how many minutes will Marv + Millsap average at SF?
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
I know Hayward can play the 3 quite well, but unless we make some trades, Millsap should be seeing some time at the 3 every game. Burks has got to beat out Foye for minutes, and if his play does not warrant more playing time, then so be it. He's got to give the coaches no choice in the matter. The major problem comes with Foye, Burks, and Watson, and if Watson is the only one playing PG, then Foye and Burks will battle it out, but someone ends up on the short end of the stick; there are just not enough minutes.
I don't really expect Millsap to average many minutes at SF at all, if any. Last year was the perfect opportunity to do it, seeing as we had no SF other than Demarre Carroll, and we still didn't really do it until the end of the season/playoffs. I was never overly impressed with the lineup either. I think you just give up a little too much speed/athleticism when you play a guy like Millsap out on the wing.
Speaking of Sap and Marv, Locke made some interesting comparisons in his incredibly awkward tip off today:
https://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/2012/10/03/tip-off-october-3rd/
He makes the case that in the case Paul leaves the Jazz, Marvin may be a decent replacement.
Hm.
https://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/2012/10/03/tip-off-october-3rd/
He makes the case that in the case Paul leaves the Jazz, Marvin may be a decent replacement.
Hm.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Jefferson obviously needs to have his minutes cut from last season when he averaged 34.0. And Paul averaged 32. So you have to assume those mins get pared a bit and given to Derrick, who was only at 21. On the other hand, if you're hoping to trade Paul or Al, they HAVE to play significant minutes. So Kanter might be the odd man out. And that will be frustrating given how hard he's worked on getting in shape. I'm almost hoping for a mild ankle sprain or two to relieve some of the tension that will build as the bigs don't get the mins they think they deserve.
For me it comes down to who is impressing in training camp. If Kanter is doing very well, then you have to get him minutes. If Burks is doing better than Foye, then Foye is the odd man out. If Favors is dominating, then without question he's at 32 minutes at least. I just don't see how the Jazz could not give Kanter at least 12 minutes/game. He needs to play more than anything if he's ever going to get close to what he can do. The only solution is to play Paul at the 3 more or to drop Al's or Paul's minutes down to about 26, which seems impossible.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
i don't see millsap playing a ton of minutes at the 3. i don't think we need him there given our changes on the wings, and i don't think he necessarily makes us better there. hayward will play a lot of SF minutes given that the 3rd and 4th guys in our wing rotation are both small wings and will probably be at the 2 a lot. as such, i just can't see a ton of millsap at SF. it should be an option for certain matchups, but not a staple of the O.
as such, i think under 38 is a given. marvin will probably play 20-25 minutes at the 3 and i can only picture paul getting spot duty there.
as such, i think under 38 is a given. marvin will probably play 20-25 minutes at the 3 and i can only picture paul getting spot duty there.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
i don't like the notion that there's this magic number out there for minutes -- like that favors HAS to play 32. that's not how minute distribution works, especially on a deep team. most teams only have a couple or three guys getting north of 30, and that's ok. 28 minutes is actually a pretty decent amount of playing time. only about 80 guys in the league (or 2-3 per team) play more than that.
also, i don't think it's an either/or thing with burks and foye. both will play a lot of minutes. everybody is kind of overly obsessed with the idea of SG or SF... the way the jazz will look at it is to have four "wings." my guess is it'll be something like this:
- marvin and hayward start. (could be burks, but play along) 7 minutes
- burks comes in for marvin and hayward moves to the 3. 5 minutes
- foye comes in at the quarter break and replaces hayward. 6 minutes
- burks gets a rest for marvin to come back. 2 minutes
- hayward comes in for foye to close the half. 4 minutes
that gives hayward 16 minutes each half (32 per game, except that his average will be less because of blowouts and occasional foul trouble). marvin will get 13 per half, burks gets 11 and foye gets 8. maybe if burks impresses the hell out of everybody then he gets the starter's minutes and marvin comes off the bench for the 22-mpg-ish role. specifics be damned -- all i know is that 4 wing players will get a lot of PT, and it's not about who's officially a SF and who's officially a SG.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
wow, this is low. Marvin is legit enough to get 28 min/gm, IMO.
