Was Fes' Play Last Night An Aberration?

[One Brow]

You don't have to be a physiologist to look at Fesenko and see has at least a modestly better build than Osterblob, even before he lost the weight.

I recall Ostertag having a thicker trunk, thinner but longer arms. For defensive purposes, that would seem to be superior (you are harder to move and get more height without leaving the floor). Less so for offensive pruposes.

His free-throw shooting was not good, but this is a combination of off-court practice and on-court experience;

You think on-court experience is needed for good free-throw shooting? The nature of a free throw changes somehow when you are in a game?

It's not a stretch to argue that Fesenko's defensive footwork is already better than Okur's and Boozer's, and he has room to improve.

I disagree on Okur. He's not mobile, but he has good defensive footwork, which is why he is a good post defender.

He's fouling too much, but this is one of the clearest examples of a skill that is best developed in games than in practice, which falls far short from simulateing a real game.

I agree on this ability. Once you are in good enough condition to attempt proper blocks, the skill is developed in-game, from what I can tell.

Yet another example that while some off-court development is usually necessary, there is no substitute for in-game experience.)

No one has claimed you can "substitute" for in-game experience, rather, there is disagrement on what in-game experience does.

Well, it's usually your job to prove your point, and I've noticed that you provide very few examples, unlike me, probably because you have none.

Fesenko *is* a prime example. He came back having lost some 8% of his body wieight, almost all of it fat. He didn't do that on-court. Now that he can run for more than 5-10 minutes without gasping, he's suddenly showing off some of the skills he picked up.

The same thing happened to Okur, Millsap, Williams, and Brewer in their second year. each was considerably better at the start of their second year compared to the end of the first. They did not play significant on-court minutes in the summer.

... practice falls short of in-game experience ...

So, you're saying apples fall short of being oranges? Since you pick up different things in practice than in games, each "falls short" of doing what is best done in the other.

I continue to add to the evidence that in-game experience is a necessary condition for player development.

Who disagrees with that?

You must absolutely have practice before playing time but once you get to a certain point, the ONLY way you continue to progress is to get playing time against other players.

While the "ONLY" is probably just hyperbole, outside of that we actually agree with you. No one has been arguing that in-game experience is not necessary for player development. We have been disagreeing about the particular stage that it starts to become valuable.

I've seen Fes consistently in practice hit 80, somtimes 90% of his free throws. So why the discrepancy? Pressure in the game versus no pressure.

Do you have a season-long practice percentage, or are you relying on your memory (where confirmation bias is an issue). Also, how tired was Fesenko in these pratices shots, as oposed to being winded in the games?

The reason his stats are going up are because he is becoming more confident and less afraid to give it all instead of making a mistake. When he left last year his weight was 292. Not much above where he is now.

12 lbs. Assuming he has no additional muscle right now (which make this number smaller than if he had increased his muscle mass), that's over 4% of his wieght in body fat. If his body fat percentage decrease from, say 14% at 292 to 10% at 280, isn't that a big improvement?

Much of the difference is how Coach Sloan has so far treated him this year and I can tell you it is night and day and very much appreciated. Yeah coach bitches him out still but he doesn't single him out and I think you are seeing an improvement as a result.

Cart before the horse, I think.

No but there were plenty of games that we were up 20, including one where we were up 30 in the 4th quarter and Sloan left the starters in until 4 minutes. 4 minutes later than when the opposing coach put his scrubs in.

Scrub time is no better than d-league time for player improvement.

I wasn't being greedy; I was lobbying for an average 10 minutes per available game or so. That's around the bare minimum that is necesary to evaluate whether a player "deserves" more.

Maybe you need that time to avaluate a player. The top NBA coaches don't seem to need it.

Instead, he used the Harpring criteria or Collins criteria for playing players: if you work hard in practice, then I'll play you, even if you are not the best option on the court.

Hard work often leads to being the best option on the court.

IMHO, the bigger liability has been Okur most of the time, and he hasn’t been as prolific a scorer to compensate.

Since Okur has at least a decent post defense, he is not the liability that Boozer is.

... it’s been so baffling (and damaging to the team) for Sloan to not go out of his way put Fes (and the young backup bigs before him) on the court ...

