Mitchell or Booker?

[moistnessfiscal]

46 points by Mitchell on Saturday and Booker with 36 right now against the Knicks, these SGs have turned it up. Who'll have the better career?

Edit: With what looks to be 3 consecutive wins for the Suns, I truly believe that Booker has turned a corner.

[CIN-C-STAR]

Booker loves to shoot.
Mitchell loves to win.
Advantage: Mitchell.

[moistnessfiscal]

Booker loves to shoot.
Mitchell loves to win.
Advantage: Mitchell.

Don't you think he should be done with losing now?

[udfa]

I voted for Mitchell but the poll results (10-0 right now) aren't doing Booker justice as a long term prospect. He needs an attitude adjustment and a summer working out with Westbrook in Miami while watching film of Harden during downtime. Booker could still become a truly great offensive player.

[Dr Spaceman]

Booker is one of the worst defensive players I have ever seen. On Dunc’d On they were saying his D can’t possibly be as bad as the plus/minus numbers but I disagree. He is a gaping sore defensively for going on 4 years and he likely won’t ever get it. It’s very unlikely he will ever be a good enough offensive player to cancel out being one of the most negative defenders in the whole league.

[darmani]

PC board posters are truly a different breed.

[bondom34]

PC board posters are truly a different breed.

I'm guessing because PPG isn't a main criteria used here.

It's still Mitchell. Better at pretty much everything but scoring. Better playmaker, defender, a bit stronger. Booker is the better shooter but that's not measuring all around play. Booker is closer to Lavine, which I'd say is a better comp.

[darmani]

PC board posters are truly a different breed.

I'm guessing because PPG isn't a main criteria used here.

It's still Mitchell. Better at pretty much everything but scoring. Better playmaker, defender, a bit stronger. Booker is the better shooter but that's not measuring all around play. Booker is closer to Lavine, which I'd say is a better comp.

LO **** L. Mitchell is worse at pretty much everything but defense.

It's a **** nonsense to say that Mitchell is a better playmaker (31.4 vs 20.8 ast%) or is stronger than Booker (Booker is a much better finisher in the paint - 58.4 vs 46.8 FG% at rim and has a much higher free throw rate .337 vs .251). And there's a huge gulf in efficiency between these 2 players (.575 vs .522 TS%). Mitchell scores 23.3 pts on 20.1 FGA. Booker scores 24.9 pts on 18.9 FGA.

And yes, Mitchell's defense is much better. It's called Rudy Gobert, Ricky Rubio, Joe Ingles, Jae Crowder and Derrick Favors.

[bondom34]

PC board posters are truly a different breed.

I'm guessing because PPG isn't a main criteria used here.

It's still Mitchell. Better at pretty much everything but scoring. Better playmaker, defender, a bit stronger. Booker is the better shooter but that's not measuring all around play. Booker is closer to Lavine, which I'd say is a better comp.

LO **** L. Mitchell is worse at pretty much everything but defense.

It's a **** nonsense to say that Mitchell is a better playmaker (31.4 vs 20.8 ast%) or is stronger than Booker (Booker is a much better finisher in the paint - 58.4 vs 46.8 FG% at rim and has a much higher free throw rate .337 vs .251). And there's a huge gulf in efficiency between these 2 players (.575 vs .522 TS%). Mitchell scores 23.3 pts on 20.1 FGA. Booker scores 24.9 pts on 18.9 FGA.

And yes, Mitchell's defense is much better. It's called Rudy Gobert, Ricky Rubio, Joe Ingles, Jae Crowder and Derrick Favors.

Except his individual defense is better, and using assists to measure playmaking isn't really an accurate measure (I don't think Westbrook is the best playmaker in the NBA) especially since Booker plays on ball more than Mitchell in general. You're basically using scoring as the only measure while ignoring everything else.

Edit: Oddly, Utah's defensive rating is a touch lower with Mitchell on court w/o Gobert than when he's on. Same is true of the inverse

[Colbinii]

PC board posters are truly a different breed.

I'm guessing because PPG isn't a main criteria used here.

It's still Mitchell. Better at pretty much everything but scoring. Better playmaker, defender, a bit stronger. Booker is the better shooter but that's not measuring all around play. Booker is closer to Lavine, which I'd say is a better comp.

LO **** L. Mitchell is worse at pretty much everything but defense.

