Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
That's true of any player on any team in any sport on any level.
Kyle Korver picks for Jazz in mock draft
- Thread starter calijazz
- Start date
That's true of any player on any team in any sport on any level.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, exactly. Just call my *** "Captain Obvious," eh, Dark?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, to further the thought, I just don't see how Sloan is a detriment to "development." There have been several videos released, many during the Hall of Fame induction period, of how Sloan instructs in practice. He's a teaching coach. It's up to the players to do the work and improve. I believe Sloan wants to play the guys that work hard, like Koufos and Araujo, but I would think he doesn't see the improvement in practice, the improvement in games won't happen. The time Koufos was on the floor in the playoffs kind of showed that.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Because the true test is on the court, and practice ≠ playing in games, just like NBDL ≠ playing in games. Players have to get the in-game court time in order to prove and improve themselves. Practice isn't enough. Koufos and is supposedly hard off-court worker, and he was improving in his rookie year, but then his playing time was slashed for no reason. That's not good coaching. I thought that Fes should've gotten minutes over KK2 for most of the latter's rookie season because Fes had to have more upside, but if the Jazz had given them more court time, they would've made an impact. Instead, Fes was "only" the only player to have a nonnegative +/- in each of the four games. That's what you call a pattern indicative of needing to develop that player further because he has value on the court even now.
I simply don't understand how you think that a player is going to develop if he doesn't get court time. That's how it works in football, baseball, and other team sports (field time). It's unreasonble to even a well-practiced player is going to be able to jump into a game situation without some transition. When Boozer was injured, they had to pace him along. Koufos and Fesenko never had that chance until Memo (who was already a slow, poor-defending center anyway) was injured, and then Fes was put in the PLAYOFFS. He still did OK, but the playoffs isn't time to develop; the regular season is. And Sloan made no effort whatsoever to find time for these players. Sloan probably thought that giving these players development time would hurt their chances to get home-court advantage, and they STILL didn't get home-court advantage, AND they ended up with two 7-footers who weren't fully developed for the playoffs, and sure enough, the Lakers had two 7-footers and a 6'10" SF/PF (Odom) who had proven time and again to be a difficult matchup for Millsap and Boozer or Okur and Boozer. Some coaches would be fired for not recognizing this fundamental pattern, year after year. Just ask Mike Brown. Sloan's reward? Renewal.
Coaches need to focus on identifying what combos work, develop/prepare the players to work in those combos, and continue to make adjustments up to and during the game.
Sloan might be a good practice coach, but his in-game strategy comes out of his azz. Predictable substitution patterns that are easily exploitable. A big goose egg vs. the Lakers. 'Nuff said.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
And this is the thing we've been saying. DO you need minutes to improve in the NBA? The answer is yes. WILL you improve with minutes in the NBA? The answer is NOT yes. It's a huge "maybe," and depends on more factors. You can play Araujo, Morrison, Tshkitishvili, Kwame Brown all you want, but the minutes haven't improved THEM. Sloan would seem to be of the opinion that you could give Koufos and Fesenko all the minutes you want, but that's not going to improve them. At least not at this time. And he's seen much more of Koufos than anyone here (not Fesenko, that designation would go to Sirkickyass).
And if the alternative to undersized Millsap and Boozer in the 4th quarter is Boozer/Millsap and a tired Fesenko that can't hit a free throw, then I'm taking Millsap and Boozer, which shouldn't be too bad since Boozer should still be able to be good offensively against that.
- I think the fixed rotation is a regular season strategy first and formost and then sloan adjusts a bit more during play-offs and we'll have to agree to disagree that consistent playing time is good strategy. You asked "Why in the world would any find consistent playing time a value?" I find that completely obvious. Becuase with playing time you get better. Becuase with a bit of leeway to make mistakes, you know you can keep trying. ONe of a very common issues is "well coach so and so is going to yank him if he screws up." So if you think there is NO VALUE (i.e. why in the world) to be had from this theory, we are not close enough in the discussion to continue. I think there is a balance between offering enough time in games to get real experince - hence a consistent rotation as compared to "earn your spot."
- This brings us to boozer, who does in my opinion dog it at times, play poor d at times and should, by the letter of the law get benched for it. We agree on that. However, what i don't have a clue about is how hard it is to walk that fine line between benching the ALL-STAR for dogging it and having him rip your locker room apart. Becuase that is what would happen if Sloan benched Boozer. Well then how can you bench FES for his jackpotting and Boozer for his dogging it if sloan is so "by the book" you are about to ask? I think it is real and especially in a situation like the NBA that that is just what you have to do. I am high on the opinion that Boozer could very easily ruin the situation if he chose. So sloan has to deal with that. If you think Benhcing boozer because of his performance represents no risk to the overall plan then we are not close enough in the conversation to continue.
