Utah Jazz at San Antonio Spurs

[MHSL82]

Where do you stand on percentage stats?

Such as assist %, rebounding %.

Or possession based stats? Such as points per 100 possessions, points allowed per 100 possessions (DRTG)?

I favor those team-wise more than individual wise, because I can't judge a players' scoring skill on possessions that he doesn't get the ball, and it would be too hard to separate those plays he did get the ball from those that he didn't. I understand that going to other players on other plays, helps productivity for the player in question, because it forces others to guard others, so it can't be removed, but I watched some players, like Bogut, who to me were underused - no % or possession stat is going to tell me about that. So my concern is if one's rate or possession percentage is low due to misuse, the points per 100 possessions are skewed. But if I look at the whole team, then chances are the team players are more appropriately used than not.

It's unscientific. I don't have much experience or stance on it, these are just initial impressions. I know that I would find some % stats more helpful than others and context and argument trying to be made is relevant. I know that sounds like a cop-out, built in excuse, or equivocation, but I do look at it case by case. I don't swear by my opinions, though. I'm open to be educated.

 

[MHSL82]

Speaking of Malone and Rasheed, I see that Malone shot poorly against Rasheed during the 1999 series. But Malone shot well against him in 2000.

Malone still had a high PER during the 1999 playoffs.

I didn't see either series in 1999 or 2000. From 1998 - 2001, I didn't watch much sports at all, outside of a little bit of the playoffs such as the conference finals and NBA Finals. But I know I missed the series in 1999. I think I missed it in 2000 also.

I don't think I saw any 1st round series at all in 1999 or 2000 or 2001. For second rounds, I think I only watched a little in 2001, and those were mainly the game 7's between Philly-Toronto and Milwaukee-Charlotte.

So during those 3 years, I followed the box scores during the playoffs, but didn't watch most games.

Don't know what to add here, but just to let you know I didn't skip it in the sea of posts. I watched all the Jazz games, but I didn't actively track PER, even when it came out. I do more now, but haven't really analyzed much.

 

[MHSL82]

Here's where I think per-36 minute stats can be useful sometimes.

Sometimes coaches are blind as to how good their own players are.

David Lee, for example, was benched for Curry and Channing Frye his first several years in the league. He averaged 10.4 boards off the bench, but still didn't start.

He didn't start until his 4th year in the league.

I'm pretty sure he could have played more than 36 minutes most of those season (and he played vastly less, because he came off the bench).

His last four years, from 2009-2010 onward, he's been playing 36+ minutes each year, with 37+ minutes 3 of the past 4 years.

I also thought Sloan showed favoritism toward Malone. Greg Ostertag said it best. If he makes a mistake, he's in the doghouse. If Malone makes a few, he still plays.

I equate it to how a MLB manager might pull pitcher A earlier from the game if he is struggling, but pitcher B can struggle to the exact same degree, and he's allowed to work through it.

I'm not saying everyone should be treated the same and given the same opportunities with respect to playing time. There will always be some players who should get the benefit of the doubt over others.

But I do think certain players have been hurt by not playing more at certain points in their career, when they were outplaying the starters, by a lot. And others, like Malone, were given a "green light" as to playing time.

Duncan, I think, had this same "green light" too. But Parker, or Ginobili, didn't.

Malone earned the green light and Ostertag needed the prodding - or coaching. But I do agree that I didn't like him being underused or misused when he was here. Ultimately, if he helps you win, you play him, despite the mistakes. Any stubborn benching could lose you wins. There's a fine line to motivating, incentivizing, discipline, and too much control. Not saying that Sloan was on the line - he very well could be well over it, just saying that it isn't black and white.

 

[MHSL82]

I've brought up the Mark Jackson situation before on the Jazz board, and some see it your way, and others didn't see it your way.

This might be one of those topics where there isn't a consensus and people will each see it different ways.

I did remember some stories of Jackson allegedly causing problems, but I never heard specifics, nor quotes by these sources as to what was happening. It was all very vague.

