gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:I'd put money on saying Mitch has not really had 1 professional level offseason to work on this game. Mostly his own doing.

Before coming into the NBA, we know his history or dropping out of going to college and "working" with a trainer. Doubt much happened compared to normal guys in his position.

After year 1: Doubt much happened but who knows.

After year 2: Didn't either he or his mom have a kid and he took a lot of time off? That's when he posted those whacky 3point shooting videos against 6 foot and under dudes. Not productive.

After year 3: Recovery from injury this past offseason, so zero real work.

Most guys get better in the offseason. For Mitch, all development has been done in season for better or worse.

He may still have a huge ceiling but it may never get the right work ethic to get there.

Did you see this guy's shoulders? He went from KP to Giannis. Lots of work there.

He put on muscle weight and was much less effective in the beginning of the season. As the season went on he lost weight ( meaning he was not in game shape to begin the season) After getting in shape midseason he got back to his usual production. If that improvement is the only thing he and his agent hang the hat on we have a problem me thinks

gradyandrew wrote:I got to wonder if I am the only person here who looks at advanced stats. All signs point to Mitchell being the best player on the team.

Yeah but no one in their right mind would come to that conclusion by just the eye test.

Make your case if you like but I'd guess you would just be hunting stats that fill out a preconceived notion and don't address the bigger picture of things.

SergioNYK wrote:I don't trust Mitch after signing for big money. Gut feeling he will 'Randle' us. Plus I think spending big money on the Center position isn't good roster construction when you're a bad team unless he's Embiid or Jokic.

How do you slow down Embiid/ Jokic/ Giannis without a massive human? These guys don't grow on trees.Wasn't the Atlanta series enough to convince you?

Knicks haven't really been a bad team, just unlucky.

1. They play in the Eastern Conference (.500 ball vs west)
2. The Rose/ Kemba injuries. Burke's playing PG has meant way too many minutes for Fournier.
3. Noel/ Toppin injuries have turned the back up center spot into a major weakness.

SergioNYK wrote:I don't trust Mitch after signing for big money. Gut feeling he will 'Randle' us. Plus I think spending big money on the Center position isn't good roster construction when you're a bad team unless he's Embiid or Jokic.

Since they stopped making Randle the primary, he’s been a beast. 36/12/6 last night without the ball. Let’s not use “Randle” as a negative verb. That guy is worth every penny even if he isn’t the primary option he thought he was.

Mitch has been Mitch his entire career. He has made his incremental steps to stay on the court - less fouls and such. He hasn’t add much offense to his game, but this team hasn’t asked him to be more than a cleanup guy. Nothing really indicates he needs to be more than a cleanup guy on offense. Might be the best in the league with his FG%. David Lee was essentially a rebound put-back guy with no defense and he made an all star team. Just saying, if you want Mitch to be Shaq, he isn’t. But if you look at the top defensive centers (many of whom are getting paid), he is up there.

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I got to wonder if I am the only person here who looks at advanced stats. All signs point to Mitchell being the best player on the team.

Yeah but no one in their right mind would come to that conclusion by just the eye test.

Make your case if you like but I'd guess you would just be hunting stats that fill out a preconceived notion and don't address the bigger picture of things.

Aren't we watching the same games? Defensively he locks down the paint and controls the boards, offensively he's getting offensive boards and dunking it. He's shooting 82% from the field in March! Didn't you see him own Ayton last week? I don't think we should be penalizing Mitchell for never playing with a PG.

I don't even agree so much with the getting in game shape narrative- he went 22/25 in October. He's number 2 in the league in offensive boards and Knicks are playing defense at a top 5 rate in his minutes. Stats or eye test it doesn't matter- Knicks are a much better team with Robinson. Last night Memphis took control in the 4th as soon as Robinson sat and Sims came on (after a foul by Taj).

I think there is a big gap between Knicks being a much better team with Robinson and Mitch being the best player on the team.

This argument goes back to when DeBerry wrote Wages of Wins. His analysis led him to put Andrei Kirilenko as a top 5 guy and Iverson at 100. It's not helping to score 30 points on 30 shots a game was his main argument. If you don't want to talk about win shares, offensive and defensive ratings, box score plus/ minus and value over replacement, it's tough to make the argument that Mitchell is the best. You got me there.

Mitchell leading all those categories by a significant margin makes me think this is a "where smoke, where fire" type of situation.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I got to wonder if I am the only person here who looks at advanced stats. All signs point to Mitchell being the best player on the team.

Yeah but no one in their right mind would come to that conclusion by just the eye test.

Make your case if you like but I'd guess you would just be hunting stats that fill out a preconceived notion and don't address the bigger picture of things.

Aren't we watching the same games? Defensively he locks down the paint and controls the boards, offensively he's getting offensive boards and dunking it. He's shooting 82% from the field in March! Didn't you see him own Ayton last week? I don't think we should be penalizing Mitchell for never playing with a PG.

I don't even agree so much with the getting in game shape narrative- he went 22/25 in October. He's number 2 in the league in offensive boards and Knicks are playing defense at a top 5 rate in his minutes. Stats or eye test it doesn't matter- Knicks are a much better team with Robinson. Last night Memphis took control in the 4th as soon as Robinson sat and Sims came on (after a foul by Taj).

I think there is a big gap between Knicks being a much better team with Robinson and Mitch being the best player on the team.

This argument goes back to when DeBerry wrote Wages of Wins. His analysis led him to put Andrei Kirilenko as a top 5 guy and Iverson at 100. It's not helping to score 30 points on 30 shots a game was his main argument. If you don't want to talk about win shares, offensive and defensive ratings, box score plus/ minus and value over replacement, it's tough to make the argument that Mitchell is the best. You got me there.

Mitchell leading all those categories by a significant margin makes me think this is a "where smoke, where fire" type of situation.

You actually haven’t put out the stat or made the argument, you started with the conclusion