"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[BGRTHNUMEGO]

*I'm going with possible here because the latest Sloan analytics conference had a big section on early development and there was no conclusive evidence that giving young players a free reign of minutes leads to greater overall development in the long-run.

How did they define this? Was SVG one giving remarks on that?

[MarkGrace]

That may or may not be the case. The thing is, the majority of the vets on this team aren't going to be back, so if you're going to lose either way, it's better to lose with the young guys who have a future here and can learn and progress as a players and as a team. The future core of the team needs time to gel and come together, and it should have been this year that they were doing that, building around Hayward, Kanter, and Favors; so as these guys improve they can maybe get a few years where that group turns in to something special while they are still on cheap contracts. That's just part of the woes of being a small market that can't attract marquee FAs.

I think it's easy to say that as a fan, much harder as a first time coach. Say you're SVG coaching this team and you play the young guys and lose a whole bunch of games and get fired (though he was the poster boy for playing vets over kids in the Sloan seminar I mentioned above, so I suspect he'd approach this thing similar to Corbin). Someone's still going to hire you, because you have a proven track record in the league, despite that glitch. The same is not going to happen for Ty Corbin.

What's frustrating to me as a fan is seeing the coach be so obstinate about it. It's like hell or high water, he's going to play who he's going to play, even if guys like Kanter show us something.

Don't you think a guy like Kanter has shown he's a lot tougher inside defensively, as well as more efficient than a guy like Al?

I don't look at sites like 82games and all that, but just from my observations, it seems like Kanter takes many fewer shots to get his points, rebounds better than Al, is better at defense than Al, and gets to the line at a better rate than Al. So, I see no reason to not have moved Al, even for little to nothing, because it's addition by subtraction at this point.

There's a lot of pieces of data out there that say a lot of different things. PER is still the best measure of overall individual efficiency, and Al and Sap are still easily our two most productive guys. Of course that doesn't really take into account defense and all that, so you league at +/-, on/off court, and all that stuff, but the results go a bunch of different directions and combination stats are always difficult to really discern.

I'd love to see Kanter play more. In his case, I think he really caught even the Jazz by surprise this year. KOC mentioned before the season that they were treating Enes more like 18 years old than 20 in terms of his development because of the time he missed. Thus, I think part of the reason they kept both Sap and Al last year was because they didn't believe Enes was a guy who needed regular minutes just yet. I think they figured he'd play another year playing blowout minutes, and then next year become a regular rotation guy after they let one of Al/Sap walk. Of course he improved considerably from year 1 to 2 and really deserves regular minutes.

[MarkGrace]

How did they define this? Was SVG one giving remarks on that?

Oh I have no clue. There was just a segment on it, and a bunch of reports/data was presented. And yeah, SVG was kind of the keynote speaker on it, and talked about some of his experiences, specifically the development of JJ Reddick and why he didn't make him a rotation player right off the bat despite the fact that they had just made him a lotto pick.

3. What is the best way to develop young players?

If there's one criticism fans always have of their favorite team's coach, it's that he doesn't give young players enough minutes. The assumption here is that time on the court is the only way for NBA players to develop, which makes sense intuitively but has never been demonstrated statistically, at least not publicly. This is one area in which future research could have a major impact on how teams play.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PerDiem-130301/solving-important-basketball-questions

[The_Douger]

I know Al is good offensively, but to me he still should get to the line a lot more than he does. He shies from contact, he's not that physical, etc.

But then you watch him play defense, and I just don't see how it's not a complete wash. You honestly have to have a really strong defensive presence with him in the game at all times, and Millsap doesn't really provide that.

It's just more of the same redundant crap we had to watch when Boozer and Okur were in the game. I always appreciated Okur because despite his deficiencies, he made a good effort to defend and try hard against more talented players, but Boozer was just a matador much like Al is.

[MarkGrace]

From a different perspective...If you play the veterans big minutes you're conceding some development for the sake of the *possibility of more wins.

*I say possibility because there sure as hell doesn't seem to be any evidence that playing the vets and sitting the youngsters helps the team win basketball games.