- The point i made about "it worked" was a result of the Jazz peaking right before AK got injured. So using the 5-seed as the measure is diverting from my original point. There was reasonable discussion all over the nation that the Jazz were real contenders when they hit this peak. So i think had AK not been injured, the Jazz would have had the 2 seed in the west. In that case I would measure the season a sucess - even with my pathetically low standards.
With better coaching you say is the reason, I say it is becuase we had one KEY starter out (for the last 20 games) VERY key on defense and we had 2 starters our for the playoffs. Answer this - if AK and Okur were healthy what would have been your prediction for the Jazz finish for the last 20 games and playoffs? If i thought that the Jazz would be 5 seeds in the west with this team healthy, then i'd feel more like you do. They proved to me they were not (around game 60) and the system was working. If you deny that it was working at that point - then we are not close enough on the point to discuss any further.- I think Fesenko was "superior" in the DENVER series - but not much add in the Laker series. Also my original point is that plan that Jerry had (which included AK and Okur) was a better plan than giving Fes minutes. It was a risk decision on his part and a reasonable one. It appears one of your main points is that Jerry is POOR or absent in his strategy (in game or otherwise.) And I believe it is neither of those but mostly a case of different strategy. I actually think Jerry's strategy is EXCELLENT for what the team objective is - AND HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. The team objective is to be competitive EVERY NIGHT. And only in the last years has Larry Miller said otherwise (with some hope of championship.) Jerry says it just about every post game. For this reason, Jerry is about consistency. Matt Harpring is one of the best players we've had over the years for that reason - he brings it on both ends yada yada. Now we all know Matt Harpring was NOT the guy which the Jazz were going to build championship around. But he was the guy (and millsap today for example) who will help you win regular season games adn keep the Jazz relevant, entertaining, home crowd happy, etc.
Becuase of this, it is hard to consider benching boozer even if he might need it. There is a risk to developing Fesenko at the expense of playing time for genuinely better PERFORMERS. It is a good idea to keep a constant rotation, familiar to many (players, fans) and this yeilds good results year in and year out.
Now, the other option is VERY OBVIOUS - if the risk of losing is not a concern, which boils down to the risk of losing money then I would fire and hire coaches A LOT until the right one came along. Truly the best way to increase your odds to get the new good super dude is to try many of them.
So Jerry's model is a very good strategy. It is in keeping with the Jazz plans and one could argue the Jazz are the most sucessful franchies in professional sports. (No they are not the Lakers, Yankess or Cowboys) but pretty darn good as a franchise.
If you think Jerry's model could not be used to win a championship - then i think that is debatable. (I think it is more about having true superstars) If you think the Jazz business philosophy is a bad model - then I think that is debatable. (I think SLC, Utah, Mountain West cannot sustain a pro franchise that is so risk-willing)
As I've said before, I do enjoy your thought provoking posts even if we disagree.
Hopper
Banned
The way you've put this, I don't agree. To begin with, anybody can improve their game, anytime, without ever playin in the NBA. But, the more important factor is this: From what level, exactly, are you trying to improve? If that (present) level, displayed on a regular basis for evaluation by coaches via practice, is too low, there is no way you're ever gunna git in an NBA game, unless it's garbage time. Again, if I am unable to set the pick that a play calls for 10 straight times in practice, what about bein in a game will magically make me able to do it? If I can't dribble in practice, why should anyone expect me to be able to in a "real game," with the pressure on and the opposition more intense? If I can't shoot.....well, you git the idea, eh?
Hopper
Banned
Morris Almond, SG, 23rd pick, to Sloan at his first practice: "Well, Coach, what are your plans for me this year?
Sloan: I'm gunna DEVELOP you so that, even though you're only the team's 4th best player at your position, you will STOMP Kobe Bryant when the play-offs come around. After the other 3 playing ahead of you also stomp him for a good long spell, too, of course. I'm gunna make you ready, that's what!
Almond: Anythin *I* need to do?
Sloan: Naw, not really. You can even skip practice. Just show up for games. I'll put you in for a few minutes here and there. That will do it all.
Sloan: I'm gunna DEVELOP you so that, even though you're only the team's 4th best player at your position, you will STOMP Kobe Bryant when the play-offs come around. After the other 3 playing ahead of you also stomp him for a good long spell, too, of course. I'm gunna make you ready, that's what!
