Utah Jazz at San Antonio Spurs

[nuraman00]

The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.

My whole analogy is messy, but my belief is clear - team stats can compare teams, not individuals, IMO. It can shed light on some things, but when comparing individuals in the same system, a lesser statistical output is informative.

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists).

Or, scoring from a PF (Harpring).

And they can still maintain rank high on a team levels in those areas (assist %, points in the paint, frontcourt scoring).


I'm focusing on the lesser players, not the HOFs.

A system can't make a HOF (but it could turn an above average player into an All-Star).


Other side notes:

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots.

There are plenty of teams in NBA history where the team can't score, and nobody has a high usage rate on the team.

The Bobcats, for example, don't have a player that had a usage rate like what Jefferson did in Minnesota. Because they don't have a player that can get shots like Jefferson could. The Bobcats only have one player above 15ppg. Walker leads the team with 18ppg.

The Nuggets in 2002-2003 were similar. Only one player above 14.2 points a game, Juwan Howard, and he only averaged 18ppg. And again, Howard's usage rate is a few % lower than what Jefferson did in Minnesota.

So even those players on other teams that played a lot of minutes couldn't do what Jefferson could. It takes a certain skill to be able to get off shots.

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill.

And similarly, sometimes a player playing well on a good team is not as impressive. For example, Trevor Ariza had some decent numbers on a good Lakers team, but I knew his numbers would get worse on a bad team. And they did, when the Lakers didn't want him back (they wanted Artest instead) and he signed with Houston. Ariza had little responsibility on the Lakers, while on the Rockets, even if he had to do just a little more, it showed he couldn't handle it. When he had to make any decisions with the ball in Houston, he made the wrong one. Sometimes, a player's responsibility is limited so much that it makes them look better than they are on a good team. But that if there's an injury, they would struggle to raise their game vs. another player who is more adaptable to step up.






* On offense, the PG is supposed to run the team however he and the coach see fit.

But on defense, the PG is the first line of defense. The longer he can keep the ball from getting in the paint, the greater the chance of the defensive team in getting a stop.

It's an equally important responsibility.

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years).

Stockton was a 5-time defensive team player, and was probably just as good some of those other years too. His defensive ability put him in the 99.7th percentile of PGs in that area, so he was that much better.


His shooting was similar. He didn't have to shoot a lot, but being a 50% shooter probably put him in the 97% percentile for PGs for shooting. It was a huge advantage, and all what contributed to his greatness. As I mentioned, I can recall countless other PGs either missing layups or long jumpers.


So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

 

[MHSL82]

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists)...

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots...

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill...

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years)...

So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

I agree with everything you said, not just the exerpts I left here.

I guess Locke didn't know what he was talking about when he said that and I took him for his word - it sounded like he was giving statistical information on the Bobcats and T'Wolves. I agree with what you said, that wasn't a good comment to cite. If I did that in court, I'd lose badly. Mulligan!

Stockton was a better defender and I enjoyed having a good defense in Stockton's years. And I do think his ability to shoot is overlooked by most.

Despite being a Utah fan, I never really clinged onto Andre Miller's career, though I did like Keith Van Horn. I loved his use in the Kidd trade. I wish I could be paid 4 million to act like I wanted to come back to play and sit on an NBA bench. I'd do it for less. Heck, I'd do it for travel expenses, so that my family could come with me - considerably less than 4 million. Hear that Jazz? Whatever team has me, you have my rights, use me in a trade with the Jazz!

 

[MHSL82]

Talking about former Jazz players, I don't like Derek Fisher, either. I think he used his daughter to get back with the Lakers to win. I was happy when he was traded and then lost in the Finals. This is not merely me hating ex-Jazz players. I defend Boozer, despite people here not liking him. I liked Bryon Russell when he left. I liked Donyell Marshall when he left, too. Etc.

But I really think the reasons Fisher cited were bogus - and I, too, have a daughter. Fisher said he was quitting because his daughter needed treatment for her eyes - but yet, after being released, he signed with LA, and his daughter STILL went to New York for treatment. Last time I checked, Utah is closer to New York than Los Angeles. Utah has a better eye treatment place than LA, so even if he had decided to go to LA doctors, he'd have been giving her the same or worse care. Then, people turned the whole booing thing (I wouldn't have booed) into "Utah doesn't want him to care for his daughter", "he was just doing what his family needed." Bull-shit, Latrell Sprewell just wanted to feed his kids. Move to New York. Retire. Sign for pennies with the Knicks, play only home games, whatever. His whole leadership nonsense was based solely upon his appearance. If he looked different but did everything the same and had the same emotions, etc., no one would notice. It's like how Duncan's face makes him look wise, when he actually does complain to the refs his fair share with those wide eyes. Nothing against him and his looks, just the gushing people do over Fisher and Duncan. They're fine basketball players, you don't have to slobber.

Oh that Fisher, look at how classy he is. He just looks like he's a classy guy when he stands there just looking so classy. I mean, you just can't fake that classiness. Just look at him! What a leader, and that class! Clutch and tough, classy guy.

Former NBA union head files suit against Derek Fisher

Seriously, I took all the remarks by people on him as classy as just judgments on his looks. He hadn't done anything that was more classy than others. (It is the same thing as supporting Colin Powell because he speaks so well. I like him, but then again, I actually listen to what he says, unlike most.) He flopped ALL the time, he used his daughter to move to Los Angeles for a championship (see above), he got traded just to come back (I believe there was something wrong there, maybe he "retired" again - unlike Favre, he never actually goes through with the retirement papers), and now this. He's no better than Raja Bell (but I liked Bell).

No, I don't give Fisher the benefit of the doubt. Move to Los Angeles while your daughter gets treatment in New York? For my daughter! Bull shit. He continued New York treatment after the release. Utah is closer to New York than Los Angeles! He didn't retire for his daughter like he said. Utah has better facilities than Los Angeles for cancer. Why have I not heard anything about his daughter since on ESPN?