Can a first time coach afford to play veterans and lose, while not playing young players and possibility stunting their development at the same time? Losing + sacrificing young player development to give mediocre veterans minutes doesn't seem like a recipe for success for a first time coach. At least if he throws caution to the wind and goes with the young guys, he has an excuse for losing. Playing Mo, Al, Foye and Sap 30+ minutes or in crunch time and still coming up on the losing end looks really, really, (thanks, Bronco!) bad.

I'm not sure that's not really a different perspective, it's the same perspective in that you have no real conclusive evidence one way or another, you're just trading you possibility for another. In those situations, I think many coaches default to playing the more experienced guys. It's not just Corbin who does it.

[YOhio]

Maybe posted already, but a documentary on Luther Wright's food addiction (now that he's taken care of the crack addiction).

http://www.roopstigo.com/healingagent/luther-wright-the-weight-of-the-world-part-1-with-greg-marotta/

[BGRTHNUMEGO]

Oh I have no clue. There was just a segment on it, and a bunch of reports/data was presented. And yeah, SVG was kind of the keynote speaker on it, and talked about some of his experiences, specifically the development of JJ Reddick and why he didn't make him a rotation player right off the bat despite the fact that they had just made him a lotto pick.


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...ball-questions

It is a very interesting topic to me. What clouds the discussion in my mind, among several other factors I'm sure, is how you try to analyze things if the player is right out of high school, came from Europe, or played 3 years of college first. I can't remember if it was SVG from Sloan that used Blatche and McGee during their time in Washington as young guys that were just given minutes and didn't have to earn them as kind of a "see, look how that turned out." Blatche only played 5 mpg his rookie year, then went to 12, then to 20. McGee went 15, 16, and then 27. And to look at the roster I'm not sure those minutes should've been going to anyone else by the 3rd year for Blatche and McGee. Could they have become better players if they'd played less early on? How do you ever quantify that?

When that part of Sloan came up and people were discussing it, another thing I heard referenced often, from people ranging from Spence Checketts to Bruce Bowen to writers on different sites, was that there are "many examples" of guys that didn't play many minutes at all their first few years and then became great players. But then there weren't any examples shared after that. Jermaine O'Neal could count, as he was glued to that Portland bench way too long and then broke out quickly when he finally got minutes in Indiana. But for the most part, and even when dealing with guys straight out of high school, the really good players in the NBA played a lot of minutes very early in their career. So is that just to say that if you've got the ability to be a star you are going to justify minutes early on no matter what, and if you don't it doesn't really matter? Does the development of a player depend more on minutes played or the staff and roster around them, and if the staff and roster is a good one does that actually justify more minutes for young players? Is the "harmful" playing time in a young career when someone doesn't have superstar ability and gets big minutes on a disaster of a team?

It will be interesting to see what those smart folks can come up with as they dig into this topic more.

[smokymountainrain]

I'm not sure that's not really a different perspective, it's the same perspective in that you have no real conclusive evidence one way or another, you're just trading you possibility for another. In those situations, I think many coaches default to playing the more experienced guys. It's not just Corbin who does it.

In general, I believe you're right. That said, given the same, unique circumstances of Corbin's situation (vets consistently getting their asses handed to them in the 3rd quarter, two games where 3 starters didn't score a point, games where none of the starters reach double figures, overwhelming +/- stats in favor of the young players, slow starts to games, to name a few) I think there are very few coaches who would be as spineless as Corbin and those coaches probably deserved to be fired as well.

[Eddie]

It is a very interesting topic to me. What clouds the discussion in my mind, among several other factors I'm sure, is how you try to analyze things if the player is right out of high school, came from Europe, or played 3 years of college first. I can't remember if it was SVG from Sloan that used Blatche and McGee during their time in Washington as young guys that were just given minutes and didn't have to earn them as kind of a "see, look how that turned out." Blatche only played 5 mpg his rookie year, then went to 12, then to 20. McGee went 15, 16, and then 27. And to look at the roster I'm not sure those minutes should've been going to anyone else by the 3rd year for Blatche and McGee. Could they have become better players if they'd played less early on? How do you ever quantify that?