Not if you where paying attention. Conditioning was an issure for Fesenko for three seasons.

 

[InGameStrategy]

S2. your thesis in always the same, to wit: That you know more about the players strengths and weaknesses, whether mental or physical, the game of basketball, etc., than Sloan, Phil Johnson, Ty Corbin, and all the rest of the Jazz organization combined. Seein as how the GM's rate Sloan as the second-best coach, Johnson and Corbin and the 1st and second best assistants in the league, give O'Connor high marks, etc., it is quite noteworthy that you, with no coaching experience whatsoever, outclass them by a wide margin.

Silly point, because you're in the same boat, and that's the same for all people on this board. But if you're suggesting that Sloan is immune from criticism, then you are proposing blind faith, and even Sloan has admitted that he has made mistakes.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Sloan, near the beginning of the 2003-04 season, after which he was voted by the NBA coaches (Sporting News poll) to be the coach of the year:

"While many have low expectations of the no-Malone, no-Stockton Jazz this season, Coach Sloan made it clear that even thinking that way is like already admitting defeat. ​

InsideHoops.com: The Utah Jazz this year, this a new situation in that, something you haven't had to deal with for quite a while. ​

Jerry Sloan: Well, it's not new, it's still just basketball, just basketball with different people. ​

InsideHoops.com: True, but with lowered expectations this year... ​

Jerry Sloan: Well maybe other people have low expectations, but if you don't have expectations that your guys are going to come play hard every night, and you're going to expect them to do everything they can to try to win, then you're just teaching them how to lose. And our job is to try to teach young players how to play together, how to compliment each other, learn some of the things about the game, and hopefully win some games. ​

https://www.insidehoops.com/sloan-interview-102403.shtml#ixzz12emT1QEz


Again: "...if you don't have expectations that your guys are going to come play hard every night... then you're just teaching them how to lose."

You, S2, appear to be a professor of molly-coddlin, a teacher of losing techniques, and a mentor of losers, by Sloan's standards. Too bad he's the coach, and you aint, eh?

At times in the past, Sloan's substitution patterns have been disastrous, so your feeble reliance solely on experience and other people's opinion (after attempting to refute my specific arguments) is insufficient--not only in sports, but also in business, politics, and pretty much any other field.

I salute Sloan on getting players to play harder and not give up better than many other coaches do. I salute him for having an effective system. I think that he is overrated in terms of player development, and his in-game strategy has been negative at times. Lastly, his lack of complete enforcement of his own philosophy of defense when it comes to Boozer and Okur has been baffling, because those players haven't always been able to compensate for their porous defense with scoring. A small-market team such as Utah cannot afford to have that achilles' heel in their coaching strategy, and we can only speculate as to whether more effective player development and substitution patterns might have won the Jazz a title sometime in the past 20 years.

 

[InGameStrategy]

I recall Ostertag having a thicker trunk, thinner but longer arms. For defensive purposes, that would seem to be superior (you are harder to move and get more height without leaving the floor). Less so for offensive pruposes.

If you're more comfortable with the argument that Fesenko is at least as strong as Ostertag, then I don't have a problem with that. I challenge you to provide examples that Ostertag is as agile as Fes; at times, KF is too agile, committing unnecessary fouls instead of standing back a bit.

You think on-court experience is needed for good free-throw shooting? The nature of a free throw changes somehow when you are in a game?

You are exposing your ignorance with this comment. Yes, shooting free throws under the bright lights after running up and down the court and battling five strangers (with the help of four of your closest friends) who want to foil your concentration and perfomance with 20,000 fans screaming does point to on-court experience being necessary for good free-throw shooting. You conveniently ignore, also, that it has been stated that Fes has shot high percentages in practice, and until recently, hasn't been able to do so consistently in games. Such a process is not exclusive to Fesenko.

I disagree on Okur. He's not mobile, but he has good defensive footwork, which is why he is a good post defender.

Once again, you are providing a narrow analysis. I agree that Okur is an OK post defender; so was Boozer. But they are terrible help defenders, which is a big problem.

Fesenko *is* a prime example. He came back having lost some 8% of his body wieight, almost all of it fat. He didn't do that on-court. Now that he can run for more than 5-10 minutes without gasping, he's suddenly showing off some of the skills he picked up.

