What's new
By:

Will Okur improve our Rebounding?

I don't think it's a matter of being "beaten out." Okur has to fit in somewhere. Sloan might think that he would fit better starting. He might not. He could start Okur next to Sap and bring Jeff off the bench. I doubt he'd do that, but he could. My guess is he thinks Okur is better in the starting lineup and either Jeff or Sap have to slot back to backup. They still get starter minutes, but I'm also guessing Sap is the guy to go "down" because he knows the role and he's not as big.
 
billyshelby said:
I don't think it's a matter of being "beaten out." Okur has to fit in somewhere. Sloan might think that he would fit better starting. He might not. He could start Okur next to Sap and bring Jeff off the bench. I doubt he'd do that, but he could. My guess is he thinks Okur is better in the starting lineup and either Jeff or Sap have to slot back to backup. They still get starter minutes, but I'm also guessing Sap is the guy to go "down" because he knows the role and he's not as big.
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot more Carl Landry's then there are Okur matchups who are starting.. (Can't even think of an Okur-a-like) So the idea that Jeff+Sap are different players moreso than Jeff+Okur makes me think that Okur stays as a bench player. Also, that Okur is (percieved) to be such an offensive guy that a "spark" of the bench would be nice. And finally, becuase socially, it is easier to have Okur play a reserve role since he will be doing that for more than half of this season (counting street clothes).

But we'll see. It's a nice problem to have to worry about - too many potential starters on this darn team.
 
Twin Towers said:
Sorry its hard to listen to somebody who threatens to
Click to expand...
I have no idea what that means. I assume it's a typo.

Anyway, I'll let you know my opinion and I'll keep it simple. I don't see how shooting 3s inextricably creates transition opportunities for the other team. A loose ball is still a loose ball and having more players on the perimeter means there are more people to get back to defend the fast-break. The only way that doesn't apply is if you're shooting the 3 from the corner, which is why Sloan doesn't like those. Otherwise, I fail to see how having more people back can make transition D worse, especially since the likelihood of getting an offensive rebound would seem to go up (as boxing out in the paint obviously becomes less effective since the ball is bouncing behind them if it's a long rebound).

As it pertains to Memo, it's rather irrelevant. He is too slow to get back even if he's shooting a 3, but there's no way that could somehow be WORSE than if he was in the paint.

So I guess at the end of the whole thing, maybe the Jazz's offensive rebounds DO go up because of more long rebounds on Jazz shots. 3s are good if you have the personnel, and Memo fits the bill. 3s are not overrated, with the rules as they are, it's absolutely paramount to be able to make them because without that threat, getting baskets inside becomes A LOT more difficult (see also; Brewer/AK-that-couldn't-shoot era Jazz vs. Lakers, a big reason the Celtics lost last year even though they probably would've won in 6 or blown out the Lakers in 7 has Rondo been half of a shooting threat).
 
NUMBERICA said:
I have no idea what that means. I assume it's a typo.

Anyway, I'll let you know my opinion and I'll keep it simple. I don't see how shooting 3s inextricably creates transition opportunities for the other team. A loose ball is still a loose ball and having more players on the perimeter means there are more people to get back to defend the fast-break. The only way that doesn't apply is if you're shooting the 3 from the corner, which is why Sloan doesn't like those. Otherwise, I fail to see how having more people back can make transition D worse, especially since the likelihood of getting an offensive rebound would seem to go up (as boxing out in the paint obviously becomes less effective since the ball is bouncing behind them if it's a long rebound).

As it pertains to Memo, it's rather irrelevant. He is too slow to get back even if he's shooting a 3, but there's no way that could somehow be WORSE than if he was in the paint.

So I guess at the end of the whole thing, maybe the Jazz's offensive rebounds DO go up because of more long rebounds on Jazz shots. 3s are good if you have the personnel, and Memo fits the bill. 3s are not overrated, with the rules as they are, it's absolutely paramount to be able to make them because without that threat, getting baskets inside becomes A LOT more difficult (see also; Brewer/AK-that-couldn't-shoot era Jazz vs. Lakers, a big reason the Celtics lost last year even though they probably would've won in 6 or blown out the Lakers in 7 has Rondo been half of a shooting threat).
Click to expand...