I usually dismiss these things, especially if these anonymous sources are from small market teams. IMO, the media can get more readers for their articles if they print something negative in a small market. Negative articles draw a bigger reaction.

I've also heard radio hosts say, on-air, that they get more callers after a loss, or during a losing season, then when things are good. When there's losses, there's a lot of angry callers. When there's wins, callers are more predictable and less exciting.

Portland's local media is notorious for printing these kinds of articles, or always finding some rumor of discontent.

That doesn't mean I completely ignore it. I do file it away and recall that there was something there. But I also look at that player's history, for example. Jackson hadn't had problems anywhere else.

So I weigh that more heavily, and figure it doesn't fit his past character profile.

It would be easy for a reporter to take a comment that was supposed to be motivating or intense, and take it the wrong way. For example, I'm sure some of the stuff Jordan or Garnett say could easily be taken the wrong way, if they weren't media darlings.

I also think it's easier for journalists to blame losing on locker room issues, than to analyze the team and the game and blame it on the players, or coach, or GM, etc.

Yeah, I don't believe Jackson and don't like him. I'll be on that side until Stockton refutes it - non-PR style. In other words, never. I hope it wasn't just a guess by someone, but it was out there by enough people - though they could be reporting what each other is saying. I, too, don't like anonymous sources, besides the guy from ESPN. I have heard that if you can't go off the record on things, no inside information will ever be given. Confidentiality. I would forego the inside information if it meant people would only report what they were willing to put their name on it. If you are not willing to say it publicly, don't say it. But others are thirsty for the inside jabber.

 

[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.

 

[MHSL82]

I think Sloan was too tough to quit because of Williams, but I didn't like Williams role in the matter. I'll never know the truth of what happened, but when you seem to have Williams ego and you are no longer a Jazz man, I no longer give the benefit of the doubt anymore (not that he knows or cares what I think). He just seemed too cocky and rather than getting better, he seemed to complain about his supporting cast. But I may also be a bit biased for Sloan and against shooting point guards. I also am not that aggressive and confident, so when others appear overly so, it rubs me the wrong way sometimes.


I understand the frustration, but this was early in the season, in Hayward's rookie year.

Misfiring Deron Williams Takes Shot at Nets' Offensive System

 

[MHSL82]

I think Rasheed was a focal point on offense. It's not like Ben Wallace was going to be the big man scorer. Or on Portland, Sabonis had been slowing down the last several years, and Brian Grant wasn't going to score either.

It's just that Wallace wasn't an efficient player. And he didn't want to be the focal point. He felt it was bad for the team to have a focal point that strong. He felt a more balanced approach was better, in general.

Ok, looking at his FG%, TS%, and ORTG, it's actually better than I thought.

But Wallace just never seemed to like scoring, and he would only take repeated attempts if nothing else was working on the team. And even then, sometimes he would drift to the perimeter and take too many 3's.

So I thought Wallace was a good defender because that's what he liked doing. And you had to coax him into being an offensive player. Sometimes he would, but other times, the guards would have to get things going.

Rasheed vs. Duncan is one of my favorite matchups, because Rasheed would routinely play well at both ends of the floor. They played against each other in college, and maybe that's what made it more exciting for Wallace. Maybe he needed to see Duncan at the other end to want to be a scorer for a game.

Also, back to Larry Brown. Yes, if you only remember Iverson, you were only watching the offensive side. I would notice his schemes, both with the 76ers and later with Detroit. The exact same thing, defend the paint, let the other team shoot 3's. Brown would give you dirty looks if you shot 3's, lol. He, Sloan, and Dunleavy Sr. were all similar with their defensive schemes. On the offensive side however, Dunleavy Sr. liked the 3-pointer, and he advocated using eFG% and TS% to take into account the extra value of the 3-pointer.