I believe that your math is wrong. It was stated that Fesenko lost less than 10 pounds from the end of the season until now. You're making the same novice mistake at looking at the box-score stats and comparing weight. And again, he is definitely more effective with better shape, but he wasn't playing enough before to test his conditioning anyway.

The same thing happened to Okur, Millsap, Williams, and Brewer in their second year. each was considerably better at the start of their second year compared to the end of the first. They did not play significant on-court minutes in the summer.

But these other players had significant more playing time (in-game experience) than Fes did, which is a big drawback to your claim here. Furthermore, Fesenko did have in-game experience during the summer in some form.

So, you're saying apples fall short of being oranges? Since you pick up different things in practice than in games, each "falls short" of doing what is best done in the other.

Yes, I am saying that playing in games more closely represents games than practice, and I continue to say that in-game performance is a more direct correlation to future game performance than practice is.

That's enough for now.

 

[One Brow]

If you're more comfortable with the argument that Fesenko is at least as strong as Ostertag, then I don't have a problem with that. I challenge you to provide examples that Ostertag is as agile as Fes; at times, KF is too agile, committing unnecessary fouls instead of standing back a bit.

I have no reason to say whether Fesenko or Ostertag was stronger, and it is probably different in different parts of their bodies. I have never seen Fesenko be agile, much less too agile. However, his agility has probably improved with his lowered weight, and I have seen no preseason games.

You are exposing your ignorance with this comment. Yes, shooting free throws under the bright lights after running up and down the court and battling five strangers (with the help of four of your closest friends) who want to foil your concentration and perfomance with 20,000 fans screaming does point to on-court experience being necessary for good free-throw shooting.

Ignoring the bright lights and 20,000 fans is a question of focus, not pratice. Having energy after running up and down the court and battling five strangers is a question of endurance, not experience. However, I will find your position on free-throws believable if you can provide evidence that the free-throw percentages of rookies who average x minutes per game improves at a statistically significant greater rate than the free-throw prcentages of rookies who play less than x mintues per game over the course of their rookie year. Because, unlike you, I can describe reasonable evidence that would prove me wrong.

You conveniently ignore, also, ...

I responded to that point by noting there were other reasons to ascribe a claimed higher free-throw percentage in practice (confirmation bias and conditioning). Generally, when you respond to something, you are not ignoring it.

Once again, you are providing a narrow analysis. I agree that Okur is an OK post defender; so was Boozer. But they are terrible help defenders, which is a big problem.

I never saw Boozer as an OK post defender.

I believe that your math is wrong. It was stated that Fesenko lost less than 10 pounds from the end of the season until now.

go4jazz stated that Fesenko weighed 292 at the end of last season. He has widely been reported as weighing 280, IIRC. So, perhaps someone did report that the change from 292 to 280 was less than a 10 pound loss, but I don't think that makes my math wrong.

You're making the same novice mistake at looking at the box-score stats and comparing weight. And again, he is definitely more effective with better shape, but he wasn't playing enough before to test his conditioning anyway.

I am actually relying on the descriptions offered by Fesenko, Sloan, Williams, journalists, etc., and not box-score statistics. As far as whether he played enough previously to test his conditioning, Sloan indicates that he did.

But these other players had significant more playing time (in-game experience) than Fes did, which is a big drawback to your claim here.

Since I was referring to the difference between the end of the first year and the start of the second, there would have been *no* in-game experience for any of them. So, I fail to see how that is a drawback to my claim.

Furthermore, Fesenko did have in-game experience during the summer in some form.

If you want to count international experience as "in-game" experience, you'll have ahad time discounting D-League, scrimmages, etc. Then your whole argument that Fesenko didn't have enough game experience becomes basically moot.

Yes, I am saying that playing in games more closely represents games than practice, and I continue to say that in-game performance is a more direct correlation to future game performance than practice is.

I don't think anyone would argue that. I see the disagreement as what is best done when, and in what order.

 

[Hopper]

Silly point, because you're in the same boat, and that's the same for all people on this board. But if you're suggesting that Sloan is immune from criticism, then you are proposing blind faith, and even Sloan has admitted that he has made mistakes.

