This season will vindicate Ty Corbin

[GVC]

Only part of your post I have a problem with is you talking of the ignorant masses on jazzfanz.
Most everyone outside of jazzfanz thought that Corbin did a poor job of coaching last year.

I'm only talking about his lineups/rotations, and how they contributed to development. I was fine with them letting Ty go.

 

[GVC]

Lindsey just didn't like Ty and wanted to hire "his guy."

And another.

Still waiting on a link to Ty directing criticism toward Kanter.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm only talking about his lineups/rotations, and how they contributed to development. I was fine with them letting Ty go.

Ok.
Ya you make good points about Burks and kanter possibly being better off from the bench, as well as the team.

 

[magic]

I think you've missed the point.

How? You're saying that Corbin did the right thing by playing Burke and Kanter less minutes because they were inexperienced and hence needed to be put in limited situations to succeed. But at the same time you have Burke who has less experience than those two and yet Corbin put him in more situations and played him more minutes per game. Hence, the contradiction.

 

[GVC]

You keep talking about them as if they were rookies and haven't already had the chance to play against backups and work on the basics... This is simply not the case. Both of them had 2 full seasons behind them.

And? Has Kanter shown an ability to execute the basics in a lesser role?

Not really, all it attests to is that we had a young team. When you have only 2 older players in the rotation, you simply cannot give them more than 96 minutes a game. Everything else will be young players playing and taking shots. When you have 85FGA/Game on average your regular rotation guys will take about 10 per game. It means nothing...

This is simply not true. There were only 4 other teams in the league last season that had 5 players who played 50+ games and averaged 10+ field goal attempts (not a single team had more than 5). Had Kanter and Burks been moved to the starting lineup, some or all of the young players would have had to give up touches and shots.

Still, Burks played over 1200 minutes with Gordo, over 1000 minutes with Trey, and over 950 minutes with Favs last season. He was also frequently used in late game situations. What difference does it make if he's brought off the bench (to provide more balance to the team)?

 

[Stifle Tower]

I'm only talking about his lineups/rotations, and how they contributed to development. I was fine with them letting Ty go.

I guess like fishon stated, we both have strong opinions on how the season should have been unfolded and what was the best way to develop the players. No doubt Kanter and Burks got opportunities by coming off the bench, although I still think Alec was short-changed early in the season with RJ and even Mike freaking Harris getting too many minutes.

I will always believe chemistry is a HUGE part of success. The Heat found that out when LBJ first joined the team and they got off to a slow start. And the Cavs are finding that out now. So if the intention were to EVER play Burke-Burks-Favors-Kanter-Hayward together, then why not let them figure it out in a throwaway season? Now if Lindsey directed Ty to have Burks and Kanter be 6th men because that was the plan going forward, then my apologies. But the starting lineup this year hints otherwise. And I think the Jazz would be much further along if those 5 had more time together as a unit last season, whether or not a couple of them took a shot or two less per game. And even that is debatable and could have been avoided by playing certain guys fewer minutes.

 

[GVC]

How? You're saying that Corbin did the right thing by playing Burke and Kanter less minutes because they were inexperienced and hence needed to be put in limited situations to succeed. But at the same time you have Burke who has less experience than those two and yet Corbin put him in more situations and played him more minutes per game. Hence, the contradiction.

1. Burks and Kanter both played plenty of minutes last season. With Burks, his minutes and role were pretty consistent throughout the season.

2. Different players progress at different rates. Trey had a much better feel/understanding for team basketball last season than either Burks or Kanter. Obviously, this is a judgment call.

 

[GVC]

I guess like fishon stated, we both have strong opinions on how the season should have been unfolded and what was the best way to develop the players. No doubt Kanter and Burks got opportunities by coming off the bench, although I still think Alec was short-changed early in the season with RJ and even Mike freaking Harris getting too many minutes.

I will always believe chemistry is a HUGE part of success. The Heat found that out when LBJ first joined the team and they got off to a slow start. And the Cavs are finding that out now. So if the intention were to EVER play Burke-Burks-Favors-Kanter-Hayward together, then why not let them figure it out in a throwaway season? Now if Lindsey directed Ty to have Burks and Kanter be 6th men because that was the plan going forward, then my apologies. But the starting lineup this year hints otherwise. And I think the Jazz would be much further along if those 5 had more time together as a unit last season, whether or not a couple of them took a shot or two less per game. And even that is debatable and could have been avoided by playing certain guys fewer minutes.

1. In 2012/13, I thought Kanter was ready for a bit more playing time, and thought the team would have been better off if he were given a few of Jefferson's minutes. Last season, I thought the same about Alec and RJ. Both are minor gripes.

2. This team is still a long way away from contention. They can play those 5 together in this throwaway season (if it makes sense). There may be a tradeoff between individual player development and specific lineup development.

3. I take issue with those who state that development is only a function of minutes and starting. Ludicrous.

 

[GVC]

I think it's also worthwhile to point out parallels in other leagues with more developed farm systems. It's rare for draftees in either hockey or baseball to begin their pro careers in the top league. Teams generally let them find some success, and develop individual skills and good habits against lower level competition in lower leverage situations. For those of you with any experience teaching/mentoring, doesn't this approach generally make a lot of sense?

 

[stitches]

And? Has Kanter shown an ability to execute the basics in a lesser role?

In offense - yes, to an extent. In defense - I doubt he ever will...

This is simply not true. There were only 4 other teams in the league last season that had 5 players who played 50+ games and averaged 10+ field goal attempts (not a single team had more than 5). Had Kanter and Burks been moved to the starting lineup, some or all of the young players would have had to give up touches and shots.

Hm, that's an interesting point. I haven't thought about it. You might be right about this one. But I still think it shows more about the youth of our team and the lack of a leader or leaders on the team(clearly defined first option) who would take a lot of shots, so they were pretty evenly distributed among the rotation, plus probably shallow rotation has something to do with it as well... What are the other teams? Orlando? Philadelphia? Both young teams just like us without built identity and without established leaders. Who else?

Still, Burks played over 1200 minutes with Gordo, over 1000 minutes with Trey, and over 950 minutes with Favs last season. He was also frequently used in late game situations. What difference does it make if he's brought off the bench (to provide more balance to the team)?

It matters because usually only the starting line up is the one that plays major minutes together. No other line-up plays more than 5-6 minutes(I think that was the number, if I am wrong correct me) together a night. You can cherry pick - he played with this guy that amount of minutes and with that guy that amount of minutes, but this doesn't tell you anything, besides "he wasn't always alone on the court, he had a starter most of the time with him". Well, good, but it is much easier to develop when you have stability around you and you play with the same guys -all of them, rather than one or two of them(which is usually the case with subs).

 

[Coach Ellis]

I think it's also worthwhile to point out parallels in other leagues with more developed farm systems. It's rare for draftees in either hockey or baseball to begin their pro careers in the top league. Teams generally let them find some success, and develop individual skills and good habits against lower level competition in lower leverage situations. For those of you with any experience teaching/mentoring, doesn't this approach generally make a lot of sense?

Absolutely. But sometimes you just need to test your talent and see where they truly are instead of guessing and never really trying it out. It seemed clear to some of us that Corbin didn't have faith inthe young players, and that was reflected in their play as individuals and as a team. I see the exact opposite in play here this season under Quin Snyder.

Aside from the question of who has better schemes and development skills, my person opinion is that Snyder coaches to win, while Corbin coaches to not lose. There is a big difference between the two. Considering the improvement of these young players in a short period of time, I'm very happy that Quin Snyder is leading this team.

 

[GVC]

Hm, that's an interesting point. I haven't thought about it. You might be right about this one. But I still think it shows more about the youth of our team and the lack of a leader or leaders on the team(clearly defined first option) who would take a lot of shots, so they were pretty evenly distributed among the rotation, plus probably shallow rotation has something to do with it as well... What are the other teams? Orlando? Philadelphia? Both young teams just like us without built identity and without established leaders. Who else?

Philly, Chicago, Washington, Orlando. Granted, the 50 game cutoff is fairly arbitrary, but I wanted to rule out players who got shots part of the season due to injuries or shots redistributed due to trades.

Yeah, there are other reasons why no particular player got a lot of shots on the team last year. Still, bringing Enes and Alec off the bench contributed to the relatively even distribution of shots among the young players.

It matters because usually only the starting line up is the one that plays major minutes together. No other line-up plays more than 5-6 minutes(I think that was the number, if I am wrong correct me) together a night. You can cherry pick - he played with this guy that amount of minutes and with that guy that amount of minutes, but this doesn't tell you anything, besides "he wasn't always alone on the court, he had a starter most of the time with him". Well, good, but it is much easier to develop when you have stability around you and you play with the same guys -all of them, rather than one or two of them(which is usually the case with subs).

1. There's probably a tradeoff between developing individual skills and developing a 5-man lineup on a young team. Reasonable people can disagree about which course of action is appropriate. I don't think this was one of Ty's flaws. He did a pretty good job with roles and lineups last season.

2. Kanter still has a long way to go as a team basketball player. His poor execution puts additional pressure on other players, and makes it difficult to learn and practice proper team execution in-game (especially on defense). I don't think that should be ignored.

3. If Gordo, Alec and Trey/Dante are longterm pieces on this team, it may make sense to bring one of them off the bench. There are diminishing returns to on-ball players, and substituting one of them for a shooting or defensive specialist in the starting lineup could very well improve both the starting lineup and bench unit. It also insures that there's always someone on the court who can create shots. Manu and the Spurs are a perfect example of this philosophy.