What's new
By:
Filters

The Ringer's Jonathan Tjarks raves about Utah Jazz on Twitter

  • Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date
Last year 50 wins would have been #7 in the league.

Seems reasonable to me. If you think about last year, we were better than a 40 win team. If you look at point differential, which I understand is generally a highly accurate predictor of record, if I recall correctly it predicted we should have won 44 games. I.e., if the season were to be replayed, with injuries and all, the Jazz would most likely win about 44 games. Even if you think that's too generous, maybe you'd agree with 42 games. Injuries to Favors and Gobert undoubtedly cost us a few games, I think 2 games each is reasonable. Burks' injury likely also cost us a game. So that takes the team up to 47 games. Then there are the serious PG issues we had. I think Hill and a healthy Exum in place of Mack, Neto, and Burke easily add another three games to the win total, which takes us to 50 games. And I haven't even mentioned adding the other two new players of Johnson and Diaw, along with the internal development of our own young core. Gobert, Hood, and Lyles in particular should all be better than last season. All together I'll be very disappointed if the Jazz don't hit 50 games. And it seems like there's a real chance of winning more than that, to me.

If I were a gambling man, I'd probably take the over on 47 games, the under on 53 games, and not bet on anything in between. So yeah... 50 wins seems about right.
 
colton said:
Last year 50 wins would have been #7 in the league.

Seems reasonable to me. If you think about last year, we were better than a 40 win team. If you look at point differential, which I understand is generally a highly accurate predictor of record, if I recall correctly it predicted we should have won 44 games. I.e., if the season were to be replayed, with injuries and all, the Jazz would most likely win about 44 games. Even if you think that's too generous, maybe you'd agree with 42 games. Injuries to Favors and Gobert undoubtedly cost us a few games, I think 2 games each is reasonable. Burks' injury likely also cost us a game. So that takes the team up to 47 games. Then there are the serious PG issues we had. I think Hill and a healthy Exum in place of Mack, Neto, and Burke easily add another three games to the win total, which takes us to 50 games. And I haven't even mentioned adding the other two new players of Johnson and Diaw, along with the internal development of our own young core. Gobert, Hood, and Lyles in particular should all be better than last season. All together I'll be very disappointed if the Jazz don't hit 50 games. And it seems like there's a real chance of winning more than that, to me.

If I were a gambling man, I'd probably take the over on 47 games, the under on 53 games, and not bet on anything in between. So yeah... 50 wins seems about right.
Click to expand...

The Jazz's biggest problem last year was closing out games. I don't really see how they have fixed that. Yes, we are deeper. Yes, we are more...veteran? Experienced. That's the word. BUT, who do we have, that with 2 mins left in the game, we can give the ball to, clear out and ask him to go get us some points? We really don't have anyone.

Sadly, our best option might be Burks (who makes everyone around him worse, so it's probably not him) or Exum, who has the talent to do so, but does he have the dribbling abilities and confidence to do so?

I think we are better. I think we win some games we lost last year to lesser teams, like that last Clippers game because of our depth. But, I think we still lose a lot of close games. That's why I think 50 wins is still a stretch.

We improved, but we didn't hit our biggest weakness: closing out games. It's another reason I wanted Teague. He could do that. You can give the ball to Teague with two minutes left, set a screen, and he can get you points.
 
green said:
Actually, Joe Johnson is probably our best bet to be our closer.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. We'll see how much he has left in the tank. Hopefully enough. And Hill also is rated pretty highly in clutch shots, if I recall correctly.

So I'm thinking that a lineup of Hill, Hood, Hayward, Johnson, and Favors will be SO MUCH better in the final minute of a close game than anything the Jazz put out there last year.
 
colton said:
Quite possibly. We'll see how much he has left in the tank. Hopefully enough. And Hill also is rated pretty highly in clutch shots, if I recall correctly.

So I'm thinking that a lineup of Hill, Hood, Hayward, Johnson, and Favors will be SO MUCH better in the final minute of a close game than anything the Jazz put out there last year.
Click to expand...

I actually sat here for a couple mins trying to pick apart your last minute lineup. I'm not in love with Hill and Hood being out there at the same time, but if your closers are Hayward and Johnson...I'm ok with it.

I hope the Jazz are correct in their thinking and Exum takes the starting job from Hill come Feb. Because I like this a million times more (if that is the case):

Exum
Hill
Hayward
Johnson
Favors

That could be a nasty lineup to finish games.
 
Exum
Hill
Hayward
Johnson
Favors

That could be a nasty lineup to finish games.
Click to expand...

I think Jazz end up with Dante closing out games sooner than later,he's a better passer and his defense is better than GHill even though Hill is pretty good himself defensively. And I just can't see both Hood and Burks sitting out the end of games at the same time ,their both way better offensively than GHill .I understand Hill will be a great asset for adding depth to the Jazz BUT how did he get star status with the Jazz when he never had it wit San Antonio or Indiana.
He'll get lots of minutes with the Jazz and will be a rotation player BUT he's not a core player.He's 30 years old and won't be getting a big contract with the Jazz.

I think the end of Games will be Exum,Burks,Hood,Hayward,Favors for smallball...Exum,Hood or Burks,Hayward,Lyles,Favors .....Exum,Hood,Hayward,Favors,Gobert depending fouls and whos hot.
 
I think the Jazz grow a brain and remember our identity, aka play Favors and Gobert in closing minutes. Defense is important.
 
I don't see closing out games being a major problem this year. We had limited options on the offensive side of the ball last season & just having the threat of Hill, J.Johnson, (hopefully) Burks, & an improved Lyles should make it much easier on Hayward, Hood, & Favors.

From what I remember (granted I have limited access to Jazz games due to living in MA) defense was the bigger issue in the final minutes. Hill & a healthy Exum goes a long ways towards fixing that. Also having more offensive options will allow Favors to focus on defense in crunch times. Health is the only real concern I have when it comes to this team.
 
green said:
The Jazz's biggest problem last year was closing out games. I don't really see how they have fixed that. Yes, we are deeper. Yes, we are more...veteran? Experienced. That's the word. BUT, who do we have, that with 2 mins left in the game, we can give the ball to, clear out and ask him to go get us some points? We really don't have anyone.
Click to expand...

I think the ability to close out games comes with experience, making mistakes and an open floor by way of fellow teammates. I think or rather hope that Hayward will be this guy for us this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top