"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[Blueintheface]

Wow. Two piss-poor calls in the final minute.

[Blueintheface]

Um. Who paid Gordon to throw this game?

[MarkGrace]

Gtime with 3 staight tos?

[Blueintheface]

This team is so stoopid.

[Blueintheface]

Al just threw it off the backboard. This is unreal.

[LiveCoug]

This team is so stoopid.

Bump.

[Blueintheface]

Jim Boylen's out at center court.

[Blueintheface]

Should be Pacers ball.

[Jacob]

I'll never understand why all of you are so fixated on Al (never really understood it with Boozer, either). And yes, I'm well aware of his flaws.

And I'm not sure what half this stuff even means. Millstone around our necks? He's gone after this year if we want him to be. That's not a millstone at all. It's not like we're talking AK in the middle of a max deal or anything. Shoots poorly for his size? Like someone his size is supposed to be a great shooter? (btw, how poorly does Sap shoot for his size if he's (1) smaller than Al and (2) posting a lower eFG% on jumpshots? Beyond that, I see no real evidence that Al does in fact shoot poorly for someone his size.) The organization has chosen to build the whole team around him? In what sense. I can't possibly see where that's true.

He really doesn't even me annoy any more than seeing Sap out there does some of the time. If I had to pick between the two, all things beings equal, I still lean Al. Of course I really don't care about either and would just prefer to trade whichever one brings us back better value (and I have no idea who that would be).

I think a big man shoots under 50% can generally be considered poor shooting big, Especially when he doesn't get shoot free throws doesn't shoot threes. Yes, Based on that standard, millsap and Favors are also considered poorly reshooting big men.

Of course Jefferson not terrible player just Terrible defender. I'm guessing most people are more upset with the with The way the organization has used him and kept him and used him as an excuse to not play other rather than hating Jefferson. Obviously I can't speak for dougher.

[MarkGrace]

I think a big man shoots under 50% can generally be considered poor shooting big, Especially when he doesn't get shoot free throws doesn't shoot threes. Yes, Based on that standard, millsap and Favors are also considered poorly reshooting big men.

I didn't think he meant FG% because it was in the context of a comment about Al taking jumpshots. Thus, I thought he was referring to actual shooting, which Al does fine. eFG% on jumpshots: Al - 41%, Sap - 39%, Favors - 31%.

That's a decent number for a big guy. So is Sap's. Favors is obviously bad. And I don't see any reason to make an arbitrary cutoff at 50% FG without some additional context. Al, Sap and Favors are all at about 48% FG's -- I don't consider that poor. Ordinary? Sure. I do think it's a less impressive mark for Favors because he doesn't really carry much of a scoring load or draw any considerable attention.

Of course Jefferson not terrible player just Terrible defender. I'm guessing most people are more upset with the with The way the organization has used him and kept him and used him as an excuse to not play other rather than hating Jefferson. Obviously I can't speak for dougher.

There are a lot of players to be upset with and that are preventing guys we want to see from getting minutes. I get why Al frustrates people, he frustrates me as well. The extent of it is what I don't really understand. I don't really get any more frustrated by him than I do any number of players at this point.

[The_Douger]

I didn't think he meant FG% because it was in the context of a comment about Al taking jumpshots. Thus, I thought he was referring to actual shooting, which Al does fine. eFG% on jumpshots: Al - 41%, Sap - 39%, Favors - 31%.

That's a decent number for a big guy. So is Sap's. Favors is obviously bad. And I don't see any reason to make an arbitrary cutoff at 50% FG without some additional context. Al, Sap and Favors are all at about 48% FG's -- I don't consider that poor. Ordinary? Sure. I do think it's a less impressive mark for Favors because he doesn't really carry much of a scoring load or draw any considerable attention.



There are a lot of players to be upset with and that are preventing guys we want to see from getting minutes. I get why Al frustrates people, he frustrates me as well. The extent of it is what I don't really understand. I don't really get any more frustrated by him than I do any number of players at this point.

I think I get more frustrated with him because of what we're paying for him and because the team has essentially been built around his soft play for the last few years. I think a big like him should be getting the other team's players in to foul trouble and getting to the line more often. I think if he's the "leader" he needs to set the tone defensively. It's just been disappointing to me to be a Jazz fan while he's been here. I liked the DWill teams a lot better, despite their deficiencies.

