2012-13 Articles, Links, and Blogs

[MHSL82]

I don't think worrying about the 5th best starter on a seemingly lottery team is the real problem.

A teamwide issue like defense, or coaching, is the bigger issue. You can win with a 5th best starter like Marvin Williams if the other 4 players are a little better. I still think he is starter quality.

Agree. You're talking about Atlanta of the past, not the Jazz, right?

 

[Sackataters]

Good podcast from Locke and GM

PODCAST ? Mid Year Report with Jazz GM Dennis Lindsey | Locked on Jazz

 

[MHSL82]

Why the Jazz Strategy of "Not Aggressive, Not Right Now" Makes Sense - SLC Dunk

 

[Sackataters]

Jazz beat the Pistons ? Critics remain vocal | Salt City Hoops

 

[nuraman00]

While I would like to see Hayward, Kanter, and Favors play more, when given the chance, they haven't 100% taken the reigns either.

Favors will foul a lot, and Kanter and Hayward are inconsistent too much also.

But also, I think the talent is too unevenly distributed to the frontcourt.

Let's use a simplistic example, and say it doesn't matter which of the frontcourt guys you play, because they're all flawed to an extent.

There are pretty much no options in the backcourt. No one is behind held back, that deserves more time.

Sure, I like Tinsley a little more than Watson, but Tinsley isn't a starting caliber PG either.

According to Hoop Stats, the Jazz backcourt is 30th in both defense and offense, and I can't think of a lineup combination that I feel hasn't been given a chance. They're just bad, there's no one good there. Nothing you can do about that. There's just a lack of talent there, and that's something O'Connor is going to have to upgrade.

 

[MHSL82]

While I would like to see Hayward, Kanter, and Favors play more, when given the chance, they haven't 100% taken the reigns either.

Favors will foul a lot, and Kanter and Hayward are inconsistent too much also.

Random thought, not claim: refs don't play favorites between starters and bench players, just stars and non-stars, but do you think a ref will be more hesitant to call borderline fouls when it's a starter they know will be taken out? Bench players are the majority and aren't in much, so while I don't think refs pick on them, they might not see an effect on the game. Obviously, blatant calls will most often be called regardless of starter/bench. Only way I could test this would be a look at foul rates for the first and third quarters, even though starters play the ends of the halves, too.

 

[nuraman00]

Random thought, not claim: refs don't play favorites between starters and bench players, just stars and non-stars, but do you think a ref will be more hesitant to call borderline fouls when it's a starter they know will be taken out? Bench players are the majority and aren't in much, so while I don't think refs pick on them, they might not see an effect on the game. Obviously, blatant calls will most often be called regardless of starter/bench. Only way I could test this would be a look at foul rates for the first and third quarters, even though starters play the ends of the halves, too.

In general, no. Some stars always had foul trouble, for example.

Or, I could point to games that had a player in foul trouble.

* In game 7 between Detroit and San Antonio in the 2005 Finals, both Billups and Rasheed Wallace were in foul trouble the entire game. That was a big reason why Detroit could never take the lead.

No, they didn't foul out. But Detroit went to their bench because of it. Both Ben and Rasheed had 5 fouls each, and Billups had 4.

* Sam Cassell alone had 5 fouls in the 4th quarter game 4 between Minnesota and Sacramento in game 4 in the 2004 playoffs. He entered the 4th quarter with 1 foul. He fouled out of the game with 3 or 4 minutes to go. 4 of the 5 fouls called on him that quarter were away-from-the-ball fouls too.

* Garnett fouled out twelve seconds into OT in game 3 between the Lakers and Minnesota, in the 2003 playoffs.

Gary Trent subbed in for him. Minnesota still won the game.


Yes, these are just random examples. But in general, I've seen star players foul out of games early enough, especially those with a reputation for committing fouls.

And since I've seen a lot of games, you know I have a good reference point.

Whenever Divac went against Shaq, Divac would draw fouls on Shaq very quickly, and had him foul out of games a few times. Here was a player where the bigger star, Shaq, would end up committing more fouls than normal, when going against a particular opponent.

I think this is a debatable topic though, and there won't be a consensus. Or, there could be a consensus, and it's probably not the viewpoint I have.

