Seeing AL Objectively - SLCdunk article

[Hitman]

All you have to do is watch the games. You can WITNESS it for yourself. Al isn't clutch. I have seen him miss big shots plenty of times.

You must really hate Millsap for missing a layup at the buzzer that would have won the game. Twice.

Oh, wait, it's okay, 'Nerd puts those games in the "winnable losses" category, they are Al's fault.

 

[theNBAnerd]

You must really hate Millsap for missing a layup at the buzzer that would have won the game. Twice.

Oh, wait, it's okay, 'Nerd puts those games in the "winnable losses" category, they are Al's fault.

you don't think al has done that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6QCbiDwCUo

 

[Hitman]

you don't think al has done that?

Did I say he hadn't? I'm disagreeing with the notion that Al isn't clutch, based on the "I've watched him" test.

 

[theNBAnerd]

Did I say he hadn't?

the fact that paul has missed 45% of hit shots in those situations doesn't make it any better that al has missed 65% of his shots in those situations.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

If an Al fan came name me one NBA big on a championship team who was a worse defender than Jefferson, I'll stop my tirades against the clown. The problem is, you can't. And please spare me the Bulls' bigs...Longley, Wennington, all those guys, were way better than Al. Anyway, my point is, we can't win a ring with a sieve like that on the team so why bother even keeping him? I mean, we do want a ring, right?

 

[Hitman]

the fact that paul has missed 45% of hit shots in those situations doesn't make it any better that al has missed 65% of his shots in those situations.

You mean game-winning shots?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Did I say he hadn't? I'm disagreeing with the notion that Al isn't clutch, based on the "I've watched him" test.

You think the carpet pissers did this?

 

[Scorpjazz]

For a few days now, Ive been converted to the "Trade Al" bandwagon. Mostly out of the need for our youth to grow, and we are obviously building on that youth. Al commands too many possesions for this to happen, whether or not he does well even. He stunts the Jazz from becomming what the FO seem to be suggesting the team can be. On a side note, so does Sap, if he wont relegate himself to a bench role and less money that he seems to be wanting, IMO, but this is blasphemy around here I realise.
Kudos to Nerd for at least being 'objective' as in the thread title and posting rational points for his reasoning, not just the usual "He sucks, I dont like him, I win" that is thrown out by most. Im sold.

 

[shadler]

If an Al fan came name me one NBA big on a championship team who was a worse defender than Jefferson, I'll stop my tirades against the clown. The problem is, you can't. And please spare me the Bulls' bigs...Longley, Wennington, all those guys, were way better than Al. Anyway, my point is, we can't win a ring with a sieve like that on the team so why bother even keeping him? I mean, we do want a ring, right?

But we can win with undersized pf Lets do it. Lets make Sap our go to guy, now that he is going to start off at 10 million and we are on our way from 8th seed to 2nd seed. Sounds like the same path this team has taken over and over. The bulls bigs where for the most part a big joke as is most of the centers the jazz have had over the years. If I remember right Jeffersons stats in the fourth was pretty clutch before this year. I could be wrong but if I am right I heard that on one of lockes tip offs when he got traded here. I would also love to see what Saps stats where and his opponent was the last 20 games before Dwill got traded. People need to be careful of milsap. He is a great players but at what price. I don't view either player as a future of the team and Jazz are going to have to be careful on who they spend their money on. Who is to say all of a sudden Marvin steps into the light and is going to demand a huge contract. Only player I care about is Favors and he is the future. But the Jazz more then anything lacked an all star play maker last year. Jazz also where pretty much in every game last year which was better to watch then before when we couldn't win ..it on the road.

 

[NAOS]

You mean game-winning shots?

you're a joke.

 

[Hotdog]

You must really hate Millsap for missing a layup at the buzzer that would have won the game. Twice.

Oh, wait, it's okay, 'Nerd puts those games in the "winnable losses" category, they are Al's fault.

I'll take my chances with Millsap over Al. Millsap isn't the guy really either though. We still need a closer. I'm hoping Burks can become that guy, or we can find one. As of now though, Al isn't getting it and we are forcing it into him too much late in the game. That has to stop.

 

[One Brow]

also, if you look carefully, you'll see that i never said the solution is to simply "post up millsap like we did jefferson." to wit, the whole advantage to millsap that makes him more offensively efficient and useful is that he can score in a variety of ways, not just camped out on the low left block holding the ball.

