Kanter and Burke have got to go

[Tarkanian]

If you're saying that players whose strength is making the right team play instead of overpowering his opposite number would look "worthless" on a team full of players who have no clue how to play team basketball, I suppose that's true. Teams filled with knuckle-heads generally don't win though. Only 1 of the 15 post-Jordan championships has been won by an arguably "stupid" team, the 2006 Heat (and honestly, I don't know enough about this team to feel confident in this assessment). The other 14 (soon to be 15) have relied heavily on smart teamplay to win.

Diaw is valuable to teams with players who know how to play basketball.

This is the biggest reason I'm low on Kanter at the moment. He just doesn't get it. He may find a feel for the game eventually, but he may not. We'll see.

I have watched Diaw enough to know that he is a finesse player who was believed to be a SF. Nowadays he is playing the big guy.
But it is not "his" strength to make the right plays, it almost never is!
The magic and the glory belongs to the coach.
Put him in last years Jazz and he would be doing nothing.
What I meant is easy to grasp actually.
Diaw is a mediocre player. He was not much of a factor with the French NT, when that team was in shambles.
GVC, I have been trying to say this and you put it better thanI would ever have done inyour quoted post. Jazz were a team in turmoil and you cannot expect young players to stand up and put things in order, WHERE there happens to be a professional coach.
Jazz had none.
Plus, RJ could have been a vocal leader, which he was not or simply failed to be.
Pointing fingers at EK was stupid, he should have done that way before.
Back to the topic, give this team to, say, Tom Izzo and re-build the bench;
and Jazz, as they are now, are a mediocre play-off team.

 

[GVC]

I have watched Diaw enough to know that he is a finesse player who was believed to be a SF. Nowadays he is playing the big guy.
But it is not "his" strength to make the right plays, it almost never is!
The magic and the glory belongs to the coach.
Put him in last years Jazz and he would be doing nothing.
What I meant is easy to grasp actually.
Diaw is a mediocre player. He was not much of a factor with the French NT, when that team was in shambles.
GVC, I have been trying to say this and you put it better thanI would ever have done inyour quoted post. Jazz were a team in turmoil and you cannot expect young players to stand up and put things in order, WHERE there happens to be a professional coach.
Jazz had none.
Plus, RJ could have been a vocal leader, which he was not or simply failed to be.
Pointing fingers at EK was stupid, he should have done that way before.
Back to the topic, give this team to, say, Tom Izzo and re-build the bench;
and Jazz, as they are now, are a mediocre play-off team.

I certainly never said that. I'm also not terribly receptive to those who blame everything on the coach without further explanation. Kanter failed to perform this season, end of story. That's on him.

 

[Tarkanian]

I certainly never said that. I'm also not terribly receptive to those who blame everything on the coach without further explanation. Kanter failed to perform this season, end of story. That's on him.

of course you did.
You said Diaw did the right plays.
I reminded that he was not that "intelligent" with the NT, when that team was in turmoil. (that is called rebuttal, if you would care and heed)
Coach is more important than role players or young guns with little or no experience.
Under the guidance of Popovich for example, Kanter would play.
Replace Splitter with Kanter, SAS would still win.
I accept that EK underperformed but you can not expect me to ignore sorry status Jazz were in whole year.
or you can.

I know you are a great bball mind and this stubborn attitude is alarmingly so un-GVC.

 

[franklin]

With Snyder as our coach, I think he has a chance to flourish. I still think he is Jameer Nelson with better play-making ability (though he didnt show it last year) and that is a pretty good player.

Like NAOS said, replaceable.

 

[GVC]

of course you did.
You said Diaw did the right plays.
I reminded that he was not that "intelligent" with the NT, when that team was in turmoil. (that is called rebuttal, if you would care and heed)
Coach is more important than role players or young guns with little or no experience.
Under the guidance of Popovich for example, Kanter would play.
Replace Splitter with Kanter, SAS would still win.
I accept that EK underperformed but you can not expect me to ignore sorry status Jazz were in whole year.
or you can.

I know you are a great bball mind and this stubborn attitude is alarmingly so un-GVC.