So Larry Brown would let the opposing team shoot 3's. Tim Thomas, Robert Horry, or Ray Allen. Ray Allen hit 6 3's in one game in the 2001 series, and 9 3's in game 6 in route to a 41 point game. You would think they would change their schemes a little on Allen, but no. And I'm not taking anything away from Allen, as he is that good. But that noting that opposing teams that Brown goes against have a tendency to hit 10+ 3's in a game, and sometimes a lot of it comes from guys like Tim Thomas too, not just the stars.

Great post all around, don't know what to add.

 

[MHSL82]

Thanks for posting about the Mo Williams story.

Clintonite33 doesn't like 3's in general, just like Sloan. He thinks the league has overused them.

I remember discussing with someone, but don't remember if it was me talking to them or on a message board - but if you could make 1/3 of all your threes or 1/2 of all your two pointers, you could shoot a three on every possession. I know that tired arms, mental limitations (missing a three because you remember missing last time), the fact that some players are worse than others at threes, defensive adjustments knowing that you are only shooting threes (and getting rid of the element of surprise), etc., it would be unlikely to shoot 33% and also you could be over 50% in 2 point shots. Better yet, a combination of easy twos and open threes would be best. But I just remembered the talk from before on this.

Missed three point shots do two things, they may bounce back far giving the opportunity for second chance points but also susceptible to fast breaks the other way and traditionally wouldn't use the clock much unless you made a conservative effort to do so.

 

[MHSL82]

There is one other topic with respect to Malone's offense. Sloan's system. The flex offensive is conducive to dunks and layups.

You don't even need Stockton or Deron for those assists. The Jazz were still top 7 in assist % during 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. And they were top 1 or 2 for most of Deron's Jazz career.

So what I'm getting at, is that I've heard the argument that because the Flex offense is so good at assists, it can make marginal teams have high assist rates. (As shown from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006). In a sense, assist stats from the Jazz can be viewed as overvalued, because anyone can do it.

So, would Malone have gotten some of those points if he played in a different system?

Then again, why would you want a system that doesn't take advantage of a player's skill set? You wouldn't want Malone or Duncan as a floor spacer, right? You would want them to do the things they're good at.

But I'm just posting another interesting point that I heard a few years ago, about how the Jazz always rank high in assist rate, even with marginal players.

But then isn't that a good thing? But then just because the Jazz had a high assist rate, it doesn't mean they had a good offense. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 might have ranked high in assist rate, but they were only 22nd in offense each year. So maybe it means that assist rate doesn't tell the whole picture, whether individually or at a team level. Just like the Andre Miller and Jose Calderon examples. Especially with the Andre Miller Cavs teams, lol.

But what if Malone played for a coach that had a different idea of what his game was? Or how to use him?

For example, I think both Malone and Blake Griffin have great physiques. But that Griffin does the pick and pop more often then he should, rather than the pick and roll. And Griffin's jumper is better but he's only now becoming a good jump shooter. He's not at Malone or Duncan or Nowitzki or Webber level yet. So I think Del ***** encourages Griffin to take that jumper, at the expense of not having him roll more.

What if Malone, for example, was used to different proportions in his career? What if he was encouraged to shoot more jumpers, rather than use his awesome post game? What if he had been in a different system?

(Yeah, that's probably too many what-ifs, and not worth much deep though.)

I've posted this twice and probably will once more, but just cause it is related:

Misfiring Deron Williams Takes Shot at Nets' Offensive System

 

[nuraman00]

Sloan didn't make Malone, he made Malone better. (Reference to some tech commercial that says they didn't make the abcdef, they made the abcdef better.) Seriously though, I bet the offense was built around Stockton and Malone and the Stockton and Malone were built around the offense. What I mean is, the core principles were there before those two and before those two were Stockton and Malone, but based upon their skill sets, preferences, work ethic, physical makeup, historical context of the NBA, etc., the usage of certain aspects of the offense was implemented more.

