What's new
By:

We need to pick our rotation.

I think Millsap's increased effectiveness is directly attributable to the fact that he's playing less minutes. Same could be said of Jefferson.

The Jazz lost many games in the 4th quarter last year because their front line was spent the last 5 minutes of the game. Depth is clearly a reason for this team's success. I'm not sure why we'd want to change that.
 
I think the OP is very wrong.
One thing i hated about sloan was that he had a set rotation... didn't matter who was playing good or bad.
Player "x" could make 4 shots in a row and be playing great and have a good rythm and then he would get taken out of the game for player "y" because it is his "time" to come out.
I dont think having a set rotation is a good thing. Then players know that they will get thier minutes no matter if they play good or bad, so there is no incentive.
Also the players left out of the rotation have no incentive to play hard because they know they will not be able to earn any minutes because the rotations are "set"
 
fishonjazz said:
I think the OP is very wrong.
One thing i hated about sloan was that he had a set rotation... didn't matter who was playing good or bad.
Player "x" could make 4 shots in a row and be playing great and have a good rythm and then he would get taken out of the game for player "y" because it is his "time" to come out.
I dont think having a set rotation is a good thing. Then players know that they will get thier minutes no matter if they play good or bad, so there is no incentive.
Also the players left out of the rotation have no incentive to play hard because they know they will not be able to earn any minutes because the rotations are "set"
Click to expand...

I hate set rotations, for sure. I also hate playing more than around 9 guys .. but choose your players based on their effectiveness during each game.
 
Dumb, dumb idea. Our biggest strength is depth and that all our players are able to contribute.
 
PKM said:
I hate set rotations, for sure. I also hate playing more than around 9 guys .. but choose your players based on their effectiveness during each game.
Click to expand...

This is probably about right.
 
We have times where we are going to be playing 6 games in 9 days. We have to play a large amount of guys because you want to keep your players fresh for the back end of back-backs or 3rd game in 4 nights type of games. Also helps reduce risk of injury to players.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
We have times where we are going to be playing 6 games in 9 days. We have to play a large amount of guys because you want to keep your players fresh for the back end of back-backs or 3rd game in 4 nights type of games. Also helps reduce risk of injury to players.
Click to expand...

Agree. I just think 9 main guys getting the minutes. Any others are filler minutes to save legs.
 
udflyer said:
No. For the sake of the Jazz, a 8/9 rotation will develop a better team. None of us see practice and off hour effort. We do seem games which need to be a factor. But when you are playing 10/11 guys within minutes of each other, I do not think you develop whomever you want. We re on a path of being average.

Use our depth for rest nights, injuries, foul trouble.

I've seen this play out in the college Ranks. I am an alumni from the University of Dayton (hence udflyer name) and our last ball coach (Brian Gregory) did the same thing. He played very deep with the philosophy of wearing teams down and keeping players fresh. We always ended up being average or a tick above average, thankfully he is no longer our coach this year and we are back to normal coach, rotation.

I do like Hayward, but I do not know all the facts to know if he has earned where he is at. If you want my Honest opinion, Hayward is so young and came from such a small town, he needs a situation that is more stable.
Just my opinion as to why he is not flourishing. Maybe he is too insecure, but he needs a coach that says "You are my guy" and sticks with him a bit longer than a Handful of games. It is clear he has the shortest leash, by far, and I would not play well in that scenario either, human nature. There is more to coaching than X & O's. That is why Phil Jackson was unreal, he knew the psychology of the game.

I almost think of Hayward like ALex Smith on the 49ers. When he constantly had a short leash, being nit picked he was horrible as a #1 pick. When JimH became their coach this year, he changed the entire psyche of the team.
He told Alex he was the man and Smith play great all year. Same Player. Not saying Hayward shouldn't be tougher, yadi yadi yadi, but he is who he is (IMO).

As a business man, I would actually trade Hayward now because I think he has a lot more trade value now, before the end of the 3rd year. (which I believe he is now guaranteed through).
Hayward will not flourish in this type of rotation / system IMO. Not saying it is right, but my feel.

