Kyle Korver picks for Jazz in mock draft

[Hopper]

Yeah, what Ben done said, eh?

 

[Scorpjazz]

That is indeed a primary theme with S2, but I think it's actually secondary to his main point and overriding theme, which is that he would do a better job than any of the coaches or front office personnel and that the Jazz would be much more successful if they would all only seek, and defer to, his advice on every action they take.

Please no. Can you say hello to a 2-80 season? The 2 wins come as S2 is out sick and whomever his assistant is steps in for the wins.

 

[InGameStrategy]

ISG the only difference in our argument is this: You are going completely by Stats and I am going by human nature. The point I was trying to make was being a coach the best way to find out what is going to work for my team is in practice and how hard the kid is working. And therefor reward the ones that are working the hardest and want it the most with the playing time. To this point I have never coached a team that has had a losing season that way.

Unfortunately, for some strange reason, you continue to focus on practice being the criterion for playing time, when players such as Matt Harpring and Jarron Collins, who were good locker room and purportedly good practice guys, would have deserved more time than what would be best for the team.

By contrast, my criterion for more playing time is the TEAM impact on the playing time already given. I've written this multiple times in the new incarnation of JazzFanz, but I'll do it again, I guess:
1. There is no substitute for in-game playing time. Good practice isn't a substitute. Being an NBDL All-Star isn't a substitute. To develop, players need the minutes (preferably not all garbage minutes) during the actual regular-season games. (Hopefully by the post-season they are beyond development, at least for that year.) Ideally players will work hard in practice also, but if they do, the test is still in the games. Kyle Korver and CJ Miles are key examples. There have been mention in the radio broadcasts that sometimes they are making nearly every basket before the game, but then the come out and stink during the game. Do you still give them extra minutes for working hard in practice even though they suck in the game? I say no. Do you pull them after the first miss? No either. But you don't give them as many minutes as you would on a night when they are playing better.
2. There is a minimum amount of playing time that is necessary for development. I don't know exactly what that number is, but I think that it's somewhere around 10 minutes per game available. So a player who is available for 70 games (and out for the other games because of illness or injury or family emergency or because the matchups clearly don't warrant it), a player is going to get 600 or 700 minutes in his first season. This is what Ostertag had in his first season. It's what Robin Lopez had in his first season. Andrew Bynum had 2000 minutes across his first two seasons. And yet you're ready to throw away Fesenko even though he has the same or fewer amount of minutes in three years as these players had in one? Fesenko proved in the playoffs that he was able to improve in very short order (over a matter of games), and his TEAM impact was there, even though he didn't score much. Just like you'd expect from an inexperienced, defense-oriented center.
3. If, on a given night, a player of any level of experience is doing well, then you give him more time than usual. And if a player is sucking or dogging it, you give him less. This applies to everyone from Deron to Jeffers. Unfortunately, Sloan's approach was to give next to zero PT for many of these players. I don't think that Jeffers was a priority, given that he was a 3rd or 4th string wing, but Fesenko was, because he was effectively the backup center. No effort whatsoever to find development time for Fesenko, probably because of misplaced criteria. The criteria should be TEAM impact of in-game performance.

Now Understand that the NBA is much much much more advanced and has all of the breakdowns you have mentioned and I am sure that Sloan's assistants go over that info and inform him of the way the team plays the best on paper. But in all coach's minds they go with what they see and feel not what is best on paper. Is that right or wrong? Who's to say. Its not just Sloan that does this BTW. If you were to take every NBA team and Break down there +/- with certain guys on the floor you would find a better group than the one that is playing the most 9 out of 10 times. A different look is a good thing for short periods of time. But once the other team catch's on to is you have to go back to what works.

Yes, and those player combinations should be emphasized more than Jerry's strategy of robotic substitution patterns and lack of enforcement of his own philosophy of defense. What Sloan and others underestimated was the extent of the damaging impact of big men who played subpar defense, and their strong PPG and even RPG lines didn't make up for that.

It is sad that Fez has been unable to step up to the plate and earn the playing time that you and I both think he needs to both develop and help the team. Because I like you feel he can be a force that would be able to help the Jazz win games. But until he proves to his coach that he can be that player he well just continue to play limited minutes. And that is as much his fault as it is his coaches I think.

We can blame players all we want, from Deron on down, but it's the coach decides who plays. More often than not, Fesenko did "step up" in games. But his contribution wasn't reciprocated. Just like Boozer's matador defense wasn't reciprocated in the other direction.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Please no. Can you say hello to a 2-80 season? The 2 wins come as S2 is out sick and whomever his assistant is steps in for the wins.

Standing offer. 1/50th Sloan's salary plus expenses. Full year guarantee.

 

[Ben10]

ISG your nit picking at this now. In the long run we agree with each other. I don't like Sloan's automatic sub pattern, I don't like the way he takes a guy out of the game who is hot and plays teams that sometimes give us nothing on ether end of the floor. I think Fez could be a good player in this league. Were we disagree is that Sloan should play a guy just because he needs to be played. I feel and have always felt that a guy needs to earn his way. No matter what line of work he is in. And I have heard not only from Sloan but from his assistants and other players on the team that Fez doesn't put forth the effort when the coaches expect. Anyone can put for that effort in the game but what about when its hard and expected in practice.

You have said that practice isn't the place were guys develop the most. Game time is. I completely agree. But practice is were they prove that they want to play in the game and have the ability to do so. You cant say that after watching Fez in practice for 3 years that the entire coaching staff is wrong in saying that Fez is hurting his own development by not doing the things he is asked to do outside the game itself. I think if Fez had Kufous's work ethic he would be starting over Okur. And Sloan would have no problem giving him all the playing time he wanted. But were you prove you have that drive is in practice not in the game were everyone is pushing to the limit.

 

[InGameStrategy]

ISG your nit picking at this now. In the long run we agree with each other. I don't like Sloan's automatic sub pattern, I don't like the way he takes a guy out of the game who is hot and plays teams that sometimes give us nothing on ether end of the floor. I think Fez could be a good player in this league. Were we disagree is that Sloan should play a guy just because he needs to be played. I feel and have always felt that a guy needs to earn his way. No matter what line of work he is in. And I have heard not only from Sloan but from his assistants and other players on the team that Fez doesn't put forth the effort when the coaches expect. Anyone can put for that effort in the game but what about when its hard and expected in practice.

You have said that practice isn't the place were guys develop the most. Game time is. I completely agree. But practice is were they prove that they want to play in the game and have the ability to do so. You cant say that after watching Fez in practice for 3 years that the entire coaching staff is wrong in saying that Fez is hurting his own development by not doing the things he is asked to do outside the game itself. I think if Fez had Kufous's work ethic he would be starting over Okur. And Sloan would have no problem giving him all the playing time he wanted. But were you prove you have that drive is in practice not in the game were everyone is pushing to the limit.

I don’t think I’m “nit picking”, Ben. Our differing views would lead to significantly different decisions.

What you would like to see, perhaps based on your experience as a high-school coach, is for players to earn it in practice, but that doesn’t work quite as well in the NBA. Are your star high-school players able to simply take off practice when they feel like it? I think not—partly because even your starters are still well into development mode. By contrast, stars do take off practice sometimes, or at least take it lightly, which makes practice both an imbalanced way to measure players and a situation that is not representative of the games. Even Stockton took off practice sometimes, and it is widely known what Allen Iverson thought of the concept of practice. Many NBA players take practice off to rest aching body parts. While high-schoolers get injured also, I don’t imagine that their seasons have the same wear and tear as an 82-game NBA slog. Thus, NBA practice is not as good a way to evaluate who should play in the game as the team performance of a player’s presence on the court does.

I disagree that “anyone can put for[th] effort in games,” because players don’t—not on the NBA level anyway. Maybe on the high-school level; you would know better than I. Under your system of “consistent game time” as I understand it, there’s no incentive for players to put forth effort anyway if their time is ensured anyway. Then again, my philosophy allows for a pre-game minimum amount of minutes for starters and scrubs alike. Where Sloan has gone wrong is guaranteeing minutes to the 4 or 5 or 7 players and burying others who needed the time. And again, the play-by-play and the TEAM stats and even some of the film shows that Fesenko was a better choice in many situations than what was put out there. When a team repeatedly loses a lead and the game with playing two relatively undersized PFs together, even against some non-Laker teams, I would expect a coaching staff to pick up on it. The analysis is not very hard to do. And even if they sacrificed a few L’s for long-term development (which they didn’t), it would’ve paid off.

Hindsight is 20/20, but Utah might have been better off in the 6th seed anyway against Dallas, thus avoiding the Lakers until the WCF, but my claim is that it would have become apparent as Fesenko refined his skills that less of Okur and less of Millsap + Boozer (at least against a portion of the NBA teams) was a better option anyway. I believe that more development time for Fesenko would have been as least as likely to land Utah home-court advantage as to drop them to a lower seed. My basis is what I have been saying all along: more often than not, the TEAM is better with Fesenko on the court. The same cannot be said for Boozer or Okur.

 

[David Stern]

Kosta Koufos for Heisman.

 

[Hopper]

my philosophy allows for a pre-game minimum amount of minutes for starters and scrubs alike.

Ya mean rigid, pre-determined sub patterns? Like, whooda thunk, eh, S2?

My basis is what I have been saying all along: more often than not, the TEAM is better with Fesenko on the court. The same cannot be said for Boozer or Okur.

Heh, Fess is better for the team than two all-stars, Boozer and Memo, eh? Well, one advantage for the Jazz if you were the GM, I spoze, would be a payroll of only about $15 million a year. The scrubs are better for the team than all-stars, so, why not, eh?

Everybuddy likes to "root for the underdog" now and again, but mosta them aint plumb stoopid about it.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Ya mean rigid, pre-determined sub patterns? Like, whooda thunk, eh, S2?

I think that my posts clearly delineate the difference.

Heh, Fess is better for the team than two all-stars, Boozer and Memo, eh?

Boozer and Okur ain't no All-Stars--as you would say, "no mo'".