Seeing AL Objectively - SLCdunk article

[pickledXgrandma]

WHile I am now on the side of trading Al or Sap, either one, to better help the team going forward, Big Al was easily the number 1 reason we made the playoffs last year. Easliy the most consistent and productive player. Not even close really. To say other wise is silly and just points out blind hate. You dont need to want him on the team to admit that.
Yes, it is better for the Jazz to move him for the betterment of the young guys moving forward and the team as a whole, but when you say stupid **** like that, everything else you say means less, if anything.

Easily the number one reason we made the playoffs? Come on man. We made the playoffs because of Houston's collapse. There is a reason the guy is always on losing teams. I guarantee if we sub Al out for the whole season and distribute his minutes between Favors and Kanter, we have a better record. Defense is so underrated on this board. And that's what Favors and Kanter brings.

 

[Deleted member 365]

THIS is exactly why i'm ready to be done with al. he doesn't win games for us. if we want a guy who will put up nice stats but never win us games, there are much cheaper guys than al's 15M.

i went back and looked at every game we lost this past season despite being in the contest in the 4th quarter. winnable losses, in other words, that we coughed up late. you know how al performed in those fourth quarters? 3.6 points and 2.7 rebounds in each of those 4th quarters (&OTs) on 25/73 shooting (34%). the sad part is, those numbers were IMPROVED from when i did the same study in mid february.

in the same exact fourth quarters & OTs, paul took virtually the same number of attempts but produced 5.8 points on nearly 50% shooting (37/80). anybody who knows what happens to the average NBA player's shot percentage during crunch time knows how impressive it is that even in these clutch battles, paul is 3 makes off of 50%. so why on earth didn't more of those possessions go to paul? seven of the games i am referring to were decided by 4 points or less, so go to a more effective stretch scorer for just a couple extra buckets and the jazz could have been 43-23 last season. but instead, we kept going to a guy who was 34% when it mattered most.

as ineffective as the give-ball-to-al-and-watch strategy is over the course of the game, it's even WORSE as a mechanism for stretch basket-making.

Game, set, match...

last year, my least favorite feeling during the game was that sense that invaded my body when Al was automatically subbed in with 6 minutes left. ****.

You weren't the only one who experienced that sick feeling...

 

[Hotdog]

Great post NBA nerd.


Ughhhhhh. I wish this Al nightmare would just end.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Great post NBA nerd.


Ughhhhhh. I wish this Al nightmare would just end.

Maybe Al will accept a bench role?

It seems more and more plausible as I watch his interviews.

 

[pickledXgrandma]

Maybe Al will accept a bench role?

It seems more and more plausible as I watch his interviews.

This post shows your understanding of basketball and players.

You think he would accept a bench role at the age where basketball players are entering their prime? No.
You think a ball hog thats making 14 million this next year will accept a bench role? No.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

This post shows your understanding of basketball and players.

You think he would accept a bench role at the age where basketball players are entering their prime? No.
You think a ball hog thats making 14 million this next year will accept a bench role? No.

It doesn't matter anyway.
The Jazz know they need Big Al's length to contend in the western conference.
Whereas Millsap is going to want more money than we can offer if we want to keep Favors, Hayward, Burks, and Kanter all in tact over the next 4 to 5 years.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Benching Al would murder any market value he has left at LEAST.

 

[One Brow]

i went back and looked at every game we lost this past season despite being in the contest in the 4th quarter. winnable losses, in other words, that we coughed up late. you know how al performed in those fourth quarters? 3.6 points and 2.7 rebounds in each of those 4th quarters (&OTs) on 25/73 shooting (34%). the sad part is, those numbers were IMPROVED from when i did the same study in mid february.

in the same exact fourth quarters & OTs, paul took virtually the same number of attempts but produced 5.8 points on nearly 50% shooting (37/80). anybody who knows what happens to the average NBA player's shot percentage during crunch time knows how impressive it is that even in these clutch battles, paul is 3 makes off of 50%. so why on earth didn't more of those possessions go to paul? seven of the games i am referring to were decided by 4 points or less, so go to a more effective stretch scorer for just a couple extra buckets and the jazz could have been 43-23 last season. but instead, we kept going to a guy who was 34% when it mattered most.

So your point is that when Jefferson has a bad game, we lose, and when Millsap has a good game, we still regularly lose. Somehow, this is an argument against Jefferson?