But yeah, they all do things that bug me.

[Jacob]

That's a decent number for a big guy. So is Sap's. Favors is obviously bad. And I don't see any reason to make an arbitrary cutoff at 50% FG without some additional context. Al, Sap and Favors are all at about 48% FG's -- I don't consider that poor. Ordinary? Sure.

I don't think 50% is arbitrary. A bit of an arbitrary cutoff, sure, because its a nice round number. But I've always considered it a minimum standard for a big man who plays in the post. I think if we look back at historical numbers for guys considered quality post scorers you won find many below 50% and will find a lot in the 55-60% range. I don't want to belabor fg% because there are better metrics, but dipping into the 40s is bad, IMO, especially if there are not a lot of FTs to offset the poor shooting. Jefferson (and Favors) are below average for post players in fg% and in ts%. When you run your offense through a guy that is below average, you are typically not in good shape. Can you think of 3 post players in the nba who shoot below 50% who you want starting for your team? 3 pt shooters don't count. If you can, you probably want them, for something other than their offense.

[MarkGrace]

I don't think 50% is arbitrary. A bit of an arbitrary cutoff, sure, because its a nice round number. But I've always considered it a minimum standard for a big man who plays in the post. I think if we look back at historical numbers for guys considered quality post scorers you won find many below 50% and will find a lot in the 55-60% range. I don't want to belabor fg% because there are better metrics, but dipping into the 40s is bad, IMO, especially if there are not a lot of FTs to offset the poor shooting. Jefferson (and Favors) are below average for post players in fg% and in ts%. When you run your offense through a guy that is below average, you are typically not in good shape. Can you think of 3 post players in the nba who shoot below 50% who you want starting for your team? 3 pt shooters don't count. If you can, you probably want them, for something other than their offense.

A minimum standard? Ewing had several years below 50% and I would have taken him as my starting center. 9 of Kevin Garnett's 12 season in Minny he was below 50% and I definitely would have taken him as my starting 4 (only in Boston has he had consistent +50% years and that's because he's no longer a primary option). Tim Duncan was below 50% 5 out of his first 9 season's in the league. I would have taken him all those years. I guess you would say you'd take these guys because they play defense, but a minimum standard is a minimum standard and I wouldn't toss any of these guys out because they went less than 50%. And the number of guys who plays offense at that level and are additionally great defensive players (or even above average) are extremely limited and none of them is about to walk through Utah's door.

In the 55-60% range I don't think you're going to find a ton of guys who are carrying a bulk of their team's offensive load. Hakeem didn't have one season in that range in his entire career (neither did any of those three mentioned above). Obviously I didn't run through everybody, but the only ones I did see with years consistently in that range were Shaq and Howard. I think for guys shouldering a large scoring load this is probably more the exception than the norm. For example, look at the players in that range this year:

Chandler
Splitter
Howard
McGee
Ibaka
Davis
Hickson
Johnson

With the exception of Howard (and to a lesser extent maybe Ibaka) they're all just garbage men and don't shoulder any regular scoring load. They're scooping up misses around the hoop and getting high % shots because teams are paying attention to their teammates.

When you start factoring in TS% and all these secondary measurements, then you just eventually broaden out to a full consideration of how many points they're giving away via mistakes (which is the real measure of offensive value, right?) and you really just end up at PER and ORatg. And again Jefferson grades out very well there.

But it's always silly when the discussion gets here and people start pretending like every player out there is under consideration. To me the only players under consideration are the guys on our roster and to a lesser extent the guys that might reasonably be available. And with that consideration it doesn't particularly bother me that the offense runs though Al Jefferson and not Sap/Favors/Kanter. Or on the wings with Marvin/Foye/Mo/et al.

[Jacob]

A minimum standard? Ewing had several years below 50% and I would have taken him as my starting center. 9 of Kevin Garnett's 12 season in Minny he was below 50% and I definitely would have taken him as my starting 4 (only in Boston has he had consistent +50% years and that's because he's no longer a primary option). Tim Duncan was below 50% 5 out of his first 9 season's in the league. I would have taken him all those years. I guess you would say you'd take these guys because they play defense, but a minimum standard is a minimum standard and I wouldn't toss any of these guys out because they went less than 50%. And the number of guys who plays offense at that level and are additionally great defensive players (or even above average) are extremely limited and none of them is about to walk through Utah's door.