Almond: Anythin *I* need to do?
Sloan: Naw, not really. You can even skip practice. Just show up for games. I'll put you in for a few minutes here and there. That will do it all.
Last edited:
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Maybe the perceived difference in opinion is on the definition of consistent playing time. To me, giving Boozer 35 MPG no matter whether he is dogging it on defense or not is "consistent playing time". Benching Boozer until the next whistle when he is dogging it on defense--and informing him that he is being benched for that reason--is NOT "consistent playing time." I'm not necessarily proposing that such a strategy is as strictly adhered to at the end of games, but another JazzFan in another thread just posted that Boozer, because of his defense, had a negative impact on the game anyway.
I think that against many teams (unless they have a short frontcourt), a lineup of DW-WM-KK/CJ-CB-KF would be an ideal way to finish the game. Maybe you hesitate playing Fes because of his FT shooting. Maybe you play Koufos (68% career FT shooting) down the stretch instead (preferably the "Boom B--tches" version, which a little development PT would help to ensure); he's at least as good a rebounder as Okur and a better defendr. When Okur was healthy, the conventional wisdom was to play him alongside Boozer in "clutch time". But Boozer + Okur is often a very bad defensive combination, and the number of times that the Jazz lost games because they had bad defense down low with CB + MO or CB + PM is probably enough to have garnered them the 2 seed.
By contrast, Koufos going from about 10 MPG to DNP after DNP in February of his rookie season, following no apparent change in performance or behavior, is not "consistent playing time." Just because Boozer got healthy again doesn't mean Kouf should've been buried on the bench, stunting his promising development. And KK2 is one of the good guys, never showing any malcontent--except in his performance. But that was bad coaching. No effort whatsoever to find PT when Kouf had been progressing and contributing. He was part (perhaps a minor part, but a part) of the 18 to 20 wins that the non-Boozer lineup had in the 2008-2009 season. His reward? The end of the bench.
OK, then maybe we're saying the same thing. What I'm proposing is that the bigs should get a minimum 10 to 15 MPG--maybe combined minutes, on a practical note--but if they are doing well, they get 15 to 20 minutes. At the same time, if Boozer or Okur is sucking on defense, then they get 25 or 30 minutes each rather than 30 or 35. If Sloan wanted to enforce it in quarters 1 to 3 only, fine. It's a start. But there was no evidence of this enforcement of the defense or effort that Sloan purportedly preaches. OK--maybe a little bit with Okur; it seems that his minutes would slide a bit when he wasn't doing well. But Boozer's 30+ MPG were pretty much guaranteed no matter what he was doing out there, offensively or defensively. There were times when Millsap was hot and Boozer was not hot shootingwise, and I don't think that Sloan reallocated the minutes (a la "in game strategy") like he should have. By contrast, I have seen Gregg Popovich bench everyone from Duncan on down, but he only does it for a few plays at a time. THAT's what I'm looking for: put your money where your mouth is.
Again, someone has shown that Boozer's defense has a net negative impact on the game anyway, so it is possible that selectively benching Boozer (or not re-signing him, for that matter) would help the team in two ways: taking him out of the game when he is being a liability, and sending him a message so that he plays harder & smarter, making his minutes more effective. It's simple Leadership 101, and Sloan doesn't seem to do it. BTW, the numbers on the BasketballValue website also suggest that CB + KF was a superior combo to CB + PM in the playoffs. What was comforting is that one CB + PM combo had a positive impact at least. In other words, the stats confirm what I had originally seen in games, which led me to identify the problem. Because coaches control the minutes, I tend to attribute problems in effort as much to the coach as to the player. It's the coach's job to ensure that the most-motivated, most-skilled combination is out on the floor; and that combination can differ from night to night and even from quarter to quarter.
"It worked" needs to account for injuries. Both Boston and L.A. had injuries in the playoffs, and they adjusted. Utah had the ability to adjust to finish the season in the 2 seed, and they didn't. The #1 adjustment was to give the 7-footers more time, because some of those games lost with CB + PM playing together down the stretch were toward the end of the season; Denver comes to mind. (Fortunately they figured it out in the playoffs, but Utah was aided by having an ineffective substitute coach on the opposite bench who managed to log a few wins toward the end of the season but didn't make adjustments, either.)- The point i made about "it worked" was a result of the Jazz peaking right before AK got injured. So using the 5-seed as the measure is diverting from my original point. There was reasonable discussion all over the nation that the Jazz were real contenders when they hit this peak. So i think had AK not been injured, the Jazz would have had the 2 seed in the west. In that case I would measure the season a sucess - even with my pathetically low standards.
