GSW Model vs JAZZ Model
- Thread starter ONE LOVE
- Start date
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
This is exactly right. The more minutes you play Kanter, Burks and Favors, the more it will pay in dividends for this season and future seasons. If Big Al and Sap were getting us a lot more wins, then I could see how it would be hard to give these guys a lot of minutes. But that is not happening---and it is obvious our young guys have more talent. We are losing badly and it seems we play better and come back with our young guys in the game.
Treating them like this will ruin their confidence and upside.
It is a no-brainer to play the young guys because they are the future of the franchise if they are as good as we hope they are. Playing guys like Foye is just bad business because no one wants to come to the arena to watch Randy Foye, a guy who most likely won't be here next year. I would be trade both AJ and Millsap along with Foye or Marvin Williams to get a top 5 pick.
My target would be Washington/Charlotte/Kings because they are in need of a lot of veteran talent and their owners do not want to be in the lottery again.
My target would be Washington/Charlotte/Kings because they are in need of a lot of veteran talent and their owners do not want to be in the lottery again.
The reason I chose GSW is that I see a lot of similarities between these 2 teams LAST YEAR in terms of the composition of the teams:
- They both have a similar quality and mix of young players VS Vets as the Jazz
- (Jefferson/Millsap) VS (Bierdrins/Lee)
- Thompson VS Burks - they're 11th and 12th pick last year respectively
If anything you could argue the Jazz has a much MUCH better crop of young players that they can develop (GSW had Curry & Jenkins, but we have Favors, Hayward and Kanter).
Now at this exact time last year both these teams have a decision to make. Do they compete for the 8th spot? Or do they play their young guys and see where the chips fall (picking up a decent player in a loaded draft along the way). And we know what happened.
To be honest I'm not looking so much at the wins/loses this year. I'm looking more at how comfortable their young guys are at playing big minutes, and what better time to evaluate that than last night when the 2 teams meet, exactly 1 year from last year's GSW decision to "tank".
So, if the Warriors had the same records as the Raptors right now, you'd still be making this comparison?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
We really haven't seen what this team can do when healthy. Mo has been out a couple of times. Watson just came back. Favors has missed 5 games and struggled with his foot injury. Just wait until everyone gels. Why the Jazz could actually go on a 3-game winning streak in late January when they have 4 straight home games.
You're assuming Thompson and Jenkins after playing all those minutes last year have not gained any experience at all - which is not realistic.
Moreover, you're assuming getting Harrison Barnes would not make any impact. Again not a realistic assumption.
The combination of Thompson's experience, Barnes' contribution (which is foreseeable) contributed to GSW's success this year.
Don't forget - what GSW has done is EXACTLY what some of us here at JazzFanz have been calling the Jazz to do at exactly this time last year (play young guys to give them experience and see where they fall, and may be pick up a decent player in the process).
So to answer your question: Even if GSW and Jazz have the same record this year (or even of GSW has a slightly worse record) I'd still think GSW will come out ahead next year. Why? Because when Millsap & Jefferson leaves, we'd still be stucked with an inexperience Kanter/Favors/Burks. While GSW again are playing Thompson, Barnes, Curry, etc big minutes this year.
I am not assuming any such thing. I am asking you to explain your assumption that this has been a significant factor for the Warriors this year, when it had not been a facotr in previous years, is not helping the Raptors, etc. I am pointing out that selectiong this years Warriors as your example is cherry-picking.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
OK, I'll attempt to settle this once and for all...
About FT.
OK, I'll attempt to settle this once and for all...
I choose neither...
I'm only interested in the comparison for the past year because:
- we had a group of developing young players
- we were approaching a very deep draft class and you can get a decent player up around the 25th pick
- we were about to lose Millsap & Jefferson anyway, so there is a pressing need to develop young players quickly to fill that void.
- in fact, we could have traded Paul&AL at the dateline for a couple of late round picks & move up. And moving up would have been easier due to the amount of talent late in the draft.
In my opinion all those factors mean that the GSW Strategy (or Toronto or Cleveland, or whatever you want to call it) was more suited to the Jazz than the one we settled on.
Granted it won't work every year, but if there was a year that we should have used it, it would have been last year.
Then, bring Toronto and Cleveland into your original analysis. The only reason I can see for you choosing the Warriors, specifically, is because they have been winning recently, and you wanted to use that as justifrication to promote your preferred development strategy.
also....
Spot on. Also "immediacy bias" -- reacting emotionally to the most recent data and ignoring the longer-term fundamentals/ trends.
Spot on. Also "immediacy bias" -- reacting emotionally to the most recent data and ignoring the longer-term fundamentals/ trends.
Do you know why I didn't bring Toronto or Cleveland into the mix?
Because GSW actually had a decent team that could have contended at least for the 8th seed (which is similar to the Jazz). But for some reason, Curry & Lee conveniently got "injured" and were out for the remainder of the season.
It was GSW's strategy to "suck" for the remainder of the season - and their intention was pretty obvious given that they'll get our pick if they "suck" badly enough. So there is an incentive there. Now I can't say for certain that that's what Toronto or Cleveland did. Why? Because Toronto finished above GSW even though they actually had a worse roster to begin the year with. Cleveland also didn't have nearly as good a roster as GSW to begin the year with. If you want to expand the pool you can include the Hornets which finished the year strong, but lucked out in getting Davis. Bobcats were just bad to begin with too so they didn't even have to "tank".
See most of these teams didn't even have to try to "tank" - they're just bad naturally. That's not the strategy/model I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is a decent team playing bad. With GSW, near the end of the season, Jackson would pull Thompson & Jenkins out of the 4th quarter just because they were playing too well. He was questioned about this by local and National Media at the time - all he could say was, he needs to give other guys "experience".
GSW's strategy was so deliberate, it clearly changed as the season went on. I can't say the same for Toronto, Cleveland, Hornets, Bobcats, etc.
So, playing young players more minutes only improves them if you are deliberately tanking, but not if you need to play them because you don't have any better players?
I guess what I'm saying is the GSW model can be summed up in 1 word: Flexibility.
- They had a decent roster
- They owe us a top 8 pick
- It was a loaded draft class
- They had some young players
So they assessed the situation and were flexible enough to make the most of their situation.
- They got our pick.
- They picked Barnes (who would have been the No. 2 pick in 2011)
- They got Thompson & Jenkins some experience.
All those things had nothing to do with how many W's they get this year. They are assets they can use going forward. They made the most of the cards that were dealt to them.
We didn't.