(or LESS AJ)
In all seriousness, billy, why are so many people talking about the better ball movement, the pace of play, etc .. every time Al doesn't play? I'm not just talking about here, but the office water cooler and stuff. Serious question, btw ..
Do you think everyone has somehow just made this **** up in their heads?
Basketball fans aren't very sophisticated and the game lends itself to wonkish views.
Kanter and Millsap both took 16 shots & it was painfully obvious at times that Corbin was playing the exact same pound it inside game that he would have with Jefferson. The difference with Jefferson is that he's good enough to not have to pass the ball back out and reset his post as Kanter did probably 8-10 times that game.
Put some respeck in my paycheck
Do you think there's validity, or have people just listened to too many others saying the same and they've formed an opinion from such?
I'm asking more than telling because, though the Jazz are my NBA team, I follow them non-stop, I don't break down the games, play by play, like I do the UK games. (just being as transparent as possible)
For the season, 4.8% of Jazz shots are taken by the P&R roll man. In the Raps game, this number was 9.5%, a 98% increase (for intellectual integrity's sake, the ball handler was shooting a lot less than usual).
For the season, 8.2% of Jazz shots are taken by a cutter. In the Raps game, this number was 12.1%, a 48% increase.
For the season, 15.8% of Jazz shots are taken in transition. In the Raps game, this number was 20.7%, a 31% increase.
Yes, I realize this is only one game against a bad team on the road (and no, I don't know the standard deviation for these play types for the Jazz).
I couldn't understand why Toronto didn't keep Val in and give him the ball in the post on every possession when Millsap was playing the 5 with 2 fouls in the 2nd. Wear out the frontline, force Millsap to the bench and Kanter to play even more minutes than he's accustomed to.
It sounds a little dumb to me, but I hear it ALL the time, so I don't just discount it as patently false.
We need a greater sample size.