enchilada_style
Well-Known Member
Rep for being on meds
Derrick Favors now with "Dwight Howard-type shoulders"
- Thread starter Zerol
- Start date
Rep for being on meds
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
With the depth of Utah's frontcourt, nobody "must have" 30 minutes, especially to develop.
A player can develop plenty well with 20 to 25 MPG--or half that much (just more slowly).
Whoever busts his can out there and produces gets >30 minutes. I would put everyone's minimum (including Al's and Paperboy's) below 30 minutes and let every player earn the extra 5 or 10 every night. By halftime or so, a good coach has an idea what's working in a given game.
And no way Favors gets 30+ if Kanter is getting <10 (unless the former is tearing it up or the latter is really stinking it up). We've been through this before with an entitled rotation and time-deprived young bigs; it shouldn't be an issue for Kanter to get double-digit minutes regularly because he has some basic skills already and seems like he has decent work ethic.
If we are talking about future all star players then I think it is just a Favors vs Cousins debate. Davis is a little small and Patterson is a lot small for the PF position. Patterson is listed at 6-9 but is smaller than that. He is more of a Millsap size player and well have the same struggles in the post that Sap has. I like Patterson alot but I don't think he has the potential of a Favors or Cousins. Well have to see how it plays out over the next 3 years.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Quit being a Sally and throw a little sand. And don't apologize (unless you say something really stupid.) It's simple in here. You say certain things, you'll get attacked by the lobbies. You say other things, you get attacked by the other lobbies. Don't overthink it. It is the internet after all.
https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Patrick-Patterson-1225/
Patterson measured at 6'9.25 in shoes dude. I would say he is a pretty average sized PF.
I hold to my original statement that he needs at least 30 minutes per game. What’s the point of giving him another 20 minutes a game over the next season? He is developing yes, but he is already just as good if not better than the other players at his position. Favors was an elite defender on the Jazz via Synergy (although limited sample), and his numbers per 36 min. were comparable to any player on the team, even though he didn’t score quite as much as some. Playing him will not hurt the team in any way. I have posted these numbers already, but these are Howard’s and Favor’s rookie numbers per 36 post All Star game. Favor’s was third overall among rookies for player efficiency per 48 as well.
DH: 15.5, 11.2, 1.1 ast, 1.2 st., 1.9 blk, 2.5 TO, 3.4 fls (33.7 actual minutes)
DF: 14.75, 9.4, 1.4 ast, .9 st., 2.15 blk, 1.8 TO, 5.2 fls (20.2 actual minutes)
Dwight Howard averaged these minutes in his first three years (32, 37, 38). Let’s say we play Favors 20, 25, 30 over his first three years. This is how many more minutes Dwight will have played: 1,033 (20), (25) 984, (30) 656 for a total of 2,673 more minutes over three years. That’s the equivalent of more than a full season at 30 minutes per game (2460). Favors has 4 more years on his contract, we should not fuss about by giving him less minutes. He has the numbers and skill to be an elite player. He needs the minutes, period. Here is an article that discusses the dangers of not jumping into rebuild mode and trying to pussyfoot around. Although I don’t agree with everything the article says, it demonstrates that the result of pussyfooting equals perpetual mediocrity.https://www.slcdunk.com/2011/4/15/2113035/lessons-from-the-past-eyes-to-the-future
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
It appears that you did not catch the crux of my post. Let me spell it out to you again.
1. Giving Favors (or any other player) extra minutes should not come at the expense of the development of another player who is also potentially crucial to the team's success (i.e., Kanter, who is a legit center).
2. It is very possible to allocate the scarce resource of playing time across players so that everyone develops. By contrast, giving Favors >30 minutes and Kanter <10 minutes would not likely optimize the development of these two players.
3. An underused method of deciding the playing time of these players (and every other Jazz player) is performance. The individual players and combination of players that is most effective at any given time toward winning should be playing the most, while also allowing for the development of the younger players (e.g., Burks, Kanter, Favors) and hopefully not sacrificing (many) wins in the process.