I heard KOC last nite on KFAN saying he likes Haywards D a lot but he is Jeckly/Hide on offense and needs to be more aggressive. Yet when he takes an aggressive/early shot, he gets up out of his seat screaming and Hayward is pulled with 6 minutes left in the 3rd (few games ago)


Again, for the Jazz's team sake (no names) DEVELOP your top 8/9 if we want to be champions.
Click to expand...
So much bull **** here it's hard to know where to start. Maybe the part where you compare Hayward to the #1 pick in a draft that had no help, no stability, and bad coaching. I don't think I need to say much more.

Let me help. You're here because you're a Hayward homer, cut and dry.

Here's another QB comparison since you're so fond of them. You're Jake Heaps' wife; you'd rather see your guy play and fail then see the team he's on win despite/because he's not playing.
 
franklin said:
Hayward has started every single game and is averaging 26 minutes per outing.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Hayward - whether he has really earned it in this season or not - has been given more opportunity than everyone besides Millsap and Jefferson. Literally, Hayward has played the 3rd most minutes on the team.

And for the record, I believe in development and believe Hayward needs his chances. But to say he isn't getting them and that he's being dogged on somehow (despite shooting <40/30/75 as the team's supposed dead-eye) is pure homer fantasy.
 
For years we complain about Sloan's inflexibility in substitutions, and now we want to re-create that scenario? Corbin hasn't been perfect in his playing time distribution, but his willingness to reward good play and bench poor play has been a breath of fresh air in addition to being effective.

Who cares if individual play isn't consistent from game to game, as long as the team's is.
 
Going less deep in the depth chart is statistically a good idea. You are playing your better players more. Additionally, getting the the team members to play at their maximum as a team is best when you reduce the number of the rotation. (More time together.) But there are other factors to consider. 1) maybe for this particular set of players the quality of player is not that different as you reach down to the 7-12th players. Therefore 'fresh legs' outweighs improvement gained by going up the depth chart - AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON. 2) This is an abnormal season schedule. Fresh legs has more value than it has in the past. (Count as part of the 'fresh legs' theory is fewer injuries.) 3) This is also a particular year in that the Jazz are at a rebuilding crossroads. It is important to get an accurate feel for how good the crop of youngsters are in order to make a good business decision with the new and (relatively) old players. For example, It is very unclear to me that Kanter will be better than Jefferson. By the end of the year, it could be (hopefully) more clear. Who can we keep, and at what value. who will demand $15M/yr etc, etc.

Set rotations have worked quite well before. But we could use similar logic above to see that when you have a Stockton and Malone, certain generalities can be thrown out the window.
 
I redid harcher's post with my corrections:


Going less deep in the depth chart is statistically a neutral idea.

For this particular set of players the quality of player is not that different as you reach down to the 7-12th players. Therefore 'fresh legs' outweighs improvement gained by going up the depth chart, especially with this season's schedules.

It is important to play the youngsters.

Set rotations have failed quite often before.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this team is we have two complete 6-deep teams within the team.
We have a veteran squad in:
Harris
Raja
CJ
Howard
Millsap
Jefferson

And we have a young, unproven, but exciting team with a veteran PG in
Watson
Burks
Hayward
Evans
Favors
Kanter

All of these players have earned playtime (perhaps with the exception of Evans), and the mix of the two has provided some great wins. There's no question that at some point things will need to be mixed up, but I think Corbin has done a phenomenal job in balancing the present with the future. Once the young team has developed, nearly all the veteran pieces become available and marketable because they have been productive. If you don't play the vets, you don't have any pieces to trade, and if you played only youngsters, we'd have a crappy team on our hands and possibly develop a losing attitude. Again, Corbin has been amazing.
 
It's obvious that Hayward's problem is that he isn't getting enough minutes, opportunities, confidence from coaches, or whatever ridiculous and thinly veiled point that this thread is positing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top