I only care about defensive rebounds right now. We are an OK offensive rebounding team right now. Defensive rebounds is our problem.
Our defense is really good right now in terms of contesting shots and we are shooting less outside shots. I do attribute that to the better defense. I actually predicted this before the season even began. I said our defense would improve because we are working the ball into the paint.
When there is a long rebound it means the other team is already on the move to get down the court. It makes the court shorter for that team and the team already starts moving down the court and gets momentum while we are back peddling.

You again said you did not disagree but everything you are stating is saying different. You aren't agreeing with me. You claimed 3 point shots do lead to long rebounds but it seems you don't think long rebounds lead to semi fast breaks?
Court is shorter
Team has momentum going there way. The entire team starts to move towards where the ball is.
we are back peddling

A loose ball can happen anywhere on the court. A steal or block can happen anywhere on the court. A 3 point shot is totally different and it has a higher chance of landing in the opposite direction going towards the opposite teams hoop.
I know I am repeating myself but I still don't get how you can argue this.

Teams like the Suns, Knicks and Warriors have always been horrible at transition defense. Because they take more outside shots. They allow more points and that is why there Field Goal percentage defense is always worse than other teams. Most stars have very efficient scoring nights against these teams. It always boosts the other teams scoring stats.

No it doesn't make us worse having Okur at the 3 point line. But you can also argue that when Okur is at the 3 point line somebody else is going to be in the paint to spread the court properly. Usually a smaller quicker wing player who would normally be in the back court to help with transition defense.

3 point shots need to be chosen wisely and I don't think the Jazz did that when Okur was playing a lot. Again its that trailing 3 point shot that Deron would hit Okur for that bothered me the most.
 
You're right; I don't disagree with the assertion that long shots lead to long rebounds (I'm not sure I agree necessarily, but it's plausible enough to at least indulge), and I disagree with the assertion that that somehow leads to fast breaks. EVERYONE starts moving in the other direction, and if you have more people on the perimeter when the shot comes off the rim you have more people able to stop the break.

The Knicks, Warriors, and Suns allow a ton of points on terrible percentages because of some combination of playing up-tempo (inevitably brings scoring totals up), they almost always play undersized (Stoudamire as a C on two of these teams, he is not one, David Lee is not a C and a terrible defender), they just don't have the players, and/or don't emphasize defense at all. The three really isn't a part of the equation.

To prove my point, the Magic shoot the most 3s per game in the NBA, and that's not pace-adjusted. The percentage of field goals they attempt that are 3-pointers leads the league by a significant amount, shooting 1/3 of their shots from behind the arc. They've been near the top of this statistic for years now. And they're usually also one of the top defensive teams as well. This year, they're leading the league in (least) points allowed, 6th in opponent FG%, and 3rd in opponent PPS. Dwight Howard is not the strict difference between those terrible defensive teams and arguably the best defensive team in the NBA.
 
And having a culture that didn't emphasize defense and a SG that spent nearly all of his time inside and was terrible as a transition defender anyway (Brewer) accounts for a lot. You don't necessarily have to bring in a perimeter player if you have a big on the perimeter, either. Having AK actually looking for and making 3s while playing inspired and having Bell in contrast to Brewer goes a long way in having the right guys in a position to be back, and I don't think Memo does anything to hurt that, just gives everyone else a better chance to get easier buckets inside.

If bigs that shoot 3s were such a bad thing, why does Matt Bonner get significant minutes (and shoot a significant amount of 3s) for one of the most fundamentally sound and schooled teams in the NBA (that also for years has been one of the most trigger-happy from 3 in the league while being one of the best defenses perennially)?
 
NUMBERICA said:
You're right, I don't disagree with the assertion that long shots lead to long rebounds, and I disagree with the assertion that that somehow leads to fast breaks because EVERYONE starts moving in the other direction, and if you have more people on the perimeter when the shot comes off the rim you have more people able to stop the break.