OK, then, he doesn't need as many minutes to develop <<rolleyes>>
Unless it's taking away crucial development minutes from other players, namely Kanter.
Your comparison of Dwight vs. Derrick is exactly why it is optimal to make sure all key players get the development minutes: Orlando Magic is Exhibit A of a one-dimensional team with a superstar (or two) but nobody else around them. Meanwhile, Utah's best way to maximize its team is to have a deep, seasoned bench, especially given that attracting superstars to Utah is hard to do. This maxim is something that Sloan either ignored or wasn't aware of, and it hurt the Jazz especially in his last years before, um, retiring.
Assuming that the outcome of the game is the same, the incremental benefit of Kanter getting 10 minutes in a game instead of 5 (or even 15 minutes instead of 10) is higher than the incremental benefit of Favors getting 35 minutes instead of 30 (or 30 minutes instead of 25).
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Screw that. I don't belong to the lobbies OR the other lobbies. Nobody tells ME when to attack. I attack at random.
What a stupid thing to say. Now apologize.
Obviously I love PPat .. he's an all time favorite wildcat of most every fan. Having said that, he lacks explosiveness at his height (lack of). He's not undersized, but he also doesn't have the athleticism/bounce to compete at a high level, imo. He'll be in the league a long time, though, because of his undeniable intangibles (extreme work ethic, great teammate, hard-nosed, etc.). I actually like the Millsap comparison for Patterson.
I'm sure ancient orators like Demosthenes and Cicero are impressed with the modern internet debating styles and comments, such as "rolleyes". And the jury must be on the edge of their seat with this kind of showmanship. Whatever floats one's boat. I do recommend reading that article I sent you, as this pertains to your point about "The individual players and combination of players that is most effective at any given time toward winning". This is what I referred to as pussyfooting. If we win 3 more games because of this strategy, but only play favors 25 minutes; we have failed. This team is not winning anything by developing Millsap. And yes Millsap is still developing. I'm not sure what the logic behind statement is, "OK, then, he doesn't need as many minutes to develop". The logic is once a person is no longer developing they shouldn't get minutes? I assume you didn't mean this?
You have good and valid points (1-3). What seems to be the assumption is that Favors and Kanter are competing for playing time. We already have Millsap and Jefferson penciled in for minutes. My point is that we should already have Favors penciled in for minutes--not Millsap and Jefferson (again the article). Who knows with Kanter. He seemed promising, but we'll see. If Kanter shows that he can step right in and is the future, then we should trade one of our current big men or put Millsap permanently at the 3 and let him try to work this out over a season because his future with the Jazz is not at PF. If he can't do it, then trade him. If Kanter sucks in both adjusted and real-time stats and general play then you cut his minutes. No one on the team should be given anything, but what are we waiting to see with Favors. We already know he lives in the gym, he's one of the most athletic bigmen in the league, adjusted and advanced statistics show he's effective etc. If we want to go down the path of lets see if we can win 1 1/2 more games with our most experienced team, then cut Favors' numbers and lets play Paul and Al 35 and 35 at the center and PF position and let Favors and Kanter develop slow enough so that they are just peaking when they're coming out of their contracts and are bitter that they received miniscule playing time. Imagine if OKC would have tried to play a few veterans over KD just to win 3-5 more games a year, would KD have developed the confidence and leadership he now has. Maybe he would have, but Favors was tossed about in trade rumors. He didn't really have a secure setting and future. He received far less minutes than D. Cousins, who shot an abysmal %, turned the ball over like no other, and generally made bone-headed play after another. But this increases Cousins confidence, lessens the learning curve, and makes him more content with his contribution and the team. It comes down to a choice in the future of the team. Pussyfoot or not.
As long as we get to see some basketball ... I'm quickly losing care as to what it is.