In other words, the Jazz had the potential--even with the injuries--to do better than they did in both the regular season and in the playoffs, and thus did not "work" in my book.
That's funny; I think the opposite. Fes had a neutral or positive +/- in each of the four Laker games, and IMHO his play was more inconsistent in the Denver series because he was trying to play catchup in development from not getting the crucial minutes during the regular season. That's poor planning by a coach. The minutes were available in the regular season WITHOUT risking W's. If Fes had gotten PT, I think that he would've started contributing to wins during the regular season, partly because Boozer and Memo were such a poor defensive combination on many nights.
Well, if the objective is to be "competitive" every night, then I think that Jerry failed to make sure that that happened because there were too many times when Utah's frontcourt defense was NOT competitive, and Jerry did little to adjust to that. So Sloan didn't even follow his own philosophy.
Glad you brought up Harpring, because he was a huge help on some nights but was a liability on other nights, and Sloan didn't seem to be able to figure out very quickly how Harp was faring on a given night. (Think "in-game strategy." Again. As in putting the combination on the floor to be most "competitive." To me, being "competitive" is not merely having a chance to win; it's actually winning the game.)
The reasoning for giving Fes more PT and Booze less (when he's dogging it) has been already estabilished. But you're focusing too much on these two players. IMHO, Millsap could've played 5 fewer minutes per game without stunting his development, and it also made sense to start with shaving PM's minutes because the data shows that Boozer and Fesenko is a relatively effective pairing anyway. I think that you are thinking like Sloan was errantly thinking.
The rest of your post has already been addressed. Thanks for your civil dialogue.
Last edited:
I well throw my 2 cents into this discussion. Both InGameStrategy and Harcher make great points. I am more inclined toward Harcher's point of view. The reason for this is because I am a high School Basketball coach. This last year I took a kid that had a ton of upside, very athletic and a kid I thought would help the team. I also had 5 kids back that were with the team last year and in there final year. As we went through practices and went over what we were trying to do for the year it was obvious that the 5 that were returning were better at playing together and were able to do the things we were trying to do because they knew each others ability and skills. The new kid was more talented in somethings than the guy that played in the same place. So I started the 5 that were working well together. I would sub the new guy in and sometimes he was a great help. Then the next game would hurt us by not doing the little things that were expected.
My point is that If you have people that have been together for some time and are comfortable with what they are doing. Then it is hard to just cut and chop at there time to insert someone that may or may not help at that time.
Now lets take this to the Jazz. You have guys that have been playing together for years and have won at a very consistent level. Now you want to take time away from them to develop a player that may or may not help the team. And in the case of Kufous I give a definite no help. Fez brings something the Jazz need. A big shot blocker. But the little things that he can't seem to do is what keeps him off the floor. Under 50% from the FT line. Being lost on Pick and roll defense. Not being in the right places on offense. Being in game shape. Most of you have mentioned that those things are fixed by being in the game. I say that is BS. All 4 of those things are things that need to be polished in practice. Or in the off season.
Going back to being a coach I can honestly say that I would have done it no different than Sloan. I would have played the guys that I knew exactly what I was going to get out of over the unknown. And if winning 50 games is a bad thing by doing that then I have no Idea what a coach is. Boozer and Milsap together at the 4-5 was not Ideal at the end of the game. But I would take that over Boozer and Fez with his horrible FT shooting and lack of understanding, (both thing that should be taken care of in practice), and day.
My point is that If you have people that have been together for some time and are comfortable with what they are doing. Then it is hard to just cut and chop at there time to insert someone that may or may not help at that time.
Now lets take this to the Jazz. You have guys that have been playing together for years and have won at a very consistent level. Now you want to take time away from them to develop a player that may or may not help the team. And in the case of Kufous I give a definite no help. Fez brings something the Jazz need. A big shot blocker. But the little things that he can't seem to do is what keeps him off the floor. Under 50% from the FT line. Being lost on Pick and roll defense. Not being in the right places on offense. Being in game shape. Most of you have mentioned that those things are fixed by being in the game. I say that is BS. All 4 of those things are things that need to be polished in practice. Or in the off season.