 

[nuraman00]

Jason Gallagher (Chicago)


Is it just me or should we turn our discussion from "Utah vs. LA for the 8th seed" to "Dallas vs. LA for the 8th seed"?



Kevin Pelton
(1:06 PM)


I think that was a possibility had the Mavericks won at San Antonio last night. Alas, that loss was pretty costly to their chances of making a late run. My simulation only shows them reaching the playoffs about a quarter as often as the Jazz, though it should be noted there's no accounting for recent play whatsoever the way I'm projecting the rest of the season.

 

[MHSL82]

In general, no. Some stars always had foul trouble, for example.

Or, I could point to games that had a player in foul trouble.

* In game 7 between Detroit and San Antonio in the 2005 Finals, both Billups and Rasheed Wallace were in foul trouble the entire game. That was a big reason why Detroit could never take the lead.

No, they didn't foul out. But Detroit went to their bench because of it. Both Ben and Rasheed had 5 fouls each, and Billups had 4.

* Sam Cassell alone had 5 fouls in the 4th quarter game 4 between Minnesota and Sacramento in game 4 in the 2004 playoffs. He entered the 4th quarter with 1 foul. He fouled out of the game with 3 or 4 minutes to go. 4 of the 5 fouls called on him that quarter were away-from-the-ball fouls too.

* Garnett fouled out twelve seconds into OT in game 3 between the Lakers and Minnesota, in the 2003 playoffs.

Gary Trent subbed in for him. Minnesota still won the game.


Yes, these are just random examples. But in general, I've seen star players foul out of games early enough, especially those with a reputation for committing fouls.

And since I've seen a lot of games, you know I have a good reference point.

Whenever Divac went against Shaq, Divac would draw fouls on Shaq very quickly, and had him foul out of games a few times. Here was a player where the bigger star, Shaq, would end up committing more fouls than normal, when going against a particular opponent.

I think this is a debatable topic though, and there won't be a consensus. Or, there could be a consensus, and it's probably not the viewpoint I have.

I don't have anything to add, but thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

 

[MHSL82]

I haven't watched this because I couldn't care less, but it's about a former Jazz man, so here it is: Former NBA Star Has New Job as Crossing Guard - ABC News

 

[Sackataters]

I haven't watched this because I couldn't care less, but it's about a former Jazz man, so here it is: Former NBA Star Has New Job as Crossing Guard - ABC News

I was thinking that Corbin might do alright as his assistant.

 

[MHSL82]

I was thinking that Corbin might do alright as his assistant.

Yeah, but he'd have a problem with only sending the older kids in or rotation issues on who could cross with who. It reminds me of the riddle where you need to get the wolf, the sheep, and the hay across the river but you can only take you and one other each trip. If you take the hay to avoid the sheep from eating the hay, the wolf eats the sheep. If you take the wolf, the sheep eats the hay. If you take the sheep, you're fucked. I don't know. I forgot about why you couldn't take the sheep first.

Oh, I remember. You take the sheep over to the other island and then go back and pick up the wolf. Then leaving the other island, you take back the sheep, drop him off at the first island. Take the hay to the other side. Drop that off, go back and get the sheep. Once you get there, the wolf eats you and the sheep before the sheep can get much hay. My answer was to let the sheep eat the hay and the wolf eat the sheep and then, if the wolf doesn't take a shit, all three technically made it across the river. My second answer was to put the wolf and hay in your right pocket and the wolf in your left.

 

[Sackataters]

MHSL82, have you been closely watching this epic meltdown? Or, are you not in-state. I haven't seen you post much about the collapse. Do you think Corbin should stay coach or go be a crossing guard?

 

[MHSL82]

MHSL82, have you been closely watching this epic meltdown? Or, are you not in-state. I haven't seen you post much about the collapse. Do you think Corbin should stay coach or go be a crossing guard?

It's my fault, I was the one keeping them afloat. I left right before the start of the collapse. It's sad on one end because I want to see them make the playoffs and I want to be considered in the Top 16, however watered down that is. But if they can't do it here, they can't do it in the playoffs. If they had kept it up, I was hoping for Memphis, Golden State in the first round and while I see those as losses, it would be more exciting to see a win or two. But on the other hand, we need the bench to play, for us to make some decisions on players, and get a better draft pick. I wouldn't ever want them to lose because I'm not a big draft guy and I hate the offseason but now that they have lost with no actual help or hinderance from me, that's my silver lining.