It's a **** nonsense to say that Mitchell is a better playmaker (31.4 vs 20.8 ast%) or is stronger than Booker (Booker is a much better finisher in the paint - 58.4 vs 46.8 FG% at rim and has a much higher free throw rate .337 vs .251). And there's a huge gulf in efficiency between these 2 players (.575 vs .522 TS%). Mitchell scores 23.3 pts on 20.1 FGA. Booker scores 24.9 pts on 18.9 FGA.

And yes, Mitchell's defense is much better. It's called Rudy Gobert, Ricky Rubio, Joe Ingles, Jae Crowder and Derrick Favors.

Few notes:

Mitchell has a 59.1% at the rim.
Mitchell is assisted on less baskets [21% to 28% on 2's, 56% to 62% on 3's].

Mitchell is listed at 6-3, 215 and Booker is at 6-6, 210. Mitchell is definitely stronger unless you think he is all fat.

I don't think pointing out the efficiency gap is telling without providing context. Mitchell is in competitive games night in night out and asked to be the #1 option on a clear-cut playoff team [and light title contender barring injuries to GSW]. Booker is running around playing YMCA-competitive games. The difference in how these teams play [and more importantly what they play for] puts a wrench in comparing basic stats to a large degree.

Mitchell is playing better defense, but don't take our word for it, watch the actual games.

[darmani]

I'm guessing because PPG isn't a main criteria used here.

It's still Mitchell. Better at pretty much everything but scoring. Better playmaker, defender, a bit stronger. Booker is the better shooter but that's not measuring all around play. Booker is closer to Lavine, which I'd say is a better comp.

LO **** L. Mitchell is worse at pretty much everything but defense.

It's a **** nonsense to say that Mitchell is a better playmaker (31.4 vs 20.8 ast%) or is stronger than Booker (Booker is a much better finisher in the paint - 58.4 vs 46.8 FG% at rim and has a much higher free throw rate .337 vs .251). And there's a huge gulf in efficiency between these 2 players (.575 vs .522 TS%). Mitchell scores 23.3 pts on 20.1 FGA. Booker scores 24.9 pts on 18.9 FGA.

And yes, Mitchell's defense is much better. It's called Rudy Gobert, Ricky Rubio, Joe Ingles, Jae Crowder and Derrick Favors.

Except his individual defense is better, and using assists to measure playmaking isn't really an accurate measure (I don't think Westbrook is the best playmaker in the NBA) especially since Booker plays on ball more than Mitchell in general. You're basically using scoring as the only measure while ignoring everything else.

Edit: Oddly, Utah's defensive rating is a touch lower with Mitchell on court w/o Gobert than when he's on. Same is true of the inverse

Booker is definitely a better playmaker. Every pass- or assist-related stat (assist%, assists per game, assists per 100 poss, touches per assist, potential assists etc.) proves that as wall as the eye test. And don't forget who are these 2 guys passing to. Non-Mitchell Jazz have .545 eFG% (which would rank them #3 in the league), non-Booker Suns .512 eFG% (#25).

[darmani]

Few notes:
Mitchell has a 59.1% at the rim.

No.

Mitchell is assisted on less baskets [21% to 28% on 2's, 56% to 62% on 3's].

Cool.

Mitchell is listed at 6-3, 215 and Booker is at 6-6, 210. Mitchell is definitely stronger unless you think he is all fat.

He may be more muscular, but he is not stronger. As I've shown Booker is much better in the paint, draws more fouls and kills people in the post. Mitchell doesn't even try to post-up.

I don't think pointing out the efficiency gap is telling without providing context. Mitchell is in competitive games night in night out and asked to be the #1 option on a clear-cut playoff team [and light title contender barring injuries to GSW]. Booker is running around playing YMCA-competitive games. The difference in how these teams play [and more importantly what they play for] puts a wrench in comparing basic stats to a large degree.

The context is that Booker is playing with a bunch of kids for one of the worst coaches in the league (who's also a rookie) on a team in constant turmoil, while Mitchell is playing with established vets in their prime on a team coached by a top-10 coach in the league in a very stable organization.
Oh, and I guess LeBron's stats this season don't mean anything too since he's playing on a team that will miss the playoffs?

[bondom34]

LO **** L. Mitchell is worse at pretty much everything but defense.

It's a **** nonsense to say that Mitchell is a better playmaker (31.4 vs 20.8 ast%) or is stronger than Booker (Booker is a much better finisher in the paint - 58.4 vs 46.8 FG% at rim and has a much higher free throw rate .337 vs .251). And there's a huge gulf in efficiency between these 2 players (.575 vs .522 TS%). Mitchell scores 23.3 pts on 20.1 FGA. Booker scores 24.9 pts on 18.9 FGA.