Still reads as excuses. I still have a very superficial understanding of anything beyond basic basketball strategy, so I don't feel particularly qualified to make strong statements about Corbin as a coach. However, almost all of the anti-Corbin rhetoric revolves around Corbin's perceived mismanagement of the youth. I don't buy it. Especially this year, Corbin used lineups that worked. He matched complementary talent and staggered the 5 young guys' minutes to allow all of them ample opportunity with the ball in their hands. Sure, it would have been nice if some of RJ's minutes went to Burks, but Corbin obviously didn't think he'd earned them. Since the correction would have been relatively small (a few minutes per game), and I'm not privy to what goes on in practice/behind the scenes, I can't count this as much of a negative. On balance, I think Corbin handled the minutes and roles of the 5 young guys pretty well.

Kanter was, unfortunately, given a larger role than he was ready for. Even later in the season, when many on this site were raving about lineups featuring Kanter and Favors (and Burke), those lineups were consistently terrible. I've posted the stats many times on this site, and people pretend they aren't there. Stockton and Malone were before my time as a Jazz fan, but from all accounts, they earned their role and their minutes on the team. They didn't make excuses. When Kanter whined about minutes at the end of the season, it was all the confirmation I needed that what appeared to be Kanter's entitled, lackadaisical play was Kanter's entitled, lackadaisical play. Do you really think giving a spoiled brat everything he demands is the best way to encourage his development?

I'm neither convinced that Pop would give Kanter minutes nor that Kanter could adequately replace Tiago Splitter. If you replaced Splitter with Kanter, it seems just as or more likely that Diaw's, Bonner's and Ayres' minutes would have increased, leaving Kanter with less PT than he received in Utah last season. What makes you think Pop would have played Kanter more? Do you think Kanter's play earned him more minutes?

This is not alarmingly un-GVC, or at least I hope not. I don't accept what appears to be ignorant opinion as fact.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Just using my eyeballs i would say trey is 6 feet even

That would make the 6'3" Lillard 3 inches taller and it simply isn't true.

 

[♪alt13]

I certainly never said that. I'm also not terribly receptive to those who blame everything on the coach without further explanation. Kanter failed to perform this season, end of story. That's on him.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2014/lineups/

Ordered by total minutes

1. No Kanter
2. R. Jeff Usually doesn't bother to play D. Burke is a Defensive ghost. Kanter doesn't have the skills to make up for all that.
3. R. Jeff & TB again. I will add that we forfeit boards when these 2 play together.
4. No Kanter
5. Garrett, Burks, Hayward, Evans, Kanter Looks good pretty much across the board and even given the level of comp is one of their best lineups
6. This lineup compares unfavorably offensively to the 4th (same lineup Kanter sub 4 Williams) It is no wonder when Hayward is your only weapon to stretch the floor. Ty should have unleashed Kanter while he shared the floor with Favors.


It's clear that Kanter does not have the D skills to make up for nonexistent perimeter D(few guys his size do). He was involved in dysfunctional lineups for most of his minutes. He can play back up C with either decent defensive guards or when opposing starter guards sit. If he is to play alongside Favors we either need a competent shooter at the 3 or we need to allow Enes to shoot.

Last season was a season of experimentation and discovery and Kanter spent it in a muzzle. Can he stretch the floor? I wish we found out last season.

Corbin used lineups that worked. He matched complementary talent

lol

 

[ljnapoli]

Would be open to Kanter + Pick to move into the top 3 but thats it.
It's less rare to find a good big man these days, he can be replaced.

 

[GVC]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2014/lineups/

Ordered by total minutes

1. No Kanter
2. R. Jeff Usually doesn't bother to play D. Burke is a Defensive ghost. Kanter doesn't have the skills to make up for all that.
3. R. Jeff & TB again. I will add that we forfeit boards when these 2 play together.
4. No Kanter
5. Garrett, Burks, Hayward, Evans, Kanter Looks good pretty much across the board and even given the level of comp is one of their best lineups
6. This lineup compares unfavorably offensively to the 4th (same lineup Kanter sub 4 Williams) It is no wonder when Hayward is your only weapon to stretch the floor. Ty should have unleashed Kanter while he shared the floor with Favors.