In the 55-60% range I don't think you're going to find a ton of guys who are carrying a bulk of their team's offensive load. Hakeem didn't have one season in that range in his entire career (neither did any of those three mentioned above). Obviously I didn't run through everybody, but the only ones I did see with years consistently in that range were Shaq and Howard. I think for guys shouldering a large scoring load this is probably more the exception than the norm. For example, look at the players in that range this year:

Chandler
Splitter
Howard
McGee
Ibaka
Davis
Hickson
Johnson

With the exception of Howard (and to a lesser extent maybe Ibaka) they're all just garbage men and don't shoulder any regular scoring load. They're scooping up misses around the hoop and getting high % shots because teams are paying attention to their teammates.

When you start factoring in TS% and all these secondary measurements, then you just eventually broaden out to a full consideration of how many points they're giving away via mistakes (which is the real measure of offensive value, right?) and you really just end up at PER and ORatg. And again Jefferson grades out very well there.

But it's always silly when the discussion gets here and people start pretending like every player out there is under consideration. To me the only players under consideration are the guys on our roster and to a lesser extent the guys that might reasonably be available. And with that consideration it doesn't particularly bother me that the offense runs though Al Jefferson and not Sap/Favors/Kanter. Or on the wings with Marvin/Foye/Mo/et al.

I typed out a long response and it disappeared. This shortened version will probably make me sound unreasonable, but oh we'll. you cherry picked your numbers. Ewing and Malone were almost always above 50% except in their declining years. The Duncan years you cite have him less than a point below 50% in the bad years. And the 3 guys you mention we're 3 of the best in a generation.

I was actually asking about current nba players. But none of this is to say that I think Al is a poor offensive player, to the contrary, he is very good. But He could score more efficiently, and I think the team could score better, or at least as well, without him and his ball stopping. But it's his defense that makes him bad.

[MarkGrace]

I typed out a long response and it disappeared. This shortened version will probably make me sound unreasonable, but oh we'll. you cherry picked your numbers. Ewing and Malone were almost always above 50% except in their declining years. The Duncan years you cite have him less than a point below 50% in the bad years. And the 3 guys you mention we're 3 of the best in a generation.

What do you mean? Did you want career numbers? Al is pretty much 50% for his career. This year he's at 48%, and I thought we were just talking about this year. Thus, I was just grabbing a bunch of years from several quality post players I could think of where they went under that threshold but I would still be fine using them as a primary or secondary scoring option on my team. I don't think there's anything magical about dipping below that 50% mark. But my original point is not that it's good or anything, only that it's not poor by any stretch. With the Duncan years, that's kind of my point -- going under that mark doesn't really mean anything. What if you're 49%? Or 48%? Doesn't mean you've gone from passable to poor in 1-2%.

I was actually asking about current nba players.

So looking back at your other post, this is what you asked:

Can you think of 3 post players in the nba who shoot below 50% who you want starting for your team? 3 pt shooters don't count. If you can, you probably want them, for something other than their offense.

If that's the consideration, then this is who I've got: LaMarcus Aldridge (46.9%), Zach Randolph (48%), Marc Gasol (48%), Greg Monroe (48%), David West (47.6%), etc.

There are a whole bunch of more out there, but where defenses become more of a factor than offense (like a Joakim Noah). But all these are non-3pt shooting big men that I'd be comfortable starting even before considering defense. And as a strictly offensive consideration I'd take them before every single player on that previous list in the 55%-60% range except Dwight Howard. Heck, if I had Demarcus Cousins I'd probably still start him and he's at 43% (and also the league's leading scorer among all centers). Now that's poor! ha.

But none of this is to say that I think Al is a poor offensive player, to the contrary, he is very good. But He could score more efficiently, and I think the team could score better, or at least as well, without him and his ball stopping. But it's his defense that makes him bad.

Well I don't think we'd disagree there. Actually, I'm not convinced they'd score better or just as well without him. He's been here three years and the offense has consistently been markedly better with him on the floor than off. Maybe you could remove him and everyone would adjust over time, but right now I still think the offense would miss him.