jazz identity under Corbin

[Nate505]

Jerry failed to adjust his defense to the changing NBA. What I hope Corbin does is change the defense to adjust to the modern NBA. We need to defend the 3 and we need to stop double teaming every single guy who gets the ball in the post. If the guy you are playing can not stop Matt Bonner (and a multitude of others) from scoring in post position maybe he should not be playing.

I agree 100%. Or at least start defending the 3 point line and worry about the guy in the post when a team starts going buck wild at the 3 point line. I don't feel like doing the math, but intuitively it seems like a team shooting 40% from 3 point land and 55% from 2 point land is statistically better off firing 3s.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I agree 100%. Or at least start defending the 3 point line and worry about the guy in the post when a team starts going buck wild at the 3 point line. I don't feel like doing the math, but intuitively it seems like a team shooting 40% from 3 point land and 55% from 2 point land is statistically better off firing 3s.

40% from 3 = 60% from 2.
33% from 3 = 50% from 2.

There is a very solid logic to using the 3 as more than a release valve for interior scoring. Especially when that makes interior scoring even more difficult to defend. Since your most efficient points come from the paint, the 3-point line, and the free throw line, it only makes sense to basically erase mid-range 2's from the offense and leave that to a ballhandler in tough situations. That curl shot is pretty, but it doesn't make a ton of sense unless you're hitting on a silly percentage (50%+).

 

[NotDeadYet]

1. Lenny Wilkins was a very defensive-minded coach. Offensively, he liked to push the ball up-court when possible. Coached in 2 NBA finals I'm aware of with the old Supersonics; 1-1.
2. Jerry Sloan did NOT like changing his lineup for ANY reason. The bad side of that is when guys weren't playing D, he cast a blind eye...
3. Part of the lack of adjusting D to the new rules may be the Jazz offense is so complex, coupled with the influx of new players, that they didn't have much time to practice D or focus on it. Spent most of their time getting the Offense 'right', and Jerry was always hard to please...

 

[NotDeadYet]

A major factor in the growth of the 3-point shot is the increase in the number of really LONG, QUICK, AND AGILE athletes in the NBA over the last 10 years. That makes it easier for them to effectively defend the 2, so the 3 obviously gets the shooter a bit more room to get his shot off.

 

[vj_74]

Thibodeu got a lot out of Korver and Boozer .

No he didnt. You did a pretty poor job of defending Sloan, if that was your intention, by making the above statement. Thibodeau had all sorts of problems with Booz and Korver right till the end. You just cannot turn players like that into great defenders suddenly.

How did Dallas suddenly improve into a better defensive team? Hmm..having a healthy Chandler who can do what he does when he is healthy doesnt hurt at all. Kidd and Stevenson were already known to be more than adequate individual defenders. Butler, when healthy is tough as nails. Marion is'nt bad at all either. Ironically, Nowitzki was the one weak link on defense, but he has improved a bit over the years in that department, has atleast become a good team defender even if he isnt a great individual defender.

Bottomline: You can have Larry Brown as the head coach, with Sloan and Thobodeau as his assistants and your defense will still be crap most of the times if your main big men are Boozer and Al and Memo. Lets not forget that Deron was'nt great at dribble penetration defense either. And Miles, the less said the better.

 

[InGameStrategy]

No he didnt. You did a pretty poor job of defending Sloan, if that was your intention, by making the above statement. Thibodeau had all sorts of problems with Booz and Korver right till the end. You just cannot turn players like that into great defenders suddenly.

The key difference is that Thibodeau was willing to bench Boozer for his defensive lapses, as the following quote suggests.

WSCR host Dan Bernstein has a real nice post today at CBSChicago, where he points out that Boozer's been called out for defensive lapses in the past by Jerry Sloan. And yet unlike Sloan, Thibodeau didn't explicitly let it be known publicly that's why Boozer was benched (going instead with some offensive scheme reason). That's likely a good thing not to sell him out to the media, but either way it does underscore how Boozer may be set in his ways by this point in his career, and if Sloan couldn't get through to him there's little such 'message' will do.
https://www.blogabull.com/2011/1/6/1919895/more-on-thibodeau-and-boozer

Thibodeau was even accused of losing a game on account of benching CB at the end of a game.

After the game, Thibodeau seemed flustered to explain why Boozer wasn't on the floor, without selling him out for poor defense. Thibodeau settled on the idea that for most of the time, the Nets were playing small and utilizing a zone that required more shooters on the floor, and that Luol Deng could play the "four" in that situation. But that doesn't explain why he wasn't on the floor in the final few minutes.
https://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/columns/story?columnist=greenberg_jon&id=5996420

Whether Boozer would've responded to the benching is not essential (although he did step up his defense, for whatever reason (contract talks, perhaps?) in multiple games toward the end of his last season in Utah). There were other combinations--namely, pairing a center with Millsap (or even Boozer) that had shown more effectiveness at times. Sloan was so rigid that he wasn't even able to see that, even if it would also serve as a lesson to C-Booze that his playing time is not guaranteed.