Stockton and Malone wanted a half-court offense, as opposed to a transition offense, though they were pretty good on fast breaks. Stockton had quarterback vision and thus he was able to maximize the flex offense to get Adam Keefe and Jeff Foster some contribution. Shandon Anderson, et al, made a living off things that they couldn't find elsewhere - so I see how people say that it was the offense more than the personnel. I know this isn't what you were saying, but I'd disagree with anyone who said the offense made Stockton. The fact that Stockton got a lot of assists is coincidental to the flex offense - how he got some of those assists, of course, is not coincidental.

I think one has to look at rate of offense, too. The Jazz liked to milk the clock from the beginning of the game. Sometimes the pace of the game dictated otherwise, but their preference was shots in the last 4 seconds of the shotclock - unless they got a shot that was too irresistible to not take. Taking your time may lead to more assists, if they don't lead to hurried shots - it does lead to fewer shots in the game assuming that whatever the other team does, the Jazz still milk the clock. My point? With fewer shots, their offense will have fewer points, even if they are more efficient - assuming that they shoot a regular percentage, regardless of the other teams pace. Passing more or looking for easy shots may not create a higher percentage, if the shots are forced. When the Jazz were on target, their offense wasn't 22nd in efficiency, but maybe in points (the opponent should also have fewer shots assuming normal turnover rate by both leads to the same number of possessions).

To go with the whatifs, what if Ostertag were Robinson or (fill-in-the-blank)? What if Stockton played instead of Magic? Ugg, my mind is so distracted right now - I'll forego the similar whatifs I could muster out some other time.

But the observation is that the Jazz offense was good at assists without Stockton too. In the years after Stockton, but before Williams really took over, they were top 7 in assist rate.

So Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do the same thing.

Actually, the Jazz were a top team in ORTG during the Stockton years. They also weren't that slow, still within the top 20.

And if they were a top team in ORTG, then the slower pace can't hurt their team numbers too much if they make their shots when they take them.

Also, from my observations, the slowest to the fast team usually only varies by 5-6 possessions at most. They have stats for how many possessions each team averaged per game per season, so I've observed this. And from those possessions, say 1/2 of them lead to field goal attempts (because the others can be turnovers or FTAs). So out of 3 FGAs, that's still not a lot that could add to other teams assists totals, even for the fastest team. Because they might make only 2 out of 3 FGAs.

I'm not going to paste the ORTG and Pace numbers for the Jazz, but just as I'm scanning through them, the Jazz were in the top 22 in pace every year, and some of those years they were also # 6, # 3, # 2 also. There were also these random years when they played in the high teens or low 20s too. I'm also looking at their ORTG. Top 20 just about every year, and several years of #1, #2, #3, #6, #9, #7. So whatever they were doing, lead to one of the most efficient offenses most of those years.

So the Jazz didn't play as slow as you thought, and even when they did, they were still usually very efficient. And since the pace between the slowest and fastest team doesn't vary by that many possessions, and thus even less FGAs, the other teams that played fast and efficient didn't have much of an advantage in total stats either.

And, the Jazz offense still generated a lot of assists without Stockton. Even the year Deron was traded, they were still 3rd in assist rate, and 14th in ORTG. Last year, the Jazz were 7th in ORTG (better without Deron, haha) but dropped to 13th in assist rate. Which isn't too bad of a drop, considering the personnel.

 

[nuraman00]

Don't know what to add here, but just to let you know I didn't skip it in the sea of posts. I watched all the Jazz games, but I didn't actively track PER, even when it came out. I do more now, but haven't really analyzed much.

I'm just adding that those 3 years are kind of a void in sports for me. I know what happened, but didn't see it.

Both regular season, and playoffs.

I didn't follow any box scores during the regular season, only checked the standings every few weeks.

And during the playoffs, I would follow box scores a little bit more, but wouldn't have time to watch anything until the end of the playoffs.

