What's new

Missing out on coaches?

The problem comes down to you, InGame, and not Jerry Sloan. You have unreasonable expectations. That might sound defeatist, but I do not believe, regardless of who is coaching, this team is capable of going out there and exceeding that potential. I mean, if I believed that, then I must believe they're capable of beating the Lakers and I can't ever concede that. In fact, I question anyone who really believes this team is built for that.

But your point still doesn't stand because there is not enough to back up the claim Utah would be better off without Sloan. This isn't a case where Utah is woefully underperforming or continually missing the playoffs. They're not doing either. We're not the New Orleans Hornets or the Houston Rockets. This team was a win away from probably being in the exact same position as the Suns were this season (meaning losing in the West Finals to the Lakers instead of the second round). Maybe that would have eased concerns. Maybe it wouldn't have. However, to act like the Jazz are at the point where they need a coaching change is down right hooey.

I say this not to fully exonerate Coach Sloan - but rather because the situation isn't as easy as you make it sound. In a perfect world the Jazz would cut ties with Sloan and find a coach who could step in and maximize this talent to the point where they are, unquestionably, the best team in the NBA.

Unfortunately, I don't see any coach doing that. Certainly not an unproven assistant who has never been a head coach at this level. That's important because while the most optimistic outlook may potentially be attained in your highest dreams, there is also the potential for a hire that sets the franchise back years.

Like maybe the next coach comes in and clashes with Deron Williams. We know Williams has not turned on Sloan (well to the point where I feel comfortable in saying this). Is it likely? Who knows. But all we have to do is look across the NBA to see failed coaching experiments. It happens every year. It happens to every franchise. Some luck out, like L.A., and others fire and fire and fire until they finally make the moves necessary to pull in the talent needed to compete.

How many NBA teams would you say made the perfect hire? I'm not suggesting a good coach (someone who constantly gets their teams to the playoffs, wins 50+ games and often makes it beyond the first round - that's Sloan). I mean a really great coach. Someone who steps in and wins a championship with the talent the team was not winning with prior to his arrival.

There are only three coaches in the NBA recently I can think of who had that ability: Phil Jackson, Larry Brown & Pat Riley. Jackson did it twice. Once with the Bulls when he took over for the fired Doug Collins (who has somehow found a job coaching the Sixers) and when he took over the Lakers after Kurt Rambis was fired. Brown with Detroit. And of course, Riley with Miami. The others who were fortunate to win titles (Popovich, Rivers) only won those titles when they found the pieces needed (Duncan for the Spurs, Allen and Garnett for the C's) to do just that.

How many other teams have failed in that regard? Lots.

So yeah. You may, possibly be right that there is a better coach out there. But what are the odds the Jazz land him? If you think about it, with how high turnover is in the NBA, it isn't good.

That's the problem with your argument. You've made no legitimate point Sloan deserves to not be re-signed. And stating that you believe the Jazz haven't lived up to their potential is subjective and, with a bit of rational and factual debate, could probably be debunked.
 
Darkwing Duck in another topic said:
I am flabbergasted. To think that Koufos' rebound rate was a big enough sample size to show anything is unfathomable to me. Hell, I'll do the box scores.

2:40 1 Def Reb
1:37 1 Off Reb. (The infamous "Boom Bitches" game. He freakin' got this rebound because his first shot was stuffed in his face.)
2:18 0 Reb
0:58 1 Off Reb. (Another rebound off his own miss)
0:56 1 Def Reb (garbage time)
4:37 0 Reb
Laker Series
9:10 1 Off Reb 2 Def Reb
6:46 1 Def Reb
DNP
1:39 0 Reb

How those minutes can be constituted as reason for playing him over Millsap or Boozer I have no idea.

You can polish a **** all you want, but in the end, it's still a ****.

t u r d is censored out? Interesting.
 
Last edited:
I respecfully disagree. With better coaching decisions, landing the 2nd or 3rd seed was plenty achievable with this roster, which means that Utah would've likely made it to the WCF (because Utah wouldn't have choked on San Antonio or Portland, even with the existing Sloan strategy).

This year, though, Sloan lost too many games by playing Millsap and Boozer and/or playing too much of Okur. And after three years of playing Boozer and Millsap against Gasol and Bynum/Odom, Sloan should've known that it wouldn't work this year either. If anything, he should've tried it it in the first game and then left it alone (i.e., <10 MPG, and preferably not at the end of games, which is too much of a height disadvantage). But that series might have been lost months ago when he put ZERO effort into finding minutes for the bigs. And yes, you're gonna lose a player's progress when you don't play them for several months on end--barely AT ALL, which is what happened to Koufos in his rookie year. (BTW, Koufos led the team in rebounding rate in this year's playoffs, so he was contributing, but Sloan preferred to give time to a thirtysomething Eurolurp and an undersized PF instead of to a legit 7-footer). A franchise focused on a title would've found time to develop a center, and a coach with any minimal sense of player evaluation would've known that Memo was too slow and too weak to handle the Fakers--and maybe the Nuggets. It is possible that Utah would have not beaten the Nuggets if Memo had been healthy because Sloan would've been too tempted to play Okur, even though MO's matchup vs. the Nugs is not good.

It's probably a stretch to say that Utah had the potential to win a title, although doing so wasn't out of the question. But they did have talent to go further than they did. Some teams would love to have the track record that Utah has, but again, I wouldn't have a problem with Utah's success if they had maximized their potential, even if they hadn't made the playoffs at all.

If you want an example of a coaching change that worked, look no further than Phoenix. Alvin Gentry stressed playing on both ends of the floor, and Stoudemire tried to play D for the first time in his career. Oh, and he actually gave his young center some PT.

Disagree all you want. I could say that Sloan's coaching was the reason we were even in position to finish second or third in the west.

Your problem is that you're basing your hope on a big unknown. It's like saying when you're a kid you want to run away from home because, in your mind, it's better in another city with another family. Sure, it might be. I mean, there is always the possibility in the end that you'd find success out there. But the reality is that you probably would find that the grass isn't always greener on the other side, as they say.

Frankly, I think that's the situation we're dealing with currently. Sloan isn't a perfect coach. But Sloan has proven to be a winner. You don't average over 50 wins a season if you're a bad coach. Does it mean someone can't come in and do better? Of course not. But again, we're talking about big unknowns here. Nothing you're stating is rooted in fact.

In the end, better the devil you know than the the devil you don't.

As for the Suns' change, are they better than they were under Terry Porter? Of course. But that proves my point. Phoenix forced out Mike D'Antoni (their version of Jerry Sloan) and replaced him with a guy who was not up to the snuff. They're fortunate the guy they moved over a seat was Alvin Gentry. He brought back the system that worked best for Phoenix (something Porter stripped from the franchise) and what do you know, they returned to their winning ways. Of course, it's questionable if they're better off than they were under D'Antoni.

So basically, they fired D'Antoni, hired a retread (Porter had been canned in Milwaukee) and failed. He was 28-23 when let go. That's a winning percentage of only 56%. D'Antoni was 55-27 in his final season, a percentage of 67%, which was better than Gentry's this season.

That's my point. The Suns made a bad hire after wanting to make a change from a guy who had proven to be successful there. And we're lauding them because they eventually broke even with Gentry? ha
 
Last edited:
A lot of people are scared of change here. They think we'll suddenly become a horrible team or drop out of the playoffs without Sloan.
Of course there is a coach out there that would probably gel better with the players, and get more out of them. There's no
doubt it's risky trying to find that guy, because just getting rid of Sloan won't make us better. We would have to find the right guy.

Since Sloan is clearly at the very end of his time with us, I don't see why we are holding onto him any longer.
He's not going to get us over the top, and he's not the future of this team.
The longer we wait, the more time we waste on finding the right guy to lead Dwill, and be apart of the future.

This year would have been perfect for a coaching change.

You realize D-Will likes Sloan as his coach right? He's said numerous times how much freedom Sloan gives him within the system (calling plays, controlling tempo, etc.). You get rid of Sloan...you're risking alienating your franchise player, among many other things.
 
The problem comes down to you, InGame, and not Jerry Sloan. You have unreasonable expectations. That might sound defeatist, but I do not believe, regardless of who is coaching, this team is capable of going out there and exceeding that potential.I mean, if I believed that, then I must believe they're capable of beating the Lakers and I can't ever concede that. In fact, I question anyone who really believes this team is built for that.
I don't think that I have unreasonable expectations; not even I was bold enough to say that the Jazz had a high chance of beating the Lakers (although if they had made a conscious, concerted effort to develop one or both of the bigs and enforce Boozer playing defense, things might have been different). To me, a reasonable expectation for this team was reaching the WCF, which might have meant that it was necessary to get better than the 4th seed. Utah did neither. Exceeding expectations would have been reaching the finals; what they did accomplish was underperforming.

If I was unable to find fundamental errors in coaching strategy (e.g., substitution patterns, player development) then I wouldn't be criticizing Coach Sloan and claiming that they failed to reach their potential. Problem is that I have been a fan for decades and have seen these errors repeated time after time. To Sloan's credit, the team seems to have good chemistry now (even though Boozer is still a headcase and an ineffective co-captain, it appears that everybody got along).

But your point still doesn't stand because there is not enough to back up the claim Utah would be better off without Sloan. This isn't a case where Utah is woefully underperforming or continually missing the playoffs. They're not doing either. We're not the New Orleans Hornets or the Houston Rockets. This team was a win away from probably being in the exact same position as the Suns were this season (meaning losing in the West Finals to the Lakers instead of the second round). Maybe that would have eased concerns. Maybe it wouldn't have. However, to act like the Jazz are at the point where they need a coaching change is down right hooey.
That's all I was claiming. Utah had the ability to wine one or more games--and one or more playoff series--than they did. The difference is plenty small, and there were several regular-season games this season that I believe were winnable with better coaching strategy.

I say this not to fully exonerate Coach Sloan - but rather because the situation isn't as easy as you make it sound. In a perfect world the Jazz would cut ties with Sloan and find a coach who could step in and maximize this talent to the point where they are, unquestionably, the best team in the NBA.
I think that you're extrapolating from my argument because I never claimed that this team had the most talent. But they underperformed. And the adjustments aren't hard; you simply play less of two undersized PFs together and a slow Euro + a defenseless Boozer. You also bench players for a posession or two who are underperforming (for whatever reason) and give more minutes to those who are doing well, no matter their rank on the totem pole. Go back and watch the final game of the Suns series; Gentry stuck with the backups until late in the 4Q, and they almost won the game for him. Unfortunately he succumbed to the Sloan like tendency of relying on the veterans, and it didn't work, but Sloan probably would've pulled the backups long before the 3 to 5 minute mark because that's what he did in almost every game--if not every game--of the Laker series. Such a strategy resulted in a big-fat goose egg. Key word? Strategy. Changeable. Adaptable. To sloan's credit, he played Fesenko more in the final game, but Fes needed PT during the regular season--even when he was being a goof-off off the court. So even though Fes was a net positive out there, he wasn't bordering on being a consistent player on both ends of the court. Who decided the playing time? Our perennial underachiever, Jerry Sloan.

Not sure why you and other apologist fans are simply satisfying with making a dent in the playoffs instead of maximizing this team's potential, which they definitely didn't. Whether the ceiling of this team was a 6-game exit in the WCF or a title is more debatable IMHO than whether they failed to meet their reasonable potential.

Unfortunately, I don't see any coach doing that. Certainly not an unproven assistant who has never been a head coach at this level. That's important because while the most optimistic outlook may potentially be attained in your highest dreams, there is also the potential for a hire that sets the franchise back years.
Well, I already pointed out that both Popp and PJ (and Sloan, for thtat matter, started as assistants, so it is very narrow-minded to not use the assistant route as a viable source of new coaches. And again, my contention is that Sloan failed to properly exercise more than one fundamental coaching technique, especially when it comes to substitution choices and player development, which should be enough in my book to not renew his contract if he shows no indication of changing (he's shown little over 20 years).

Like maybe the next coach comes in and clashes with Deron Williams. We know Williams has not turned on Sloan (well to the point where I feel comfortable in saying this). Is it likely? Who knows. But all we have to do is look across the NBA to see failed coaching experiments. It happens every year. It happens to every franchise. Some luck out, like L.A., and others fire and fire and fire until they finally make the moves necessary to pull in the talent needed to compete.
ROFLMAO that you would argue that a coach would clash with the players when Sloan is probably among the absolute worst in the league in maintaining good relationships with all of his players. To his credit, relationships seem good now, but Sloan is remarried and older, so it's no surprise that he's mellowed out. Also, Deron's leadership has helped to start building cohesion on the player level, and that player-level leadership was absent between the Malone/Stock era and the Deron era.

How many NBA teams would you say made the perfect hire? I'm not suggesting a good coach (someone who constantly gets their teams to the playoffs, wins 50+ games and often makes it beyond the first round - that's Sloan). I mean a really great coach. Someone who steps in and wins a championship with the talent the team was not winning with prior to his arrival.
No one is expecting the perfect hire. No coach is perfect. I'm asking for a coach that exercises fundamental coaching techniques, including player evaluation and matchup evaluation.

There are only three coaches in the NBA recently I can think of who had that ability: Phil Jackson, Larry Brown & Pat Riley. Jackson did it twice. Once with the Bulls when he took over for the fired Doug Collins (who has somehow found a job coaching the Sixers) and when he took over the Lakers after Kurt Rambis was fired. Brown with Detroit. And of course, Riley with Miami. The others who were fortunate to win titles (Popovich, Rivers) only won those titles when they found the pieces needed (Duncan for the Spurs, Allen and Garnett for the C's) to do just that.
Well, if my expectations are that the Jazz's coach have the same caliber as the coaches who have actually won a championship, then call me optimistic. And if my claim is that when a coach fails to meet these expectations, his contract shouldn't be renewed, call me demanding. What is a true tenet is that if you keep doing the same thing, chances are that you will keep having the same results. Which is what happened this year. Utah had decent discipline, OK teamwork, a pick-and-roll system that worked against most teams. But defense wins championships, and Sloan didn't put this team in a position to win the defensive battle. The Jazz wings probably maxed out what they could do vs. Kobe, but the 4/5 spots did not against their respective opposition. What weakens your argument is that I have identified specific weaknesses in Sloan's coaching rather than simply saying that Sloan sucks. Not sure why you are so interested in riding Sloan's jock when they got pwned in the second round.

How many other teams have failed in that regard? Lots.
I'm not a fan of those other teams, so I don't care. And the notion that other teams failed isn't a justification for Utah failing also.

So yeah. You may, possibly be right that there is a better coach out there. But what are the odds the Jazz land him? If you think about it, with how high turnover is in the NBA, it isn't good.

That's the problem with your argument. You've made no legitimate point Sloan deserves to not be re-signed. And stating that you believe the Jazz haven't lived up to their potential is subjective and, with a bit of rational and factual debate, could probably be debunked.
What part of inept substitution patterns, subpar player development, and inadequate matchup evaluation do you not understand?
 
Last edited:
All I'm reading from the pro-Sloan crowd is a sense of fear. Too scared to rock the boat.
Why rock the boat when we are a playoff team every year?

I just have a few honest questions I have for the pro-Sloan crowd...
Who wouldn't have won a lot of games with Stockton, and Malone?
Who wouldn't have coached the Jazz to the playoffs with Deron, Boozer, and AK?
When have we exceeded expectations under Sloan? The year we were .500 when we lost Malone is the only one that comes to mind.
I think you have to give Sloan credit there. If we are being honest though, I can think of a lot more seasons where we met expectations
or underachieved. The point I'm trying to make here is that under Sloan we seem to always be solid, but never great. I don't think
he's getting the best out of the talent we have, but he has been solid and steady. To some, that solid play every year means he's getting
the most out of the players.

There is no denying Sloan's system is solid. There is also no denying Sloan is a talented coach.
I think a lot of coaches could have done just as good or better with Stockton, and Malone, but not everyone. Some would have found a way to fail.
Sloan has stuck around because he's never been bad. He's solid and stready, and that deserves a nod.
Some of you need to realize that just because some posters want a change, doesn't mean they think Sloan is a bad coach.

It's a fair debate to say that another coach may mesh better with these players. Sloan is a very old school guy, he's from another era,
and his time is coming to an end. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
When I listen to him sometimes I almost feel bad for him. He has a hard time hearing, and seems really out of it in post game interviews.
It's fair to say the guy might be holding on too long. Maybe it's a pride thing?
At some point we are going to have to make a change. Why keep going with someone who is not part of the future?
When is there going to be a better year to make a change? In 2 years when Deron is a FA?
 
So, you want to be blown apart with that list line of yours? Easy enough.

INEPT SUBSTITUTION PATTERNS

Your claim for this has relied SOLELY on not playing Koufos and Fesenko more during this season and Okur, Millsap, and Boozer less. You also make the claim that playing those two inferior players over those three superior players would somehow garner more wins because they would have magically developed and thus become more superior to Boozer, Okur, and Millsap during the playoffs. You DO NOT win ballgames by playing inferior players. Playing time DOES NOT automatically develop players.

And to counter that Sloan relies on his "veterans" too much is easily disputed. I've mentioned the Price example before. He played Price until the END OF THE GAME in Game 5 against the Lakers in the '09 playoffs. This led to a mass crying of posters on this site that it was a fault of Sloan to not play Price this year. Sloan played Price A LOT this year, and surprise, surprise, everyone does NOT want Price as the primary backup. Sloan knew that Price was not the answer as a backup long before we did. I guess it's Sloan's fault Price didn't develop into the proper point guard.

Another example, Okur did not play as well as he did last year. Guess what? He also got 4 less minutes per game, or a 12% reduction in minutes. A significant number. You say Millsap and Boozer shouldn't have played together against the Lakers. They're our best players. You play your best players. This will be addressed more later. You also argue +/-, as if that's the determining factor on how well a player did. +/- is extremely flawed. Do you have anything else to solidify your argument other than plus/minus?

And you don't even address the wing situation, likely because it completely disproves your argument. Sloan had five wings that could play early in the year, and mainly three in the playoffs. He played the two that were playing the best. Simple as that. Very flexible. Dependent on how which players were playing the best AND which players matched up against, which will come up later.

SUBPAR PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

A complete line of bull doodie, and there have been plenty of cases given already. The examples of players that regressed after leaving the Jazz is plenty, and is much larger a group then those who thrived when leaving. Do you really want the examples?

You also seem to think that "development" only occurs with minutes given on the court. You also site the young bigs the Jazz currently have. Fesenko, on the court, a small percentage of what Sloan actually saw from the players, fouled a lot, didn't get up the court well, was a liability on offense, especially given the alternatives on the court at the C, namely Okur and Boozer, and could not be depended on late in games because of a horrid free throw percentage. Koufos, on the court, a small percentage of what Sloan has seen of him, does not run the offense well, is bullied by other bigs, is tentative often, has trouble boxing out the athletic bigs, isn't good at one on one post defense. The offense is the biggest thing, since I'm sure the Jazz practice all the options that each play has. It's just that he doesn't seem to recognize the defense quickly enough and has to pass back out and run the P&R.

Again, accusing Sloan of supbar player development is complete and utter hogwash. Put his record against anyone's, and he'll come out strong.

INADEQUATE MATCHUP EVALUATION

I remember the one time a couple of years ago, against the New Jersey Nets on the road, when Kidd, Jefferson, and Carter were still there, in the fourth quarter Sloan played the matchup, taking Boozer out because NJ was playing four wings. The Jazz lost, and the mood here was crazy calling for Sloan to play Boozer and force the other team to matchup to you. Now we want to "matchup" to the Lakers by playing inferior big men? And you really should force the other team to matchup to you. That means you're the superior team. The only matchups you should do is if your players are of similar ability and their strengths matchup better to the opponent's weakness, which of course we saw with the Jazz' wings this year. You also matchup with defense versus offense with starters and reserves. Sloan does this. One example is Okur coming back in whenever Yao came back in. He matched up with him well, so Sloan made sure he was really the only one to guard him the majority of the time.

So the way I'm seeing it, your argument against Sloan comes down to the fact that Fesenko and Koufos haven't "developed" to your liking, and you blame Sloan for that. To expect these two players, one not expected to do anything of consequence in the league (Fesenko) and one dropping like a lead balloon on draft day (Koufos) to play better than what they did last year, given their age, time in the league, and knowledge of the game before arriving in the NBA is folly. I actually believe that Koufos can do something in this league and be a good player, but the fact that he isn't yet CANNOT in any way, shape, or form, can be blamed on Sloan at this point in time.
 
I don't think that I have unreasonable expectations; not even I was bold enough to say that the Jazz had a high chance of beating the Lakers (although if they had made a conscious, concerted effort to develop one or both of the bigs and enforce Boozer playing defense, things might have been different). To me, a reasonable expectation for this team was reaching the WCF, which might have meant that it was necessary to get better than the 4th seed. Utah did neither. Exceeding expectations would have been reaching the finals; what they did accomplish was underperforming.

See, this is why I have difficulty accepting what you're pushing here. Not because I think your expectations are unreasonable (they're not), but because you're having issues putting everything into the context of what Utah was facing this season. Let's not forget the Jazz were eighth last season. Sure, there were circumstances that established that finish - but the same could be said for this season. For starters, not many predicted Utah to finish above where they actually finished. So just because you feel the ceiling was higher than fifth does not make it so. In fact, I'd wager a great deal of fans and media members (not suggesting their opinion is more acceptable than yours, but to prove a point...) felt the Jazz would do worse than they did. Not necessarily because of the talent problems, but more because of the fact they looked abysmal at the end of last season and had the whole Carlos Boozer problem to deal with.

Remember, entering the season it was the consensus of most that Boozer would probably be traded by season end and that he had, unfortunately, become a cancer for the team.

If I was unable to find fundamental errors in coaching strategy (e.g., substitution patterns, player development) then I wouldn't be criticizing Coach Sloan and claiming that they failed to reach their potential. Problem is that I have been a fan for decades and have seen these errors repeated time after time. To Sloan's credit, the team seems to have good chemistry now (even though Boozer is still a headcase and an ineffective co-captain, it appears that everybody got along).

Bud, you're going to find problems with every coach. You know why? Because there is no universal way how to coach a successful game. They aren't perfect and they will make mistakes. That's why you don't judge a coach based solely on one or two issues and rather look at the picture as a whole.

You know what's funny, though? I've read a lot of team message boards and outside of a team or two, most fans like to bitch about the substitution patterns of their head coach. It's like complaining about the offensive/defensive coordinator in football. The weakness is always within the substitutions.

Hell, I remember reading a whole damn post on a Spurs blog complaining about Pop's substitutions either at the end of the season or after one of their last playoff losses.

My point? No coach is perfect. Even the next guy you bring in isn't going to be perfect. He may make better substitutions than Sloan. He might even develop younger talent better than Sloan. He could also lose the team and struggle developing the right in-game adjustments to succeed.

So your criticism might be valid alienated from the overall picture. However, in the context of what Sloan has done here, I do not see how it validates the argument we need a new coach. It just suggests he isn't the perfect coach. Well hell, I knew that.

That's all I was claiming. Utah had the ability to wine one or more games--and one or more playoff series--than they did. The difference is plenty small, and there were several regular-season games this season that I believe were winnable with better coaching strategy.

Again, context is important here. In the entire context of the season, Utah had a bad start. Yet from January to the end of the season, I believe the Jazz were playing some of the best basketball in the NBA.

What changed? Did Sloan just wake up on January 1st and remember how to coach again? Of course not. They did struggle in November and December, but down the stretch played some fantastic ball and had they played that well earlier in the season, they would have most certainly grabbed the third seed and potentially the second.

Of course, had they continued playing the way they did at the end of '09 throughout the second half of the season, they certainly aren't a win away from that third spot and maybe, unfortunately, on the outside looking in when it comes to the NBA playoffs.

Again, what changed? I don't think it was Sloan's coaching.

With that said, every team has a few games they lose that maybe they should have won. The Jazz also have a few games they should have lost that they actually won (I'm thinking the Cleveland game and probably the Portland game when they were down 25 on the road). Are we going to blame Sloan for the bad losses while ignoring the big wins?

Like I said a few posts ago, I could easily say Sloan's coaching was the reason Utah even had a chance to grab that third spot. And you know what? Based on the fact this team faced huge chemistry issues and were an afterthought in the west's race prior to the season, I'd have a legitimate claim.

But in the end, Utah was a win away from that three-seed. The season did come down to one game. Was it Sloan's fault Boozer was injured and didn't play? We know the answer to the first question (no, it wasn't Sloan's fault) and of course, the second answer is an unknown. But that bolsters my point. If we're going to emphasize one or two games that proved to be the difference between the 5th and 3rd seed, we can't overlook a game where we were missing our starting PF and coming off a game played the night before.

Maybe the Jazz still lose if Boozer plays. Maybe they don't. What I do know is that we have no definitive answer there and I can't fault Sloan for that. In my mind, that changes the dynamics of this debate. I mean, you concede one or two games cost the Jazz that third seed. Well it isn't impossible to admit that one of those two games was that Phoenix game and the outcome potentially changes with Boozer in the lineup - thus delivering that third seed for Utah. Since we're talking in unknowns, it's just as easy to assume missing Boozer was the difference between the path Phoenix faced and what Utah eventually saw in the playoffs - not Sloan.

think that you're extrapolating from my argument because I never claimed that this team had the most talent. But they underperformed. And the adjustments aren't hard; you simply play less of two undersized PFs together and a slow Euro + a defenseless Boozer. You also bench players for a posession or two who are underperforming (for whatever reason) and give more minutes to those who are doing well, no matter their rank on the totem pole. Go back and watch the final game of the Suns series; Gentry stuck with the backups until late in the 4Q, and they almost won the game for him. Unfortunately he succumbed to the Sloan like tendency of relying on the veterans, and it didn't work, but Sloan probably would've pulled the backups long before the 3 to 5 minute mark because that's what he did in almost every game--if not every game--of the Laker series. Such a strategy resulted in a big-fat goose egg. Key word? Strategy. Changeable. Adaptable. To sloan's credit, he played Fesenko more in the final game, but Fes needed PT during the regular season--even when he was being a goof-off off the court. So even though Fes was a net positive out there, he wasn't bordering on being a consistent player on both ends of the court. Who decided the playing time? Our perennial underachiever, Jerry Sloan.

Again, your argument is based solely on opinion and not fact. This is the problem I am running into here with you because it's difficult to debate someone who feels their opinion is essentially the right one.

Now I know you're thinking this is an opinion-driven debate and you're somewhat right. Coaching ability can be subjective. But we also have facts and facts aren't subjective. Of course, you can spin those facts to back your claim, but the facts don't change.

That is where I believe you're wrong. And I don't mean your opinion is wrong (it's unknown because expectations and the like are purely subjective), I just mean the way you're going about this argument is wrong because you aren't presenting facts. The facts say Sloan is a successful coach. That's definitive. I guess we could debate how successful and whether someone would do a better job. However, the proven (any suggestion someone else could do a better job is entirely unproven) says to me Jerry Sloan knows how to coach and is and has always been the guy for the Jazz.

I mean, you claim Sloan is a perennial underachiever. I say he's done about all he was expected to do with the Jazz. This season I felt we'd finish fifth or sixth in the west. I had hopes the team would be better than they eventually finished, but reality told me that we still had too many issues - specifically, which you admit, dealing with the potential emotional land mine known as Carlos Boozer.

I also feel the Jazz overachieved in the playoffs by even advancing beyond the first round sans two starters. Maybe you felt they'd beat the Nuggets (especially after falling down 0-1). I didn't.

But that's pesky opinion and, again, not fact.

To be clear, though, I believe fact can be used to determine if a coach is not successful. I feel if a coach does not consistently get his teams to the playoffs and produces losing season after losing season, you have a legitimate case to call for a coaching change. But that isn't the case here. We're not in that position.

We're also not in the position, like Cleveland, where a successful head coach is being forced out to appease the star player (in that case, LeBron). Is Mike Brown a bad coach? Well you could make the argument based on the fact his teams typically fail to live up to their playoff seeding (how many times did Sloan's teams squander the one-seed out west? Never). But that wasn't why he was fired. He was fired because LeBron wanted him gone and if the Cavs have any hope of him returning, they'll do anything he asks.

I guess if Williams was on the record as to saying he wanted a coaching change, I would probably join your chorus.

That isn't the case, though, is it?

Not sure why you and other apologist fans are simply satisfying with making a dent in the playoffs instead of maximizing this team's potential, which they definitely didn't. Whether the ceiling of this team was a 6-game exit in the WCF or a title is more debatable IMHO than whether they failed to meet their reasonable potential.

Again, you fail at differentiating opinion and fact. Just because you hold an opinion does not make you absolutely right. I'm sorry, man, but that's just not how it works. If you think they're not maximizing the team's potential, fine. But don't act as if it's unequivocally accepted.

Well, I already pointed out that both Popp and PJ (and Sloan, for thtat matter, started as assistants, so it is very narrow-minded to not use the assistant route as a viable source of new coaches. And again, my contention is that Sloan failed to properly exercise more than one fundamental coaching technique, especially when it comes to substitution choices and player development, which should be enough in my book to not renew his contract if he shows no indication of changing (he's shown little over 20 years).

Almost every NBA coach starts as an assistant. The great. The good. The bad. And yes, the ugly. They all generally were assistants at one time in their career. This does nothing to help your point because for every Phil Jackson, there are fifty Bob Weiss'.

ROFLMAO that you would argue that a coach would clash with the players when Sloan is probably among the absolute worst in the league in maintaining good relationships with all of his players. To his credit, relationships seem good now, but Sloan is remarried and older, so it's no surprise that he's mellowed out. Also, Deron's leadership has helped to start building cohesion on the player level, and that player-level leadership was absent between the Malone/Stock era and the Deron era.

All his players or just the bad ones? How many times did Sloan clash with Malone or Stockton or Horny for that matter? Williams, our star player, is fully supportive of Sloan. You even admit his relationships seem good now.

Sure, there will be clashing. Sure, coaches and players will have spats (guess what, so will players and players), but in the end, how many major players on the Jazz have left because of a ruined relationship with Sloan? Chris Morris? Ha.

No one is expecting the perfect hire. No coach is perfect. I'm asking for a coach that exercises fundamental coaching techniques, including player evaluation and matchup evaluation.

Listening to you, it's a wonder Sloan could win 10 games in a season, let alone 54. I mean, you think he lacks a clear understanding of substitution patterns. Can't develop players. Has no coaching technique and utterly fails at matchup evaluation. And yet, through all this incompetency, he still managed to win over 1,000 games, become the fourth winningest coach in NBA history and lead the Jazz, once again, to 50+ wins this season and the second round.

For a bumbling idiot, that's pretty damn good. Well frankly, maybe you're right. Obviously if an inept coach like Sloan could have the Jazz on the cusp of the third seed, a retarded, half-aborted fetus assistant could probably have them undefeated well into the month of March!

:rolleyes:

Well, if my expectations are that the Jazz's coach have the same caliber as the coaches who have actually won a championship, then call me optimistic. And if my claim is that when a coach fails to meet these expectations, his contract shouldn't be renewed, call me demanding. What is a true tenet is that if you keep doing the same thing, chances are that you will keep having the same results. Which is what happened this year. Utah had decent discipline, OK teamwork, a pick-and-roll system that worked against most teams. But defense wins championships, and Sloan didn't put this team in a position to win the defensive battle. The Jazz wings probably maxed out what they could do vs. Kobe, but the 4/5 spots did not against their respective opposition. What weakens your argument is that I have identified specific weaknesses in Sloan's coaching rather than simply saying that Sloan sucks. Not sure why you are so interested in riding Sloan's jock when they got pwned in the second round.

I don't think you're optimistic. I think you're irrational.

You want a coach that is cut from the same cloth as those who have won a championship. That's a realistic goal, I guess, considering that since 1990, only five NBA coaches have won titles (Rivers, Jackson, Tomjanovich, Popovich and Riley).

There have been over 100 coaching changes since 1990 in the NBA. That means, out of all those changes, only five coaches have what you want.

Do you know the odds of grabbing that sixth coach?

I'm sure you can do the math.

See, that goes beyond optimistic. That's in the realm of unbelievability. Not because it can't happen, but because it probably won't happen.

So I guess Utah's future, in your eyes, is to join the ever turning coaching carousel where we only give a coach three years to deliver before shipping him out. Maybe that's what you want. I don't. I don't see how there is any stability in that. And for a franchise located in Utah - arguably the least attractive place to play in the NBA - I think the last thing we want to do is gun for instability.

But whatever.

What part of inept substitution patterns, subpar player development, and inadequate matchup evaluation do you not understand?

Since you understand it so well, why not go walk into Gregg Miller's office and offer up your services?
 
So, you want to be blown apart with that list line of yours? Easy enough.

INEPT SUBSTITUTION PATTERNS

Your claim for this has relied SOLELY on not playing Koufos and Fesenko more during this season and Okur, Millsap, and Boozer less. You also make the claim that playing those two inferior players over those three superior players would somehow garner more wins because they would have magically developed and thus become more superior to Boozer, Okur, and Millsap during the playoffs. You DO NOT win ballgames by playing inferior players. Playing time DOES NOT automatically develop players.
No, actually my argument doesn't rely on playing Koufos and Fesenko more during the season, although Fesenko led the TEAM (not just the other 4/5s, but everybody) in on-court/off-court +/- during the regular season. (And if your response is that it was on a low base of minutes, you are supporting my argument, because the way to find out if the positive +/- sticks is to give Fes more PT. My claim is that his +/- would've come down but still would've stayed positive, even if his individual +/- stayed negative. Unless your name is Carlos Boozer and you care about padding your stats for the next contract, team +/- is more important, and it makes sense that a center would be more likely to have a better team +/- than individual +/- because centers are more likely affect the production of more opposing players than just the opposing center. But I don't have to rely on stats, either. I rely on multiple games during the season in which Fes came in and helped to recover a deficit or build a lead--even though he didn't score much--yet Sloan reverted to the poor-defending 4/5 starters and lost the game. This should've been sufficient to give Fes more development time--not to mention the blatantly obvious need for a legit center that had been widely spoken by the FO and sometimes by coaches and players last summer even after Okur was signed.
https://www.82games.com/0910/0910UTA.HTM

And to counter that Sloan relies on his "veterans" too much is easily disputed. I've mentioned the Price example before. He played Price until the END OF THE GAME in Game 5 against the Lakers in the '09 playoffs. This led to a mass crying of posters on this site that it was a fault of Sloan to not play Price this year. Sloan played Price A LOT this year, and surprise, surprise, everyone does NOT want Price as the primary backup. Sloan knew that Price was not the answer as a backup long before we did. I guess it's Sloan's fault Price didn't develop into the proper point guard.
The Price example actually supports my argument for inept substitution patterns; thanks for introducing it. Price is a favorite player of mine, but he has been an inconsistent floor general. It would be the right decision to play Price more if he was producing better, but such an assessment is on a per-game (and per-quarter IMHO) basis. (BTW, Utah didn't play Price significantly more anyway. He had a lower MPG and rose only modestly in total PT. Check your facts.)

While RP's A/TO ratio was good this year, so was Sundiata's, and Price ended up with a low-40% FG shooting percentage, consistent with his career FG% of 40%. Yet Sundiata ended up with 46% shooting percentage and a better A/TO. And I'm sorry; when a backup PG wins a game for you at the buzzer vs. a contender (Cleveland), you reward him with some PT. Instead, Sloan gave him two petty minutes after the game was lost on the next night vs. Denver. As my original claim confirms, Okur was the big liability on the back-to-back, with a -26 +/-, and I am NOT saying that you take many minutes away from Deron (unlike Okur and Boozer, DW's D is usually less of a liability, or at least he tries harder, and the stats also show that DW is more essential than CB or MO) to develop Sundiata, but Gaines should've been put ahead of Price in the lineup, at least for enough time to continue evaluating and developing him during the 8 to 15 minutes of backup PG time that is normal. But Sloan went back to tradition, of relying on the slow veterans, and Utah lost. In the Denver game, Price and Sundiata had about the same impact, but Price had 3 PFs in 5 minutes. Sundiata deserved those minutes, if for no other reason than to reward him for the effort the night before. And his performance over the season suggests that he was at a similar level as Price.

This is the same old stinking thinking that Sloan uses at the 4/5 spot as he does at the backup PG spot. It's just more damaging at the 4/5 because nobody's gonna argue that Deron should sit down when he is doing well or have his minutes cut in order to develop the PG, although there were some times this season (including that Denver B2B, where DW committed 5 TOs) that giving D-Will a few minutes' rest might have helped the team, because even Deron isn't immune to starting to jack up shots or make poor-judgement passes.

I actually have to get some work done, so I don't have time right now to tear apart the rest of your argument (or Sean's), but the above info does build implicitly and explicitly on the claim of poor substitution patterns, subpar player development, and inadequate matchup evaluation (playing Okur vs. Denver on the second half of a back to back--and then keeping him in there for 20 minutes, and then giving all the minutes to Millsap was stupid).
 
Last edited:
Again, the ONLY thing in your post is +/- and that PT=development, which means nothing in the real world of basketball. Can you argue WITHOUT using +/-?

EDIT: And I'll get this in about something you posted, which amuses me. Re: Price. MPG and total minutes. You say they were about the same. "Check my facts," you say. Let me ask you this. What were Ronnie Price's minutes as the PRIMARY BACKUP this year as opposed to last year? You know, the PERTINENT minutes that this whole discussion is about, not minutes that Price was forced to play for 17 games last year because of an injury to Williams? Of course, your counter will be PT FOR DEVELOPMENT, PT FOR DEVELOPMENT, seemingly making the claim that Price/Gaines/Rudy/Betty White would have developed if only they got playing time.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read this whole thread, but maybe I will. But, first things first, ya know?:

Respected players, coaches, and expert commentators from around the league routinely give high praise to Sloan and indicate they think he is one of the best there is. Phil Jackson said he votes for Sloan every year for COY. Popovich has freely admitted to imitating much of what Sloan does.

Any know-it-all-wannabe message board poster who thinks he has more knowledge and better judgment than Sloan when it comes to coaching should be analyzing himself, not Sloan.
 
If I was unable to find fundamental errors in coaching strategy (e.g., substitution patterns, player development) then I wouldn't be criticizing Coach Sloan...

If I was a coach and had a player who made 99 out of 100 free throws, I wouldn't say one word about it. Not until he missed that one, anyway. Then I would scream "YA GOTTA MAKE THOSE FREE THROWS, BOY!"

Then I would cut his sorry *** from the team, just to teach him an important lesson. The best way to prove I'm perfect is to demand perfection from others, I figure.
 
Again, the ONLY thing in your post is +/- and that PT=development, which means nothing in the real world of basketball. Can you argue WITHOUT using +/-?
Um, actually +/- equals point differential, and +/- is statistically highly correlated with wins.
https://armchairgm.wikia.com/NBA_Point_Differential_-_The_Most_Power_Stat
Talk about spewing your own unsubstantiated opinion.

You would think that you would have enough dignity to attempt to provide supporting evidence for your own argument. And I would think that Utah getting pwned by the Fakers would be enough. I'm not going to go through a game-by-game analysis, because the summary speaks volumes. What I will say is that in the 3rd quarter of Game 1 and Game 2, Utah's starters (including Fesenko) reduced a deficit vs. the Laker's starters, but in the middle of the 3rd quarter, when Sloan subbed in Millsap to play along Boozer, the deficit expanded again. In game 4, Sloan subbed in Millsap to play alongside Boozer in the middle of the first quarter, and Utah's 4-point lead turned into a 16-point deficit by the time Fesenko came back in at the 6-minute mark in the second quarter. During the rest of 2Q, the deficit held at about -16, ending the half at -17. Like in G1 and G2, the Jazz starters (including Fesenko) reduced the deficit AGAIN significantly in the third quarter--this time from 17 to 7. In sum, Fes + Boozer worked in all of these cases, and Millsap + Boozer did not.

And you continue to be an apologist for Sloan when he keeps playing two undersized PFs together when it clearly fails relative to playing a big, even though that big doesn't score much? Laughable.


EDIT: And I'll get this in about something you posted, which amuses me. Re: Price. MPG and total minutes. You say they were about the same. "Check my facts," you say. Let me ask you this. What were Ronnie Price's minutes as the PRIMARY BACKUP this year as opposed to last year? You know, the PERTINENT minutes that this whole discussion is about, not minutes that Price was forced to play for 17 games last year because of an injury to Williams? Of course, your counter will be PT FOR DEVELOPMENT, PT FOR DEVELOPMENT, seemingly making the claim that Price/Gaines/Rudy/Betty White would have developed if only they got playing time.
Primary backup vs. secondary backup isn't particularly relevant. What is relevant is who should be developed. For some of 2008-2009, it wasn't clear who was better between Knight and Price, but Knight's +/- suggests that he was the better choice, and he got modestly more minutes. (Sorry if you conveniently think that you can just dismiss statistics that don't support your argument.)

So once again, you're supporting my argument. Price was arguably the third-string backup two years ago (although the best use of Price vs. Knight was situational, using Price when defense/athleticism was more important and Knight when set offense/maturity is more important, which is possibly yet another example of poor substitutions by Sloan). Price didn't substantially improve from last year to this year, so the only reason that he would reasonably be "promoted" to a definite second string is if the other backup PG was clearly worse. Unfortunately, the other PGs (Maynor and Gaines) were younger but not necessarily worse. Maynor, both before and after being traded, had better point and assist production (and--Alas--+/-. Surprise!) than Price for the regular season.

But again, the backup PG can make an impact on the team outcome, but Utah has a seasoned PG. Utah didn't have even one seasoned center (Okur doesn't count, because Matador defense doesn't count). Therefore, giving minutes to Fesenko should've been paramount, given that centers do take longer to develop. Unlike you, I continue to provide not only statistics and game examples, but also outside sources.
https://www.82games.com/wong1.htm
 
I haven't read this whole thread, but maybe I will. But, first things first, ya know?:

Respected players, coaches, and expert commentators from around the league routinely give high praise to Sloan and indicate they think he is one of the best there is. Phil Jackson said he votes for Sloan every year for COY. Popovich has freely admitted to imitating much of what Sloan does.

Any know-it-all-wannabe message board poster who thinks he has more knowledge and better judgment than Sloan when it comes to coaching should be analyzing himself, not Sloan.
Of course other coaches love Sloan because they would love to have his hands-off job security and continued blind loyalty from the owner, especially given that some teams have had the opposite problem: firing coaches too quickly. After 20 years and repeated suboptimal behavior, not renewing Sloan would not be a knee-jerk reaction. I have cited only a few of the several games in which better substituting and better player development would've altered the outcome.

Just because a person's peers praise him doesn't mean that he's the best for the job. NBA players also are unlikely to diss their fellow players--at least the ones that they don't dislike--because they want to see that they get paid.

Your mention of other people loving Sloan conveniently ignore detail on what Sloan actually does and does not do well. In the case of Popovich, he might have imitated much of what Sloan does, but then he also figured out how to do superior player development, substitutions, time-outs, and even player acquisition (given that he's been a GM), and he has multiple rings to show that he's not a very good imitator; he's done far more than that. Oh, and without alienating a long string of foreigners that Sloan did. Betcha that Popovich skipped on "imitating" that part.
 
I'm getting confused about what you're arguing, since I have no idea how your link says anything. You can give all the minutes you want to Araujo, but you ain't going to develop him. And there's no comparing centers with more minutes played versus centers with fewer minutes played and how his PER over the five year span is different, so that link is useless in what you're arguing, that Fesenko should be given minutes. The best part is that PER is more an offensive rating than anything, and stat driven at the utmost. Fesenko will be devalued by PER, so I don't know why'd you'd use a blog post about PER for your argument.

What is better to use, something that includes defensive rating, is Win Shares. Since you like outer links.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Win Shares include offensive and defensive ratings as well as how the team does while the player is in the game. It's more dynamic since it will show how how much the player influenced the game, rather than how the score changed while he was in the game.

Take a look.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2010.html

Number 1 in WS/per 48? Surprise, surprise, Carlos Boozer. Deron Williams a mere 0.001 behind. Kirilenko was third. No surprise there. Next up? Paul Millsap. Fesenko? Lagging far behind. He doesn't produce wins, even with a higher Defensive rating than Boozer and Millsap. Now as for the playoffs, Fesenko produced a negative win share per 48, while Millsap actually increased his and Boozer's fell dramatically, but was still way ahead of Fesenko. If you look at the advanced stats, Millsap was either equal or way ahead in all stats. And then when you look at the raw stats for the Lakers series, the 2/1/1 stat line for Fesenko doesn't help his cause, no matter what the plus/minus says.

Now, concerning +/-, when I looked at game four in the Lakers series, it wasn't Fesenko's that stood out, it was Lamar Odom's, and to an extent, Andrew Bynum's. Now, it's possible to reason that the cause of the run was Millsap coming in for Fesenko, but I think a better explanation would be Odom coming in for Bynum. Bynum was hurt and played poorly. I'm sure you'll say it was Fesenko which caused Bynum to play bad, but Bynum's low usage in comparison to Gasol would make Fesenko's play on Bynum less important.

I'm not sure if there is a way to see what Fesenko's rating was on Gasol as opposed to Boozer and Millsap, but I doubt putting Fesenko on Gasol more often would have changed the result, except maybe a higher fouls per 48 for Fesenko, since you're not putting Fesenko on Odom.

Now, I've provided many a game sample. I've provided many a stat. Here's a quick one. Gaines led the Jazz in rebound rate. He should have been the center. I've provided "outside sources." I've provided more than enough than enough counter evidence that Sloan is horrible at substituting, developing players (actually, you never provided anything supporting this, just a link to PER which doesn't say anything about whether more minutes "develops" players faster), and deciding on match ups. It's clear that he's not.

An aside: If you want to discuss Price and Gaines more, I'd be happy to add on. I don't want you thinking I conveniently left that part out, or anything.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea how your link says anything. You can give all the minutes you want to Araujo, but you ain't going to develop him.

I beg to differ. I have a little cousin who loves to hoop. It's all he does. He hasn't developed a shot yet, but he can handle the ball extremely well--for a five year old, anyway.

Give him 20 minutes a game in the NBA for a season and teams would be offering him millions, I'm sure. Being on the floor, in a real game, just does that somehow. Best part is, he wouldn't even have to practice any more.
 
The slight minority of Sloan-bashers on this board is reminiscent of the "Dump Deron Wiliams" contingent (drivewayball, aaqua, et al). For whatever reasons (Christina Paul is their girlfriend, they don't like Williams taking any attention way from AK or Boozer, or whatever) they have convinced themselves that having one of the best, if not the best, point guards in the world on the Jazz just won't cut it. The Jazz must find someone better.
 
I'm getting confused about what you're arguing, since I have no idea how your link says anything. You can give all the minutes you want to Araujo, but you ain't going to develop him. And there's no comparing centers with more minutes played versus centers with fewer minutes played and how his PER over the five year span is different, so that link is useless in what you're arguing, that Fesenko should be given minutes. The best part is that PER is more an offensive rating than anything, and stat driven at the utmost. Fesenko will be devalued by PER, so I don't know why'd you'd use a blog post about PER for your argument.
I figured that you'd almost reflexively mention Araujo, but Araujo is yet another example of a player who contributed in the playoffs (significantly slowing down Duncan) but Sloan never used him again. IMHO, Hoffa (especially with his T-Rex arms) had less potential than Fesenko, but it was foolish not to use him as a backup C and defensive gadfly on the opposing team's cornerstone player. More of an example of Sloan's poor substituting (in-game strategy) than player development.

What is better to use, something that includes defensive rating, is Win Shares. Since you like outer links.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Win Shares include offensive and defensive ratings as well as how the team does while the player is in the game. It's more dynamic since it will show how how much the player influenced the game, rather than how the score changed while he was in the game.

Take a look.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2010.html

Number 1 in WS/per 48? Surprise, surprise, Carlos Boozer. Deron Williams a mere 0.001 behind. Kirilenko was third. No surprise there. Next up? Paul Millsap. Fesenko? Lagging far behind. He doesn't produce wins, even with a higher Defensive rating than Boozer and Millsap. Now as for the playoffs, Fesenko produced a negative win share per 48, while Millsap actually increased his and Boozer's fell dramatically, but was still way ahead of Fesenko. If you look at the advanced stats, Millsap was either equal or way ahead in all stats. And then when you look at the raw stats for the Lakers series, the 2/1/1 stat line for Fesenko doesn't help his cause, no matter what the plus/minus says.
Very industrious of you to actually post outside links. I've dabbled with WS% in the past, and I didn't remember why I didn't like it. Upon further review, I have one big reason why: it's substantially correlated with playing time, with an R-square of 0.90 between minutes and WS% (based on the 2009-2010 Utah Jazz team data from basketball-reference that you provided). The formula for calculating WS% also confirms that it depends on how much PT the player actually gets. So OF COURSE Fesenko is going to do poorly in this department; that's a cornerstone of my criticism--that Sloan has tried little to find time for the bigs. And sure enough, KF and KK2 don't do well in a statistical measure that is highly correlated with playing time.

BTW, on-court/off-court +/- has an R-square of 0.09--a far lower correlation than WS%'s 0.90. WS%/48 is still rather correlated with PT, too, at R2 = 0.58.

Now, concerning +/-, when I looked at game four in the Lakers series, it wasn't Fesenko's that stood out, it was Lamar Odom's, and to an extent, Andrew Bynum's. Now, it's possible to reason that the cause of the run was Millsap coming in for Fesenko, but I think a better explanation would be Odom coming in for Bynum. Bynum was hurt and played poorly. I'm sure you'll say it was Fesenko which caused Bynum to play bad, but Bynum's low usage in comparison to Gasol would make Fesenko's play on Bynum less important.
It appears that Sloan was taking out Fesenko when Bynum was out, but it wasn't like Millsap + Boozer was a better matchup on Gasol + Odom than Boozer + Fesenko was. And I already pointed out how that in at least 3 of the 4 games, the Jazz starters (with Fesenko) outproduced the Laker starters before Millsap came in. Coincidence? I think not.

I'm not sure if there is a way to see what Fesenko's rating was on Gasol as opposed to Boozer and Millsap, but I doubt putting Fesenko on Gasol more often would have changed the result, except maybe a higher fouls per 48 for Fesenko, since you're not putting Fesenko on Odom.
Such an analysis would be interesting, but in your quest for a counterargument, you're looking at a more individual stat. Part of my claim is that Fesenko makes the team better, especially defensively, even though he doesn't put up many numbers.

Now, I've provided many a game sample. I've provided many a stat. Here's a quick one. Gaines led the Jazz in rebound rate. He should have been the center. I've provided "outside sources." I've provided more than enough than enough counter evidence that Sloan is horrible at substituting, developing players (actually, you never provided anything supporting this, just a link to PER which doesn't say anything about whether more minutes "develops" players faster), and deciding on match ups. It's clear that he's not.
Again, you're focusing on an isolated stat, but I never claimed that rebounds make you a center. You're reaching and extrapolating. What that does support, though, is my argument that Gaines should've gotten more PT at the backup PG spot, even though rebounding is a relatively less important stat for the backcourt than assists, points, and maybe steals.

Thanks for helping my case.
 
Back
Top