And yes, Mitchell's defense is much better. It's called Rudy Gobert, Ricky Rubio, Joe Ingles, Jae Crowder and Derrick Favors.

Except his individual defense is better, and using assists to measure playmaking isn't really an accurate measure (I don't think Westbrook is the best playmaker in the NBA) especially since Booker plays on ball more than Mitchell in general. You're basically using scoring as the only measure while ignoring everything else.

Edit: Oddly, Utah's defensive rating is a touch lower with Mitchell on court w/o Gobert than when he's on. Same is true of the inverse

Booker is definitely a better playmaker. Every pass- or assist-related stat (assist%, assists per game, assists per 100 poss, touches per assist, potential assists etc.) proves that as wall as the eye test. And don't forget who are these 2 guys passing to. Non-Mitchell Jazz have .545 eFG% (which would rank them #3 in the league), non-Booker Suns .512 eFG% (#25).

Again though you feel using assists. Mitchell's teammates also get a bump in numbers playing next to him, and his team numbers are still better than Booker even without Gobert.

Even ignoring just playmaking, Mitchell's defense is so many miles ahead it totally overrides any minor playmaking advantage Booker has.

[bondom34]

Also Bbr has Mitchell at 59% from 0-3 feet.

[darmani]

Except his individual defense is better, and using assists to measure playmaking isn't really an accurate measure (I don't think Westbrook is the best playmaker in the NBA) especially since Booker plays on ball more than Mitchell in general. You're basically using scoring as the only measure while ignoring everything else.

Edit: Oddly, Utah's defensive rating is a touch lower with Mitchell on court w/o Gobert than when he's on. Same is true of the inverse

Booker is definitely a better playmaker. Every pass- or assist-related stat (assist%, assists per game, assists per 100 poss, touches per assist, potential assists etc.) proves that as wall as the eye test. And don't forget who are these 2 guys passing to. Non-Mitchell Jazz have .545 eFG% (which would rank them #3 in the league), non-Booker Suns .512 eFG% (#25).

Again though you feel using assists. Mitchell's teammates also get a bump in numbers playing next to him, and his team numbers are still better than Booker even without Gobert.

Even ignoring just playmaking, Mitchell's defense is so many miles ahead it totally overrides any minor playmaking advantage Booker has.

The gap in playmaking and offense overall is much bigger than you think.

And I have no problem with someone thinking that Mitchell is better than Booker. He might be.

But saying that Michell is a better playmaker or is stronger (when he clearly isn't) is **** stupid and shows clear bias and proves that someone who says that has no clue what he's talking about.

[bondom34]

Booker is definitely a better playmaker. Every pass- or assist-related stat (assist%, assists per game, assists per 100 poss, touches per assist, potential assists etc.) proves that as wall as the eye test. And don't forget who are these 2 guys passing to. Non-Mitchell Jazz have .545 eFG% (which would rank them #3 in the league), non-Booker Suns .512 eFG% (#25).

Again though you feel using assists. Mitchell's teammates also get a bump in numbers playing next to him, and his team numbers are still better than Booker even without Gobert.

Even ignoring just playmaking, Mitchell's defense is so many miles ahead it totally overrides any minor playmaking advantage Booker has.

The gap in playmaking and offense overall is much bigger than you think.

And I have no problem with someone thinking that Mitchell is better than Booker. He might be.

But saying that Michell is a better playmaker or is stronger (when he clearly isn't) is **** stupid and shows clear bias and proves that someone who says that has no clue what he's talking about.

I mean he's pretty clearly stronger. And playmaking is to me advantage Mitchell, I never said it was a large gap but he's running point slightly less so his box score numbers would be expected to be down. Booker's a better scorer but that's the only spot he's got a clear advantage.

[clyde21]

Mitchell quite comfortably for me.

[70sFan]

Mitchell is a good defender and after very rough start has been scoring pretty well. He is decent passer and he plays on good team fighting for HCA in playoffs.

Booker is terrible defender who plays for nothing but scoring points. Might be tough, but that's the Suns reality. It's one of the worst team in the league and Booker can pad his stats as much as he wants. It might be not fair for him, because it's not his fault that he plays on terrible team but he doesn't show anything to prove that he's legit impact player. Suns aren't really worse without him.