What's new
By:
Filters

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

fishonjazz said:
Agree to disagree.
Our best lineup is Mitchell, Ingles, Royce, bogey, gobert (2nd best lineup in the NBA). I think those players give us a shot at a championship.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Mitchell, Rubio, Favors, Bogey, Gobert.....With Ingles and Crowder coming off the bench along with Clarkson....would put us at the top of the heap for sure!
 
I agree with @fishonjazz that the Jazz could win the championship even if Conley never completely fits in, or if he is injured, or plays off the bench. Although I do believe that him not fitting in would be the worst of those scenarios. So I hope he finds a way to complement our best lineups.

But the additions of Bogey and Clarkson have been far more important, and are what actually give us a chance to beat the best teams in a 7-game series.

Gobert-Mitchell-Ingles-Bogey-______ + Clarkson off the bench = contender. Period.
 
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.
 
Mike is going to be our stretch four. Or at least, he will be outrebounding our 4s from here on out.
 
infection said:
Mike is going to be our stretch four. Or at least, he will be outrebounding our 4s from here on out.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Thee jazz fan said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LogGrad98 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
LogGrad98 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
LogGrad98 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
What has he done since being back in the starting lineup? What is our record in those games? Individually stats do not directly correlate to being better as a team. Look at Booker in Phoenix. Great stats, terrible team. Until we see his increased production translated into wins then all we have to go on is what has happened so far, and the facts say we are better without him.

And I think you are rooting for Conley and against the jazz. I want to see the jazz win, even if that means we play Conley less. It sounds to me like you are happy with piling up the losses as long as it shows Conley being a borderline all-star again. Who's really rooting against the jazz?
 
Mongoose said:
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.
Click to expand...

No... its Joe or Mike... DM is a pillar of our team now and in the future... don't dick around there. It would shatter him... he's still establishing his value (should get a max extension, but ink ain't dry yet). It would be a really terrible idea.

I think we need to find a way to help DM instead of pulling him in and out of the game... if he prefers less stints and longer ones. He plays with the second unit a lot.

Mike would be the one I'd bring off the bench... if it changes it is likely Joe... I don't see us changing unless a playoff matchup dictated it.
 
LogGrad98 said:
What has he done since being back in the starting lineup? What is our record in those games? Individually stats do not directly correlate to being better as a team. Look at Booker in Phoenix. Great stats, terrible team. Until we see his increased production translated into wins then all we have to go on is what has happened so far, and the facts say we are better without him.

And I think you are rooting for Conley and against the jazz. I want to see the jazz win, even if that means we play Conley less. It sounds to me like you are happy with piling up the losses as long as it shows Conley being a borderline all-star again. Who's really rooting against the jazz?
Click to expand...
He was a key contributor in the Houston game.
 
Two thoughts:

A) One of the reasons that (those who say) we can't just run with numbers is that (beyond the small-sample size issue) players are not simply components in a mechanical system. They do function that way to some significant degree, to be sure, but they also have the capacity for learning and adjustment (in addition to all the other human capacities, like recovering from injury, etc.). This means that they are not bound to forever function within the system the same way they have in the past.

B) The opponent of the Jazz is not fixed. Matchups are a real thing. Things that work well against most teams (or better on average) may not work as well against certain other teams. The "chemistry" of a team does not exist in a vacuum but (esp. in a playoff series) is context dependent. It seems perhaps the safer bet for a team might perhaps be to create as many possibilities for positive chemistry as possible rather than go for broke with one or two.

I think our arguments are where the boundaries of these issues lie. At what point do we have enough data to say that significant adjustment is no longer possible? Is it still possible for parts of the team and Conley to adapt better with each other? (I'm guessing the coaches think this process has a longer time frame than many of us do). And what kind of capacities need to be developed for possible playoff scenarios? (How do we maximize our potential against both the Lakers and the Rockets, for example?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top