookie Year:

Blake
KAT
Jokic
A Davis
Love
Kyrie (injured)
Simmons ("not a real rookie")

Can debate on Marc (old), Curry, Kawhi (limited minutes), Rose, Dame (ton of minutes), Taps, Embiid (too many injuries), Harden, Tatum (role/BRADDD), Tyreke (garbage stats), Monroe, Oden (injured), Faried, Mason Plumlee (LOL Plumlee).

Mitchell clearly had better rookie years than these greats: Durant/RWB but was older.

Maybe a lot was strong but clearly there have been a lot of good rookies over the last 10 seasons. Most top rookies didn't lead a team into the playoffs though like Mitchell has especially offensively.

MJ
Magic
CP3
Walter Davis
Simmons
Penny
Stevie Francis
Mitch Richmond
VC
Sid the Squid

I'm sorry if you will feel old but half of your names were rookie 35 or 40 years ago.

Well I just realized I wrote 40 instead of 30. My bad

So, it's definitely not a lot. I don't know what the actual definition of a lot is, but when someone says it about a 10 year period, I think 15-20ish.

Really it might be 5.

You literally wrote 40 years.

I can also write in guys like Kittles, Brevin Knight, Rudy Fernandez, Andre Miller, D Rose, Brandon Roy, Wade, Reke.

Jokic was 20 and had a 21 PER, 58% TS% and 1700 minutes. DMitch had a 16.7 PER, 54% TS% in 2700 minutes at 21. Not sure how that isn't debatable. Love also had pretty damn good stats, I'm not sure how it isn't debatable.

Weird how some people have ethics and a sense of morality.

I'm not one of those people, since I love lebron due to the burning desire to see him in the finals every year.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So if player A has a better PER and TS% than player B, it is no longer "debatable" that player B is better than player A? Defense, usage, position, all of this doesn't matter apparently because PER and TS% are there to rule out any form of debate.

I'm starting to understand Chuq's perspective about people using analytics

I could use other metrics, you can look up the others if you’d like. I didn’t think posting them all would help but if you’d like I can post every one of them. I didn’t say it wasn’t debatable. I understand there are things like usage, d, role, etc. that also play into the evaluation. I just gave some overall metrics, we can dive into the details if you’d like.

David West had a better PER and TS% than Klay Thompson and Ben Simmons this season. That doesn't mean that he had a better season than either of them. And I'm sure even you would agree that it's not debatable.

You need to take minutes into consideration.

Jokic averaged 10ppg as a Rookie. Love averaged 11ppg.

Mitchell is averaging 21ppg.

It's not debatable. Mitchell had a better rookie season than both of them ainec.

And why are you bringing up age. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

I'll give you that I misread you as "it isn't debatable that Jokic had a better season than D-Mitch" but my overall point stands

Dont get how u can hate on D.Mitchell. Hes out there with a foot injury as a rookie owning. He scores 13 in the 4th while heroes such as Westbrook/Melo/PG13 go a combined 0-14 in the 4th. Clutch

stealing melo brick road lol

He had a 44USG in clutch minutes which is amazing for a rookie, but he also had a 49.9% TS which was far below the others not named Russ, and Westbrook had one of the worst clutch seasons OAT given his usage.

This is why he's gotten so much hype. There isn't a good team in the world that's going to let their youngest player chuck up inefficient shots except for one that has an amazing defense. If he had played on literally any other team in the league he'd have been like any other rookie that averages 18PPG on bad efficiency. But because their system and team trust him to take an extra few shots a game, particularly in crunch-time, his stats look much better.

This is true, but you're comparing him to rookies now who are generally two years younger, or olds before who were the same age but played in a league where the offensive efficiency was much lower.

You're right about his shooting splits, but that's sort of my point. He was inefficient in college, inefficient in SL, and inefficient in the pros. Are we to project that he's going to turn into the high-efficiency player that Wade was in his prime?

There's a difference between hating on him and not buying into the tremendous amount of hype that he's gotten largely due to the situation he's been put in. As a Gobert/Ingles fanboi, I find it annoying that he's "led" them to the playoffs and this success despite being the third or fourth best player on their team.