to offer the contrasting view -
There are a handlful of STRATEGIES to Jerry's model and one is playing time consistency. There is a value to this that anyone who has played in organized sports can attest to.
I respectfully disagree that playing time consistency is an effective strategy because playing time is one of the most powerful incentives (weapons) that coaches have to motivate players. Also, on a given night, some players are doing better and some players are doing worse, which is when "inconsistent" playing time (adjusting the lineup and minutes) is warranted. Third, matchups against a given team dictate that some combinations are more effective in some games than others. The most glaring example is that while playing Millsap and Boozer is OK and possibly superior strategy against some teams, it is not a superior strategy against the Lakers and has not been so for multiple years.
Why in the world is playing time consistency valuable? Why is it good that some players have guaranteed "job security" (playing time) and some players don't? How does this possibly motivate players more than a philosophy of "If you
perform you get more PT; if you don't, you get less"?
Another is that proper work-ethic before the game and behind the scenes is valueable and is a vital part of contributing. Jerry has said - if you work hard you
get better and if you work hard you have a chance to play.
Unfortunately Jerry has broken his own philosophy then because Koufos did work hard and did get somewhat better but his chances to play were almost completely cut off. Also, the "works hard" and "plays hard" moniker was attributed to Harpring for years, and there were times when he played when he was not the most effective player to be out there. That's why the true test of playing time should be on-court performance. Fortunately Phil Jackson recognized that in Ron Artest, and perhaps PJ was helpful in helping Tru Warier to temper his off-court demons also.
A third value of Jerry's is rotating team defense. In this, the team needs to be orchestrated and well practiced to execute this.
OK, then if this is a value of his defense, then when Boozer doesn't do this effectively, then he should be benched. Boozer is too effective to be benched for more than a play or so at a time, but there was no enforcement of "rotating team defense" when it came to Boozer. If you propose that Boozer should've been penalized in some other way, such as paying for the team meal at Crowne Burger, fine, but Sloan has also violated his own "value."
Fes has struggled with his work ethic. Jerry thinks it is in the best interest of ALL players to stay true to his theory
As a result, Fes has a hard time seeing court time - hence he misses important practice time - the crux of INGAMESTRAT's message)
(The regular season is a combination of practice and playing for play-off positioning)
And thus Fes did not have the requesite time to practice to be a smooth cog in the team defense - thus he didn't make the 8ish man play off rotation
Yet, despite poor off-court habits, Fesenko was a superior option against the Lakers (and in several cases during the regular season) than was playing Millsap and Boozer together. I prefer the primary criteria to be on-court impact on victories, not whether they keep their shirt tucked in during practice.
so with this you could conclude (and INGAMESTRAT tells us) "So then Jerry made a mistake not getting fes the required court time to practice to be part of the team system"
Correct. There is no substitute for on-court time.
I think Jerry sticks with this plan becuase:
The defensive play of the team just before AK was injured near the end of the season was at top 3 - it WAS working. WE saw it. And for those of you who value his opinion, David Locke (SLC/Jazz radio guy) noted this for about 2 weeks straight, statistically pointing out the Jazz defensive play was at serious-contender level. So Jerry's IN SEASON STRATEGY worked. The Jazz was playing very well and in my perfectly omnicient opinion (becuase on the message board each of us know all) was that the Jazz were playing well enough to 'challenge' the Lakers (not beat them but maybe with some fortunate breaks or something.)
There is no doubt that not having AK hurt Utah's chances. But when Okur went down, Sloan was slow to replace those minutes with Fes and Koufos. (Think InGameStrategy
and BetweenGameStrategy.] And the team paid for Sloan not finding time for these 7-footers earlier in the season, even though he should have known from previous matchups vs. the Lakers that a frontcourt of Boozer, Millsap, and whoever (or even Boozer, Okur, and whoever) was insufficient. Furthermore, Boston showed that with a legitimate 5-spot rotation of legitimate centers, the Lakers could be handled. If it weren't for Perkins' injury, the championship banner quite possibly would've been hung in the Fleet Center.
We don't know if INGAMESTRAT's model would be better. And i will add that it COULD be. Jerry for certain isn't blind, dumb, senile, he has a method. And he's made wrong choices before - and will continue to do so. (Just glad we don't have a HarcherFanzz site where all of my work day is scrutinzed andn replayed iwth hindsight.) But his choice in this case to stay with his strategy did work in my opinion.
So was your criteria for that the strategy "worked" that they got the 5 seed, made it into the second round, and got crushed by the Lakers? Not mine. This team had the potential to do far better than a five seed. With better coaching (and perhaps with better FO decisions, too, such as not having albatross contracts for Kiri and Okur), they had the potential to beat the Lakers--or, at the very least, win a couple games against them. I guess that your standards and/or expectations are significantly lower than mine.
.
