Also, nobody said we wouldn’t skip a beat. Just that it wouldn’t be as drastic as some are acting is all.
Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz
- Thread starter Ferguson_Mellochill
- Start date
I don't think Kennard is healthy right now... but yeah I understand. I think we will pretty obviously be worse even if they are all healthy.
I would be more inclined to believe that if we played fantastic with Mike on the court, but we're not. There's always an element of randomness to this, especially given small sample sizes, so maybe we are actually significantly better with Mike and the numbers don't bear that out. But that can go both ways. Personally, I'm not convinced and while Conley still has his merits, he also has a lot of flaws at his age and Sexton/others also have stuff they bring to the table. If there's a drop off, I don't think it's because we're worse with Conley is so much better than Sexton...it's because he's so much better than THT who gets extended minutes. I do believe the difference there is real because THT is so crappy, so maybe the win difference would be real....but it could be mitigated by putting in a replacement level player or playing Sexton more minutes.
There are 32 games left in the season. If the cost of losing Mike is 4-5 wins, that would mean that would mean he changes the Jazz overall net rating by like +5. This is some bad back of the napkin math, but only star (superstars?) have that kind of impact. Gun to my head, I think we're worse, but not by much. But even if we are, does it matter? I don't really think so. I can guarantee that when draft time comes people around here are going to be wishing they were drafting just 1-2 shots higher. Development wise I think it's nice to have Mike around....I think it's also nice to give the younger guys more opportunity. I would prefer to have the increased opportunity for others and I would prefer to be 1-2 spots in the draft too.
I understand how folks math all that stuff out... I get it... I love on/off court data... I really do. I think it misses when projecting wins for an individual player.
Its pretty simple in my mind... are there 2-3 games I think Mike plays really well and the margin may be thin so without him we lose? Yes. Do I think there will be a game or two where THT/NAW/Sexton have eff ups that cost us a game or two? Yes. Do I also consider the effect trading Mike would have on depth and the potential for that to cost us a game or two if the other guys get hurt? Yes.
Mike is one of the best playmakers in the league. Literally he is top 7 in assists per minute. That is a void we will be hard pressed to fill and without that guy I can quickly see a push and pull between guys as they go "my turn your turn".
Can't really just Math the absence of Mike in my mind. We play a **** ton of close games so a few shifts in those games and they are losses.
framer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the big thing with Mike is also depth. When you have third string playing second string minutes for long stretches we suffer. It is good that Kessler is playing Olynyk's starting minutes. It would be better if Olynyk was back playing Gay's minutes.
If the margin of error for winning is THT, we are boned. No two ways about that. He has had ample chances too. We'll see what he brings next year.
Even KO has "won" us multiple games... like if we had traded Bogey for no players coming back I think there are easily 4-5 games we lose... either he got hot or hit game winners etc.
I understand the logic behind using math to map out a player on court difference... I just think it isn't exact and not having Mike (on court or in the locker room) is a 4-5 game swing.
When Mike is out and we lose closely, yeah it's going to feel like we could have won with him. But what people don't think about is that there will also be games that Mike does play and plays poorly. Even if one player is better than the other, he's not playing better 100% of the time and even if he does it might not make the difference between W/L. Take two parallel universes where we have Mike and we don't have Mike. There will be times where it doesn't matter because both he and his replacement both play well or both play poorly and it doesn't change the result. There will be times where Mike plays better than the replacement, and it makes the difference. There will also be times where he plays better and it doesn't make the difference between winning and losing. There will also be times where the placement, even if he's worse overall, will perform better than Mike and it could make the difference. You have to consider all that, not just the times where Mike plays better and it makes the difference. It's very easy to look back at a game and say, "ah we would have won with Mike".
Dismiss it because "math" if you want, but Mike would have to have a superstar level impact to make a 5 game difference in 32 games. RAPTOR had 6 guys total in the NBA produce at that level last season. Say that's totally off and there's actually 5x more players who can do that in the league. Is Mike a top 30 player right now? I don't think he's close. 10x more players that can do that, he's still not close to being a top 60 player. I think he's actually pretty similar to Collin Sexton's level, who we are 5-8 without btw. I think the impact of losing Conley would be very similar to losing Sexton. The bench would drop, and that would make a difference, but probably not a ton. This is also assuming we get no player back better than THT.
Numbers aren't everything of course, but I won't dismiss them unless there is something overwhelming that overrides that. And all of this just to bring up the real question, do we care if we win 1, 3, or even 5 more games with Mike? If we do win 5 more with Mike, do we actually want to win those 5 games anyways? You can be dead set that Mike wins us a lot more games, but that also servers as legitimate rationale as to why we SHOULD trade him.
I understand that. I think measures like Raptor are useful for player projections but can have deficiencies in projecting team performance. I get that a player can have both good and bad games but Mike is a very steady force for good. I think THT has some wild swings and so does Collin but since our margins are pretty thin here those swings will end up costing us games.
The example that illustrates how I think on this is Bogey and the Denver series. If Bogey plays in that series I am fairly certain everyone here would say we win... likely in 6 games. Does that mean that Bogey is a 23 WAR player? No not at all. Could he make a 2 win difference in a 7 game set? **** yes he could.
13 of our 50 games have been decided by 3 points or less. We are 7-6 in those games. We should have 8 or so of those games the rest of the year. Could two of those games flip on us without Mike in between now and the end of the year? What happens if we move Mike and Collin or NAW miss 5-6 games? Do 2 or 3 of those games flip.
WS, box plus minus, WAR all that **** is valuable for player comparisons and such but I think the math is imperfect and won't capture exact win/loss effect over a sample of 32 games.
Read my signature... I do see it as a benefit of the trade... I just think its hilarious that folks can't see that Mike helps us win and think its paint by numbers and we will fill the hole he leaves.
Math Scmath... Mike is a winner
Hearsky
Well-Known Member
I dunno. Sexton certainly gives more effort. He is an interesting contrast. A big part of what makes him really good is his insane intensity. A big part of what keeps him iffy is his insane intensity. We can be 100% sure he ain't going to be any part of this tanking nonsense. I love those kind of dudes. One of those rare players that would get much better by learning when to dial it down to 92%.