It's clear that Kanter does not have the D skills to make up for nonexistent perimeter D(few guys his size do). He was involved in dysfunctional lineups for most of his minutes. He can play back up C with either decent defensive guards or when opposing starter guards sit. If he is to play alongside Favors we either need a competent shooter at the 3 or we need to allow Enes to shoot.

Last season was a season of experimentation and discovery and Kanter spent it in a muzzle. Can he stretch the floor? I wish we found out last season.

Really? You're making my argument for me. Take a look at those lineups. Which ones featuring Kanter do well on a per possession basis? Hint: Not the ones with Favors. Marvin-Favors and Evans-Kanter were a hell of a lot more effective than Kanter-Favors. The relevant lineups:

Kanter-Favors: 770 minutes, -195; -12.2/48 minutes
Marvin-Favors: 1112 minutes, -69; -3.0/48 minutes
Evans-Kanter: 775 minutes, -122; -7.6/48 minutes


I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Trey and RJ. Why should their shortcomings affect Kanter differently than other bigs? How does this explain the poor performance of the Kanter-Favors duo? Here are the relevant lineups:

Burke-RJ-Kanter-Favors: 248 minutes, -61; -11.8/48 minutes
Burke-RJ-Favors-no Kanter: 807 minutes, -19; -1.1/48 minutes
Burke-RJ-Kanter-no Favors: 146 minutes, -11; -3.6/48 minutes
Burke-RJ-no Kanter-no Favors: 258 minutes, -56; -10.8/48 minutes


See a pattern in these numbers? Kanter couldn't handle basic execution on either end. Until he can do that, we probably shouldn't be worrying about him stretching the floor. If it's true that Kanter is only effective in certain lineups, his minutes are going to be limited, as the team lacks players who are both decent perimeter defenders AND good spot-up shooters. That's on management, not the coach. Kanter needs to start acting and playing like a pro. If anything, he was on an incredibly long leash last season.

 

[GVC]

1 additional point:

Hayward was probably the Jazz's best perimeter defender. He's also shown in the past (that is, before this past season) that he can hit spot-up jumpers. He meets your criteria best. Here are the lineups featuring Gordo and/or Kanter and/or Favors:

Hayward-Kanter-Favors: 679 minutes, -191; -13.5/48 minutes
Hayward-Kanter-no Favors: 788 minutes, -147; -9.0/48 minutes
Hayward-Favors-no Kanter: 1154 minutes, -62; -2.6/48 minutes
Hayward-no Kanter-no Favors: 178 minutes, +5; +1.3/48 minutes

If playing Kanter and Favors together requires shooting and defense on the wing, it's no wonder Ty went away from playing the duo. The Jazz simply didn't have much perimeter defense or shooting.


lol indeed.

 

[ncoloradojazz]

of course you did.
You said Diaw did the right plays.
I reminded that he was not that "intelligent" with the NT, when that team was in turmoil. (that is called rebuttal, if you would care and heed)
Coach is more important than role players or young guns with little or no experience.
Under the guidance of Popovich for example, Kanter would play.
Replace Splitter with Kanter, SAS would still win.
I accept that EK underperformed but you can not expect me to ignore sorry status Jazz were in whole year.
or you can.

I know you are a great bball mind and this stubborn attitude is alarmingly so un-GVC.

Your bball mind is zero, Nilch, Nada... Sure Diaw is doing good because of the system but to act lie Diaw is just soe average run of the mill player is buffon. As he has aged he has developed an "old man" game. He was a Suns player with the run and gun style and did pretty good. Is he an all star? Nope but to think Pop is the sole reason Diaw is playing good is just moronic. step your game up I know you are better then this

 

[Revolution 9]

I wouldn't throw Kanter out with the bathwater just yet. Here are some reasons why.

- It takes some big men quite awhile to develop
- We've already invested time, are we really ready to give up
- Corbin
- Let's see how he does under our new coach

In the least I say we give him next year. I still think he's going to really take off under better coaching, more experience. If he regresses next year fine, it might be time to go in another direction. Lets see how he works under Quin, and if he can get anything out of him.

