Fesenko to Spain?
- Thread starter Jeffrey32
- Start date
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Let me count the reasons.
1. Nowitzki was a better clutch scorer and overall scorer than Boozer and AJ anyway, which rationalizes not benching Nowitzki. Meanwhile, AJ's matador D clearly lost games for Utah at the beginning of last year, especially when Sloan did not adjust. Amidst C-Booz's on-court grunting and dramatic offense, the damaging defense was less obvious, but plenty perceptible.
2. Carlisle was enforcing defense as a team, and even Nowitzki bought in to it--and preached it further as a captain, something that I don't think Boozer did much. Also, Avery Johnson helped put the "D" in "irk"--something that Sloan didn't successfully do with CB or MO for more than a few minutes or games at a time. So while Carlisle appears to have selectively benched other Mavs for dogging it, he was less likely to need to do so for Dirk, who had starting playing better D before Carlisle even arrived.
https://armchairgm.wikia.com/Dirk_Nowitzki#Defense_.26_Rebounding
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/gametracker/recap/NBA_20100219_DAL@ORL
3. Unlike Utah, Dallas didn't have viable alternatives to Nowitski. Against many lineups, Millsap + Fesenko (or even Elson, when he was added) was a comparable or sometimes superior option to the defenseless Boozer and/or Okur/AJ, especially in situations where either or both Booze and Slowkur/Slow Al started playing even softer defense to protect themselves from foul trouble or injury. Or breaking a sweat.
Last edited:
50% of the time is "nearly every year?
Producing good +/- statistics in limited minutes is supports the idea that Fesenko was used properly his last couple of years, rather than the opposite. He was played when he could have a good effect on the game, despite his limitations. Considering that conditioning was a factor every year, even his fourth, that's really all you can hope for.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Other factors differ with your assessment.
Big Al joined the team as a giant, midwestern, out-of shape blob who got beaten repeatedly off the dribble and was primary (if not sole) factor in the Jazz losing games. Instead of benching Big Al--at least for a few possessions at a time so that he can rest and/or know that his PT is not guaranteed if he did not perform--Sloan kept him out there. Since then, Al's offense has improved, but his defense is still porous.
Thus, your implication that conditioning kept Fesenko off the court is incomplete. Although he was not in great shape (and although it did not help his case), neither was Jefferson, and most of the time, Fes barely played enough for even him to get winded. Even Fesenko's conditioning could handle more than 8.6 MPG, and if he had been used only for a few minutes at a time to restore some aggressiveness to the court, it would've made a difference. Instead, they kept doing the same thing, and got the same results--only worse in the post-Deron, post-Sloan era. Furthermore, Fesenko played 27 minutes on April 1, late in the season, and he didn't have a coronary on the court, despite your claim.
Corbin has been only minimally better in managing the fundamental play-for-performance policy (not exclusive to the center spot, btw). But such a policy is a reason why Tom Thibodeau led his team to first seed in the East--and why Rick Carlisle led his team led his team to a title. Both of them enforced performance this year--at least selectively--and now Carlisle has more rings than the entire Jazz organization.
Last edited:
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
I hope he gets stuck in spain!!! LOLLLLL
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I guess 29 other teams are as stupid as Sloan. Fes sure had a parade of offers as a restricted FA. Anyone could have signed him for $3-$4M and I doubt the Jazz would have matched. Instead, there were few rumors anyone was even interested. Compare that to the illustrious Jarron Collins, who was picked up after the Jazz decided not to re-sign him. Yep, Fes is considered a real defensive presence in the league. Expect him to be anchoring a championship contender next season. I'm guessing Miami or Boston.
I agree that Jefferson was not well-conditioned. That's been true of many Jazz players in their first year on the team. However, he chould at least play 15 minutes without being winded (and usually played more), Fesenko could not.
Had Jefferson been the sole factor in losing games, he would have been benched. We lost games for a variety of reasons.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Whether 29 other teams did not want to sign him is not relevant to whether the Jazz developed and utilized Fesenko properly. Given his stat line and rumors of his work ethic, I probably wouldn't be tripping over myself to sign him, either, if I were a GM, unless I really did my due diligence. When he was on the court, though, he usually put forth effort--sometimes too much effort defensively, leading to fouls--and more often than not, that effort (despite the ineffective offense) translated to the Jazz's advantage, even when taking into account the foul frequency.
I continue to be skeptical of the Jazz's approach and time investment in developing Fesenko (and other bigs, for that matter, despite how weak the Jazz's paint protection has been and despite the difficulty they have had in securing a legit center). An essential part of a player's development--from the elite players to the scrubs--is to get at least some minimal playing time (e.g., 10 or 15 minutes per game on a regular basis), and I continue to maintain that this could have been done without risking wins (or at least not many wins, which were especially sacrificeable in a rebuilding year). The strategy of playing two PFs together was effective in only some situations, but neither Sloan nor Corbin adjusted (e.g., by incorporating Fesenko or even Elson) when the height and defensive disadvantage was too damaging.