The Knicks, Warriors, and Suns allow a ton of points on terrible percentages because of some combination of playing up-tempo (inevitably brings scoring totals up), they almost always play undersized (Stoudamire as a C on two of these teams, he is not one, David Lee is not a C and a terrible defender), they just don't have the players, and/or don't emphasize defense at all. The three really isn't a part of the equation.

To prove my point, the Magic shoot the most 3s per game in the NBA, and that's not pace-adjusted. The percentage of field goals they attempt that are 3-pointers leads the league by a significant amount, shooting 1/3 of their shots from behind the arc. They've been near the top of this statistic for years now. And they're usually also one of the top defensive teams as well. This year, they're leading the league in (least) points allowed, 6th in opponent FG%, and 3rd in opponent PPS. Dwight Howard is not the strict difference between those terrible defensive teams and arguably the best defensive team in the NBA.
Click to expand...

I will have to argue that the best defensive center in the game is that difference....... He makes that big of a difference. You take Dwight off that team and the Magic aren't any different than the Suns, Knicks and Warriors. They have a threat down low so the 3 point shot is ok. Quick early 3 point shots are my problem. I have stated this earlier. I don't hate the 3 point shot I just hate when we use it as our first option and hate when we rely on it to win games. The Magic are a 500 ball club without Dwight Howard.
The Magic rely on the 3 point shot but they also rely on a guy who leads the league in scoring in the paint so they have some balance. But if you look at the times the Magic lost in the playoffs they shot way too many 3's and they didn't give the ball to Dwight Howard. Don't get me wrong you have to have the 3 point threat on your team to win but the teams that depend on the 3 point shot are not going to go very far in the playoffs. Most of Okur's 3 point shots didn't come from working it into the paint than him shooting a 3. It came from Deron doing a pick and pop with Okur. That play is fine but it shooting a 3 is obviously at best a 40 percent chance of going in. When you have guys like Boozer, Millsap and Jefferson shooting 50 percent...... We should be going into them first before we consider doing a pick and pop with Okur. And Okur is much more efficient shooting the mid range shot rather than the 3.

When a long rebound goes up in the air they are going towards there hoop to get the rebound and we are going away from there hoop. Its momentum. Of course there is not way to prove this with stats like everybody on here relies on but just the next couple of games. Watch the long rebounds and see how many times guys are out of position for transition defense. It happens almost every time. The best way to describe it is when Deron gets rebounds how fast we get down the court. When Deron gets rebounds its usually a long rebound and we are on a fast break immediately. Other teams do this same thing. Every Jazz fan should be able to recall multiple times when Deron gets the rebound how quickly we get down the court. There is no pass off when guards get rebounds. They can just take it and go.
 
Someone should inform these hall of fame coaches that they're doing it wrong. The 3-pt shot should be treated like sex with a complete stranger you find vomiting in a gutter somewhere.
 
NUMBERICA said:
And having a culture that didn't emphasize defense and a SG that spent nearly all of his time inside and was terrible as a transition defender anyway (Brewer) accounts for a lot. You don't necessarily have to bring in a perimeter player if you have a big on the perimeter, either. Having AK actually looking for and making 3s while playing inspired and having Bell in contrast to Brewer goes a long way in having the right guys in a position to be back, and I don't think Memo does anything to hurt that, just gives everyone else a better chance to get easier buckets inside.

If bigs that shoot 3s were such a bad thing, why does Matt Bonner get significant minutes (and shoot a significant amount of 3s) for one of the most fundamentally sound and schooled teams in the NBA (that also for years has been one of the most trigger-happy from 3 in the league while being one of the best defenses perennially)?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. I am not against big's being able to shoot 3 point shots. I am against us using the 3 point shot too much with Okur. Its overrated when we shoot the 3 first when we have a low post player down low to score at a 50 percent rate rather than Okur at 40 percent from the outside. The 50 percent shot won't be a long rebound but the 3 point shot is. And I still am blown away. Anybody on this board watches the Jazz a lot. And I would love someone to back me up about how when guards get those long rebounds it leads to fast breaks. Deron does it every time he gets a long rebound (its practically the only time he gets rebounds).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top