Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
When in doubt, GVC always turns to, "you're an idiot, you're a moron, or you're stupid." Stay classy, Canada.
Where did Paul Millsap go?
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
You haven't read a single one of my posts. The main thrust of them was that Paul Millsap has outplayed Big Al. I used FAR MORE stats than you have. The only stats that you have used are cherrypicked (+66 - apparently the other -56 doesn't matter...).
And, one more time, I think Big Al is the best option for the Jazz at the 5. Paul Millsap is the best option at the 4. A frontcourt of Memo/Big Al, if their performances thus far are any indication of what we can expect moving forward, would be disastrous.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Only after people choose to put words into my mouth, make false accusations and fail to read my posts. Those two morons haven't made a single meaningful response to my posts. If they did, maybe there'd be reason to doubt (that is, I insulted them only after they insulted me, and not out of any doubt about my assertions). Do you disagree?
Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
The only reason I used +66 is because that's the 2nd most played lineup for our team, and by far our best. Big Al is in it. That was purely meant to refute the consistently bad statement.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said anything like that.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Is anybody really saying that "we are bad anytime Jefferson steps on the floor"? I don't think so.
What I'm saying (won't speak for anyone else) is that net -10.9 points per 48 minutes is subpar for a starting center.
What your post does point out is that while Jefferson's underperformance is a problem, Bell's underperformance might be a bigger problem.
Despite my pounding the table for more minutes for Fesenko (and sometimes Elson), it would seem to me that it would be even more obvious to the coaching staff how often CJ has been a crucial x-factor in helping the team stay in games--and how often Bell has been a net liability (even more so than AJ, even though AJ has been a slim net asset, on average, vs. the opposing center).
If there's concern about taking out the scoring from the second unit by putting CJ in the starting lineup where he should be (and bringing Bell off the bench), then bring Millsap or Jefferson off the bench and start Elson (I'm a realist; starting Fes ain't gonna happen). But speaking of realism, I'm not expecting Sloan to ever do this, even though it's a solution to boosting the paint patrol in the starting lineup, reducing the stagnant starts, and keeping the defense and scoring strong in the second unit. I imagine that Sloan might consider slipping Okur in the starting lineup, but I still don't know which of the two he would "demote." Because Sloan preaches accountability but doesn't enforce it. Jefferson's effort (especially in rebounding) has not merited his 30+ MPG (sometimes 35+), but he is still there, as a starter with lavish minutes and a free pass.
BTW, all of you hyperbolers (hyper-Bolers?) who are extrapolating the logic that Elson or Fesenko should play anywhere close to 30 MPG are being disingenuous. For a while, my mantra has been 10+ MPG each for Elson and Fesenko; and closer to 15-20 minutes if they are doing well. Until Okur returned, this still would've allowed Millsap and Jefferson to average at least 30 MPG each (although it should be more like 30 minutes plus only if they are perfoming). And even though the numbers clearly show that Jefferson has been underperforming, nobody is saying that he should be DNP. But when he's sucking out there, he should be pulled--at least for a possession or few. And if his replacement does better--which they have done, more often than not, as part of a unit that has been far more effective, he should sit a few more unless he shows that he can put for the effort and results that Greg Miller's paying for.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Yep, they're +66 in 88 minutes.
The most played lineup (Williams-Bell-AK-Sap-Big Al) is -21 in 506 minutes. We should ignore those 506 minutes and every other minute Big Al plays, and consider only that highly successful 88 minutes (the equivalent of 8% of Big Al's total minutes). brilliant.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
Instead of what?
chemdude1232
Active Member
If I had to make the decision, I would think that it is better to start a good center (Al, as opposed to Elson) and a "subpar" SG (Bell) than to start a subpar C (Elson) and a better SG/SF (CJ).
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
In case you haven't been paying attention to this thread, chemdude, it can be reasonably inferred that Jefferson's on-court/off-court -10.9 per 48 (or his measly +0.9 per 48 vs. the opposing center) is far from "good". Or, if you prefer, you could watch the games to witness how often Jefferson has failed to box out, help on defense, and even shoot aggressively--failure often enough to not justify the times when he has performed and blocked and RB'd and made clutch points.