As for the thread in general, I'm surprised at the tepid embrace of the "big 3" lineup after a solid statistical demonstration last year + the news that Paul has been working more on his perimeter game and off-the-bounce offense.
Also, be like Clinton and "do the arithmetic"; either Millsap 'steals' minutes at the three, or Favors and Kanter rot; either Foye or Burks 'steals' minutes at the PG, or they rot. Corbin is gonna have to have a sack this year.
And, yes, cut Al back to 28 min/gm and give those 6 minutes to Kanter (plus find others for him [by playing Paul at the 3]).
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
i've done the arithmetic, and i think you're overestimating how many guys will play 28+ minutes. last year we had 3 guys above that level: al, paul and gordon. that's pretty standard for most teams.
the reality is that teams will have a big man rotation with two guys getting 30ish, a third guy in the 20s and a fourth guy at 15ish... and then a wing rotation that is almost exactly the same. you just can't have your top 6-7 guys all playing 30 mpg. it doesn't work that way... for ANYBODY. for marvin to get 28-30 minutes means we think he's in our top 3. do you feel that way about marvin? cuz i don't, and i think i'm one of the people who is most excited about the guy.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
and yes, that approach means that al/derrick/paul/kanter will be in a bit of a tug-o-war for minutes... which is why i've been very much on the trade al bandwagon. in the meantime, that's a probably any other NBA team would love to have.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
players above 28 mpg by team
ATL - 4
BOS - 4
CHA - 1
CHI - 3
CLE - 2
DAL - 3
DEN - 2
DET - 4
GS - 2 (and that includes monta, who was traded midseason)
HOU - 3
IND - 5
LAC - 3
LAL - 3
MEM - 3
MIA - 3
MIL - 2 (again, includes monta)
MIN - 2
NJ - 4 (includes gerald wallace, traded midseason)
NOH - 1
NYK - 4
OKC - 3
ORL - 4
PHI - 3
PHX - 3
POR - 5 (including wallace)
SAS - 2
SAC - 3
TOR - 2
UTA - 3
WAS - 1
average - 2.87 guys per team that play over 28 mpg. if we change it to 30 mpg, the average is 2.3 guys per team.
28-30 minutes and up is reserved for the elite players on your team, the best guys. marvin didn't make that list last year, when he played fewer minutes than zaza pachulia. why would we assume he'd play that much this year on a team that is legimitately 9 deep.
ATL - 4
BOS - 4
CHA - 1
CHI - 3
CLE - 2
DAL - 3
DEN - 2
DET - 4
GS - 2 (and that includes monta, who was traded midseason)
HOU - 3
IND - 5
LAC - 3
LAL - 3
MEM - 3
MIA - 3
MIL - 2 (again, includes monta)
MIN - 2
NJ - 4 (includes gerald wallace, traded midseason)
NOH - 1
NYK - 4
OKC - 3
ORL - 4
PHI - 3
PHX - 3
POR - 5 (including wallace)
SAS - 2
SAC - 3
TOR - 2
UTA - 3
WAS - 1
average - 2.87 guys per team that play over 28 mpg. if we change it to 30 mpg, the average is 2.3 guys per team.
28-30 minutes and up is reserved for the elite players on your team, the best guys. marvin didn't make that list last year, when he played fewer minutes than zaza pachulia. why would we assume he'd play that much this year on a team that is legimitately 9 deep.
5
*IND – 5 (player parity)
POR - 5 (no depth; injuries; trades)
4
*BOS - 4 (4 allstars)
*ATL - 4 (2 allstars)
*NYK - 4 (2 or 3 allstars)
*ORL - 4 (2 allstars)
DET - 4 (young/bad)
NJ - 4 (bad players)
3
*MIA – 3 (3 allstars)
*OKC – 3 (3 allstars more or less)
*CHI – 3 (3 allstars)
*LAL - 3 (3 allstars)
*LAC - 3 (2 or 3 allstars)
*DAL - 3 (2 allstars)
*MEM - 3 (2 allstars)
*UTA - 3
*PHI - 3 (2 allstars)
PHX - 3 (1 allstar)
HOU - 3
SAC – 3 (young)
2 = 2nd Worst teams in the league
*SAS - 2 (Geezers with a good coach)
*DEN - 2 (lots of parity)
GS - 2
MIL - 2
MIN - 2
CLE - 2
TOR - 2
1 = Worst teams in the league
NOH - 1
WAS - 1
CHA - 1
Conclusion: If you have fewer than 2 @ 28 or more, you suck with few exceptions! The best teams in the league have at least three allstars. If your team has player parity, then you are justified in having 4 or 5 players over 28, see the Pacers. You play your best players big minutes. We have more or less player parity; thus play our best 4 - 5 over 28 minutes (Al, Millsap, Favors, Hayward).
