SI:Conley the pick for breakout star of post all-star

[infection]

Mike is going to be our stretch four. Or at least, he will be outrebounding our 4s from here on out.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Mike is going to be our stretch four. Or at least, he will be outrebounding our 4s from here on out.

I don’t think it’s his fault that the starting lineup doesn’t work as well... I think it is more about what Royce brings to that group and the fact that the playmaking gets diminishing returns.

 

[nateboz]

Sports Illustrated is the onion of sports coverage. Jazz are the 2 seed with him off the floor and the 7 seed with him starting.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[LogGrad98]

The jazz have no shot at a championship unless Conley regains a semblances of last years form. So of course he will start and be given every opportunity to make it work.

this was one of the 0.1% times I was right, we shouldn’t have traded for Conley, but what’s done is done, and the jazz only choice is to start him. I’m not sure both Conley and Clarkson works with both playing together. That’s just my 0.1% opinion

People keep saying that, yet all the evidence points to that being patently false. We have been decidedly better without Conley. Not one single thing in his current level of play nor his integration with the team would indicate that we will be more successful with him than without him. What evidence do you point to that shows that this claim is even close to correct, outside of any stupid argument like "but Conley almost made all Star last year". Because, wtf has Conley done for us lately?

 

[Mongoose]

The idea that Mike was going to make this a championship team was birthed before the clips were fully formed and before LeBron morphed into his former self. The thought that a really small playmaking guard is going to be what takes them down is kinda silly imo. The best version of this team includes Mike playing really well... just like it includes all the key players playing really well. This far for whatever reason it doesn’t seem to be working in a way that “the whole is better than the sum of its parts” ... it’s been kind of the opposite with Joe, Mike, and DM. Roll with it for 5-10 games but don’t be afraid to pivot.

And I might actually pivot and bring Joe off the bench... just in case we plan on moving Mike this summer. Not sure if bringing him off the bench hurts his trade value but the narrative always becomes “he was bad so they benched him” unless it’s Pop doing the benching. Next summer if we keep JC that 30 something million would be better served if we used it on a big wing and backup big. We can’t really get a ton of space but might be able to work an uneven trade, generate some trade exceptions or move him for other pieces...

Kinda sucks but if Mike starting isn’t the best alignment him being a spark plug off the bench could... but now we have JC filling that need... you can have two guys like that but there are some diminishing returns.

gonna be an interesting end of season and offseason.

My thoughts all along... I'm not sure what leads people to believe that Mike was/is the answer. Even if he was playing out of his mind and/or having a career year he's not some missing piece.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

People keep saying that, yet all the evidence points to that being patently false. We have been decidedly better without Conley. Not one single thing in his current level of play nor his integration with the team would indicate that we will be more successful with him than without him. What evidence do you point to that shows that this claim is even close to correct, outside of any stupid argument like "but Conley almost made all Star last year". Because, wtf has Conley done for us lately?

He hasn’t had a chance to integrate due to injuries, though I think him sitting and watching is a blessing in disguise. He’s been better since coming back into the starting lineup. He was pretty good vs Houston, and if he can stay on the court he will make us better with him. I haven’t seen any evidence we are better without other than beating up on a bunch of scrub teams. All evidence of new pg’s coming in and initially struggling is clear, other than G. Hill due to him being a natural fit. We don’t need a prototypical pg, so when a new one comes in they struggle. That’s what happened to start the year. Saying we are better without shows a lack of understanding IMO.

 

[RandyForRubio]

People keep saying that, yet all the evidence points to that being patently false. We have been decidedly better without Conley. Not one single thing in his current level of play nor his integration with the team would indicate that we will be more successful with him than without him. What evidence do you point to that shows that this claim is even close to correct, outside of any stupid argument like "but Conley almost made all Star last year". Because, wtf has Conley done for us lately?

Lately?

The last 4 games he went 20/5/5 on 47/50 shooting splits. That's what he's done for us recently.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

For the record the heat was a better team when one of James or Wade was on the bench in James first season in south beach

 

[LogGrad98]

He hasn’t had a chance to integrate due to injuries, though I think him sitting and watching is a blessing in disguise. He’s been better since coming back into the starting lineup. He was pretty good vs Houston, and if he can stay on the court he will make us better with him. I haven’t seen any evidence we are better without other than beating up on a bunch of scrub teams. All evidence of new pg’s coming in and initially struggling is clear, other than G. Hill due to him being a natural fit. We don’t need a prototypical pg, so when a new one comes in they struggle. That’s what happened to start the year. Saying we are better without shows a lack of understanding IMO.

