What's new

si article "Can Millsap play SF?"

28 games is too little to prove (or disprove) a player, ...

Some day, the Jazz coaching staff will finally figure out that, to be doing their job correctly, they need to play every unltalented young player a huge number of minutes, so that we can see how really ineffective they are with those minutes. When they do that, we know they will be doing a good job.
 
Some day, the Jazz coaching staff will finally figure out that, to be doing their job correctly, they need to play every unltalented young player a huge number of minutes, so that we can see how really ineffective they are with those minutes. When they do that, we know they will be doing a good job.

You have summarized 90% of IGS's 1000+ posts in 2 sentences. Rep-worthy post if I've ever seen one.
 
Some day, the Jazz coaching staff will finally figure out that, to be doing their job correctly, they need to play every unltalented young player a huge number of minutes, so that we can see how really ineffective they are with those minutes. When they do that, we know they will be doing a good job.

<laugh>
 
Some day, the Jazz coaching staff will finally figure out that, to be doing their job correctly, they need to play every unltalented young player a huge number of minutes, so that we can see how really ineffective they are with those minutes. When they do that, we know they will be doing a good job.
You're certainly entitled to think that way, One Brow, if you like.

But I don't.

I, for one, never said that young players--much less "untalented young players"--should play "a huge number of minutes", so that view is on you (or your feeble attempt at sarcasm). The numerous examples that I cite poor development strategy by the coaching staff are based on situations in which these players did perform but then that performance was not further advanced by the coaches in the form of more minutes--even a minimal number of minutes.

Feel free to look for examples of players who can develop in less than 10 MPG. From superstars to scrubs, on-court time is essential for development, and the Sloan-led coaching staff has failed repeatedly in allocating minutes. We're talking 10 minutes or so per game on a regular basis, which is usually doable without risking wins.

I also never said that you put them in just to see how ineffective they were. That's part of the flawed thinking (or lack of thinking). A development-oriented coach like Popovich wouldn't think that way. And my numerous examples are based on players who had proven effective in specific situations, and they weren't even used for that.

Then there were other players such as Fisher who were a liability night after night when a young player like Brewer was doing OK but not getting the court time. Except for three-pointers, Fish's shooting was far poorer than Brew's and his defense against SG's wasn't anything to write home to Arkansas about. Even with his poor jump shot, Brewer scored at a higher rate than Fisher and of course logged more rebounds and steals, all in his rookie year. But he got 12 MPG (at least better than the other players I cited) vs. 27 MPG, even when Fish was getting PWNED.

My standard applies to youngins and vets alike: you give 'em enough minimum number of minutes to prove themselves (e.g., 20 or 25 or 30 for starters; 10 or 15 for youngins), and you reward them with more minutes if they do well. Performance-based playing time, and in-game strategy & adjustments (thus the sig). Not coaching out of your azz, Sloan-style.
 
A development-oriented coach like Popovich wouldn't think that way.
Popovich is a development-oriented coach? Seems to me he has a team full of veteran leaders and veteran role players. What mediocre talent has Popovich turned into a solid role player?
 
Popovich is a development-oriented coach? Seems to me he has a team full of veteran leaders and veteran role players. What mediocre talent has Popovich turned into a solid role player?
If you're trying to suggest that Sloan was a better (or even close to similar) coach for development than Popovich, then you have a long walk on the River Walk. (See San Antonio.) While Sloan's development record is a fog, there's no summer John Deere tractor for Popp:
The Spurs' trade for Richard Jefferson was not a great one, and the new contract the Spurs recently gave him could easily be questioned. But he's a player they believe can make a crucial difference for them, and, word has it, is a favorite of coach Gregg Popovich.

But this year, Popovich did something that sounds completely alien. Even though he's a head coach who makes millions and treasures his offseason (when he usually disappears from public life) he personally oversaw the on-court skill development of Jefferson."
https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/20185/gregg-popovich-and-richard-jefferson-work-overtime

Here's your litany of a list of players that Popp has propped.
Greg[g] Popovich has weathered all injuries. He has developed his players. He knows how to utilize and how to make his players their best on the court. Like the Spurs are doing now, everyone is contributing. George Hill and Dejuan Blair would be unknown to us if they were drafted by the Lakers.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110209032103AAE3n6A
In their respective rookie seasons, Blair and Hill logged 18 and 16 minutes. Add to that the rookie seasons of Splitter and Gary Neal at 12 and 21 minutes last year, and you start seeing a pattern highly consistent with my mantra that 10 MPG minimum is necessary for development--or even maintainin'. Imagine that.


Maybe I would've even been better off citing Popovich's protegé, who clearly benefitted from Popp's preaching.
When Thibodeau benched Carlos Boozer after a pathetic defensive game, there were media outlets who felt his decision would backfire on him.

It was predicted everywhere that mutiny would eventually form around the first-year coach and he would rub some players the wrong way.

It's hard to believe that Thibodeau would make such a bold move, especially when he was recently hired.

However, Thibodeau was proving that there is not one single player on this roster who is above this team, and it does not matter what your name is because everyone will be held equally accountable.

The players understood this concept and they all bought into Thibodeau's scheme.

Tough love is the best remedy.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...opovich-deserves-nba-coach-of-the-year/page/3
You really know how to pick your arguments, GVC.
 
Last edited:
Are you comparing Fes and Araujo to Richard Jefferson?
Not in terms of skill, or even peak skill.