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
haha... there are as many exceptions/explanations in your thing as there are examples of your irrevocable truth.
besides, on a team lacking a real all-star, i think we fit in the denver model more than we fit anywhere else. when there is very little difference in quality 1 through 9, those are the types of teams where you see fewer 30+ guys.
at any rate, my point was simply that it's amusing to hear all the declarations from fans about how "so-and-so MUST play at least 30 minutes." the reality is that there are only 2-3 of those spots open, and they'll likely stay with paul, gordon and al (unless he's traded).
besides, on a team lacking a real all-star, i think we fit in the denver model more than we fit anywhere else. when there is very little difference in quality 1 through 9, those are the types of teams where you see fewer 30+ guys.
at any rate, my point was simply that it's amusing to hear all the declarations from fans about how "so-and-so MUST play at least 30 minutes." the reality is that there are only 2-3 of those spots open, and they'll likely stay with paul, gordon and al (unless he's traded).
No sure where you're going with the opening platitude. What is absolutely certain is that you play your best players big minutes, period. We are more like Denver and Indiana, yes. Indiana did well playing 5 players over 28, and Denver had injuries and trades. I guarantee that they will have more than 2 players over 28 minutes this year. If the Jazz want to win more games, then they play their best 4 players big minutes (Al, Millsap, Favors, Hayward). None of these 4 players are certainly better than the others at this point, but they are without question our best players. You gain nothing by playing them less from a wins standpoint and Favors and Hayward get the added bonus of feeling good about the organization and their role in Utah, while developing. If you have an argument that says contrary to these 4's dominance over the rest of the team, then I'd like to hear it.
I've been saying this for a while. Marvin can do a lot of what Millsap can do, at least on the perimeter, and he's a better complement to Favors.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Corbin has to sell our depth to the players. And that's probably hard to do for a young coach.
If I were Ty, I'd tell these guys after training camp, "looking at all of you, I see 9 or 10 who deserve to start. And all 14 of you deserve playing time. Obviously, there's not enough minutes in a game to give everyone the time they deserve. But I don't mind you being mad at me for not giving you enough minutes. I like guys who are hungry and want to compete. Way I see it, there's two ways we can handle this: 1) we play double-OT every game or 2) you guys give me 150% effort. If you play 10 mins, give me the same effort you'd give in 15 mins, if you play 25 mins, give the same effort you'd give in 35 mins. There are no subs or starters, just 1st and 2nd waves. I'm going to substitute liberally so all of you can go balls out on both ends. I want to run teams off the court. I want to look over and see them with their tongues hanging out, bent over from exhaustion."
If I were Ty, I'd tell these guys after training camp, "looking at all of you, I see 9 or 10 who deserve to start. And all 14 of you deserve playing time. Obviously, there's not enough minutes in a game to give everyone the time they deserve. But I don't mind you being mad at me for not giving you enough minutes. I like guys who are hungry and want to compete. Way I see it, there's two ways we can handle this: 1) we play double-OT every game or 2) you guys give me 150% effort. If you play 10 mins, give me the same effort you'd give in 15 mins, if you play 25 mins, give the same effort you'd give in 35 mins. There are no subs or starters, just 1st and 2nd waves. I'm going to substitute liberally so all of you can go balls out on both ends. I want to run teams off the court. I want to look over and see them with their tongues hanging out, bent over from exhaustion."
You're very good, sir! We'll see if he has your Tony Robbins-like persuasion/motivation for making something positive that could be seen as a negative. Should be fun--or maddeningly frustrating.