I haven't seen a game from where I am and I won't be back until April Fools' Day. Apparently, all fools are required to be at home on that day, for whatever reason. I have heard of the collapse, read about it, seen box scores, read recaps, and I'm not surprised that we did fall a bit, but this far? Not sure, without watching, if it's Corbin or the players more. It's obviously both, but where the blame is on mostly, I don't know.

I have to say that I didn't expect much when he was named coach, not that I had a practical alternative in mind. I had assumed he was interim, but then they rushed to name him permanent much like the Niners rushed to name Singletary as permanent. I mean, where was either to go if they didn't? Business panicking. He didn't do too poorly for the circumstances, but a rush to extend?

 

[nuraman00]

I don't see it as a collapse. A collapse would mean they're better than this.

It's not a collapse, because:

A) They have one of the worst backcourts in the league. They don't shoot that well, nor defend, nor rebound. And they're small.

B) You have to look at the schedule. The Jazz had about the 8th easiest schedules for the first 3 months of the season. From mid-February, they would have the 5th hardest schedule.

At the beginning of the year, the Jazz played the Hornets 3X, Kings 4X, Suns 3X, Raptors 2X, Wizards without John Wall 2X, Magic 2X, Dallas without Nowitzki 1 out of 2X. A lot of -.500 teams. They won most of those games.

In the past month, the Jazz have the Thunder 2X, Warriors, Clippers, Celtics, Hawks, Bulls, Knicks, Grizzlies, Spurs. Clear-cut playoffs teams, with more talent too.

Much tougher competition. And they lost most of them.

If they played these teams at the beginning of the year, they would have lost them too, and thus no one would be talking about a collapse, but just a slow start due to the schedule.

So they played easy teams at the beginning of the year, and that made their W/L look better than it was. The harder teams would come, and they've lost most, like they should have.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't see it as a collapse. A collapse would mean they're better than this.

It's not a collapse, because:

A) They have one of the worst backcourts in the league. They don't shoot that well, nor defend, nor rebound. And they're small.

B) You have to look at the schedule. The Jazz had about the 8th easiest schedules for the first 3 months of the season. From mid-February, they would have the 5th hardest schedule.

I SERIOUSLY considered making a new thread and copying all your negative assessments of the Jazz over these past few months into it and naming it, "Nuraman's Worse than Honest because It's True Thread." But that would take two much work and your profile will only show me a certain number of your posts. I'd have to go through individual threads for older posts.

 

[MHSL82]

At the beginning of the year, the Jazz played the Hornets 3X, Kings 4X, Suns 3X, Raptors 2X, Wizards without John Wall 2X, Magic 2X, Dallas without Nowitzki 1 out of 2X. A lot of -.500 teams. They won all of those games.

In the past month, the Jazz have the Thunder 2X, Warriors, Clippers, Celtics, Hawks, Bulls, Knicks, Grizzlies, Spurs. Clear-cut playoffs teams, with more talent too.

Much tougher competition. And they won most of them.

The harder teams would come, and they've won most, like they should have.

Fixed to fit my altered universe.

 

[nuraman00]

I SERIOUSLY considered making a new thread and copying all your negative assessments of the Jazz over these past few months into it and naming it, "Nuraman's Worse than Honest because It's True Thread." But that would take two much work and your profile will only show me a certain number of your posts. I'd have to go through individual threads for older posts.

Don't forget about my positive assessments of the Jazz. I've said a few times that Gordan Hayward has "nice moves".

 

[nuraman00]

Jeff (Boulder)


Most important question: Favorite Northwest beer? I'm a big fan of the Ninkasi in Eugene.


Kevin Pelton
(1:47 PM)


In keeping with the Per Diem tradition of PNW microbrews, it's hard to go wrong. But my favorites are Pyramid here in Seattle and Rogue in Oregon. The Rogue Shakespeare Oatmeal Stout would probably be my No. 1 overall.

 

[nuraman00]

Lon (SLC)


How much does the loss of Kanter hurt the Jazz's chance of making the playoffs?


Kevin Pelton
(1:48 PM)


I don't think it will have a big impact unless one of the other bigs goes down. Then it could be a problem.