When that part of Sloan came up and people were discussing it, another thing I heard referenced often, from people ranging from Spence Checketts to Bruce Bowen to writers on different sites, was that there are "many examples" of guys that didn't play many minutes at all their first few years and then became great players. But then there weren't any examples shared after that. Jermaine O'Neal could count, as he was glued to that Portland bench way too long and then broke out quickly when he finally got minutes in Indiana. But for the most part, and even when dealing with guys straight out of high school, the really good players in the NBA played a lot of minutes very early in their career. So is that just to say that if you've got the ability to be a star you are going to justify minutes early on no matter what, and if you don't it doesn't really matter? Does the development of a player depend more on minutes played or the staff and roster around them, and if the staff and roster is a good one does that actually justify more minutes for young players? Is the "harmful" playing time in a young career when someone doesn't have superstar ability and gets big minutes on a disaster of a team?

It will be interesting to see what those smart folks can come up with as they dig into this topic more.

Obviously Kobe Bryant's confidence was completely destroyed due to playing too many minutes as a rookie, including that game in which he launched multiple airball 3's as the Lakers were getting swept from the playoffs.

I'll bet he could've been a pretty good player eventually if he'd spent more time on the bench instead of playing so much.

[MarkGrace]

Obviously Kobe Bryant's confidence was completely destroyed due to playing too many minutes as a rookie, including that game in which he launched multiple airball 3's as the Lakers were getting swept from the playoffs.

I'll bet he could've been a pretty good player eventually if he'd spent more time on the bench instead of playing so much.

In addition to what BGR mentioned, this is the other big problem in trying to measure this stuff. You can point to all these guys that played big minute early and had success (btw, I'm not talking about Kobe specifically, just mentioning it generally), but that's not evidence that it made them better in the long-run either.

So you have all these questions BGR mentioned on one side of the equation, but a whole host of questions on the other side. Ultimately I don't think a study on this stuff is going to yield anything noteworthy. I have no idea how you'd even go about something like this. Just seems like way to many factors to consider and hypotheticals that you can't really capture.

[MarkGrace]

In general, I believe you're right. That said, given the same, unique circumstances of Corbin's situation (vets consistently getting their asses handed to them in the 3rd quarter, two games where 3 starters didn't score a point, games where none of the starters reach double figures, overwhelming +/- stats in favor of the young players, slow starts to games, to name a few) I think there are very few coaches who would be as spineless as Corbin and those coaches probably deserved to be fired as well.

See, I just don't think any of this stuff is true. The +/- numbers and simple ratings are all over the place, the lineup combination results are all over the place (before even considering the problems with combination stats to being with), PER's, etc., etc. All the other stuff is anecdotal. The kids have had their asses handed to them over quarters, the kids have blown games late (G-Time cost the Cavs game, Burks damn near blew the Bucks game, etc.), the kids have looked lethargic at times, etc.

Again, I think the only clear case of a player being better than his counterpart options is G-Time. He should be getting more minutes, but it's not like he's not playing at all or anything -- he's 4th on the team in MPG. Kanter/Favors vs. Sap/Al, Burks vs. Mo/Foye. They are, like I said, at the very best a wash (and I think over time and playing against starters the kid's numbers would ultimately be worse than they currently are).

If all the things you are saying were bearing out, then it's not the same discussion as the one we're having. Then it's just someone playing less productive players over the more productive ones, but that's not the case. The vets are still as productive, if not more in some instances, than the younger counterparts. And all things being more or less equal, coaches tend play older more experienced guys. We say it Sloan, we see it with Bronco, we see it with Ty, SVG (and many others) were advocating for it at Sloan, and on and on. To sit around saying "just play the young guys" is much more of a fan than coach mentality. Because fans don't have a job on the line.

[Eddie]

In addition to what BGR mentioned, this is the other big problem in trying to measure this stuff. You can point to all these guys that played big minute early and had success (btw, I'm not talking about Kobe specifically, just mentioning it generally), but that's not evidence that it made them better in the long-run either.

So you have all these questions BGR mentioned on one side of the equation, but a whole host of questions on the other side. Ultimately I don't think a study on this stuff is going to yield anything noteworthy. I have no idea how you'd even go about something like this. Just seems like way to many factors to consider and hypotheticals that you can't really capture.

