A couple statistical trends -- interpret as you want

idiot

Well-Known Member
I think many of you probably saw the note that the Jazz are the only team in NBA history to have gone through 5 consecutive, alternating streaks of more than 4 wins or 4 losses (or something similar – I may not be remembering totally right).

Here’s the Jazz’s record of winning or losing streaks this year:

Winning:
1 game – 3 times
2 games – 0 times
3 games – 2 times
4 games – 3 times
5 games – 2 times
10 games – 1 time

Losing:
1 game – 4 times
2 games – 3 times
3 games – 1 time
4 games – 1 time
5 games – 1 time

Here’s the team’s +/- per 36 over the last 15 games:
Bradley: 8.1
Clarkson: 5.4
Niang: 3.1
Conley: 1.2
Mudiay: 1.2
Ingles: 0.4
O’Neale: -2.0
Bogdanovic: -2.3
Gobert: -3.1
Mitchell: -3.9
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Shows our starting group struggles against the other teams starters and our bench just kills it.
 

idiot

Well-Known Member
With apologies to those whose lives are affected by the real thing (and this isn't that), I think both of these stats point to a kind of "collective bi-polar" feature of our team this year.

The Jazz seem prone to wilds swings in success rather than the normal random variety of doing well or poorly. And we've never seemed to fully solve the problem of both the bench and the starters doing well for an extended period.

Most judgments we have about our team (other than that we lack consistency) are prone to look rather different in relatively short order. Maybe this is why this season seems so (take your pick): exhausting, disappointing, frustrating, prone to competing narratives between different fans, etc.
 

Nasty Style

Well-Known Member
Since Mitchell learned he made the All Star game, he's struggled and Gobert to a much lesser extent (more inconsistent) as well. Ever since Stockton and Malone stopped being the Jazz representatives, it seems like making the team for Jazz players has stunted their growth and made them almost complacent.

First up, (I think) Harpring made one, right? Maybe I've done too many drugs, but I remember that happening in my world. He made that game and went downhill from there.

Kirilenko. Became a whiney bitch who imagined he had an offensive game. One and done. Big contract as well (at the time).

Williams. Think he just made the one, but he deserved to make at least one more. Tough competition for PGs in the west at that time, but his attitude began to turn sour in any event.

Boozer. The exception perhaps, but he was more of a stat padding mercenary anyway. Just the one game though, right?

Hayward. Need I say more? Although the fractured leg didn't help his case.

Now Mitchell and Gobert (I hope they continue to get better and believe they have the best chance out of all on this list)?

I wasn't too thrilled they made the team. In my mind, it's a god damned curse!
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
With apologies to those whose lives are affected by the real thing (and this isn't that), I think both of these stats point to a kind of "collective bi-polar" feature of our team this year.

The Jazz seem prone to wilds swings in success rather than the normal random variety of doing well or poorly. And we've never seemed to fully solve the problem of both the bench and the starters doing well for an extended period.

Most judgments we have about our team (other than that we lack consistency) are prone to look rather different in relatively short order. Maybe this is why this season seems so (take your pick): exhausting, disappointing, frustrating, prone to competing narratives between different fans, etc.
This team reminds me of the DWill-Boozer teams when it comes to its focus and priorities.

That supremely unflattering, fwiw.
 

Release the Kraken

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think people are reading way too much into our streaky start. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Wright brothers had a lot of unscheduled ups and downs before they learned how to stay in the air. Team chemistry where players start to operate and react to each other with "sympatico" (musician's term) takes time to develop. Also the season is a dynamic organism in its own right whereby teams adjust and compensate to another team's tendencies and then the team in question has to adjust and compensate as well - witness the Houston Rockets four game skid since the lowly Knicks crashed the boards +30 and showed the league the way. We disassembled and reassembled, it's a work in progress, but I think we may be the wild card come playoff time.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think people are reading way too much into our streaky start. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Wright brothers had a lot of unscheduled ups and downs before they learned how to stay in the air. Team chemistry where players start to operate and react to each other with "sympatico" (musician's term) takes time to develop. Also the season is a dynamic organism in its own right whereby teams adjust and compensate to another team's tendencies and then the team in question has to adjust and compensate as well - witness the Houston Rockets four game skid since the lowly Knicks crashed the boards +30 and showed the league the way. We disassembled and reassembled, it's a work in progress, but I think we may be the wild card come playoff time.
So we pushed all-in so that we could become a “wild card come playoff time”?

There isn’t a level-headed person on this site who doesn’t understand that there are ups and downs in a season. The analytical work starts in trying to understand what’s behind the ups and downs.

I’ve found my way to the following position: the downs are being caused by some serious bull****.
 

Release the Kraken

Well-Known Member
So we pushed all-in so that we could become a “wild card come playoff time”?

There isn’t a level-headed person on this site who doesn’t understand that there are ups and downs in a season. The analytical work starts in trying to understand what’s behind the ups and downs.

I’ve found my way to the following position: the downs are being caused by some serious bull****.
Bull **** huh? Your analysis is obviously at another level of sophistication than mine.:rolleyes:
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Bull **** huh? Your analysis is obviously at another level of sophistication than mine.:rolleyes:
What about the slide we hit just as soon as the coaches’ All Star ballots were cast?

I was calling that **** out immediately. Eventually Andy Larsen joined that chorus... because it was obvious af.

Those hashtag priorities, bruh. This team has struggled with the big picture. And, therefore, with good, consistent focus.
 

Release the Kraken

Well-Known Member
What about the slide we hit just as soon as the coaches’ All Star ballots were cast?

I was calling that **** out immediately. Eventually Andy Larsen joined that chorus... because it was obvious af.

Those hashtag priorities, bruh. This team has struggled with the big picture. And, therefore, with good, consistent focus.
Lots of angles to consider for sure, and they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive either.
 

Release the Kraken

Well-Known Member
Any other bromides on critical thinking you’d like me to consider?
Extra credit points for using the term bromide. No I can see that you and Andy have narrowed this conundrum down to “some serious bull ****”.

Save your breath folks problem addressed and solved, it’s the Naos & Andy show or the Andy & Naos show, not sure which. So if you’re not preaching the gospel of Naos better get that bromide **** outta here.:eek:
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Extra credit points for using the term bromide. No I can see that you and Andy have narrowed this conundrum down to “some serious bull ****”.

Save your breath folks problem addressed and solved, it’s the Naos & Andy show or the Andy & Naos show, not sure which. So if you’re not preaching the gospel of Naos better get that bromide **** outta here.:eek:
Or if you wanna be a bitch and fail to call any shot whatsoever, then get on the Kraken train.
 
Top