 

[♪alt13]

Really? You're making my argument for me. Take a look at those lineups. Which ones featuring Kanter do well on a per possession basis? Hint: Not the ones with Favors. Marvin-Favors and Evans-Kanter were a hell of a lot more effective than Kanter-Favors. The relevant lineups:

Kanter-Favors: 770 minutes, -195; -12.2/48 minutes
No Marvin Kanter not allowed to shoot outside. all clogged up.
Marvin-Favors: 1112 minutes, -69; -3.0/48 minutes
Marvin attempted 234 3s this year
Evans-Kanter: 775 minutes, -122; -7.6/48 minutes
Not good numbers(none of ours are) but slightly improved over K-F Because Evans and Kanter are both effective midrange. Something Favors is not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Trey and RJ. Why should their shortcomings affect Kanter differently than other bigs? How does this explain the poor performance of the Kanter-Favors duo? Here are the relevant lineups:

Burke-RJ-Kanter-Favors: 248 minutes, -61; -11.8/48 minutes
Most of these mins(206) were played with Hayward at the 2(something that only worked ok with a stretch 4 but should really also have a penetrating 1). Neither Burke or Hayward could penetrate and GH's 3pp was .304 his man could give him plenty of room. Not allowing Kanter to shoot allowed the other team to clog inside. Sure RJ can shoot but you don't put a big on him.
Burke-RJ-Favors-no Kanter: 807 minutes, -19; -1.1/48 minutes
602 of these minutes were played with Marvin helping stretch the floor. Again not great numbers but Marvins shooting made the difference here
Burke-RJ-Kanter-no Favors: 146 minutes, -11; -3.6/48 minutes
Again. The Majority of these mins included Evans. Spacing.
Burke-RJ-no Kanter-no Favors: 258 minutes, -56; -10.8/48 minutes
This one proves my point. Burke-RJ is even worse without Kanter. Please see Burke-RJ-Kanter directly above

See a pattern in these numbers? Kanter couldn't handle basic execution on either end. Until he can do that, we probably shouldn't be worrying about him stretching the floor. If it's true that Kanter is only effective in certain lineups, his minutes are going to be limited, as the team lacks players who are both decent perimeter defenders AND good spot-up shooters. That's on management, not the coach. Kanter needs to start acting and playing like a pro. If anything, he was on an incredibly long leash last season.

I agree that Kanter/Favors didn't play well together but how could they? I even agree that that was in large part because of management. I wasn't making an argument for Kanter&Favors just Kanter. There are plenty of mins for both of them.

The point is when played with the players he should have been played with he did produce. (Garrett,Burks,Hayward,Evans,Kanter) Something you conveniently overlook. Marvin stretching the floor worked with Favors. So let Kanter shoot for a week only when playing with Favors and see how it plays out.

Next time look @ 5-man rotations. These #'s barely tell half the story.

 

[♪alt13]

1 additional point:

Hayward was probably the Jazz's best perimeter defender. He's also shown in the past (that is, before this past season) that he can hit spot-up jumpers. He meets your criteria best. Here are the lineups featuring Gordo and/or Kanter and/or Favors:

Hayward-Kanter-Favors: 679 minutes, -191; -13.5/48 minutes
Hayward-Kanter-no Favors: 788 minutes, -147; -9.0/48 minutes
Hayward-Favors-no Kanter: 1154 minutes, -62; -2.6/48 minutes
Hayward-no Kanter-no Favors: 178 minutes, +5; +1.3/48 minutes

If playing Kanter and Favors together requires shooting and defense on the wing, it's no wonder Ty went away from playing the duo. The Jazz simply didn't have much perimeter defense or shooting.


lol indeed.

One More thing

Hayward can't play the 2 next to a pg that can't penetrate especially with two bigs clogging **** up. He needs someone that can penetrate so that he can get a good look off a catch and shoot. How many mins did Corbin Play Burks,Hayward,Kanter,Favors?