I acknowledge--again--that Fesenko did not put forth a strong effort in his own development; the same could be said for Greg Ostertag and probably the likes of C.J. Miles and numerous other NBA players. But especially Utah--a small-market team--needs to be more proactive about developing their talent and enforcing defense.
Comparing an 8-year veteran ("Tree" Collins) signing for the minimum--notably less than the $3M-$4M that you threw out for Fes--is weak, especially given that Tree got more PT in his rookie season than Fes has gotten in his entire NBA career.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Your claim is countervailed by the fact that Fesenko played 27 minutes last April (plus several other 15+-minute games, as well as nearly every preseason game for >15 MPG, which was high end of the average PT that I have been pounding the table for) and is still alive to tell the story. In other words, conditioning wasn't a valid basis for keeping Fes off the floor.
Your argument is also weakened by the notion that Fesenko had more of a problem with being too aggressive on defense than with being beaten--a stark contrast to Jefferson and Boozer who matadored before him. Finding the balance between aggressiveness and space is one of many benefits of playing time, and it's tough to teach in practice. Again, not even elite players are often able to learn that from watching film or working in the gym.
Perhaps I misspoke. In order to be benched, a player need not be the sole factor in losing games; of course one player is rarealy the sole source of a loss.
But if a player is a primary factor, then he should be benched, at least for a few possessions, especially to show the player that his minutes are not guaranteed (a strategy that titleholders Rick Carlisle, Gregg Popovich, and perhaps others have selectively employed). This was clearly the case for Al Jefferson in multiple games toward the beginning of last season, and it was contrasted on multiple occasions by Fesenko (and/or Elson) coming into the game, and the net scoring going up for Utah--even if the scoring didn't come from them.
Such a policy was especially low-risk toward the end of last season when the prospects of making the playoffs had disappeared. Didn't happen, because Utah chose loyalty (retaining Corbin)--and maybe affordability rather than quality (letting Sloan go 2-5 years ago and instead hiring Carlisle, Thibodeau, or maybe the likes of Adelman or others).
Heck, why--especially under Sloan--does a player need to be even a primary factor in losing in order to be benched? Under Sloan's purported philosophy, any player who was dogging it defensively should've sat down, at least briefly. All I've been doing is arguing for the theoretical discipline of the Sloan system, which was implemented instead as just arbitrariness and talk.
Now Utah has an inexperienced coach who has shown no sign of having a solid strategy for player development and in-game management, and I fear that Utah will have to rely on natural maturity and talent (rather than active development and leadership) to return to glory. That's a fragile blueprint for success, especially for a small-market team.
Last edited:
How do those facts counter my claim? It's not like the moment you are winded you are benched, even on the Jazz.
Do you have some evidence beyond bluster that being winded leads to passivity, as opposed to making mistakes? The tendency to foul can come from being out of shape, where your body can't keep up wit the aggressiveness of yoru intentions.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Congratulations on walking into my argument. Your statement supports my the underlying thesis: that effort (including insufficient conditioning) should be enforced--and it isn't. Memo is the poster child for this: his defense was if he was in slow motion, he rarely blocked shots, and got beaten almost as much as Boozer.
As for Fesenko, his poor conditioning would be basis for benching him sooner--or at all--if he repeatedly got beaten. But often the opposite has happened: the paint tightens up, and the team defense improves. While AJ's lazy D is blatant, Fesenko's is less clearly lazy--not always smart, but not lazy, and the effect is still frequently superior.
Not sure why you're looking for such associations. Lack of conditioning can lead to getting beaten, whether the player is playing passive or not. And yes, Fesenko also has fouled sometimes out of being beaten. But it has happened often enough that the momentum of the game has turned in the Jazz's favor when Fesenko is on the court that Fesenko would merit more than 250 minutes per year. Sometimes this getting beaten is from getting faked out, whereas with Jefferson, it's more likely being slow or lazy in the first place. For a player making 8 figures (vs. Fes barely making 2x the minimum), more should be expected, and the opposite seems to be the case.
Experience, curiousity, and a willingness to allow for people reacing in different ways to different stimuli. Why don't you look for such associations?
This is not about Nowitzki vs Boozer. This is about how Boozer was to us, what Nowitzki is to the Mavs. Both teams need both of them in games for offense and scoring. You have agreed to my point here actually. There is hope for you yet. It also helps to remember that Boozer didnt miss a single playoffs game for us(despite his durability knock) and has also helped us win some big games like the Houston series in 2007.
.
Well Boozer is still a bad defensive player and he is with the Bulls now. So why didnt the great defensive genius Thobodeau could'nt turn him onto a defensive player if Carlisle or Avery could turn Nowitzki into a pretty good defensive player(which is debatable, to begin with)? Your logic(or the lack of it) is funny
Mllsap+Fesenko is an alternative only if you want to hit the lottery, not if you want to make a deep run in the playoffs. They are best played in limited mins. But to be fair to Sloan, Millsap did see a lot of mins under Sloan. And, once again, Like I pointed out earlier, despite Bulls having better options than Utah at the 4/5 defensively(noah, Gibson), Thibodeau still played Booz 32 mins a game during the regular season, as against the 33+ that Booz averaged in Utah. So, just a difference of 1 minute. Looks like Thibodeau didnt bench Booz a lot more than Sloan did, despite having more options. Yet he is the rotations genius, while Sloan is the idiot, according to you
I always enjoy reading the romanticizing of The Legend of Fesenko, as written by IGS2M. Always an excellent read for fables.