 

[nuraman00]

Yeah, I don't believe Jackson and don't like him. I'll be on that side until Stockton refutes it - non-PR style. In other words, never. I hope it wasn't just a guess by someone, but it was out there by enough people - though they could be reporting what each other is saying. I, too, don't like anonymous sources, besides the guy from ESPN. I have heard that if you can't go off the record on things, no inside information will ever be given. Confidentiality. I would forego the inside information if it meant people would only report what they were willing to put their name on it. If you are not willing to say it publicly, don't say it. But others are thirsty for the inside jabber.

What I'm saying is that how do you know it was even Stockton vs. Jackson, or if a reporter created it to be about Stockton vs. Jackson? (Because that would sound more interesting than what the truth could have been).

For example, there could have been something between two other guards.

Or there could have been nothing.

Here's another example.

After the Kings lost in the 2004 playoffs to Minnesota, there were there these vague reports about division in the locker room between the Europeans and non Europeans.

However, nothing I saw during the offseason lead me to believe that it really happened. Everyone seemed to hang out, and talk about each other, like normal. Even years later, not one slip-up and reference to any sort of conflict.

I look at the situation where the Jazz were in, and they weren't winning like they were used to, and think a reporter could have conveniently taken something and made it look worse than it was. Because stories like this usually pop up when they're losing, regardless of the team or sport.

 

[nuraman00]

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.

Duncan is notorious for complaining about calls. He has the same expression each time.

I liked Fisher in the playoffs, but thought he was a bad player in the regular season. In the playoffs, he defended Baron better than Deron, and played smarter. And he hit the GW in that one game. I would have benched Fisher and started Brewer or Giricek in the regular season.

 

[nuraman00]

 

[nuraman00]

I think Sloan was too tough to quit because of Williams, but I didn't like Williams role in the matter. I'll never know the truth of what happened, but when you seem to have Williams ego and you are no longer a Jazz man, I no longer give the benefit of the doubt anymore (not that he knows or cares what I think). He just seemed too cocky and rather than getting better, he seemed to complain about his supporting cast. But I may also be a bit biased for Sloan and against shooting point guards. I also am not that aggressive and confident, so when others appear overly so, it rubs me the wrong way sometimes.


I understand the frustration, but this was early in the season, in Hayward's rookie year.

Misfiring Deron Williams Takes Shot at Nets' Offensive System

I agree.

 

[nuraman00]

I remember discussing with someone, but don't remember if it was me talking to them or on a message board - but if you could make 1/3 of all your threes or 1/2 of all your two pointers, you could shoot a three on every possession. I know that tired arms, mental limitations (missing a three because you remember missing last time), the fact that some players are worse than others at threes, defensive adjustments knowing that you are only shooting threes (and getting rid of the element of surprise), etc., it would be unlikely to shoot 33% and also you could be over 50% in 2 point shots. Better yet, a combination of easy twos and open threes would be best. But I just remembered the talk from before on this.

Missed three point shots do two things, they may bounce back far giving the opportunity for second chance points but also susceptible to fast breaks the other way and traditionally wouldn't use the clock much unless you made a conservative effort to do so.

It was with me.

 

[MHSL82]

What I'm saying is that how do you know it was even Stockton vs. Jackson, or if a reporter created it to be about Stockton vs. Jackson? (Because that would sound more interesting than what the truth could have been).

For example, there could have been something between two other guards.

Or there could have been nothing.

Here's another example.

After the Kings lost in the 2004 playoffs to Minnesota, there were there these vague reports about division in the locker room between the Europeans and non Europeans.

However, nothing I saw during the offseason lead me to believe that it really happened. Everyone seemed to hang out, and talk about each other, like normal. Even years later, not one slip-up and reference to any sort of conflict.

I look at the situation where the Jazz were in, and they weren't winning like they were used to, and think a reporter could have conveniently taken something and made it look worse than it was. Because stories like this usually pop up when they're losing, regardless of the team or sport.

There is a similar rumor about the SF Giants, with laid back Barry Zito group and the minority-phobic other half. If anything it's style of play, not race, but the rumor was about race, saying that it led to belief that one side had a laziness/complacency about them. If they can still win with laziness, complacency, or locker-room divide, they must be really good.