Furthermore, I suggested that while AJ is a problem, CJ is a solution at the 2, and the numbers show that it is a significantly an improvement. Unlike AJ, CJ is net positive on his individual matchup and on the team matchup while he's been in the game. Not all of those top-of-the-team numbers by CJ can be explained by his playing part of his minutes with the backups, because it was pointed out already that Miles' most-used lineup this season has been with the other four non-SG starters.
Nothing has been done to remedy the slow starts. The starting lineup is the same. If you prefer only one change at a time, try swapping in CJ or Okur / Elson / Fesenko and see what happens to the starting lineup. Given the abysmal contribution that Jefferson has made in the first quarter game after game, I think that it would be an improvement no matter what change that you make--ESPECIALLY if Jefferson sees the light and stops dogging it as often when his starting spot is taken away, however temporarily. Let him earn it back. Put Okur in the starting lineup over AJ; I proposed that, and you conveniently didn't mention it. Putting Okur back in the starting lineup something that Sloan would conceivably do. A change needs to be done to the starting lineup; it's something that Sloan has ignored the entire season. But the overwhelming evidence remains that neither Bell nor Jefferson deserve to be starters right now.
chemdude1232
Active Member
I didn't mention it because I don't agree with it and wanted to let sleeping dogs lie (lay? whatever). I agree that Sloan could conceivably do it, but I hope he doesn't unless Okur really starts rocking.
As much as you rely on +/-, I rely on the fact that I doubt Fesenko or Elson could handle starter's minutes (fouling, too old to maintain for a season, respectively). I also don't think Okur is anywhere close to being ready for starting. He's electric for the bench and for his ability to hit those dagger-in-the-heart treys, but starting? I'd pass IMO.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Um, again, I don't think that Okur is any more an evil in the starting lineup than Jefferson--even though Okur is still in recovery mode. This is the most feasible frontcourt change that I could foresee in the starting lineup, given that it was Okur's turn to have a free pass with minutes and a starting spot in years' past. With Okur's modestly superior height and vastly superior experience, I consider Okur the better choice to start--or to alternate games starting-- until Jefferson (or Memo's medi-Okur-ity) proves otherwise.
Again, both Fesenko and Elson have proven to control the paint better than Jefferson, with significantly lower opposing center production than AJ has mustered. Again, Jefferson does not deserve to start right now, especially with his complete and repeated ineptitude in the first quarter, so no matter who you put in there, it's likely to pay off in better focus and production from Jefferson later in the game. However, the risk is low because to this point in the season, Elson and Fesenko have both been net positive factors while they have been on the court, both on average and most of the time. By barely outproducing the opposing center and being a big part of digging a hole for the team game after game, Jefferson has set the bar plenty low
Your view is consistent with Sloan's narrow thinking that has resulted in several unnecessary losses this year that could have been easily remedied by playing the players and combinations that are working. Unfortunately, that "startegy" doesn't come out of Sloan's "gut" (his quote after the last game), which is a damning exposition of how poor Sloan's decisionmaking is, both before and during games. There was no reason to go with the "gut" when the Blazers had been playing a zone and when Miles has far more experience breaking a zone than Hayward does.
In other words, to paraphrase a former U.S. President, it's the player combinations and matchups, stupid--the management of which is kind of a fundamental part of a coach's role.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Ok so I guess we're on to talking about Hayward/CJ. I agree with your point on that pair. Hayward needs the D-League for a month.
I really must be stupid...please let me know how on earth Fesenko or Elson could handle starters minutes. Or Okur (at this point in time anyway) for that matter. For short stretches (2 or 3 minutes here and there) they could work, but taking +/- aside you don't know which Fesenko will show up (the guy who has flashes of brilliance or the foul machine) or if Elson won't get beaten up inside by the opposing C (though between the two I'd take Elson in a flash).
And honestly, "narrow thinking"? "stupid"? Can't you be polite? It's rare that you are.
