Jazz were -16 with Favors

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Edit: Actually, the Jazz were -15 per 48 minutes, which equals to -0.3 pts per minute. So Favors with 23 minutes played should have been -7 to be on average. He was below average, but the more important question is whether he was outplayed by the players he played against.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Edit: Actually, the Jazz were -15 per 48 minutes, which equals to -0.3 pts per minute. So Favors with 23 minutes played should have been -7 to be on average. He was below average, but the more important question is whether he was outplayed by the players he played against.

Right. And the analysis above suggests that Favors did fair to middling vs. his matchups, and that the poor perimeter defense was likely a larger contributor to Favors' subpar +/- than Favors' own performance; the decision to play Favors and Kanter together--thus reducing the scoring against a highly veteran Spurs team--was probably another factor.

So Corbin deserves some of the blame for Favors' poor +/-. He continues to refuse to play Burks for any minimal length of time, so he doesn't really know what Burks can do. He continues to start Bell, even though Bell's contribution is not readily evident at best and a damaging negative at worst. ("Team leaders" can still be effective as backups, Ty.) And he continues to tolerate poor defense--especially Saturday's anemic 3-point defense--from a wide range of players; see the highlights on NBA.com for multiple examples (Hayward, Jefferson, etc.).

These are things that are not necessarily dependent on coaches' or players' experience; it doesn't take a HoF coach (not that our previous HoFer recognized it) that Bell sucks or Jefferson is lazy or that Burks has more value than 2 to 3 garbage minutes per game right now, not to mention Burks' likely huge upside, easily leapfrogging the ability of an aging SG whose greatest claim to fame is clotheslining Kobe. For starters. Literally.

 

[cctrackstar]

Why don't you and David locke go make out on a bed of stat sheets.

Locke doesn't like +/- either, that's why he uses so many other types of stats, to the point of creating his own. (locke offensive rating)

Is anyone truly suprised that a sophmore player who hardly played during his first year is struggling? Also, maybe, just maybe it had something to do with the fact that he was guarding/driving into Tim Duncan, a sure thing hall of fame player.

 

[just because]

Yeah, if Favors wasn't out there Ginobili definitely wouldn't have been hitting every 3 point shot he threw up.

I think teams shoot well against the jazz because of the double teaming. Jefferson is so weak at defending the post that anytime his guy gets the ball it's an automatic double team which leaves shooters open. Favors on the other hand can handle the job by himself most of the time which allows defenders to stay home on the shooters. I think Millsap is leans towards the favors side as well although not as strong as Favors.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The Jazz's perimeter defense used be bad because our interior defense was so weak (Boozer/Okur) that it required one or two players to collapse and help out in the paint, leaving their man on the wing. Jerry Sloan used to do this on purpose for years--have one of the guards go double team the post in an effort to dig the ball out. (This is how John Stockton got a lot of steals.) But having one of the guards help defend the paint left a shooter open on the perimeter, so opposing teams could swing the ball around and get an open look.

Now with Favors in the middle, the interior defense should be better, so we shouldn't have to collapse as much. If we're still getting burned on the perimeter, it's probably because our guys aren't quick and tenacious enough as on-the-ball defenders. In the Philly game, Lou Williams and Jrue Holiday (to a lesser extent) could get by Harris, Bell and Hayward because they were quick and crafty off the dribble. The Spurs, meanwhile, are one of the best teams in the league at spacing the floor. They have a quick PG in Parker who dives into the paint, and they have good shooters waiting for the kick-out. They're just a tough team to play, and their offensive schemes still work. It's just that they aren't as good defensively as they were when they were winning championships.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Wow - are you serious? This point is so flawed I won't even attempt to counter.

I don't think that's the reason you won't even attempt. Prove me wrong, though, I'm dying to see some of that hottttttttt wisdom of yours.

 

[NUMBERICA]

In response to the thread:

I don't put too much stock in +/-. But it IS an indicator, and I think if you have some rules of thumb, it can be a good one.

1) Generally, you don't use it for a single-game performance. Sometimes you can when the contrast is so perfect (like when Bell was -16 and Hayward was +16 [or something very close] last year against the Celtics at home).
2) It's a better indicator of individual defensive impact since traditional defensive stats do a piss-poor job. Going further, defensive on/off court specifically is a good defensive indicator.

Besides all of that, Favors is very young and very early in his career, generally plays well, and played against a very good team on the 4th game in 5 nights on the road.

Long story short, the point raised in this thread is moot.

 

[NUMBERICA]

That's exactly why I'm not gonna bother.

What?

 

[franklin]

Long story short, the point raised in this thread is moot.

Moot as the word actually means (debatable) or moot as the average idiot thinks moot means ("mute point")?