Corbin clearly couldn't put together an appropriate offensive or defensive system for this team and you can't give him credit for adding to any players arsenal(maybe Evans but I don't know the story), that's why he was let go. I'm not a brilliant X's & Os guy and it was apparent last season neither is Corbin.

Just watch this next season. We will drop RJ, we will improve our perimeter D, have beter xs and os, smarter rotations, and Kanter will look like a completely different player.

 

[GVC]

I agree that Kanter/Favors didn't play well together but how could they? I even agree that that was in large part because of management. I wasn't making an argument for Kanter&Favors just Kanter. There are plenty of mins for both of them.

The point is when played with the players he should have been played with he did produce. (Garrett,Burks,Hayward,Evans,Kanter) Something you conveniently overlook. Marvin stretching the floor worked with Favors. So let Kanter shoot for a week only when playing with Favors and see how it plays out.

Next time look @ 5-man rotations. These #'s barely tell half the story.

1. I did look at some 5-man rotations. Looking at every iteration of 2-, 3- and 4-man rotations would be more confusing than informative. Obviously, there are some unobserved differences in the lineups listed, but given the consistent picture painted, I doubt looking deeper would change the analysis that much.

2. I didn't overlook that. I even commented on that. The point is, players who can ONLY play with certain players, in certain situations, and in certain roles are going to get less playing time unless their play is at a level where you can't afford to keep them off the floor. This obviously wasn't the case with Kanter. Further, Kanter's offensive and defensive execution was so poor, it was clear he needed to show he could handle a lesser role in lower-leverage situations. As I stated earlier, his comments at the end of the season provided some confirmation that Enes didn't feel the need to prove his worth and earn his playing time. He assumed it would just be given to him. I have a hard time believing that rewarding players with minutes and greater roles before they've earned them provides the correct incentives for player development. Hopefully Kanter is a little more focused and hungry (ew) next season.

3. With that said, overall Kanter still got legitimate starter minutes and 10+ field goal attempts per game. As the season progressed, he was played in more lineups that worked (with Jeremy and Alec), and was given a lead role (along with Alec) with the bench unit. Perhaps Corbin should have been less conservative, and taken the lumps that likely would have come with the expansion of Kanter's game, but it's hard to blame a guy who was fighting for his coaching career, and Enes didn't show he could consistently perform the basic tasks that he was given.

 

[GVC]

One More thing

Hayward can't play the 2 next to a pg that can't penetrate especially with two bigs clogging **** up. He needs someone that can penetrate so that he can get a good look off a catch and shoot. How many mins did Corbin Play Burks,Hayward,Kanter,Favors?

Corbin clearly couldn't put together an appropriate offensive or defensive system for this team and you can't give him credit for adding to any players arsenal(maybe Evans but I don't know the story), that's why he was let go. I'm not a brilliant X's & Os guy and it was apparent last season neither is Corbin.

Just watch this next season. We will drop RJ, we will improve our perimeter D, have beter xs and os, smarter rotations, and Kanter will look like a completely different player.

And again, the Jazz lacked talent. Burks and Gordo played plenty of minutes together, but if they played all their minutes together, the Jazz would have been left with absolutely no creation on the perimeter for about 1/3 of every game. That's simply not sensible. It made perfect sense to bring a couple players with some on-ball ability off the bench.

FWIW, Burks-Gordo-Kanter-Favors played 261 minutes together, and were -11.5/48 minutes.

I don't accept that Corbin didn't improve the young players or couldn't put together an appropriate offense. The first claim requires a much better argument, especially since I think Corbin generally played to his players' strengths on offense. The team simply lacked offensive talent this year. The Jazz had top-10 offenses in 2011/12 and 2012/13. I think Alec has developed nicely, and Gordo was given every opportunity to grow into a new role this past season. Favors, despite his offensive limitations, was still given opportunities on offense. Take a look at how many touches the guy got this season. Corbin was trying to keep him involved, even if he wasn't being relied on for scoring.

