Game 15: Chicago Bulls ( 8-5 ) @ Utah Jazz ( 5-9 )

[Inigo Montoya]

Why can't all our players play well on the same night I don't get it... It's like the nights Hayward has a great game everyone else is poo while when Hayward is playing poorly everyone else plays well..... Am I missing something obvious? Do these players just not compliment each other?

Maybe its just me, but it seems Kanter and Favors just don't play well together. Anybody else feel that way?

Not just you. That has been a big issue here. We've had that with Jefferson/Millsap and others, too.

This issue has been overblown and overstated this season. It is actually not that bad at all.

The starting 5 has a positive +\-, and they score at 50% from the field. In fact, the starting 5 is putting up better stats than its opponent on almost every category:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-5-man::none

Even the two man combination of Favors and Kanter isn't doing badly:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-2-man::none

Time to put this issue to rest for a while, and focus on our perimeter defense, which is the main problem.

[StocktonShorts]

Maybe its just me, but it seems Kanter and Favors just don't play well together. Anybody else feel that way?

Not just you. That has been a big issue here. We've had that with Jefferson/Millsap and others, too.

This issue has been overblown and overstated this season. It is actually not that bad at all.

The starting 5 has a positive +\-, and they score at 50% from the field. In fact, the starting 5 is putting up better stats than its opponent on almost every category:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-5-man::none

Even the two man combination of Favors and Kanter isn't doing badly:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-2-man::none

Time to put this issue to rest for a while, and focus on our perimeter defense, which is the main problem.

Cool, I didn't know B-R had N-man lineups. They're not quite as detailed as the ones at NBA.com, but B-R is so much less bloated and more user friendly.

I'm still trying to figure out how best to interpret these N-man lineup stats. Let's look at Favors/Kanter.

2-man lineup:
(A) Kanter/Favors: 291 minutes, -1.9 points/100

3-man lineups:
(B) w/Burke: 257 minutes, -0.9 points/100
(C) w/Burks: 258 minutes, -0.4 points/100
(D) w/Hayward: 253 minutes, -0.7 points/100

4-Man lineups:
(E) w/Burke/Burks: 230 minutes played, +1.7 points/100
(F) w/Burks/Hayward: 221 minutes played, +1.5 points/100
(G) w/Burke/Hayward: 223 minutes played, -1.0 points/100

5-man lineup:
(H) w/Burks/Burke/Hayward: 196 minutes, +2.0 points/100

Now, we can do some set operations to get at some potentially interesting data. We've got 230 minutes of Favors/Kanter with Burke/Burks (E) and 196 minutes of Favors/Kanter with Burke/Burks/Hayward (H). That means we've got 34 minutes of Favors/Kanter/Burke/Burks with someone other than Hayward, and in those 34 minutes, they're bad enough to drop the net points from +2.0 to +1.7. That reflects favorably on Hayward.

Let's do the same thing with Burke. 221 minutes of Favors/Kanter with Hayward/Burks (F) at +1.5 points/100 minus 196 minutes with the starting five (H), gives us 25 minutes of this 4-man lineup without Burke. Again, in those 25 minutes the net points go from +2.0 to +1.5. Again this reflects favorably on Burke.

Do you see what's happening here? We're looking at over 200 minutes of playing time and then trying to make a judgment on a player based on the fraction of that time where the lineup is slightly different. This I think is one of the fundamental problems of +/- stats. Smart people have thought about this a lot more than I have, and I'm sure there are ways they attempt to address it, but I think this gives some indication of the issues with it, especially when you've got a 5-man lineup that plays so many of their minutes together.

[Inigo Montoya]

You didn't need all this (impressive) work to show +\- is not a good stat. I fully agree. And yet, all of last season people bothered to use it and many other easily manipulable stats against Kanter and I didn't see anyone jumping then. And you chose to bring a tweet about Kanter's 150 defensive rating in that game, which again, is easy to manipulate to suit whatever point anyone might want to prove. For that matter, 2 man lineups is also not a great metric, but if people want to use it to make a point against player X, it is fun to show you can also use it to support the same player.

As to the drop off, when Favors\Kanter don't play with Hayward, that's to be expected, since the player who replaces him is usually Ingles. One thing we can't judge, is how well a lineup of Exum+Alec+Hayward+Kanter+Favors is doing, and that's the lineup I'm most interested in seeing.

[StocktonShorts]

One thing we can't judge, is how well a lineup of Exum+Alec+Hayward+Kanter+Favors is doing, and that's the lineup I'm most interested in seeing.