However, they have to be ways that are useful at the end of games, when defenses are clamping down harder and you don't get open on various cuts as easily as you do in the prior quarters. Overall, Jefferson post-ups don't lose efficiency in crunch time.

show me ONE example of a game against a good team where al was the reason we survived down the stretch.

You didn't respond to my point, and I am not insisting you do research. However, Jefferson's clutch-time eFG% is basically the same as Millsaps. If Jefferson is doing worse in close losses, then he's doing better in close wins, or his average would be lower than Millsap's.

we're looking at it from different angles. you're saying (if i understand you correctly) al is a bigger variable so him playing well should be a bigger priority. i'm saying al is a bigger variable so why are we depending on him? let's hitch our cart to the guy who has a consistent history of excellent play in close games against good teams instead of a guy who shuts down in those situations, and does so in a way that makes it hard for anybody else to get involved, too.

We need to hitch our star to players who help us win. Based on what you have presented so far, Jefferson playing well in crunch time seems to correlate better with us winning than Millsap playing well.

 

[theNBAnerd]

You mean game-winning shots?

no, i told you what i mean... fourth quarter & OT shots in games the jazz lost despite being in the game in the 4th quarter.

but even if i WERE referring to game-winning shots, my point still stands... al's 35% isn't any shinier because paul "only" shot 55% in the same situations.

 

[theNBAnerd]

However, they have to be ways that are useful at the end of games, when defenses are clamping down harder and you don't get open on various cuts as easily as you do in the prior quarters. Overall, Jefferson post-ups don't lose efficiency in crunch time.

yes they do. yes they do. i can't say this enough times, yes they freaking do.

You didn't respond to my point, and I am not insisting you do research. ver, Jefferson's clutch-time eFG% is basically the same as Millsaps. If Jefferson is doing worse in close losses, then he's doing better in close wins, or his average would be lower than Millsap's.

clutch-time stats are deceiving, largely because they're based on an arbitrary definition of what "clutch" is. neither team up by more than 5, less than 5 minutes to go. so when we're up by 6 with 9 minutes to go and then oj mayo heats up and we get down by 8-9 points, "crunch" stats don't account for that game at all. or when we led NOH by 6 going into the 4th, and then they made a run (while al went scoreless AND reboundless in the 4th) and we lost by 11. that one wouldn't be "clutch" relevant either, but i would posit that it's a game that we could and should have won. or the jazz' furious comeback attempt verus the mavs behind paul's 4-for-6 shooting. the comeback got us as close as 6, so that one won't register in clutch stats.

any stat can only tell you what it can tell you. clutch stats, like any other, have their limitations, and the narrow definition of "clutch" rules out a great many games that matter.

We need to hitch our star to players who help us win. Based on what you have presented so far, Jefferson playing well in crunch time seems to correlate better with us winning than Millsap playing well.

see, again... i agree with you right up until that last conclusion that is so flawed! if al's clutch performance is so inconsistent, why would we make ourselves so dependent on his performance? if paul is more competent in 4th quarters of close games, then the right answer is to run more of our 4th quarter offense through paul, and then al's ups and downs will matter a lot less.

 

[One Brow]

yes they do. yes they do. i can't say this enough times, yes they freaking do.

Sorry, I misread a statistic. Jefferson's eFG% goes down almost as much as Millsap's.

clutch-time stats are deceiving, largely because they're based on an arbitrary definition of what "clutch" is.

Whereas you have the entirely superior arbitrary defintion of 4th quarters in games we could have won, but lost?

any stat can only tell you what it can tell you. clutch stats, like any other, have their limitations, and the narrow definition of "clutch" rules out a great many games that matter.

Is your claim that, should the analysis be extended to the entire 4th quarter (say 10 points or less), the numbers will turn to Millsap's favor? On what would you base that claim?

see, again... i agree with you right up until that last conclusion that is so flawed! if al's clutch performance is so inconsistent, why would we make ourselves so dependent on his performance? if paul is more competent in 4th quarters of close games, then the right answer is to run more of our 4th quarter offense through paul, and then al's ups and downs will matter a lot less.

Paul's eFG% falls in clutch time to become basically even with Jefferson. That means he's not more consistent. Further, if we lose when he's good and win when he's not good more often than is true of Jefferson, that means that Millsap's positive efforts are not contributing to wins tpo the same degree Jefferson's are. Now, I can see many arguments that maight be made as to why this is not a knock on Millsap, but it seems to be a stretch to say it is a knock on Jefferson.

 

[theNBAnerd]

Sorry, I misread a statistic. Jefferson's eFG% goes down almost as much as Millsap's.

yes. jefferson is not a good clutch player, especially against good teams.

Whereas you have the entirely superior arbitrary defintion of 4th quarters in games we could have won, but lost?

well isn't that what "clutch" stats are supposed to measure? the stat is designed to find out how people perform in games that are actually hanging in the balance. but when 82games.com and similar sites need to compare clutch performance for all 30 teams, they can't fish through 30 game-by-game schedules to qualitatively decide which games were "in the balance"; they have to automate the sample selection quantitatively, so they make something up that honestly doesn't really define "clutch".

but even using THEIR definition of clutch time (+/- 5 points), paul millsap greatly outperformed al in the games that were decided by such a small margin. if we widen the sample to include games that weren't +/-5 but were anybody's game in the 4th quarter (like the NOH, MEM and DAL games i mentioned earlier, and several others as well), the trend is further verified: al doesn't score well or efficiently in 4th quarters against good teams.

Is your claim that, should the analysis be extended to the entire 4th quarter (say 10 points or less), the numbers will turn to Millsap's favor? On what would you base that claim?

well i'm not saying that the final 5 minutes is wrong, nor am i saying the entire fourth quarter is right... i'm just saying that you have to draw the line somewhere, and there are as many games that are lost at the 8 minutes mark as there are games that are lost at the 2 minute mark. more, if you look at my study.

if you look at it qualitatively AND quantitatively, there is nothing magical when the clock goes from 5:00 to 4:59. just like there is nothing crazy magical about 5 points, either. in fact, here's an example -- we're down by 6 and paul makes a jumper to cut it to 4. then we come up with a stop, get the ball to al and he makes a hook shot. "clutch" statistics don't give paul any credit for his bucket because the margin was greater than 5 when his shot went up. that's ridiculous, and it's a good example of why clutch numbers need to be taken with a pretty sizable grain of salt.

Paul's eFG% falls in clutch time to become basically even with Jefferson. That means he's not more consistent. Further, if we lose when he's good and win when he's not good more often than is true of Jefferson, that means that Millsap's positive efforts are not contributing to wins tpo the same degree Jefferson's are. Now, I can see many arguments that maight be made as to why this is not a knock on Millsap, but it seems to be a stretch to say it is a knock on Jefferson.

no, it means we're not maximizing paul's late-game efficiency. he shoots 55% in my fairly large sample, al shoots 35%, and yet their attempt are basically even. that doesn't mean paul's not contributing to wins, that means corbin's not unleashing paul's efficiency and instead continuing to divert possessions away from paul to a less effective player. that's seriously ALL that says.

 

[One Brow]

yes. jefferson is not a good clutch player, especially against good teams.

Since Millsap's goes down more, does this apply to Millsap as well?

but even using THEIR definition of clutch time (+/- 5 points), paul millsap greatly outperformed al in the games that were decided by such a small margin.

Player 1 in clutch time:
Min Net Pts Off Def Net48 W L Win%
78% +12 98.3 94.7 3.7 17 16 51.5%

Scoring By 48 Min.
FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
12.2 28.0 .435 .435 48% 7% 1.2 25.6

Passing rating - 0.9 Rebound rating 34.4 Block 9.4 Hands 25.4



Player 2 in clutch time:
Min Net Pts Off Def Net48 W L Win%
93% +7 97.3 95.5 1.8 18 17 51.4%

Scoring By 48 Min.
FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
9.0 21.3 .422 .434 54% 6% 4.9 23.3

Passing rating - 1.0 Rebound rating 21.6 Block 3.4 Hands 6.8


Are there any statistics where this "greatly outperformed" shows up?

if we widen the sample to include games that weren't +/-5 but were anybody's game in the 4th quarter (like the NOH, MEM and DAL games i mentioned earlier, and several others as well), the trend is further verified: al doesn't score well or efficiently in 4th quarters against good teams.

I just have trouble accepting your word on this, for some reason.

well i'm not saying that the final 5 minutes is wrong, nor am i saying the entire fourth quarter is right... i'm just saying that you have to draw the line somewhere, and there are as many games that are lost at the 8 minutes mark as there are games that are lost at the 2 minute mark. more, if you look at my study.

You don't have a study. To have a study, you have to set firm conditions based on verifiable standards and examine the results of each game to see if they comply with the conditions, then score against those conditions. You've gone off your memory to pick a few games, from what I can tell.

if you look at it qualitatively AND quantitatively, there is nothing magical when the clock goes from 5:00 to 4:59. just like there is nothing crazy magical about 5 points, either.

I agree. The numbers only give you the advantage of having a consistant standard. In fact, I did refer to them as "arbitrary" above.

no, it means we're not maximizing paul's late-game efficiency. he shoots 55% in my fairly large sample, al shoots 35%, and yet their attempt are basically even. that doesn't mean paul's not contributing to wins, that means corbin's not unleashing paul's efficiency and instead continuing to divert possessions away from paul to a less effective player. that's seriously ALL that says.

Your sample comes from games that are losses. You don't think that skews the numbers a bit?

Do you agree or disagree this chain of logic is basically valid:

A and B have the same overall performance in clutch time in roughly the same number of minutes
A strongly outperforms B in losses with roughly the same number of minuets
Therefore, A must be performing less well than B in wins

 

[theNBAnerd]

Since Millsap's goes down more, does this apply to Millsap as well?

you're using a different definition of "clutch." by my definition, paul's FG% is 20 points higher than al's.

Player 1 in clutch time:
Min Net Pts Off Def Net48 W L Win%
78% +12 98.3 94.7 3.7 17 16 51.5%

Scoring By 48 Min.
FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
12.2 28.0 .435 .435 48% 7% 1.2 25.6

Passing rating - 0.9 Rebound rating 34.4 Block 9.4 Hands 25.4



Player 2 in clutch time:
Min Net Pts Off Def Net48 W L Win%
93% +7 97.3 95.5 1.8 18 17 51.4%

Scoring By 48 Min.
FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
9.0 21.3 .422 .434 54% 6% 4.9 23.3

Passing rating - 1.0 Rebound rating 21.6 Block 3.4 Hands 6.8


Are there any statistics where this "greatly outperformed" shows up?

well sure there are, like paul going to the line 5 times as much because he's not afraid of contact... but again, your stats are looking at a sample that i would argue is not any more representative of "crunch time" than my sample is.

I just have trouble accepting your word on this, for some reason.

You don't have a study. To have a study, you have to set firm conditions based on verifiable standards and examine the results of each game to see if they comply with the conditions, then score against those conditions. You've gone off your memory to pick a few games, from what I can tell.

i didn't go off memory, i fished through the schedule to find every game we lost despite a 4th-quarter differential of single digits. then i went through the Q4 & OT (if applicable) play-by-play of all those games to quantify performance of al vs. paul in all those games. there's nothing random about my sample.

if anybody wants to tell me how to post a table into a post, i'll show you the data i collected and you'll see i'm not just pulling this out of the air.

Your sample comes from games that are losses. You don't think that skews the numbers a bit?

Do you agree or disagree this chain of logic is basically valid:

A and B have the same overall performance in clutch time in roughly the same number of minutes
A strongly outperforms B in losses with roughly the same number of minuets
Therefore, A must be performing less well than B in wins

well first off, i disagree with the premise that A and B have the "same overall performance" so the rest of your logic is faulty right from the start. paul's 4th quarter shot in close games is 20% more likely to go in than al's 4th quarter shot in close games.

but you're right, i should include the "losable wins" along with the "winnable losses." i'll try to get to that today. i'm sure my employer wasn't expecting to get anything out of my today anyway.

 

[NotDeadYet]

As noted in the article, EVERY NBA C has trouble defending P & R, noy just Al. Al has improved his passing as his teammates actually MOVE w/o the ball, which is frequently an issue. He could still be a better rebounder, IMO. Big Al is a tireless worker, so I expect that to happen.
Favors does NOT want to play C, further evidenced by his working out with Karl Malone. Our best option is once Favors has earned starting PF status, bring Millsap off the bench. I honestly think Millsap's numbers would go UP as our 6th man. And, Kanter is clearly not ready to start...

 

[NAOS]

Big Al is a tireless worker, so ...

laughing...

Favors does NOT want to play C...

... laughing harder...

Our best option is... bring Millsap off the bench.....

... electric finish!!! and, I'm spent.

Milsap is a benchie