Having said that, I don't like Jackson regardless. I don't give him the benefit of the doubt. So, this is bad for a former law student to say, but I don't care if he's guilty or not. I don't believe him and I just as quickly believe the reporter. Jackson was the only guard that could do it, if done. Stockton, I bet, wasn't that involved, it just was harder to deal with.

There are very few players I don't like - but I know Jackson had basketball talent.

 

[MHSL82]

But the observation is that the Jazz offense was good at assists without Stockton too. In the years after Stockton, but before Williams really took over, they were top 7 in assist rate.

So Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do the same thing.

Actually, the Jazz were a top team in ORTG during the Stockton years. They also weren't that slow, still within the top 20.

And if they were a top team in ORTG, then the slower pace can't hurt their team numbers too much if they make their shots when they take them.

Also, from my observations, the slowest to the fast team usually only varies by 5-6 possessions at most. They have stats for how many possessions each team averaged per game per season, so I've observed this. And from those possessions, say 1/2 of them lead to field goal attempts (because the others can be turnovers or FTAs). So out of 3 FGAs, that's still not a lot that could add to other teams assists totals, even for the fastest team. Because they might make only 2 out of 3 FGAs.

I'm not going to paste the ORTG and Pace numbers for the Jazz, but just as I'm scanning through them, the Jazz were in the top 22 in pace every year, and some of those years they were also # 6, # 3, # 2 also. There were also these random years when they played in the high teens or low 20s too. I'm also looking at their ORTG. Top 20 just about every year, and several years of #1, #2, #3, #6, #9, #7. So whatever they were doing, lead to one of the most efficient offenses most of those years.

So the Jazz didn't play as slow as you thought, and even when they did, they were still usually very efficient. And since the pace between the slowest and fastest team doesn't vary by that many possessions, and thus even less FGAs, the other teams that played fast and efficient didn't have much of an advantage in total stats either.

And, the Jazz offense still generated a lot of assists without Stockton. Even the year Deron was traded, they were still 3rd in assist rate, and 14th in ORTG. Last year, the Jazz were 7th in ORTG (better without Deron, haha) but dropped to 13th in assist rate. Which isn't too bad of a drop, considering the personnel.

Well, with all due respect, if the observation is that Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do it like Stockton because of the system or because of team assists, then the observation is a bunch of crock. (In a separate matter, we would have brought them back after Stockton left, if that were true.) I understand that the system is conducive to assists, but Stock earned it and was a step above the rest. For example, if Einstein took a class for Kindergarteners with other scientists, just because others his age got 100% doesn't meant he wasn't smarter than they were. As a whole, the subjects would get 100% with or without Einstein, but it says nothing about Einstein. Yes, the questions are questionable, but it doesn't equate the subjects.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that team assists have that much to do with individual assists. Compensating for not having Stockton may help the team, but it doesn't serve as a correlation between individual players. If anyone else on the Jazz were that great, they'd have reproduced Stockton's numbers individually, because I bet Sloan would rather have a reliable floor general than PG by committee, relying upon all those cuts, layups, and offensive rebounding.

Watching every game Stockton played since the early 1990's, I can tell you that Stockton had ball placement skills that other PGs don't have that would not have lead to points and he had great vision. Substituting assists to others doesn't change the skills and effectiveness of Stockton. It is a testament to the system, but Sloan was compensating for a lacking when Stockton left and we weren't as good, regardless of assists. How was the rest of the league? Being 3rd place one year could mean 25 assists and being 3rd another year could mean 22. Being 3rd in the league in assists, doesn't mean they are at the same level of scoring or wins as when Stockton was here.

It's sort of like taking a two-people working family who combined make 100,000 a year. It doesn't matter if it's split 80/20 or 60/40, but you can make a determination on who is making more. I understand that observation's contention is like if the 80,000 person left and the new couple made 100,000 combined, it's all the same, even if it changed to 60/40.