Fesenko, for as big as he is and as devastating as his +/- is, can hit the road. Yes, he was funny. Yes, occasionally he showed glimpses of what could be. Too often, when the Jazz needed him, he was checked out mentally or physically. Let him go to Spain and have his gastric distress battle the paella and sangria. Adios Fesenko y hola Kanter.
Fesenko, for as big as he is and as devastating as his +/- is, can hit the road. Yes, he was funny. Yes, occasionally he showed glimpses of what could be. Too often, when the Jazz needed him, he was checked out mentally or physically. Let him go to Spain and have his gastric distress battle the paella and sangria. Adios Fesenko y hola Kanter.
I've given out too much rep in the last 24 hours, or you'd be eating a -8, you jack wagon fudrucker.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Not true; and you're missing the point. Nowitzki was far more essential than Boozer was; the 2011 NBA Finals (as well as Boozer's long injury hiatus when Millsap filled in valiantly) show that.
Furthermore, this isn't just about Fesenko; this is about enforcing performance and putting the best combination on the court. On repeated occasions--we're talking several games here, not to mention the 20-ish game run that Millsap had when Boozer was injured--a combination with less of Boozer and/or Okur was the superior choice (we're talking as little as 5 to 10 minutes less of Boozokur), and Sloan didn't notice the hemorrhage that was Booze +/- Okur, nor the sometimes huge favorable swings when that combination was not on the floor. It's about playing more of a real center with a real forward (be it Boozer, Millsap, or sometimes Okur), and--more importantly--analyzing matchups, combinations, and performance more astutely to put out the best lineup at all times.
You appear to be changing the subject there. My pounding the table for play-for-performance has little to do with injuries (except when injuries unfortunately hurt team performance, except possibly an allowance for a few minutes of playing time per game for a rehabbing player to get back into "game shape"); not sure why you're even bringing it up.
Whether Thibodeau was successful in making Boozer a better defender doesn't matter; I'm not a Bulls fan, and it doesn't take away that for most of CB's stint on the Jazz, he was hurting the team defensively.
My mantra has been that when whatever player is being damaging on the court (despite, perhaps, significant scoring), he needs to sit down. Whether that player learns his lesson and starts to step up is irrelevant if his replacement does better. And on repeated occasions, a lineup with Fesenko or Elson (usually not both together) was superior (for a few minutes at a time at minimum) in dozens of games than the defensive disaster that has been the rotation of Jefferson, Boozer, and Okur. Not all the time, but often enough that it has cost the Jazz games--which is in stark opposition to the weak claim that some puzzling apologists have made that playing more of a true center (Fesenko, Elson, etc.) was going to cost games, too.
With the arrival of Kanter and the return of Okur, the Jazz's fallacious strategy can still repeat itself. If Okur is ineffective--out of lack of effort or lack of speed (conditioning), he must be benched, unlike the policy previously. As long as Kanter can produce at a level similar to K-Fes (not an insurmountable feat by any means; even I would acknowledge so), it is more valuable to the Jazz to put Kanter out there instead of Fesenko (in the remote chance that Fes returns) because the team has more to gain from Kanter's development. But principle remains: from the PG spot to the C spot, if players are being ineffective, they need to sit down, be it for a possession or two or longer.
Sorry; the data is simply against you. Even more laughable is the fact that the Jazz did NOT make a deep run in the playoffs under your plan (i.e., the status quo). And last season, with the status quo, the Jazz went far below .500 in the post-Sloan era and made no dent in the playoffs at all. Thank you, thank you, thank you for continuing to strengthen my argument with each of your passing statements.
You're still on the tangential issue of Boozer-in-Chicago, but if you insist on continuing to address it, I will indulge you here, also. All I need to do is prove that Thibodeau did it more than Sloan. Here you go: Boozer being benched for the entire Q4 for being ineffective on both O and D; it can even be argued that TT sacrificed a W by doing so, and that it paid off later in the season with better team D (if not better CB D).
https://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-...d-boozer-and-it-had-nothing-to-do-with-zones/
But wait--there's more! Thibodeau apparently benched Booze more than once.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...bodeau-could-sit-the-chicago-bulls-star-again
Whether Thibodeau did it enough or every time is of no consequence, and probably explains your somewhat irrelevant claim that Boozer didn't substantially improve his defense since leaving Utah. Proving so is not necessary for my argument, which is that if ANY player is dogging it, he needs to be benched. At least until the next whistle. Expecially earlly in games. Maybe not religiously followed toward the end of the game. But a player exhibiting porous defense might not be the best choice down the stretch, either.
Last edited:
Why in the hell are yall talking about Boozer? This thread is about Fesenko! Show the man respect.