This is also something I'd like to see. One thing I've been very disappointed in is how little lineup experimentation there has been over the past 2-3 years. In situations with nothing to lose you'd think coaches would be more interested in trying different combinations to see if they work.

Again this is where I think analytics could supplement coaching. You could treat 10-game blocks as experimental blocks where you try out different combinations for at least X minutes/night. In the short term it may cost you a few wins, but you might come across a lineup that really clicks.

[StocktonShorts]

You didn't need all this (impressive) work to show +\- is not a good stat. I fully agree. And yet, all of last season people bothered to use it and many other easily manipulable stats against Kanter and I didn't see anyone jumping then.

No one is "jumping" you here. Don't be so defensive.

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to separate the contributions of individual players when those players play the vast majority of their minutes in the same lineup.

[Inigo Montoya]

You didn't need all this (impressive) work to show +\- is not a good stat. I fully agree. And yet, all of last season people bothered to use it and many other easily manipulable stats against Kanter and I didn't see anyone jumping then.

No one is "jumping" you here. Don't be so defensive.

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to separate the contributions of individual players when those players play the vast majority of their minutes in the same lineup.

I didn't mean someone is "jumping me", I meant no one was jumping (or, making haste) to point out that the stats we talked about aren't that great and are problematic last season when they were used against Kanter. That no one was jumping (or, vigorously volunteering) to point out exactly what you are now pointing out.

[StocktonShorts]

You didn't need all this (impressive) work to show +\- is not a good stat. I fully agree. And yet, all of last season people bothered to use it and many other easily manipulable stats against Kanter and I didn't see anyone jumping then.

No one is "jumping" you here. Don't be so defensive.

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to separate the contributions of individual players when those players play the vast majority of their minutes in the same lineup.

I didn't mean someone is "jumping me", I meant no one was jumping to point out that the stats we talked about aren't that great and are problematic last season when they were used against Kanter. That no one was jumping to point out exactly what you are now pointing out.

Oh ok. Cool. Once again, better over beers.

I guess I never really decided to take a look into it in detail. I mean, I knew this was a potential flaw, but sometimes these things really stand out when you dig into it on your own.

One of these days I want to read one of the papers on adjusted plus/minus, because I'm really interested to see how stats providers are currently dealing with problems like this. To me it looks like a classic problem of collinearity that effectively makes the stat almost meaningless except on very large sample sizes (certainly larger than what we have for the year-to-date).

Here's one reviewer's take:

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/

[Devilzsidewalk]

how come Snyder subbed out Kanter for Booker on the jump ball at the end of the game? Not that Kanter would've been able to wrestle the ball away from Noah, but I wasn't sure what he was trying to do - I would've thought he'd want the bigger Kanter in there under the basket against Noah and Gasol.

[StocktonShorts]

how come Snyder subbed out Kanter for Booker on the jump ball at the end of the game? Not that Kanter would've been able to wrestle the ball away from Noah, but I wasn't sure what he was trying to do - I would've thought he'd want the bigger Kanter in there under the basket against Noah and Gasol.

Better hands?

[Inigo Montoya]

It is Snyder's usual practice to sub Kanter for Booker at the end of games, regardless of how he plays. So far, results have been.... mixed.

[JazzMatt13]

It is Snyder's usual practice to sub Kanter for Booker at the end of games, regardless of how he plays. So far, results have been.... mixed.

If you also take notice on, when Exum and Gobert get subbed in, Kanter ALWAYS gets subbed out. The only time Exum plays with Kanter is when Trey gets subbed for Exum in the starting line up.

[JazzMatt13]

Had Jazz been way more careful with the ball, and not let Butler and Rose get off to insane start (Yes you were right, our perimeter defense was reason for loss, your right, paint isn't as big as issue as the back court defense).

Think about those TO points from sloppy back court ball, and then remember all the wide open 3's. Hell BYU made like 11/11 3 pointers in Maui's invitational, and your gonna lose not defending that 3 pointer, cause not only does it give them a 2 and 1, but it builds that confidence and momentum.


I think you guys were right, guys like Davis, Cousins and Gasol, there going to get theres', no denying them what they are going to get, cause its in paint. But i am beginning to belive in perimeter defense, cause if you make everyone a jump shooter, and contest every shot, those percentages will go down, compared to open 3's and giving them lanes into paint. Cause if they get in paint, Favors will have to draw a foul to not allow easy points.

[JazzMatt13]

I think our front court is consistent enough to win. but our back court is what will make us that solid team we want to be.

Trey finally played solid. He began to defend better, and really opened up on offensive side. I almost want to see Exum start next to him and bench Burks.