Going back to being a coach I can honestly say that I would have done it no different than Sloan. I would have played the guys that I knew exactly what I was going to get out of over the unknown. And if winning 50 games is a bad thing by doing that then I have no Idea what a coach is. Boozer and Milsap together at the 4-5 was not Ideal at the end of the game. But I would take that over Boozer and Fez with his horrible FT shooting and lack of understanding, (both thing that should be taken care of in practice), and day.
Hopper
Banned
Like, who knew, eh, Ben?
Hopper
Banned
Any coach worth his salt, and who had any clue about how to "develop" players, would effectively have 3 NBA championship quality teams every single year.
1. His startin 5, the true champs
2. Players 6-10, who would beat any pretenders to the throne, just not the true champs, and
3. Players 11-15, who could easily stomp the Lakers, or any other team--if they ever played, anyway.
1. His startin 5, the true champs
2. Players 6-10, who would beat any pretenders to the throne, just not the true champs, and
3. Players 11-15, who could easily stomp the Lakers, or any other team--if they ever played, anyway.
Im not going to read all this crap, but Doufus sucks, its easy to see. He might get one more contract after Utah, but thats it. Doufus would get man-handled by Brian Scalibrine in a 1 v 1.
QFMFT.
I applaud you sir for having the guts to stand up to your fellow Jazz fans and proclaim what most of sensible folk no. Doufos is absolute garbage with a great family background.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Ben10 it's pretty cool that you're a high school basketball coach. You probably make a big impact in a bunch of kids' lives.
With all due respect, however, your perspective doesn't translate to the NBA. The NBA is for real. It's a business. They have technology (game film, analytics, metrics) that are typically not measured at the high-school level. The players are bigger, stronger, faster. And it's for real. The data--and simply watching the game--show that Sloan's rotations did "well" garnering a 5 seed. But maybe the difference is the view of what this team could do.
A flaw in your argument is that the existing Jazz players didn't work well together--unless you define that working well together is losing leads toward the end of the game. It was the regular 5 or 7 or whatever in the rotation that weren't working. THE FRONTCOURT DEFENSE WAS TERRIBLE, to the point of being a net liability. Sloan neither addressed the poor defense with the existing rotation (which might be closer to your philosophy) nor with the players with upside. My strategy would do both.
Also, your argument goes awry when you look at last season, when rookie Wes Matthews playing ahead of Kyle Korver, who was "better at playing together." At least Sloan had enough sense to start Matthews over KK because KK was an inferior defender. Korver is best as a backup specialist with liberal minutes, especially when less-than-athletic or less-than-experienced wings are on the floor for the other team. But under your definition, Korver should've played ahead of Matthews.
I already addressed the issue of dealing with Fes's poor FT shooting: play him earlier in the game, more between quarter 1 and the last few minutes of the game. Unfortunately whoever replaces him (Okur or Millsap) translates to a liability on defense against many teams. Or you play Koufos (ideally after he has gotten more PT to develop). Also, you don't address the notion of giving these players more PT, which might translate to better FT shooting and decisionmaking anyway. Again, Sloan often put Matthews and CJ out there over Korver (and sometimes even over AK) at the end of games, so he was violating your own rule of going with the ones who had worked together for longer.
Even after years of getting beaten by the Lakers (and other teams who pwned the Jazz in the middle), Sloan still stuck with your strategy, and many times that strategy failed. It wasn't a secret that Utah lacked skilled size; KOC openly said it in the summer of 2009. The better strategy would've been to give time to Fes in the regular season; many times he was helping to win anyway. In both the regular season and the playoffs, he had the best on-court/off-court +/- of any player on the team. Fesenko proved in the playoffs that he had/has room to develop, and it's a tragedy that he didn't get that time during the regular season so that he could have helped the team to REALLY get a 2 seed and REALLY win some playoff games--instead of having the potential to do so, and merely being a mildly positive contributor or holding serve at the 5 spot (which was still probably better than the alternative (Okur or Millsap). Is giving Fesenko 30 minutes in the last game of the Laker series a tacit acknowledgement that he had improved and that he was contributing more significantly? I say yes; he was part of a first-string combination that improved the deficit from 17 to 7 points in the third quarter until he was subbed out. This isn't an isolated event; the Jazz were ahead in the first quarter of Game 4 when he subbed out with 5 minutes left, and the Jazz ended the quarter with a deficit, and parallel patterns happened in previous games also.
If you're happy with winning 50 games when the team has the potential to do better, then I guess you are happy with underperformance. Ask fired head coaches Mike Brown or Avery Johnson if underperformance on a highly successful team is sufficient. Hopefully you don't settle for that with your own players.
Last edited:
