Was Fes' Play Last Night An Aberration?

[franklin]

Um, actually, my statements have been closer to the opposite. I have pointed out repeatedly how Sloan's decision to play Millsap and Boozer together has--at times--been dentrimental to the team's winning. Also, perhaps more damning, is that Sloan didn't even use many occasions when the outcome of the game wasn't in question, so your argument doesn't hold much water.

This has nothing to do with your hypothesis that Fes needs playing time to get better, and that the Jazz are well justified in taking such a gamble to improve Fes. The argument that playing Fes in certain spots may have won more games (while giving him valuable learning minutes) is fine with me, and I suspect just about all others here.

Unfortunately, Wes Matthews it the poster child for how essential and valuable in-game experience is for developing a player. You will have to explain how practice supercedes that, ESPECIALLY during the regular season, when practices sometimes are little more than walk-throughs, especially when a team is arriving late and playing on a back-to-back, and when the full team is not always even practicing. Also, it has been mentioned that in individual development in practice, Fes has demonstrated proficiency in free throws but, like other players (CJ, etc.), has not been able to translate that to games without the in-game experience. You haven't even begun to form a basis to explaine that.

Part A: I don't have to explain anything. This is how work is, especially in the NBA. You'll have to explain how your theory trumps the profession. You don't learn the law in court. You convert what you should have already mastered in training, and use the stage to gain valuable experience that will give you that little extra edge. You don't learn a drop step in game. You learn in practice and use what you've mastered in training to beat an opponent on the court. The experience gives composure and things you can't work on off the court--things that effect you mentally and/or cause performance altering hormonal changes. Many observers (I'm not saying you're in this camp) here how important playing time is and translate this to mean learning, advancing, etc. Playing will help you get to the next level, but it is not the first step. You first have to prove you even have a chance at competing. Fes hasn't shown that at all. He fouls a lot and hurts the team by heaving them over the limit in minutes. He gets lost all the time in games--especially on the offensive end.

Part B: Some of the Jazz practices may be walk-throughs. Some. This isn't the MLB; the NBA often goes days between games. The Jazz ask for a minimum of 8 hours per day. Players develop by practicing. It's silly to suggest otherwise. They also work with professional developers, such as Ty Corbin, and Hornacek.

 

[Hopper]

That is the most telling statistic there is. You should learn that, Hopper.

Well, YB, if S2 had been able to explain it all as clearly and concisely as you just did, I woulda readily agreed a long time ago, ya know? Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[Ben10]

well, yb, if s2 had been able to explain it all as clearly and concisely as you just did, i woulda readily agreed a long time ago, ya know? Thanks for the enlightenment.

lol

 

[Harcher]

I think One Brow has nailed point#1: It is a matter of timing of the facets of practice and real-game maturity. Anyone who has played sports competitively sees that practice comes before game experience. How much practice goes in for a golfer (easist to see for me) compared to game time? Why does Derek Fischr tell CJ "I have to hit 30 three's IN A ROW - AFTER formal practice" in order to go home. I think IGS would agree with this point. The point of the questoin is whether Fes proved himself enough to play in games. THEN game time experience is valuable. This year Fes looks worthy for this consideration.

Point #2 is that Sloan has a STRATEGY of keeping regular rotations more than he does 'in-game' hence IGS primary issue (If i can speak for IGS... Jerry has said over and over and over that we do it as a team. And so the system has to be working to win (compete.) So Jerry favors continutity, stability over in-game adjustments. This is the reason that Tree Collins played as much as he did becuae he would play within the system allowing the WHOLE team to benefit. I bring up that 'yukky' example to illustrate that Jerry does this plan with full understanding, full awareness. Whatever anyone here sees Jerrry and coaches see as well and usually just make a trade-off decision that goes the other way. This is Jerry's strategy; not his ignorance.

Point 2a: Jerry keeps his main rotation in the game often "too long" becuase he wants that group to get full team/system rhythm. At that point the game time activity is the 'practice.' So there is a decision to be made between "do i put Fes in and get him game time minutes, or do i let the main rotation players continue to run the offense and play the team defense?" This is why you see Jerry sometimes double down on post players who seemingly don't deserve it. He's playing/practicing for the LONG HAUL as Hopper has noted. Wes Mathews was good enough and disciplined enough to be part of that rotation without screwing it up. The one time jerry made an example out of the team was the Dallas game early last year when he had MEMO guarding Dirk one-on-one and Dirk scores 30 in the 4th (or there abouts.) We all passed out at how senile Jerry was and his blindness and etc. Well. Jerry is not blind. He saw it and asked if the team was ready to get on board iwth the team defense. Or would they like to try to d-up the other guys one-on-one?

Point 3: Jerry can make an example of Fes with little or no chemistry backlash. So if he thinks Fes is jackpotting, then bench him and this has little or no effect on team chemistry. If he thinks Boozer is lazy on defense, and ponders to bench him, then he has a big dilemma on his hands. Sitting boozer for some manner/level/idea of jackpotting and the whole team is in turmoil becuaes Boozer would rip the situation apart. Remember: "... I'm a STARTER!!! ..."

He has chosen a core strategy and sticks with it, which all good organizations do. The financial, statistical, historical evidence proves this is good plan. (Cue the 'ring count' argument here...)

 

[Ben10]

He has chosen a core strategy and sticks with it, which all good organizations do. The financial, statistical, historical evidence proves this is good plan. (Cue the 'ring count' argument here...)

And to prove this point can anyone give an example of a coach who has done more with less than Sloan. Last year we won 53 games with a total of 2 first round picks (3 if you include Brewer for half a year). His Stratagy might not have won a ring yet. But he has been consistant and all but one year has put winning teams on the floor. Usally with alot lest "talent" than the teams he is playing against. Again proving that Talent alone isn't enough.

 

[InGameStrategy]

And this to me is the reason, and really the only reason that Fes hasn't gotten time in the past but well get it this year. Others talked about Wes, D-Will and others working hard and earning playing time. I think that alot of that SHOWS that they want to play. And that is what practice is, for players trying to EARN playing time. Fes came into camp this year ready to be a Pro. He has talked the talk and walked the walk so far this preseason. And I think he well get the time that he needs to develop no that his attitude is in the right place. Jerry is always going to play the guy that works harder in practice . Just the way he is.

Yes, and Sloan's preference for players who work harder in practice, and not necessarily the players that are most effective in a given game, has lost the Jazz some games--and, in this case, has hindered the development of some players at positions of crucial need. Even at current level (and last year's level), Fes could've helped to slow the hemorrhage of interior scoring by the opposition; if he'd gotten regular minutes, it's not unreasonable to predict that he could've been a Big Dawg like spark.

 

[InGameStrategy]

I think One Brow has nailed point#1: It is a matter of timing of the facets of practice and real-game maturity. Anyone who has played sports competitively sees that practice comes before game experience.

Yes, and it has been pointed out that Fes was showing development in practice, and Sloan still didnt' play him. To show your point, you have to explain how playing a player in one game and then NOT playing him AT ALL for 5 or 10 games or more is development. The superior strategy is to find developing players time on the court when it is not likely to hurt (or possibly will help) the game outcome. Sloan did not do this. Repeatedly.

How much practice goes in for a golfer (easist to see for me) compared to game time? Why does Derek Fischr tell CJ "I have to hit 30 three's IN A ROW - AFTER formal practice" in order to go home. I think IGS would agree with this point. The point of the questoin is whether Fes proved himself enough to play in games. THEN game time experience is valuable. This year Fes looks worthy for this consideration.

Fes proved himself enough to play in games by playing in games.

Point #2 is that Sloan has a STRATEGY of keeping regular rotations more than he does 'in-game' hence IGS primary issue (If i can speak for IGS... Jerry has said over and over and over that we do it as a team. And so the system has to be working to win (compete.) So Jerry favors continutity, stability over in-game adjustments. This is the reason that Tree Collins played as much as he did becuae he would play within the system allowing the WHOLE team to benefit. I bring up that 'yukky' example to illustrate that Jerry does this plan with full understanding, full awareness. Whatever anyone here sees Jerrry and coaches see as well and usually just make a trade-off decision that goes the other way. This is Jerry's strategy; not his ignorance.

Jerry might be fully aware of his lack of adjustment of lineups to what is going on in a given game, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.

And it is absolutely laughable that you are using Tree as an example to prove your point. Even after Collins had years of experience (including the minutes) he was not necessarily benefitting the whole team to play out there. Collins is yet another example of a player whom Sloan overrated and played too much because of Collins' demeanor (and maybe work ethic and maybe practice; I don't have evidence of that). You are totally walking into my argument if you are using Collins as an example of Sloan's decisions working well.

Point 2a: Jerry keeps his main rotation in the game often "too long" becuase he wants that group to get full team/system rhythm. At that point the game time activity is the 'practice.' So there is a decision to be made between "do i put Fes in and get him game time minutes, or do i let the main rotation players continue to run the offense and play the team defense?"

It's more than that, though. Almost on a nightly basis, Boozer and/or Okur would dog it on defense, which hurts THE TEAM, and Sloan didn't bench them. And sometimes Boozer would be in foul trouble late in games because Sloan didn't manage the minutes, and that made his defense even worse. Again, I'm talking 5 minutes per half on average. Oh, and I was also suggesting that last season, those minutes would most likely come from Millsap.

This is why you see Jerry sometimes double down on post players who seemingly don't deserve it. He's playing/practicing for the LONG HAUL as Hopper has noted. Wes Mathews was good enough and disciplined enough to be part of that rotation without screwing it up. The one time jerry made an example out of the team was the Dallas game early last year when he had MEMO guarding Dirk one-on-one and Dirk scores 30 in the 4th (or there abouts.) We all passed out at how senile Jerry was and his blindness and etc. Well. Jerry is not blind. He saw it and asked if the team was ready to get on board iwth the team defense. Or would they like to try to d-up the other guys one-on-one?

LOL. Your example to prove your point (and perhaps cost the team a victory) is when Memo failed?? And you're trying to defend not putting in Fes because he'll hurt the team (when more often than not he didn't)? Think more carefully before you craft your claims; you might be contradicting yourself.

Point 3: Jerry can make an example of Fes with little or no chemistry backlash. So if he thinks Fes is jackpotting, then bench him and this has little or no effect on team chemistry. If he thinks Boozer is lazy on defense, and ponders to bench him, then he has a big dilemma on his hands. Sitting boozer for some manner/level/idea of jackpotting and the whole team is in turmoil becuaes Boozer would rip the situation apart. Remember: "... I'm a STARTER!!! ..."

And you think that sitting Boozer for 5 minutes is going to "rip the situation apart"--more than his matador defense? Your logic is worse than Sloan's. You and others are so focused on players jackpotting around in practice when that has far less to do with the team's success than players who are jackpotting around in games. Boozer would do that regularly on defense, even in his contract year. Memo looked like he was trying harder, but he simply didn't have the agility, which is exactly what some JazzFanz are unjustifiably arguing as a reason not to play Fes, when in reality Fes is more agile than Memo and needed (and still needs) most the on-court experience to reduce the turnovers, cut down on unnecessary fouls, and be in the right spot on offense.

He has chosen a core strategy and sticks with it, which all good organizations do. The financial, statistical, historical evidence proves this is good plan. (Cue the 'ring count' argument here...)

I don't need the ring count argument if Sloan was doing everything reasonably possible to maximize the team's effectiveness. I point to multiple games every year that have been lost because of lack of controlling the paint, usually against teams with above-average size (which Millsap has an especially tough time with, as shown again last night) or speed (which Okur and, to a degree, Boozer had trouble with).

What Sloan does well: instill a sense of work ethic and team play. What Sloan does not do well: adjust lineups and in-game strategies to address what is going on in a given game, and develop players who are not already self motivated (and thus who would probably develop well without him).

 

[InGameStrategy]

And to prove this point can anyone give an example of a coach who has done more with less than Sloan. Last year we won 53 games with a total of 2 first round picks (3 if you include Brewer for half a year). His Stratagy might not have won a ring yet. But he has been consistant and all but one year has put winning teams on the floor. Usally with alot lest "talent" than the teams he is playing against. Again proving that Talent alone isn't enough.

This point gives credit to Sloan for the things that he does well at. But this team could've easily won 55 to 57 games if he had had better in-game strategy. Besides, in 20/20 hindsight, Boozer and Millsap and probably Okur and CJ would've been early to middle first-round picks, and Sloan definitely doesn't get credit for developing Boozer & Okur. Millsap was self-driven; Sloan gets "credit" for giving him the minutes that he needed to develop. CJ was not a shining example of Sloan's ability to develop players; it took him three or four years (and several times more minutes than Fes has received) for CJ to get it, and Miles doesn't strike me as one who has worked particularly hard at it, either.

 

[Hopper]

Last night Kobe was 0-4 in the first half. Any coach with a lick of sense woulda known that he was havin an off-night and benched him for the rest of the game. But not that dumbass Phil Jackson. When a game is over, I know exactly who made and missed what shots, who blew defensive assignments, etc. A good coach knows all those things BEFOREHAND, though. It doesn't matter what a coach may have come to expect, based on past performance. It's stupid to think that a player who has played well in the past can "play through" a stretch where is is sub-par. He should be yanked immediately in favor of a scrub who had repeatedly proved in practice that he will continue to make the same mistakes he has never corrected despite tons of practice. He can't be worse than a guy that you KNOW will give you nuthin, based on the fact that he missed his last shot, er sumthin, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Fess coulda had a nice, valuable role on the team the last couple years as a designated goon, like Hoffa, good for 6 hard fouls in 4 minutes and accompanying injuries to the other team's players, except for one thing. He don't have Hoffa's mean streak.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Last night Kobe was 0-4 in the first half. Any coach with a lick of sense woulda known that he was havin an off-night and benched him for the rest of the game. But not that dumbass Phil Jackson. When a game is over, I know exactly who made and missed what shots, who blew defensive assignments, etc. A good coach knows all those things BEFOREHAND, though. It doesn't matter what a coach may have come to expect, based on past performance. It's stupid to think that a player who has played well in the past can "play through" a stretch where is is sub-par. He should be yanked immediately in favor of a scrub who had repeatedly proved in practice that he will continue to make the same mistakes he has never corrected despite tons of practice. He can't be worse than a guy that you KNOW will give you nuthin, based on the fact that he missed his last shot, er sumthin, eh?

Your feeble attempt at using a top 3 player in the NBA, coming off surgery, in the preseason, who already has not only thousands of minutes but many years of performance to justify playing him, as an example against playing Fes is pretty worthless. And “playing through” poor defense is not consistent with Jerry’s supposed philosophy. And LOL that you will use in-game performance as a criterion for one player and then use practice as a criterion for the other. Lastly, a single-quarter shooting slump for a post-surgery player is far different from a rotation of 4/5 players who have repeatedly been ineffective especially against certain teams, no matter whether they were trying or not. Don’t make countering your points so easy, Hopper. At least make it a challenge.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Fess coulda had a nice, valuable role on the team the last couple years as a designated goon, like Hoffa, good for 6 hard fouls in 4 minutes and accompanying injuries to the other team's players, except for one thing. He don't have Hoffa's mean streak.

Oh, and the other thing: Fes, with experience, is starting to make free throws and figure out how to beat players in the block. Still needs to get the fouls and TOs down; the TOs are coming partly from trying to pass the rock--something that Hoffa never really had the chance to develop.

 

[Hopper]

Oh, and the other thing: Fes, with experience, is starting to make free throws and figure out how to beat players in the block. Still needs to get the fouls and TOs down; the TOs are coming partly from trying to pass the rock--something that Hoffa never really had the chance to develop.

S2, I'm not trying to respond to your claims, just like you don't respond to my posts or questions, except on a very selective basis. You simply re-iterate your cliams, ad infinitum, and ignore any counter argument.

Question, though. How is it possible for Fess to be a better free throw shooter and display better moves in the block with "experience" when he aint never got no experience?

 

[franklin]

Take another grasp.

 

[Hopper]

I've been told that if a guy has legs then it is at least theoretically possible for him to run.

I don't see it that way. I figure it's like this here: If a guy can run, then he will grow legs.

 

[Hopper]

Fess played in all of the Jazz's final four games (all losses to the Lakers) last year. In three of those games, he didn't go to the free throw line even once. His post moves were exactly drawin fouls, and they weren't exactly goin in, either (overall he was 5-16 in the series) In the other game he got four free throws, and missed them all. Then the season ended. No more "in-game" experience. And that "experience," alone, made him a good free throw shooter, and gave him effective post moves, eh? Go figure.

 

[Harcher]

Fes proved himself enough to play in games by playing in games.

That is the debatable point. I don't think he did. And it comes at the expense of others who need time in the system.

Jerry might be fully aware of his lack of adjustment of lineups to what is going on in a given game, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.

This is a correct statement. My point was to show that when any of us reference that Jerry doesn't see this or that, I think he does and it is a decision process not a ignorance issue.

And it is absolutely laughable that you are using Tree as an example to prove your point. Even after Collins had years of experience (including the minutes) he was not necessarily benefitting the whole team to play out there. Collins is yet another example of a player whom Sloan overrated and played too much because of Collins' demeanor (and maybe work ethic and maybe practice; I don't have evidence of that). You are totally walking into my argument if you are using Collins as an example of Sloan's decisions working well.

It is not laughable. He rated Collins on his willingness/ability to play in the SYSTEM. Of course I think Jerry makes mistakes in his own plan or within his own strategy. He says it. We all know that. Ultimately finding a singular example of a mistake does not change that a strategy of consistency with the core rotation is a good philosophy, one that has been proven successful.

I agree that boozer's dogging it did HURT THE TEAM as you said. However, it is a risk at that point in dealing with Boozer...

LOL. Your example to prove your point (and perhaps cost the team a victory) is when Memo failed?? And you're trying to defend not putting in Fes because he'll hurt the team (when more often than not he didn't)? Think more carefully before you craft your claims; you might be contradicting yourself.

Yes, i believe fully that sloan allowed that Dallas situation to happen. In this case it was his theory that the team would understand that playing one-on-one is not a good idea. That was a single event to alert or wake up the team. If i thought that by playing Fes one game (one quarter), one instance, that it would have the same amount of emphasis on the point of supporting the team, via the team concept then i would agree with you. However i don't see it that way. Ulitmately, i think Fes' skill set, demeanor, ability to keep the system moving was not enough to get him time in games.

And you think that sitting Boozer for 5 minutes is going to "rip the situation apart"--more than his matador defense? Your logic is worse than Sloan's. You and others are so focused on players jackpotting around in practice when that has far less to do with the team's success than players who are jackpotting around in games. .

I do think Boozer was "this close" at any point being a negative distraction significantly larger than any "in-game-strategy" would be as a positive. And this is Boozer not all players. I think no one on the team today is that powerful for example. The reason is also related to having boozer be as happy as possible for trade-bait, etc.

What Sloan does well: instill a sense of work ethic and team play. What Sloan does not do well: adjust lineups and in-game strategies to address what is going on in a given game, and develop players who are not already self motivated (and thus who would probably develop well without him).

Agree. And i think that plan of his:
* Choose consistency of playing time toward maximizing the system is a reasonable trade-off against potential confusion/disapointment of In-Game-Strategy movement
* To not spend time/effort on those who are not self-motivated (which is a pretty common rule of business)

is a pretty sucessful plan.

 

[chemdude1232]

It's as simple as this: Sloan has some metric for what you have to do in order to earn playing time. "Earn" here is the operative word.

It's obvious that Fes was too much of a goofball/didn't take things seriously/[whatever] to earn playing time in Sloan's offense.

Whether or not Fes "deserves" playing time is irrelevant because according to Sloan's metric, Fes did not earn it.

I'm fairly sure Fes knew that practicing hard/taking things seriously is a prerequisite for earning playing time. The blame is squarely on him for not molding himself to Sloan...rather than the blame being on Sloan for not molding to Fes.

 

[InGameStrategy]

It's as simple as this: Sloan has some metric for what you have to do in order to earn playing time. "Earn" here is the operative word.

Yes, "earn" is the operative word. The existing 4/5 rotation did not "earn" to be on the court over the only real 7-footer and center that the Jazz had. And when Fes was on the court, he "earned" more time than he was given.

It's obvious that Fes was too much of a goofball/didn't take things seriously/[whatever] to earn playing time in Sloan's offense.

It's obvious that Fes was not a goofball on the court, which has a higher correlation with future performance.

Whether or not Fes "deserves" playing time is irrelevant because according to Sloan's metric, Fes did not earn it.

Yes, and that is why Sloan's system evaluation was flawed. It hasn't been flawed just for Fesenko, though; it's been flawed for playing the likes of Milt Palacio, Jarron Colins and (at times) Matt Harpring too much, and it's been flawed for not giving players enough time to develop on the court.

I'm fairly sure Fes knew that practicing hard/taking things seriously is a prerequisite for earning playing time. The blame is squarely on him for not molding himself to Sloan...rather than the blame being on Sloan for not molding to Fes.

No, because Fes had shown on the court to be superior to the defensive garbage that was the alternative.

 

[chemdude1232]

Whether his system is flawed or not is, at least to me, irrelevant. He's the coach and, in the eyes of ownership, is much higher on the pecking order than the players. It's his decision regardless of whether what he does is fundamentally right or wrong.

A simplified analogy is to a business. If you know that wearing a tie will impress your boss and you refuse to wear one, then complaining about not getting a promotion is meaningless.

How did he show on the court to be superior? He's a foul machine who (potentially) could send Gasol or Dwight or Perkins to the line 6 times a night. That's a potential 12 point swing. He could temper his propensity for fouling by taking practice more seriously, listening to the coaches, etc. Without more robust evidence, I think we have to assume that he was being benched for a very good reason, and I am inclined to believe this is the case.