I'm guessing that players that have it in them to be good will end up being good. And those who don't, won't. And I suspect that it doesn't matter a whole lot if they play a lot of minutes early or are eased in. Sure - for some individual players there may be some slight differences. But I suspect that the ranks of players who make it to the NBA isn't stacked with guys with confidence so fragile that they are broken if they have some setbacks. I suspect that the ones that are successful are the ones who have something in them that causes them to work harder after a setback and are driven to succeed and overcome. And the ones who aren't are those who are fragile and were going to fall apart and never amount to much no matter how good of a situation they were placed into.

[MarkGrace]

I'm guessing that players that have it in them to be good will end up being good. And those who don't, won't. And I suspect that it doesn't matter a whole lot if they play a lot of minutes early or are eased in. Sure - for some individual players there may be some slight differences. But I suspect that the ranks of players who make it to the NBA isn't stacked with guys with confidence so fragile that they are broken if they have some setbacks. I suspect that the ones that are successful are the ones who have something in them that causes them to work harder after a setback and are driven to succeed and overcome. And the ones who aren't are those who are fragile and were going to fall apart and never amount to much no matter how good of a situation they were placed into.

I think this is a pretty solid assessment, and it's one of the reasons I don't get worked up this stuff anymore. I've been following the Jazz very closely for a lot of years now, and I used to be one of those dogged "play the kids" types. But I've just been around that carousel too many times at this point to really believe it results in much. My general feeling is, at least to a large extent, players are just going to be what they're going to be, and that's not going to be altered much if you play them 15 minutes a night right now or 25. They may get to what they're going to be a bit earlier, but I don't think it alters their overall trajectory. Sometimes it feels like there's this assumption that players have this infinite growth curve if you'll just play them, but I just don't think that's the case. It didn't matter if Ronnie Brewer played 30 mins a night his first year or 5, by year 4 to 5 he was just going to be what he was going to be. And most of the times none of these kids end up being what you're think they're going to be, so it's just back on the carousel. What happens when three years from now Favors still looks awkward on offense? What happens when Kanter is the guy they dump to in the post and he's killing clock (as he already kind of does)? What happens when both of them still can't pass? What if Kanter's hands still aren't great and he keeps turning the ball over at an alarming rate? It'll just be the next round of play the kid behind them.

[smokymountainrain]

I think this is a pretty solid assessment, and it's one of the reasons I don't get worked up this stuff anymore. I've been following the Jazz very closely for a lot of years now, and I used to be one of those dogged "play the kids" types. But I've just been around that carousel too many times at this point to really believe it results in much. My general feeling is, at least to a large extent, players are just going to be what they're going to be, and that's not going to be altered much if you play them 15 minutes a night right now or 25. They may get to what they're going to be a bit earlier, but I don't think it alters their overall trajectory. Sometimes it feels like there's this assumption that players have this infinite growth curve if you'll just play them, but I just don't think that's the case. It didn't matter if Ronnie Brewer played 30 mins a night his first year or 5, by year 4 to 5 he was just going to be what he was going to be. And most of the times none of these kids end up being what you're think they're going to be, so it's just back on the carousel. What happens when three years from now Favors still looks awkward on offense? What happens when Kanter is the guy they dump to in the post and he's killing clock (as he already kind of does)? What happens when both of them still can't pass? What if Kanter's hands still aren't great and he keeps turning the ball over at an alarming rate? It'll just be the next round of play the kid behind them.

As long as the vets can't win and the team is going nowhere with them, I will always be the "play the kids" guy. If the core four are 10 years into their careers and they are headed for 41-41 seasons, either just missing the playoffs or getting in as 8 seeds, I will be hollering for them to be on the bench and to play the youngsters. I have no interest in watching a bunch of 30 year old guys play .500 basketball.

[MarkGrace]

As long as the vets can't win and the team is going nowhere with them, I will always be the "play the kids" guy. If the core four are 10 years into their careers and they are headed for 41-41 seasons, either just missing the playoffs or getting in as 8 seeds, I will be hollering for them to be on the bench and to play the youngsters. I have no interest in watching a bunch of 30+ guys play .500 basketball.

So far this hasn't been the case.