While other players (CJ, etc.) would be benched at the drop of a hat, Boozer got almost a completely free pass, even though he played at near 100% on offense but only 80%ish on defense.

Thus, Sloan's departure was fully justified--only that it should've happened one to five years earlier, when the likes of Rick Carlisle and Tom Thibodeau were available to be hired.

 

[colton]

40% from 3 = 60% from 2.
33% from 3 = 50% from 2.

That's not quite a fair statement, because 2 pt shots are fouled at a much higher rate than 3 pt shots--particularly if you're talking about inside shots.

 

[vj_74]

The key difference is that Thibodeau was willing to bench Boozer for his defensive lapses, as the following quote suggests.


Thibodeau was even accused of losing a game on account of benching CB at the end of a game.

Whether Boozer would've responded to the benching is not essential (although he did step up his defense, for whatever reason (contract talks, perhaps?) in multiple games toward the end of his last season in Utah). There were other combinations--namely, pairing a center with Millsap (or even Boozer) that had shown more effectiveness at times. Sloan was so rigid that he wasn't even able to see that, even if it would also serve as a lesson to C-Booze that his playing time is not guaranteed.

While other players (CJ, etc.) would be benched at the drop of a hat, Boozer got almost a completely free pass, even though he played at near 100% on offense but only 80%ish on defense.

Thus, Sloan's departure was fully justified--only that it should've happened one to five years earlier, when the likes of Rick Carlisle and Tom Thibodeau were available to be hired.

blah blah blah..you are back with the usual crap. The fact is Sloan overachieved with this bunch. He didnt have a center even remotely as physical or good as Noah was(If you think he sould have played Fesenko or Elson more, I can only laugh at you). Nor did he have options like Gibson if he had to bench Boozer. Jazz ran most of their offense thru Boozer too, by the way, unlike in Chicago where you had a good perimeter player like Deng(instead of Fragilenko or Chucker Smiles) and Rose to carry the offense, when Boozer's *** was on the bench. The fact is Brewer, Korver and Boozer are'nt playing any better in Chicago than they were, when they were with the Jazz. Whyt could'nt the great Thibodeau, the panacea for all coaching issues, couldnt do anything about it? The best he could do was bench them occasionally, because he had better options(much like Carlisle had with Chandler and Haywood and Butler). Yay, such coaching genius! I could go on but I wouldnt waste my time arguing with an armchair strategist, who thinks he can look up a few stats at 82games.com and have the NBA coaching all figured out.

Yeah listen y'all, if only idiot Sloan had played Fesenko and Elson more mins while benching Memo and Boozer, Jazz might have won a title or two by now. It is good that we got rid of him. It is a shame that Sloan even got a chance to coach in the first place when we had candidates like Ingamestrategy knocking on the door.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

1. Lenny Wilkins was a very defensive-minded coach. Offensively, he liked to push the ball up-court when possible. Coached in 2 NBA finals I'm aware of with the old Supersonics; 1-1.
2. Jerry Sloan did NOT like changing his lineup for ANY reason. The bad side of that is when guys weren't playing D, he cast a blind eye...
3. Part of the lack of adjusting D to the new rules may be the Jazz offense is so complex, coupled with the influx of new players, that they didn't have much time to practice D or focus on it. Spent most of their time getting the Offense 'right', and Jerry was always hard to please...

How the hell were we suppose to win benching Boozer every game due to bad defense. The jazz with Boozer on the bench still couldn't stop anyone, and the jazz lose offense Sloan was forced to play boozer a ton of minutes. Think about it, Memo and Millsap lineup isn't going to get it done defensively. The only way the jazz could win in the boozer Williams era was to outscore the other team.

The Bulls coach couldn't have gotten that team to play defense. Millsap is undersized and no one else had any desire to play defense. The 90's jazz under Sloan did play defense. We always heard the quote that the jazz took on the mentality of their coach they competed they were at times down right nasty many teams thought they were dirty.

You can't tell me Sloan didn't pay any attention to defense. I blame the players 100%.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Some coaches bench players to get their attention and change the laziness and bad habits .. and it often works.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Some coaches bench players to get their attention and change the laziness and bad habits .. and it often works.

Well it didn't work for the bulls with Boozer. When did he ever play defense even with the benching. My hell how were the jazz going to win if they couldn't score. No one on that team could defend worth a crap exept Ak and Brewer, exept they at times gambled too much which hurt the team defensively at times.

Simply put if the Jazz didn't score the jazz didn't win with or without Boozer.

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

I think teams need a defensive leader and identity and Thibs seems to be able to be that force while having a few players (ie Noah, Gibson etc.) buy in enough that it forces most of the other players to step up and play even if they're not normally defensive players.

Sloan maybe in his younger days could've been both but since he had S&M he didn't need to be the leader as they provided the leadership and Sloan provided the identity. With the recent teams he didn't have the 1 or 3 players to buy in and be that defensive leader that would force the others to pick up their defense.

I also believe to a lesser degree that with the Jazz' D did need to be tweaked a bit to adjust for the 3pt a line but we did see Sloan try a little zone the past couple of years.