Number of Wins

[b_line]

I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.

The only thing I really disagree with here is that Burks seems even more fragile than kirilenko at this point.

I don't think your projections are pessimistic, just not as optimistic as some. They should end up close to 50 wins to show their progression, and you are not that far off from that.

Diaw probably won't contribute much more than teach guys veteran tricks on the court, and how to eat and drink off it.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.

47 wins is a 7 game improvement over last season, and thats a huge leap. I put them at 48, but 50 is not out of the question. Everything you're worried about happened last season, they lost a lot of close games (what was the number? 15 decided by 5 or less points, and we lost 9?), and they still could have finished with 45ish wins and a playoff berth.

I have a hard time believing that 47 is the floor if the obvious upgrade at PG, no more Chris Johnson's and Elijah Millsap's playing meaningful minutes, and another year of growth isn't enough to move the needle for you. You breakdown sounds like low 40's to me, like last season numbers.

 

[NAOS]

I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.

I've still yet to hear you directly address the addition of George Hill. In your posts, he's either lumped in with the 'old folks' we added, or (like the quoted post) he's completely absent. That's one big *** reason that your "objectivity" is very easy to question.

 

[♪alt13]

Finally, a pessimist who doesn't suck.

I really enjoy log as a poster. I disagree with him about the Jazz's outlook this year but I am glad that he is back.Yeah, he's being pessimistic but he doesn't suck.

 

[Rgiss]

I really enjoy log as a poster. I disagree with him about the Jazz's outlook this year but I am glad that he is back.Yeah, he's being pessimistic but he doesn't suck.

Same here. And I get annoyed when he doesn't address my points

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I really enjoy log as a poster. I disagree with him about the Jazz's outlook this year but I am glad that he is back.Yeah, he's being pessimistic but he doesn't suck.

Lol. I was just making a joke because of the optimistic way you used pessimism. And I like Log too, but not his sucky pessimistic takes.

 

[ghsartin]

Being realistic, 49. With a little luck (and by that I mean no serious injuries) and if the players don't get mad at each other due to the reduced playing time, I think the Jazz could win even, let's say, 55.

 

[Lost_Jazz_Fan]

I'm going with 56 wins. Jazz finally return to their stable healthy ways of years past and finish with a top 3 record in the West.

 

[Scorpjazz]

I know the Jazz have potential. Everyone knows that, everyone. I have to give them 50 based off the raw amount of talent and potential. I cant give them more, however, because they have never actually done anything, all together, consistently over time. Potential is a scary thing...until realized.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

2015 final standings had Cavs, Raptors, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Hornets win 48 games or more in the East.
Warriors, Spurs, Thunder, and Clippers win 53 games each in the West.

The Jazz got 40 games with 14 close losses.
The Jazz were the youngest team in the league.
The Jazz lost 2 players for basically the whole season to injury in Burks along with a ton of other injuries to starters.
The Jazz had no bench.
The Jazz had no point guard.

The Jazz have a bench now.
The Jazz have a point guard now.
The Jazz are healthy now.
The Jazz are older and more experienced now.

I think that the Jazz are as good or better than last year's uninspiring Clippers who got 53 wins.

 

[LogGrad98]

Healthy is somewhat subjective. Burks was fully healthy going into the season last year. Favors was too. Frankly the fragility of this team will cost us a few games, maybe as many as 5-7. I sure hope not but it has directly impacted games the last 3 seasons so even being very optimistic about their health you have to let a little realism in and realize we are seeing a trend. To me that is a real concern.


As far as responding to various posts and stuff for anyone who has noticed I tend to post a bunch in quick shots then stay away a day or 2,so i dont always revisit old threads posts or responses. I'll try to check more of those and respond.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.

So an extremely young core getting a year older, adding 3 key veterans, and not having to play any rookies/scrubs isn't worth a big win increase to you?

"Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid." Uhhh, what? Last year was the 2nd year in his 6 year career that he played under 70 games, and both of those years he still played 62 and 65 games. That claim that health will be an issue seems baseless. Claims like that are why there is vitriol towards you because you are talking out of your ***.

 

[Douchebag K]

Trey Burke and Raul Neto being replaced by George Hill and Dante Exum

Joe Johnson shooting the ball instead of Chris Johnson.

Boris Diaw even in limited minutes and Lyles trying to make shots compared to Trevor Booker.

Ingles only having to be used for spot minutes.

My only concern is whether Rudy regains his swagger.

I just don't see how this team doesn't take an enormous jump. AND if Exum actually starts to become half decent 55 wins isn't out of the question.

If we miss the playoffs like someone thinks we could, I'm all for completely blowing it up, that would be a disaster. 47 wins is the absolute minimum.

 

[LogGrad98]

So an extremely young core getting a year older, adding 3 key veterans, and not having to play any rookies/scrubs isn't worth a big win increase to you?

"Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid." Uhhh, what? Last year was the 2nd year in his 6 year career that he played under 70 games, and both of those years he still played 62 and 65 games. That claim that health will be an issue seems baseless. Claims like that are why there is vitriol towards you because you are talking out of your ***.

If you followed basketball very much you would have noticed that once a big starts having certain health problems they tend to creep up again and again. The back is one of the most prevalent. Another is joint issues (knee particularly) and another is microfractures.

And 62 games means TWENTY games lost. 65 is 17 games lost. That is not insignificant. What proof can you provide it won't occur again since I am talking in PROBABILITIES and you are talking in absolutes.

Feel free to google any concepts you aren't keeping up with, or just come back with some kind of 7th grade insult, which tends to be your default posting style anyway.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you followed basketball very much you would have noticed that once a big starts having certain health problems they tend to creep up again and again. The back is one of the most prevalent. Another is joint issues (knee particularly) and another is microfractures.

And 62 games means TWENTY games lost. 65 is 17 games lost. That is not insignificant. What proof can you provide it won't occur again since I am talking in PROBABILITIES and you are talking in absolutes.

Feel free to google any concepts you aren't keeping up with, or just come back with some kind of 7th grade insult, which tends to be your default posting style anyway.

He had an issue from the bed he was sleeping on. He fixed that. Yes, I'm sure he will miss some games because big men tend to miss games here and there. This isn't the 90's, players miss games. We are extremely well set-up to be fine if he misses anything <20 games.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

Healthy is somewhat subjective. Burks was fully healthy going into the season last year. Favors was too. Frankly the fragility of this team will cost us a few games, maybe as many as 5-7. I sure hope not but it has directly impacted games the last 3 seasons so even being very optimistic about their health you have to let a little realism in and realize we are seeing a trend. To me that is a real concern.


As far as responding to various posts and stuff for anyone who has noticed I tend to post a bunch in quick shots then stay away a day or 2,so i dont always revisit old threads posts or responses. I'll try to check more of those and respond.

All teams have injuries. I am banking on us havin less injuries to starters than we did last year. I believe that to be a safe assumption because last year most of our injuries were to our 6 of our top 7 players.

If Favors and Gobert each miss 17 games but we get Exum and Burks back... AND we have depth beyond Chris Johnson, Joe Ingles, and Raul Nero to back us up... I think it is VERY safe to say we will have an advantage as far as injuries and their impact on our squad next year vs last.

Also, according to the data, we were 10th in the league for total man games lost. 10th most. Not great, but it gets worse... see memphis. That tracks how many games were lost to injuries. HOWEVER, most of our injuries were to 6 of our top 7 players. So, if adjusted for the top half of the roster I am sure we are in the top 5 teams in the league.

We should do better than that. It's not a stretch no matter how much dopamine in your system.

 

[orangello]

51

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Hotdog]

The values of the wins are equal to infinity.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

[MENTION=499]LogGrad98[/MENTION] this is why we like teh Jazz this year. If you watched games you would know the 3 "old guys" we signed are all great shooters and will replace horrific shooters in our lineups.

 

[SCS]

48 wins. 4th or 5th seed in the West, 1st or 2nd in the division.