I really must be stupid...please let me know how on earth Fesenko or Elson could handle starters minutes. Or Okur (at this point in time anyway) for that matter. For short stretches (2 or 3 minutes here and there) they could work, but taking +/- aside you don't know which Fesenko will show up (the guy who has flashes of brilliance or the foul machine) or if Elson won't get beaten up inside by the opposing C (though between the two I'd take Elson in a flash).
And honestly, "narrow thinking"? "stupid"? Can't you be polite? It's rare that you are.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
No . . . as recently as my very last post, I was continuing to talk about both CJ and Jefferson.
Um, I never said that Fesenko and Elson could handle “starters minutes” (presumably 25 or 30 or 35 MPG). In the very last post, I even reaffirmed that on a good night, Elson and Fesenko would garner 20 minutes each. Stupid? Nah. Don’t be so hard on yourself.
At this point, I think that Okur is far enough along to replace or improve on Jefferson’s contribution to the starting lineup, especially in the first quarter. But like with any other player, if Okur is sucking it up or dogging it with the starters, then try something else. But to this point it hasn’t been tried, and there’s reason to prognosticate that it would be better than the embarrassment that the existing starters have produced several times in the past several games or so.
Um, more often than not, Fesenko has controlled the paint well and has been a net positive. Despite my belief that Fesenko’s development and treatment on this team has been greatly misused, of the three likely options (MO, FE, KF) to take AJ’s spot in the starting lineup, Fesenko is the least suitable.
Well, at least we agree on something. And all I’m proposing is to play the players and combinations that work and not the ones that don’t. If you were going to give Elson the same opportunity as Jefferson has received despite egregious underperformance, you’d let him play most or all of the entire first quarter—or game.
My strategy, on the other hand, is to assess players and the lineup starting at 5 or 6 minutes into the game. The weakest link or two—if any—sits, especially if lack of effort is involved. Too often, Jerry lets foul trouble (or the game clock) decide what changes will be made.
IMHO (with emphasis on “Humble”), maintaining the status quo (keeping Bell and AJ in the starting lineup)—especially when the players in question have underperformed repeatedly and really have not merited a preservation of their respective starting spots--is narrow thinking.
As for “stupid,” I was paraphrasing a President, and talking more to Sloan than to you. Feel better?
chemdude1232
Active Member
It's not about me "feeling better," it's about you being polite. Try it out...you might get a few friends here and there.
You're a big plus/minus guy. Here: https://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/plusminus-in-the-n-b-a-a-plus-or-minus/
You're a big plus/minus guy. Here: https://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/plusminus-in-the-n-b-a-a-plus-or-minus/
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I don't deny that +/- isn't perfect. What the article does suggest is that I might want to have a healthy skepticism regarding BasketballValue's adjusted numbers. In any case, I invite you or anyone else to provide something better. Although I use +/- when it supports my argument
, I don't need it for this one. You merely need to watch the game to see how often Al Jefferson is ineffective--sometimes on both sides of the court. Even though it's become more clear as recently as the last post-game how little Sloan uses analysis, I continue to be amazed how much tolerance Sloan has for the ineffectiveness of Jefferson, Bell, and others early in games ("early" sometimes being one to three quarters)--and the huge deficits that are mounted--when there are alternatives that can at least hold serve and sometimes improve on their abysmal performance, as they have done several times this season.
Lots of teams use guys off the bench to give the starters a rest, infuse some energy and agressiveness, and sometimes even to teach the existing lineup a lesson that their minutes shouldn't be taken for granted. As the season has progressed, I have seen less of the bench being used in many cases, and less of these reasons be used, and more reversion to "going with my guys" or letting the fouls determine the substitutions. That's beyond unsophisticated, as evidenced by putting Hayward in for Miles against a zone during the fourth quarter last night. Yep, Jerry; go with your gut, even though it makes no sense. While it's refreshing for Sloan to deviate from the veteran bias, please resort to doing so when it's likely to work.
As for your "feeling better" mention, when you say something vastly different from what I post, and do it repeatedly (suggesting that I said that Elson or Fesenko we're equipped for "starters minutes," "we're on to talking about Hayward/CJ", etc.), it gets old fast.
Last edited: