Where did Paul Millsap go?

[chemdude1232]

Ok so big al is good at blocking shots but hes a bad player overall? Can you change your mind a few more times?Ok look at the past agmes and show me all the blocks the opposing teams get that are sooo greater than an undersized player at center? they better get more blocks then big al. Yet they don't overall. Big al blocks more than them and thats why he averages 1.8.

Just to play devil's advocate for GVC, you need to realize that Ostertag was great at blocking/altering shots, but he was a bad player overall.

 

[DukeJazz]

Paul Millsap, ON AVERAGE, plays much better than Big Al does in Jazz losses. He plays about even with Big Al in Jazz wins. You can generally count on Paul Millsap showing up to play. The same can't be said for Big Al.

The Jazz have played 31 games. They all count. I'm not going to ignore the first 30 games of the season when evaluating players' relative value to the Jazz. That would be retarded.

Are you on pot? Big al plays way better defense then millsap also scores around the same. Big al plays better than millsap in jazz wins.

Wow did i just read your post? You don't think it takes any time to get used to the jazz offense? Wow you lost all creditability with your posts.

 

[DukeJazz]

Just to play devil's advocate for GVC, you need to realize that Ostertag was great at blocking/altering shots, but he was a bad player overall.

No way is al as bad a scorer as ostertag. al has a jumpshot.

 

[GVC]

All I ever did was call you on your quote that the team is consistently bad with Big Al.

Yeah, we've definitely been "bad" with Big Al on the floor. We're definitely winning games in the 10-12 minutes in which he's benched.

The Jazz are winning games, or at least keeping them close in spite of the starters' slow starts until the fourth quarter. If the Jazz as a team were to outscore their opponents at the rate they do with Big Al on the court, they'd be struggling to stay in the Western Conference playoff picture.

They should start all three of those guys. We'd win every game by 30.

Again, I never said that, and explained why your conclusion does not follow.

Additionally, Jazz were almost always a better team with Bozzer off the floor, yet you still sing his praises whenever you can and probably believe we were better with him.

Another lie.

Absolutely. I understand that you're judging players based on on/off court stats instead of wins and losses

One more.

 

[Archie Moses]

When in doubt, GVC always turns to, "you're an idiot, you're a moron, or you're stupid." Stay classy, Canada.

 

[GVC]

I use facts and team performance, you use cherrypicked stats and insults.

You haven't read a single one of my posts. The main thrust of them was that Paul Millsap has outplayed Big Al. I used FAR MORE stats than you have. The only stats that you have used are cherrypicked (+66 - apparently the other -56 doesn't matter...).

And, one more time, I think Big Al is the best option for the Jazz at the 5. Paul Millsap is the best option at the 4. A frontcourt of Memo/Big Al, if their performances thus far are any indication of what we can expect moving forward, would be disastrous.

 

[GVC]

When in doubt, GVC always turns to, "you're an idiot, you're a moron, or you're stupid." Stay classy, Canada.

Only after people choose to put words into my mouth, make false accusations and fail to read my posts. Those two morons haven't made a single meaningful response to my posts. If they did, maybe there'd be reason to doubt (that is, I insulted them only after they insulted me, and not out of any doubt about my assertions). Do you disagree?

 

[Marty McFly]

The only reason I used +66 is because that's the 2nd most played lineup for our team, and by far our best. Big Al is in it. That was purely meant to refute the consistently bad statement.

 

[GVC]

Wow did i just read your post? You don't think it takes any time to get used to the jazz offense?

Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said anything like that.

 

[Archie Moses]

Only after people choose to put words into my mouth, make false accusations and fail to read my posts. Those two morons haven't made a single meaningful response to my posts. If they did, maybe there'd be reason to doubt (that is, I insulted them only after they insulted me, and not out of any doubt about my assertions). Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. In fact, I find it kind of ironic, that me of all people is calling you out on the name calling. I have a lot of growing up to do. I'm going to go to my room and think about what I've done.

 

[InGameStrategy]

I'd like to add, since we're using stats besides win/loss to decide whether or not players suck, that our BEST 5 man unit this year has been Williams/Miles/AK/Sap/Jefferson, outscoring teams by +66. We're definitely not bad anytime Jefferson steps on the floor. Ridiculous.

Is anybody really saying that "we are bad anytime Jefferson steps on the floor"? I don't think so.

What I'm saying (won't speak for anyone else) is that net -10.9 points per 48 minutes is subpar for a starting center.

What your post does point out is that while Jefferson's underperformance is a problem, Bell's underperformance might be a bigger problem.

Despite my pounding the table for more minutes for Fesenko (and sometimes Elson), it would seem to me that it would be even more obvious to the coaching staff how often CJ has been a crucial x-factor in helping the team stay in games--and how often Bell has been a net liability (even more so than AJ, even though AJ has been a slim net asset, on average, vs. the opposing center).

If there's concern about taking out the scoring from the second unit by putting CJ in the starting lineup where he should be (and bringing Bell off the bench), then bring Millsap or Jefferson off the bench and start Elson (I'm a realist; starting Fes ain't gonna happen). But speaking of realism, I'm not expecting Sloan to ever do this, even though it's a solution to boosting the paint patrol in the starting lineup, reducing the stagnant starts, and keeping the defense and scoring strong in the second unit. I imagine that Sloan might consider slipping Okur in the starting lineup, but I still don't know which of the two he would "demote." Because Sloan preaches accountability but doesn't enforce it. Jefferson's effort (especially in rebounding) has not merited his 30+ MPG (sometimes 35+), but he is still there, as a starter with lavish minutes and a free pass.

BTW, all of you hyperbolers (hyper-Bolers?) who are extrapolating the logic that Elson or Fesenko should play anywhere close to 30 MPG are being disingenuous. For a while, my mantra has been 10+ MPG each for Elson and Fesenko; and closer to 15-20 minutes if they are doing well. Until Okur returned, this still would've allowed Millsap and Jefferson to average at least 30 MPG each (although it should be more like 30 minutes plus only if they are perfoming). And even though the numbers clearly show that Jefferson has been underperforming, nobody is saying that he should be DNP. But when he's sucking out there, he should be pulled--at least for a possession or few. And if his replacement does better--which they have done, more often than not, as part of a unit that has been far more effective, he should sit a few more unless he shows that he can put for the effort and results that Greg Miller's paying for.

 

[GVC]

The only reason I used +66 is because that's the 2nd most played lineup for our team, and by far our best.

Yep, they're +66 in 88 minutes.

The most played lineup (Williams-Bell-AK-Sap-Big Al) is -21 in 506 minutes. We should ignore those 506 minutes and every other minute Big Al plays, and consider only that highly successful 88 minutes (the equivalent of 8% of Big Al's total minutes). brilliant.