Who thinks Burke and Exum at starter, with Burks the 6th man? We don't need Burks acrobatic drives and energy on starter. If he came off bench, he could do that stuff with much more ease, and give us that shot in the arm. I think between Exum and Hayward, almost all jumpshots would be contested, and if Burke continues down this path, he will make a solid player.

[zimpy27]

No one is "jumping" you here. Don't be so defensive.

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to separate the contributions of individual players when those players play the vast majority of their minutes in the same lineup.

I didn't mean someone is "jumping me", I meant no one was jumping to point out that the stats we talked about aren't that great and are problematic last season when they were used against Kanter. That no one was jumping to point out exactly what you are now pointing out.

Oh ok. Cool. Once again, better over beers.

I guess I never really decided to take a look into it in detail. I mean, I knew this was a potential flaw, but sometimes these things really stand out when you dig into it on your own.

One of these days I want to read one of the papers on adjusted plus/minus, because I'm really interested to see how stats providers are currently dealing with problems like this. To me it looks like a classic problem of collinearity that effectively makes the stat almost meaningless except on very large sample sizes (certainly larger than what we have for the year-to-date).

Here's one reviewer's take:

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/

Stats are fairly meaningless for quantitating effectiveness on a basketball court. You can't tell how much a player contributed to defense or a team for that matter. Stats are very limited at this point. The one thing you can measure is a players individual efficiency on offense, but even that is flawed because players have roles that help or hurt their efficiency.

Most people use stats to further validate what they see with their eyes. You just have to take them with a grain of salt. If you're looking at lineups, just focus on substituting one player with another one of their position and compare. Just to be used as a rough guide.

[MHSL82]

Maybe its just me, but it seems Kanter and Favors just don't play well together. Anybody else feel that way?

Not just you. That has been a big issue here. We've had that with Jefferson/Millsap and others, too.

This issue has been overblown and overstated this season. It is actually not that bad at all.

The starting 5 has a positive +\-, and they score at 50% from the field. In fact, the starting 5 is putting up better stats than its opponent on almost every category:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-5-man::none

Even the two man combination of Favors and Kanter isn't doing badly:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2015/lineups/#lineups-2-man::none

Time to put this issue to rest for a while, and focus on our perimeter defense, which is the main problem.

Stop making me look bad, Montoya. I can do that myself just fine!

In my defense, I didn't say it was bad, just that others cite it as an issue (that the guy I quoted wasn't alone). I'm too ignorant on the issue to state it one way or another - haven't had time to watch the games and haven't looked at the statistical breakdowns yet.

[Inigo Montoya]

Stop making me look bad, Montoya. I can do that myself just fine!

In my defense, I didn't say it was bad, just that others cite it as an issue (that the guy I quoted wasn't alone). I'm too ignorant on the issue to state it one way or another - haven't had time to watch the games and haven't looked at the statistical breakdowns yet.

Nah, you're alright. Plenty of people bring up the Favors\Kanter pairing as an issue, and they had plenty of legitimate reasons to do that in the past. But so far this season they are doing pretty well. It might change, but so far they are actually fine while other problems are more pressing, that's all.

[JazzMatt13]

Stop making me look bad, Montoya. I can do that myself just fine!

In my defense, I didn't say it was bad, just that others cite it as an issue (that the guy I quoted wasn't alone). I'm too ignorant on the issue to state it one way or another - haven't had time to watch the games and haven't looked at the statistical breakdowns yet.

Nah, you're alright. Plenty of people bring up the Favors\Kanter pairing as an issue, and they had plenty of legitimate reasons to do that in the past. But so far this season they are doing pretty well. It might change, but so far they are actually fine while other problems are more pressing, that's all.

I think my only case is, I don't think Favors/Kanter can be the #1 bigs in NBA. Like no way they are like Randolph and Gasol, maybe next year or following (assuming Kanter stays, maybe they could be equal to or greater than that duo). Upon more research, and reading, and of course more watching, our front court isn't as pathetic as I, or some would like to believe. They might not be DPOTY or MVP types, but this front court has something important, and that is, they can win games.

Last year, I don't think we could win cause we didn't have the front court to do it. Watching Favors last night, reminded me he isn't the inexperienced player I thought he was being.

That Favors who shows up 1 time a week is the MVP type player we wish we had every night. The Favors the rest of the week, is the Favors who will allow us to win games.

[StocktonShorts]

Going back to this game for a moment, the one play that killed me was the Dunleavy putback after the chase down block. Burks and Hayward bust their asses down the court to block the layup, only to have speedy 34-yr-old Mike Dunleavy beat Burke, Favors and Kanter down the court to grab the rebound and score.

Just a little more hustle right there and the Jazz win.