 

[nuraman00]

Well, with all due respect, if the observation is that Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do it like Stockton because of the system or because of team assists, then the observation is a bunch of crock. (In a separate matter, we would have brought them back after Stockton left, if that were true.) I understand that the system is conducive to assists, but Stock earned it and was a step above the rest. For example, if Einstein took a class for Kindergarteners with other scientists, just because others his age got 100% doesn't meant he wasn't smarter than they were. As a whole, the subjects would get 100% with or without Einstein, but it says nothing about Einstein. Yes, the questions are questionable, but it doesn't equate the subjects.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that team assists have that much to do with individual assists. Compensating for not having Stockton may help the team, but it doesn't serve as a correlation between individual players. If anyone else on the Jazz were that great, they'd have reproduced Stockton's numbers individually, because I bet Sloan would rather have a reliable floor general than PG by committee, relying upon all those cuts, layups, and offensive rebounding.

Watching every game Stockton played since the early 1990's, I can tell you that Stockton had ball placement skills that other PGs don't have that would not have lead to points and he had great vision. Substituting assists to others doesn't change the skills and effectiveness of Stockton. It is a testament to the system, but Sloan was compensating for a lacking when Stockton left and we weren't as good, regardless of assists. How was the rest of the league? Being 3rd place one year could mean 25 assists and being 3rd another year could mean 22. Being 3rd in the league in assists, doesn't mean they are at the same level of scoring or wins as when Stockton was here.

It's sort of like taking a two-people working family who combined make 100,000 a year. It doesn't matter if it's split 80/20 or 60/40, but you can make a determination on who is making more. I understand that observation's contention is like if the 80,000 person left and the new couple made 100,000 combined, it's all the same, even if it changed to 60/40.

I was just focusing on assists. Stockton was more than assists, he could also shoot from anywhere (both close and far) and he could defend. McLeod, Arroyo, and Lopez couldn't shoot nor defend at an average level, so that explains some of the overall dropoff in guard play, as well as the team record.

Stockton could still defend at a starting level until the day he retired.

Kidd, on the other hand, dropped off a lot defensively even before he got to Dallas, IMO. Kidd is still a capable defender in spurts, but you can't put him on the other team's best guard like you could when he was with the Nets.

Billups, I think could still defend at a starting level last year, but I don't know if he can when he returns from injury, just because he's getting older and coming back from injury.

But I understand your overall response too.

Would you say the same logic applies to the PF spot too? That just because Matt Harpring averaged 17ppg and 16ppg in his first two seasons with Utah, whereas he was an 11ppg guy in his other seasons, whether with Utah or before Utah, that it still wasn't like Malone or Boozer? That, similarly, just because Harpring could boost his scoring a few seasons, it still doesn't mean he could score like Malone or Boozer?

Back to your Einstein example, would it be like if those other Kindergarteners got 100%, but Einstein would still do it 6X faster and throw in an answer in a foreign language?

Another tangent - The reason why keeping McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo at PG and Harpring at PF doesn't work longterm is because these guys can't sustain it longterm, it's just a short-term fix while the Jazz transitioned into better talent (Deron at PG, Boozer at PF). Also, in each case, whether looking at the PG or PF, I was just focusing on one statistic each. Assists from the PG, and scoring from the PF. As previously mentioned, Stockton and Malone did a lot more, and the guys that filled in during those years couldn't fill in the gap on those other things.

 

[MHSL82]

I was just focusing on assists. Stockton was more than assists, he could also shoot from anywhere (both close and far) and he could defend. McLeod, Arroyo, and Lopez couldn't shoot nor defend at an average level, so that explains some of the overall dropoff in guard play, as well as the team record...

Another tangent - The reason why keeping McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo at PG and Harpring at PF doesn't work longterm is because these guys can't sustain it longterm, it's just a short-term fix while the Jazz transitioned into better talent (Deron at PG, Boozer at PF). Also, in each case, whether looking at the PG or PF, I was just focusing on one statistic each. Assists from the PG, and scoring from the PF. As previously mentioned, Stockton and Malone did a lot more, and the guys that filled in during those years couldn't fill in the gap on those other things.