Saying we are better with him, when all direct evidence points to the contrary, shows more than a lack of understanding, it does an active delusion. Think about this. During the 2 stretches we played the most playoff teams we had Conley and we have the worst record in the league against playoff teams. During the stretch we didn't have Conley we went 19 of 21, and that was not exclusively against scrub teams, and some of those scrub teams have also beaten the clips, bucks, Boston, etc. The fact is the record discrepancy alone is staggering with him on vs off the court. We are worse with him on the floor, that isn't a guess or an opinion, it's actually a fact backed by evidence. You might be of the opinion we can only win with him, but then you are in the game boat as Irving and the other flat-earthers.

Your opinion<<<<<<stats<<<<<<science

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Saying we are better with him, when all direct evidence points to the contrary, shows more than a lack of understanding, it does an active delusion. Think about this. During the 2 stretches we played the most playoff teams we had Conley and we have the worst record in the league against playoff teams. During the stretch we didn't have Conley we went 19 of 21, and that was not exclusively against scrub teams, and some of those scrub teams have also beaten the clips, bucks, Boston, etc. The fact is the record discrepancy alone is staggering with him on vs off the court. We are worse with him on the floor, that isn't a guess or an opinion, it's actually a fact backed by evidence. You might be of the opinion we can only win with him, but then you are in the game boat as Irving and the other flat-earthers.

Your opinion<<<<<<stats<<<<<<science

I just illustrated why that was, even look at the heat when James first arrived. Look what Conley’s done since being put back in the starting lineup. He’s only going to get better from here on out, and if you argue against that, you are obviously rooting against the jazz.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I just illustrated why that was, even look at the heat when James first arrived. Look what Conley’s done since being put back in the starting lineup. He’s only going to get better from here on out, and if you argue against that, you are obviously rooting against the jazz.

He's been and will be better, but how does that translate to winning is the key question. The evidence suggests that the current starting lineup struggles... they may not be offensive struggles... might be defensive issues, but it makes sense to me... you have DM, Mike, Joe who all play with the ball in their hand... Bojan who can play with the ball in his hands a little and Rudy who is low usage but highly efficient. Throw one too many cooks into the kitchen and now Rudy isn't seeing the ball enough or the other ball handlers are under utilized. The Wage Lebron thing made sense to me because neither guy was a great shooter at that point. Our guys are good shooters so they should be better, but they are small with that lineup and they don't get a lot of rebounds/loose balls.

So when you take a super duper low usage guy like Royce, who provides some of the things that lineup needs (defense, length on the wing, rebounding) and replace it with a high usage player that isn't as efficient as your other high usage players then it throws things out of balance. There are ways to limit the starting lineups minutes together, but when you start them you are avoiding you best configuration and using one of your worst configurations... all in hopes that the bad configuration could someday be as good as the already best configuration. Its like me investing $10,000 in a somewhat risky investment that will hopefully someday pay me $10,000.

Run it out for another 5-10 games to get a larger sample, but at some point just trust the ****ing data you have and adjust.

 

[Mongoose]

He's been and will be better, but how does that translate to winning is the key question. The evidence suggests that the current starting lineup struggles... they may not be offensive struggles... might be defensive issues, but it makes sense to me... you have DM, Mike, Joe who all play with the ball in their hand... Bojan who can play with the ball in his hands a little and Rudy who is low usage but highly efficient. Throw one too many cooks into the kitchen and now Rudy isn't seeing the ball enough or the other ball handlers are under utilized. The Wage Lebron thing made sense to me because neither guy was a great shooter at that point. Our guys are good shooters so they should be better, but they are small with that lineup and they don't get a lot of rebounds/loose balls.

So when you take a super duper low usage guy like Royce, who provides some of the things that lineup needs (defense, length on the wing, rebounding) and replace it with a high usage player that isn't as efficient as your other high usage players then it throws things out of balance. There are ways to limit the starting lineups minutes together, but when you start them you are avoiding you best configuration and using one of your worst configurations... all in hopes that the bad configuration could someday be as good as the already best configuration. Its like me investing $10,000 in a somewhat risky investment that will hopefully someday pay me $10,000.

Run it out for another 5-10 games to get a larger sample, but at some point just trust the ****ing data you have and adjust.

I agree completely, (I think most people know that I never wanted Mike and I thought he'd be a mistake, but nevertheless he's here now), but just for the sake of argument what do people think about bringing DM off the bench? Seems like hes had some turnover issues. What data do we have of a Mike, Joe, Bogie, Royce, Rudy lineup? I wouldn't want to bring DM off the bench which is why I never would have gotten Mike to begin with, but DM is a mature guy, he's young, he's got the team first mentality, and I don't think it'd shatter him. He could basically take all the shots he wants with the second unit. I think the jazz are going to have to do to stagger DM and Mike, but if Don would prefer to play more minutes consecutively it might help him out.