 

[theNBAnerd]

So your point is that when Jefferson has a bad game, we lose, and when Millsap has a good game, we still regularly lose. Somehow, this is an argument against Jefferson?

umm, no... and that is straw man at its finest. attack the misstated oversimplification of my point because it's easier than responding to my actual point.

my point is not what you just said... my point is that in winnable games against good teams, al disappears and paul plays big. and yet we continue to use possessions on al.

if we look at just the 7 games that were decided by 4 points or less, al was 12-for-34 (35%) in those 4th quarters and overtimes. paul was 21-for-38 (55%). a 2,000 basis point difference!! and yet their attempts in those games were virtually equal, and i'm asking why. if we include the three additional games where the margin was 5 points, al's percentage dips further to 14-for-43 (32.5%) on an average of 4.8 attempts, while paul was 27-for-50 (54%) on 5 attempts.

that's 10 games we easily could have won by diverting a few of al's possessions to paul, flip those 10 and we would have been a .700 team. flip half of them and we'd have been tied for the 3rd seed. so let's decide together... do we want to keep being an 8th seed, or do we want to join the western conference elite?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

umm, no... and that is straw man at its finest. attack the misstated oversimplification of my point because it's easier than responding to my actual point.

my point is not what you just said... my point is that in winnable games against good teams, al disappears and paul plays big. and yet we continue to use possessions on al.

if we look at just the 7 games that were decided by 4 points or less, al was 12-for-34 (35%) in those 4th quarters and overtimes. paul was 21-for-38 (55%). a 2,000 basis point difference!! and yet their attempts in those games were virtually equal, and i'm asking why. if we include the three additional games where the margin was 5 points, al's percentage dips further to 14-for-43 (32.5%) on an average of 4.8 attempts, while paul was 27-for-50 (54%) on 5 attempts.

that's 10 games we easily could have won by diverting a few of al's possessions to paul, flip those 10 and we would have been a .700 team. flip half of them and we'd have been tied for the 3rd seed. so let's decide together... do we want to keep being an 8th seed, or do we want to join the western conference elite?

What One Brow is saying is that in close games the Jazz lose, Jefferson shot poorly, while Millsap shot well. You did not provide the same stats on close games the Jazz won. If Jefferson shot well in those games the Jazz won, and Millsap shot the same percentage, than Jefferson has much more influence on a game than Millsap. You have to provide both sides of the coin if you're going to make an evaluation of that coin.

 

[One Brow]

umm, no... and that is straw man at its finest. attack the misstated oversimplification of my point because it's easier than responding to my actual point.

my point is not what you just said... my point is that in winnable games against good teams, al disappears and paul plays big. and yet we continue to use possessions on al.

if we look at just the 7 games that were decided by 4 points or less, al was 12-for-34 (35%) in those 4th quarters and overtimes. paul was 21-for-38 (55%).

These were just games we lost, as I understand you.

that's 10 games we easily could have won by diverting a few of al's possessions to paul,

It's just that simple? Post up Millsap like we did Jefferson? Run the same plays for Millsap that we ran all game? By your own numbers, Millsap was already taking more shots than Jefferson. Can he keep his percentages up is we focus the offense on Millsap? Can you know ahead of time, five minutes before game end, who is going to perform in this particular fourth quarter?

How about the other games we went to Jefferson when he was having a good night and Millsap an off night? Does Millsap get those shots too? How many games do we drop as a result of that?

Again, if Jefferson is doing well in the close games that we win, and poorly in the close games we lose, while this does not apply to Millsap, what does that say about which player makes a bigger impact?

 

[theNBAnerd]

These were just games we lost, as I understand you.

yes, the 7-10 games we let slip away that were the most winnable.

It's just that simple? Post up Millsap like we did Jefferson? Run the same plays for Millsap that we ran all game? By your own numbers, Millsap was already taking more shots than Jefferson. Can he keep his percentages up is we focus the offense on Millsap? Can you know ahead of time, five minutes before game end, who is going to perform in this particular fourth quarter?

umm, millsap was taking 5.0 shots per 4th/OT, jefferson was taking 4.8. and part of that is inflated because the one game where millsap played and jefferson didn't, there was an extra period that more than accounts for the extra 0.2 attempts in paul's average. take that game out and paul's average is 4.6, al's is 4.8. either way, the difference is 0.2, which is statistically negligible. they are taking basically the same number of attempts.

also, if you look carefully, you'll see that i never said the solution is to simply "post up millsap like we did jefferson." to wit, the whole advantage to millsap that makes him more offensively efficient and useful is that he can score in a variety of ways, not just camped out on the low left block holding the ball.

How about the other games we went to Jefferson when he was having a good night and Millsap an off night? Does Millsap get those shots too? How many games do we drop as a result of that?

show me ONE example of a game against a good team where al was the reason we survived down the stretch.

in all fairness, i HAVE meant do that other half of this study, i just haven't had a chance to yet. my first priority was to finish out the rest of the season with the "winnable losses" sample, but i fully recognize that there's another half of this argument. i just honestly can't think of many games where al has put the team on his back -- ok, washington maybe or charlotte. against playoff teams? i honestly can't think of one.

Again, if Jefferson is doing well in the close games that we win, and poorly in the close games we lose, while this does not apply to Millsap, what does that say about which player makes a bigger impact?

we're looking at it from different angles. you're saying (if i understand you correctly) al is a bigger variable so him playing well should be a bigger priority. i'm saying al is a bigger variable so why are we depending on him? let's hitch our cart to the guy who has a consistent history of excellent play in close games against good teams instead of a guy who shuts down in those situations, and does so in a way that makes it hard for anybody else to get involved, too.