Why is the point "silly?' Of course we're all in the same boat--that's the point. I have never suggested that I thought Sloan never made mistakes. Of course he does, we all do. But even if I thought I was a coaching genius and master psychologist, as you seem to, the problem of trying to second-guess Sloan and his staff would remain. That problem being this: They all see and know plenty that we don't. They know exactly what a player does in practice, assuming he showed up at all--his comments, reactions, body language, ability to follow instructions, his complaints to the trainer about physical problems, etc., are. We don't. They chart things, presumably oversee his training regimen and test his physical condition, etc. We don't. I can feel very confident that Sloan has made mistakes without pretending to know exactly what they are when I don't have the factual basis for even trying to assess the situation. That's the nature of being a mere fan. You can trust the coaching staff, or not, but you can't possibly pretend to know more about the situation than they do, at least not credibly. You have no real idea of what (all) factors, some of which you could not possibly be aware of, are considered are considered in any particular coaching decision.

Furthermore, every coach must try to decide what's best for the team as a whole, and not concern himself solely with what he thinks is best for one or two particular players, as fanboys do. For every minute Fess (or anyone else) plays, someone else does not play. Every selfish player who wants to puts his personal agenda ahead of the team's, whether it be Meech, Girichuck, AK, or whoever, has had his stout defenders on this board. Meech admitted in his biography that, once he got a big contract, he basically didn't give a rat's *** about basketball and didn't care to put much effort into it, but to this day many of his homosexual supporters no doubt blame Sloan exclusively for the ensuant problems. Some AK homers on this board actually claimed that AK had a basic RIGHT to quit trying and to sabatoge the team if his demands weren't met.

Finally, some it just comes down to philosophy. If you specialize in teachin molly-coddlin 101, you aint gunna understand what the wresting coach is doin.

 

[franklin]

Why is the point "silly?' Of course we're all in the same boat--that's the point. I have never suggested that I thought Sloan never made mistakes. Of course he does, we all do. But even if I thought I was a coaching genius and master psychologist, as you seem to, the problem of trying to second-guess Sloan and his staff would remain. That problem being this: They all see and know plenty that we don't. They know exactly what a player does in practice, assuming he showed up at all--his comments, reactions, body language, ability to follow instructions, his complaints to the trainer about physical problems, etc., are. We don't. They chart things, presumably oversee his training regimen and test his physical condition, etc. We don't. I can feel very confident that Sloan has made mistakes without pretending to know exactly what they are when I don't have the factual basis for even trying to assess the situation. That's the nature of being a mere fan. You can trust the coaching staff, or not, but you can't possibly pretend to know more about the situation than they do, at least not credibly. You have no real idea of what (all) factors, some of which you could not possibly be aware of, are considered are considered in any particular coaching decision.

Furthermore, every coach must try to decide what's best for the team as a whole, and not concern himself solely with what he thinks is best for one or two particular players, as fanboys do. For every minute Fess (or anyone else) plays, someone else does not play. Every selfish player who wants to puts his personal agenda ahead of the team's, whether it be Meech, Girichuck, AK, or whoever, has had his stout defenders on this board. Meech admitted in his biography that, once he got a big contract, he basically didn't give a rat's *** about basketball and didn't care to put much effort into it, but to this day many of his homosexual supporters no doubt blame Sloan exclusively for the ensuant problems. Some AK homers on this board actually claimed that AK had a basic RIGHT to quit trying and to sabatoge the team if his demands weren't met.

Finally, some it just comes down to philosophy. If you specialize in teachin molly-coddlin 101, you aint gunna understand what the wresting coach is doin.

+1

IGS is also arguing for losing games/season to build a future player. Sloan sees improvements in practice. Fes doesn't need playing time to improve his potential. That's what practice is for. Playing time is to show you can take what you learned and apply it in the real world. It is not personal improvement grounds. It is quite obvious Sloan has not seen NBA caliber play in practice from Fes. There's no use wasting minutes and taking a chance on dumping a season on the blind hopes of development and that the Lakers will look like scenario "X" 2 years down the road when your earlier gambling may hit double zero on the wheel. Practice is the place for Fes to improve, just as it was Malone, Wes Mathews, Derron Williams, etc. Sloan plays players and benches learners. He doesn't gamble on potential.