But in terms of the role of coaches in developing players (even though RJ was a vet when he was reinvented), and that some coaches are effective at it (and some are not), yes.

You're grasping for straws (which is reminiscent sometimes of Araujo grasping for rebounds ...).
 
I'd say comparing how one coach "develops" a well-rounded, productive veteran player to how another coach develops a fringe player is grasping for straws.

For every George Hill (First Round Pick) and DeJuan Blair (first round talent with injury concerns), you can find a young Jazz man who was drafted later yet given as much or more time (Millsap, Maynor, Collins, Matthews, etc.). You just choose to ignore the examples that don't agree with your world view.

The truth is, Sloan got a lot out of marginal talent during his time in Utah. He also, contrary to popular belief, gave rookies (and other young players) a decent amount of run when they proved they were worthy of it. There are probably good reasons why Jarron Collins, Paul Millsap and Wes Matthews were given more "development" time on the court than Fes ever was.
 
If you're trying to suggest that Sloan was a better (or even close to similar) coach for development than Popovich, then you have a long walk on the River Walk. (See San Antonio.) While Sloan's development record is a fog, there's no summer John Deere tractor for Popp:

Of course he is, he gets maximum efficiency out of the players he got. Deron Williams wouldn't have been the guy he is now if he had worked with Popovich all those years instead. Millsap wouldn't improve himself to a 18 8 guy, he would be another Blair maybe. Even CJ miles wouldn't have improved as much as he did with Sloan (though we can argue still how close he is to his peak)
Only thing would be Koufos maybe, because i had hopes on him but he couldn't find enough playing time in his second year. He played more even in rookie year. So maybe i think it was the player not the coach. But in general i think Sloan is a very good trainer, but Popovich is a better in game coach. He is more flexible and he is a winner. Maybe he gets maximum efficiency out of players playing positions and rotations in the game, but Sloan is a much better player developer for sure
 
Of course he is, he gets maximum efficiency out of the players he got. Deron Williams wouldn't have been the guy he is now if he had worked with Popovich all those years instead. Millsap wouldn't improve himself to a 18 8 guy, he would be another Blair maybe. Even CJ miles wouldn't have improved as much as he did with Sloan (though we can argue still how close he is to his peak)

Only thing would be Koufos maybe, because i had hopes on him but he couldn't find enough playing time in his second year. He played more even in rookie year. So maybe i think it was the player not the coach. But in general i think Sloan is a very good trainer, but Popovich is a better in game coach. He is more flexible and he is a winner. Maybe he gets maximum efficiency out of players playing positions and rotations in the game, but Sloan is a much better player developer for sure
1. I'm not convinced that Sloan's sitting out rookie Deron in favor of Milt Palacio or whoever helped his development, even though DW claimed that it did. IMHO, it only slowed DW's development. Maybe it motivated Deron, but that motivation wouldve originated better from the performance-based playing time that I described. And as the Deron departure showed, the rookie strategy didn't fully reform D-Will's punkiness, and it didn't establish Sloan as the authority. I'm not sure that we know what all of Deron's grievances were, but Deron--for better or for worse--decided to start calling his own plays in defiance of Sloan.
https://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/10/as-jerry-sloan-exits-too-early-deron-williams-better-know-what/

But that was offense. The defense was ignored, because players usually don't like to play defense, and Sloan stopped enforcing it--that is, if he ever did.


2. Millsap is Millsap primarily due to his own motivation, partly with the support of the coaching staff.


3. CJ Miles? LOL. Same Sloan pattern (in stark contrast to Popovich's). A mere 200 minutes in his rookie year--but then again, sometimes CJ deserved to be benched when he wasn't. And CJ was young. But lo and behold, CJ started producing good percentages after he had logged about 600 minutes or so, which is right in line with what my strategy prescribes for a first-year player: 10 MPG for most games (i.e., >60). Just another data point that on-court experience and minimum minutes are essential, no matter whether the player's upside is journeyman or Jordan.


But CJ's Catch-'n'Jack erratic offense was only half the story; neither Sloan nor his successor has enforced defense in Miles. In another way, CJ is a classic example of a Jazzman who got away with not defending, even under Sloan, who didn't enforce defense very well back in the early 21st century but definitely didn't in the last 3 to 5 years or so.


4. "Couldn't find enough playing time" for Koufos? How hard is it when your regular starters at the 4/5 spot could be appropriately nicknamed "Matador" and "Torero", especially when their poor defense sometimes barely compensated for their scoring on the other end, and your first "big" man off the bench was a hard-working and usually effective but often undersized Paperboy?

Backups such as KK easily could accumulate their crucial development time of a minimum of 10 minutes per game, without negatively affecting the outcome of the game, just from the times when Boozer and/or Memo weren't getting it done on the court. You sit the regulars down down for 5 minutes (scheduled or unscheduled) a couple of times per game, and they just might learn to move their feet on D. Just maybe. And you might start getting more than maintenance production out of your backup bigs, which are real centers--not yelping Alaskans or PF Turks in center's clothing.

Promising production is what you got out of Fesenko and Koufos and Araujo alike, multiple times each. However, unlike any true coach, leader, investor, or teacher, the Jazz coaching staff ignored the benefit of developing and reinforcing such success, both physically and psychologically, which could have been done feasibly with carefully selected playing time on a regular basis.

As in 10+ minutes per game.
 
Last edited:
Paul Millsap is now the starting SF (I'm the PF) on "My Player Mode" on 2k12, it's not working out.
 
Back
Top