I honestly think that Corbin is an easy target more than anything else. People don't want to believe that their young talent just wasn't/isn't very good. Someone has to be blamed when they perform poorly. I simply haven't seen anything approaching solid analysis of Corbin as coach. If I were to undertake that task, I would almost certainly start with defense, not with rotations and minutes for the young players. The former looks like a weakness, the latter, to me anyway, looks more like a strength.

 

[da ThRONe]

And again, the Jazz lacked talent. Burks and Gordo played plenty of minutes together, but if they played all their minutes together, the Jazz would have been left with absolutely no creation on the perimeter for about 1/3 of every game. That's simply not sensible. It made perfect sense to bring a couple players with some on-ball ability off the bench.

FWIW, Burks-Gordo-Kanter-Favors played 261 minutes together, and were -11.5/48 minutes.

I don't accept that Corbin didn't improve the young players or couldn't put together an appropriate offense. The first claim requires a much better argument, especially since I think Corbin generally played to his players' strengths on offense. The team simply lacked offensive talent this year. The Jazz had top-10 offenses in 2011/12 and 2012/13. I think Alec has developed nicely, and Gordo was given every opportunity to grow into a new role this past season. Favors, despite his offensive limitations, was still given opportunities on offense. Take a look at how many touches the guy got this season. Corbin was trying to keep him involved, even if he wasn't being relied on for scoring.

I honestly think that Corbin is an easy target more than anything else. People don't want to believe that their young talent just wasn't/isn't very good. Someone has to be blamed when they perform poorly. I simply haven't seen anything approaching solid analysis of Corbin as coach. If I were to undertake that task, I would almost certainly start with defense, not with rotations and minutes for the young players. The former looks like a weakness, the latter, to me anyway, looks more like a strength.

So if you were looking for a stat/s that would suggest poor coaching as the cause of poor offensives execution what stats would those be? Personally I have no idea how you could begin to determine bad coaching philosophies strictly on stats.

Things like tempo could have easily been Corbin's approach or his mistake for not correcting. We can blame Kanter for having tunnel vision in the post, but where's the stat that show if there were proper spacing or if there were guys cutting to the basket? You can count how many times a team/player passed the ball per possession, but you can't determine how effective each pass were.

 

[The Thriller]

I really wish we had signed Marshall when we had a chance last year. His vision and passing ability is a beauty.

Could you imagine (just for fun) Diaw and Marshall on the same team? The passing...

I really want to see Burke improve in this area. I didn't see much vision or any passing last year. A lot of that could have been blamed on Corbin's system doe.

 

[GVC]

So if you were looking for a stat/s that would suggest poor coaching as the cause of poor offensives execution what stats would those be? Personally I have no idea how you could begin to determine bad coaching philosophies strictly on stats.

I never said I was looking for stats. An argument that better explains how the talent on the roster could have been better used would be nice. FWIW, I've never said that Corbin is a great tactician. I simply don't understand the game well enough to make that judgment. What bothers me is that most of the anti-Corbin rhetoric is about mismanagement of the young players' roles and minutes. Yet, the young guys all played decent minutes, and were given ample opportunity on-ball. To be able to put all of them in on-ball situations, their minutes had to be staggered. That players performed better in the lineups they were ultimately used in than in other lineups seems to support the notion that Corbin did a good job using lineups where players could be successful. Playing all 5 young guys together would have relegated 2-3 of them to secondary roles, and would have left the Jazz with a completely ineffective bench. The Jazz would have lost more games, and the young players would have had less opportunity to grow as facilitators. Let's not forget that the Jazz were reasonably competitive for a stretch in the middle of the season. Seems Corbin was balancing winning and youth development fairly well.

I get that most don't agree, but I really don't think I've been presented with much of a counterargument. Player performance is primarily the responsibility of the players. If players are performing poorly, we should be critical of them before pointing fingers elsewhere. I'm not convinced that the anti-Corbin brigade is doing anything more than finding a scapegoat to protect their over-assessment of the young talent on the team.

 

[GVC]

I really want to see Burke improve in this area. I didn't see much vision or any passing last year. A lot of that could have been blamed on Corbin's system doe.

Haven't you admitted to not watching many games this past season?