 

[candrew]

Fes goes +14 yet fouls out in 15 minutes.

Another reason to throw the +/- system in the garbage.

 

[InGameStrategy]

+1

IGS is also arguing for losing games/season to build a future player. Sloan sees improvements in practice. Fes doesn't need playing time to improve his potential. That's what practice is for. Playing time is to show you can take what you learned and apply it in the real world. It is not personal improvement grounds. It is quite obvious Sloan has not seen NBA caliber play in practice from Fes.

Um, actually, my statements have been closer to the opposite. I have pointed out repeatedly how Sloan's decision to play Millsap and Boozer together has--at times--been dentrimental to the team's winning. Also, perhaps more damning, is that Sloan didn't even use many occasions when the outcome of the game wasn't in question, so your argument doesn't hold much water.

There's no use wasting minutes and taking a chance on dumping a season on the blind hopes of development and that the Lakers will look like scenario "X" 2 years down the road when your earlier gambling may hit double zero on the wheel.

Sloan should've known years ago that Millsap + Boozer + Okur wasn't enough to beat the Lakers and wasn't particularly effective against the Nuggets and other teams (especially ones with either speed or size), either. The center spot has been among the #1 problems for years, and Sloan didn't address it. It takes more than 5 minutes per available game to develop.

Your

Practice is the place for Fes to improve, just as it was Malone, Wes Mathews, Derron Williams, etc. Sloan plays players and benches learners. He doesn't gamble on potential.

Unfortunately, Wes Matthews it the poster child for how essential and valuable in-game experience is for developing a player. You will have to explain how practice supercedes that, ESPECIALLY during the regular season, when practices sometimes are little more than walk-throughs, especially when a team is arriving late and playing on a back-to-back, and when the full team is not always even practicing. Also, it has been mentioned that in individual development in practice, Fes has demonstrated proficiency in free throws but, like other players (CJ, etc.), has not been able to translate that to games without the in-game experience. You haven't even begun to form a basis to explaine that.

Historically, Fes has hurt himself by being a goof-off, but there is a higher correlation between in-game performance and future peformance than practice and future performance, and you simply ignored that in your incomplete claims. Unfortunately, Sloan sometimes chooses practice (or even effort) as a higher criterion for play than in-game perfomance. Harpring is the poster child for that, when Sloan has played him when Harp is absolutely stinking it up on the court shootingwise (layups (MLAs) come to mind) and/or getting pwned defensively (John Salmons comes to mind). Okur was a liability (or was having a neutral effect, which isn't enough for a starter) too often, even when he was trying (albeit in slow motion).

 

[Hopper]

Wes Matthews it the poster child for how essential and valuable it is to be dedicated to improvement, learning, hard work off the court, being extremely competitive, being determined to succeed come hell or high water, being coachable and intelligent, having composure, mental toughness, and mental stability.

What else is new, eh?

 

[Ben10]

Historically, Fes has hurt himself by being a goof-off.

And this to me is the reason, and really the only reason that Fes hasn't gotten time in the past but well get it this year. Others talked about Wes, D-Will and others working hard and earning playing time. I think that alot of that SHOWS that they want to play. And that is what practice is, for players trying to EARN playing time. Fes came into camp this year ready to be a Pro. He has talked the talk and walked the walk so far this preseason. And I think he well get the time that he needs to develop no that his attitude is in the right place. Jerry is always going to play the guy that works harder in practice . Just the way he is.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Wes Matthews it the poster child for how essential and valuable it is to be dedicated to improvement, learning, hard work off the court, being extremely competitive, being determined to succeed come hell or high water, being coachable and intelligent, having composure, mental toughness, and mental stability.

What else is new, eh?

He also had three times as many minutes in his rookie year as Fes had in three years.

And Fesenko was a superior option at times and wasn't given the opportunity.

Fes also worked pretty hard on the court.

You're still stuck in the puritanical bias.

 

[Hopper]

No, S2, you're stuck in your monomanical obsession with playing time as being the sole determinant of skill, development, and success. Matthews played more minutes, and got better as he went, because he was better, mentally and physically, and because he was devoted to improvement. Simply parking his *** in a game did not make him better.