The Jazz have the 5th best point differential in the west

[Handlogten's Heros]

All the qualifying of statistics drives me crazy these days. The offensive issues we have can in part be solved when favs comes back. The general issue (and not just crunch time) is that we have too many complete no threats in the rotation. Neto can't create enough off the dribble to handle as much as he does. His sit is okay. CJ has turned into millsap and turns down open threes to drive no where. Booker is a complete nonthreat in the PnR and teams are daring him to shoot the jumper. Withey can hit the 15 footer and roll off the pick well, but can't create anything.

Bottom line... We need one more wing creator and one more big who is a threat. Wing creator could be a pg or a wing but I just think when you are starting Rudy who is not great offensively that it is tough to roll Neto out who can't do much either and it completely jams up the offense unless we are killing the three. Then in some units you add Booker, Rudy, Neto, with other guys and I have no idea how we ever score.

 

[MTS]

I'd prepared myself not to reply to whatever lamely large statistical generalization you would come back with, but I though I'd chime in to say that I've noted how you've acknowledged that the jazz are at least a "marginal" disadvantage due to the offense. "Marginal" might be enough; we're talking about just a couple of buckets deciding these games.

You're changing the argument. My entire point is that defense is a bigger problem than offense. Not being able to wear the opposing team down over the course of the game, at best, brings their defense from 16th to 18th. It's below-average regardless. You might be right that not being able to wear the opposing offense down hurts our defense a bit. But as you can see, from the beginning of the game to the end, it's not enough to say that our offense is a bigger problem than the defense.

Here's a bit more, though:

None of your stats address the predictability of the offense in these late-close-game moments, and the high degree of difficulty of most buckets. I claim that our "success" has been fools' gold -- a second point I'll continue to make in the face of any of those general statistics.

To your credit, it probably is a bit of fool's gold. But even so, a few lucky shots rimming out wouldn't be enough to drop our offensive efficiency from 5th to below league average. They represent an extremely low percentage of the shots that make up this stat. And predictability isn't necessarily a bad thing - the Stockton/Malone offense was extremely predictable. It still couldn't be stopped.

I'm not saying I can't be convinced otherwise. But you're not close.

I don't really care about convincing you, to be honest. "I disagree with the stats" isn't a refute, it's just another way of saying "I'm wrong but don't want to admit it".

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'd prepared myself not to reply to whatever lamely large statistical generalization you would come back with, but I though I'd chime in to say that I've noted how you've acknowledged that the jazz are at least a "marginal" disadvantage due to the offense. "Marginal" might be enough; we're talking about just a couple of buckets deciding these games.

Here's a bit more, though:

None of your stats address the predictability of the offense in these late-close-game moments, and the high degree of difficulty of most buckets. I claim that our "success" has been fools' gold -- a second point I'll continue to make in the face of any of those general statistics.

I'm not saying I can't be convinced otherwise. But you're not close.

Completely agree with you. I actually give our players a lot of credit for scoring as well as they have with what our offense creates for them.

 

[MTS]

It is so bizarre to me that, given the injuries we've had and the amount of minutes we're giving to rookies and D-league players, people are ripping Quin's system for producing only the 9th best offensive rating in the NBA. I can't even fathom how you could expect better.

 

[NAOS]

You're changing the argument. My entire point is that defense is a bigger problem than offense. Not being able to wear the opposing team down over the course of the game, at best, brings their defense from 16th to 18th. It's below-average regardless. You might be right that not being able to wear the opposing offense down hurts our defense a bit. But as you can see, from the beginning of the game to the end, it's not enough to say that our offense is a bigger problem than the defense.



To your credit, it probably is a bit of fool's gold. But even so, a few lucky shots rimming out wouldn't be enough to drop our offensive efficiency from 5th to below league average. They represent an extremely low percentage of the shots that make up this stat. And predictability isn't necessarily a bad thing - the Stockton/Malone offense was extremely predictable. It still couldn't be stopped.



I don't really care about convincing you, to be honest. "I disagree with the stats" isn't a refute, it's just another way of saying "I'm wrong but don't want to admit it".

I've never changed my argument in this thread.

Stockton and Malone had a counter to everything. There wasn't anything predictable about the WAY they executed the PnR. They'd predictably run it unpredictably.

So stats represent Truths, free of necessary context, and futile to refute? Emmmmk.

 

[NAOS]

All the qualifying of statistics drives me crazy these days.

Hmmm.. ok. In my experience, most of what we're exposed to is praise for statistics.

The offensive issues we have can in part be solved when favs comes back. The general issue (and not just crunch time) is that we have too many complete no threats in the rotation. Neto can't create enough off the dribble to handle as much as he does. His sit is okay. CJ has turned into millsap and turns down open threes to drive no where. Booker is a complete nonthreat in the PnR and teams are daring him to shoot the jumper. Withey can hit the 15 footer and roll off the pick well, but can't create anything.

Bottom line... We need one more wing creator and one more big who is a threat. Wing creator could be a pg or a wing but I just think when you are starting Rudy who is not great offensively that it is tough to roll Neto out who can't do much either and it completely jams up the offense unless we are killing the three. Then in some units you add Booker, Rudy, Neto, with other guys and I have no idea how we ever score.

Mostly agree. But we're not even using our best offensive options right now (with Favs out). Synder has JUST started using Lyles instead of Booker in some of these late-close-game dynamics. Lyles is at least a threat. Hell, even get Ingles in there (and then out on any defensive subs) for more possessions. Booker has been a joke on offense, and his defense is far from awesome.

 

[MTS]

I've never changed my argument in this thread.

Stockton and Malone had a counter to everything. There wasn't anything predictable about the WAY they executed the PnR. They'd predictably run it unpredictably.

So stats represent Truths, free of necessary context, and futile to refute? Emmmmk.

Well, your arguments so far have been that Utah's offensive rating of 9th is misleading because their offense doesn't wear the other team out. But our defensive rating, relative to the rest of the league, only drops 2 spots when comparing the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter, suggesting that the defense is bad primarily because it is bad, and not because the offense can't wear the other team out.

You also touched on the predictability of the offense, but the offense is still top 9, so I don't really see any evidence suggesting that the predictability of the offense is hurting it. Unless you think the Jazz offensive rating should be top 5 or something. Which, quite frankly, is unreasonable.

 

[NAOS]

Well, your arguments so far have been that Utah's offensive rating of 9th is misleading because their offense doesn't wear the other team out. But our defensive rating, relative to the rest of the league, only drops 2 spots when comparing the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter, suggesting that the defense is bad primarily because it is bad, and not because the offense can't wear the other team out.

You also touched on the predictability of the offense, but the offense is still top 9, so I don't really see any evidence suggesting that the predictability of the offense is hurting it. Unless you think the Jazz offensive rating should be top 5 or something. Which, quite frankly, is unreasonable.

my argument is that the jazz aren't playing a winning style of basketball. (I've also had to make many arguments about how your stats are missing the point). I'll call it quits here, though.

 

[MTS]

lol

 

[NAOS]

stats are Truth

 

[Deleted member 848]

stats are Truth

Offensive predictability is not always tethered to offensive inefficiency. Seems like you're letting this cloud the reality of a decent 4th quarter offense by a depleted Jazz team.

 

[NAOS]

Offensive predictability is not always tethered to offensive inefficiency.

It is tethered to the energetic output of the defense.

Seems like you're letting this cloud the reality of a decent 4th quarter offense by a depleted Jazz team.

Seems like you want a silver-lining to turn into a sunny day at the beach.