Back to your Einstein example, would it be like if those other Kindergarteners got 100%, but Einstein would still do it 6X faster and throw in an answer in a foreign language?

Switched the order of you post in the quote above and cut it down to what I'm responding to.

The fact that you say that McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo was a short-term fix tells me that even in assists, they weren't like Stockton. I don't know how to say it differently, so I don't mean to be rude, but I really, REALLY don't think you can take team stats to discuss individual skills, even when isolating one area like assists. So say our teams are similar, but any reference that players x, y, or z could do it like Stockton, is a stretch unless that's Kidd, Nash, Magic, etc. If Mcleod, Arroyo, or Lopez could produce Stockton's numbers (talking just assists, here) and the remaining team could produce the rest, amounting to the same as the Stockton years (in total, not league rank), I'd say for that stretch, sure. Sloan would have rolled with them. But if McLopOyo do it by committee, I don't agree. The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.

Excuse me for the rough analogy but David Locke from a local radio stations was talking about how Jefferson's scoring in Minnesota was not that impressive on a losing team because the total points for the T'Wolves was a certain level, well below what was necessary to win. Even the Bobcats averaged a certain number, it was bound for one to carry the load. You could arrange a certain number of professionals randomly and someone would have to average a lot because the team is bound to score 90 or 80 or whatnot (number is just illustrative) and one player is bound to play a long time and take a lot of shots - he could be good at it, but number wise wasn't impressive to Locke. What he does when there are other talented players, speaks a lot more to him. With Favors and Millsap, etc., we're getting a look at Jefferson. (Love was starting to play better like Favors could, etc. so there was some overlap of situations.)

I understand the same can't be said about assists, when you are top 5 team, but a certain number of team assists are a given - the amount above that minimum is impressive, but in regards to individual floor generals, I feel it has to come from one PG to make a comparison. If the flex system was so conducive and Stockton left, someone else would have filled his shoes and replaced the assists (forget about points and defense for a moment) - team scoring from all those assists and team assists outside of the PG would compensate. But it didn't. Stockton wasn't there for his scoring or defense primarily, it was for running the point and he did it better than any other Jazz man, even removing everything but assists. The scoring and defense was a plus.

Maybe Sloan didn't give another PG a chance until we got Deron, but that just speaks to how those others couldn't make up for it - even if just discussing assists. I think Sloan looked primarily for a passer.

I have to say, I know you weren't saying that these guys were the same as Stockton, even when just comparing assists, but I had to discuss what I thought about such hypothetical belief. Obvious when adding scoring and defense, but still true when not considering those.

About the Einstein question, yes, in a way, but the overall assessment of results does not change. Doing it faster or with more style, doesn't speak to effectiveness in a test setting - moving it to on the court, if McLeod gets 10 assists, it's same as Stockton getting 10 assists. The 99 Jazz getting 25 assists, to me, is not the same as the 2004 team getting 25 assists, unless McLeod got the 10 assists, too. I don't mind PG by committee, but I don't like equating them when naming individuals or looking for context to Stockton's record (or anyone else's record).

Some teams scored more than Jordan's team, but no player got more than Jordan, if the 1999 Bulls scored the same, I wouldn't be saying, maybe Jordan was a product of the system - unless one player scored the same with comparable supporting cast and it produced similar results - I know I'm mixing two areas - scoring and winning, which is not fair, but as Locke said, how you score matters (garbage points or real competitive scoring). Yes, the defense factor does remove the analogy a bit and so does level of competition. Making a nexus between flex offense assisting and garbage points could be made, because it isn't the PG driven assist, but I think there's too many factors going on here.

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. The decision by Sloan to play one PG less, may be effected by Sloan's belief in his ability to do it like Stock, assists or otherwise.