This is Why Sloan Kills Us

[Racer X]

[quote="loserX"][/quote]

So to get things straight ... you think that playing John Stockton more would not have made any sort of a positive difference in 2 games in which we lost by 2 points?

[loserX]

So to get things straight ... you think that playing John Stockton more would not have made any sort of a positive difference in 2 games in which we lost by 2 points?

No, I'm saying there's no way anyone can know for sure. Maybe he stays in and the much taller Ron Harper hits another 3 over him and we lose by 5. How do I know? How do you know? You are speculating and guessing about a counterfactual history, and it doesn't prove anything.

Are you right? Quite possibly, maybe even probably. All I'm saying is, don't call it a "hard fact" when it isn't, and don't criticize people for being unable to disprove it when it's not possible to prove either way.

[CAE15]

wow 1 away is it going to be a good 10,000th post?

Sloan is a great coach and were lucky to have him, you want to complain about a bad coach go complain about mike brown for the cavs, how he has a job is beyond me.

[OC Jazzfan]

While I am as close to becoming anti-Sloan as I have been since the early to mid '90s and his substitution pattern has always been one of my major gripes, I'm forced to admit that there is a strong likelihood that his set-in-stone sub pattern had something to do with having two HOF, Top-Fifty players who had extraordinarily long, injury-free and productive careers for the Jazz.

Of course that can't be *proven* anymore than it can be *proven* that Girisuck would've been the opposite of a gunning klutz if he was given consistent big minutes. I'm inclined to believe that he would've simply sucked more. More missed assignments, more broken plays, and more turnovers. But that's just my guess. There are plenty of people who claim to know exactly what would have happened in the world if certain things were different. I'm just not one of them. Of course I'm also not big on ad-hominem arguments which makes me a minority on this board (though I do slip occasionally even though I try like hell not to).

Without a doubt though, D-Will's, Boozer's et al, careers will extend beyond the Sloan era, so we should be able to see what happens when the old coot finally hangs up the clipboard. (Unless KOC and/or LHM completely screw the pooch between now and then.)

[Malone Strong]

This post is getting away from the roots of the argument. If Sloan wants to play his best guys 35 mpg all season, great. But in the playoffs, ESPECIALLY the Finals, if you dont play your superstars MAJOR minutes to get that elusive world championship....then well, you are a complete moron....

Argue with that. Can't? Well no sh*t...

[Racer X]

My point with those stats is that Sloan sticks to his game schedule instead of actually coaching the game in progress. In most games this season that we have lost we have let teams get back into the game during the first half of the fourth quarter. During these games we can not score during this time but Sloan will leave Boozer on the bench until like 6 mins left in the game when the other team has stolen all momentum. Its what makes him a bad coach.

I love that people come in here and criticize me for posting ACTUAL stats that support my point, and than just say things like "Sloan is a great coach" end of story.

Without getting critical of any other posters I would love a Sloan booster to post a reply explaining what makes Sloan a good coach with 3 good points. If someone can do that. I will post in this thread no more.

[Racer X]

I hear crickets ...

Tonights game. Perfect example. +7 to -7 before a timeout.

[Jazzfan Bayamon]

I hear crickets ...

Tonights game. Perfect example. +7 to -7 before a timeout.

You do know there was a timeout when were we still up 1, right???

[Maf]

funny as hell. I really wish everyone desperate to fire Sloan to make it happen. THAN you see what really means bad coach.
You complain about HOFer coach, I'd love to read your biatching when your team is coached by the guys like Mo Cheeks, Isiah, or Frank

[stevebozell]

Hey muf, just because there are obviously worse coaches, doesnt by default make our coach "great".

[kebutah]

funny as hell. I really wish everyone desperate to fire Sloan to make it happen. THAN you see what really means bad coach.
You complain about HOFer coach, I'd love to read your biatching when your team is coached by the guys like Mo Cheeks, Isiah, or Frank

This reminds me of the argument: if you think I'm fat look at that guy over there. It doesn't change being fat it just tries to justify it.

[Jazzfan Bayamon]

And yet the whole argument is dead since there WAS a timeout during the +7 -7 run that you pointed out. And after the other timeout (when we were down 7) we turned it over in the inbound play. What else can a coach do. The only thing I'm mad with Sloan about is the fact that he isn't on player's faces as he was before, and our guys have become complacient and soft. We need Sloan to be bad ass as he was before, so this team can actually grow a pair, and don't let themselfs be worked by refs or stupid little players like Webster and co.

[jazzrule]

We need Sloan to be bad ass as he was before, so this team can actually grow a pair, and don't let themselfs be worked by refs or stupid little players like Webster and co.

No one notice this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment was made on another site and my comments follow.
I completely agree about Popovitch being old school. He is famous for going on rants and chewing out his players, and he came out of the military for heaven's sake. None of this new age, touchy feely stuff for him, and I don't think Van Gundy is any less rigid or nicer than Sloan either, but he has been more successful at getting his players to play defense in recent years---although Sloan's team recently beat his team in the playoffs.

Good comment.

If you watch the Spur's games and the other team goes on a "short run", Popovitch calls an immediate time out and blows up about his teams lack of defense or effort. Maybe Sloan has lost the fire in his belly to win or Larry's meeting with him over Kirilenko has made him decide not to get in anyone face anymore. Maybe that is why he needs one whipping boy that is not a main piece on the team so he has some way to vent now. All I know is the players are not responding to him. Maybe they are like a lot of us fans and are tired of Sloan never taking the blame for anything and being unwilling to make changes to max what each player does best. I would bet if Larry took a poll where the player's votes could not be traced back to them that most of the team would vote for their coach to go. I have coached and know that players must respect their coach and believe him completely when he tells them something. You should learn from your coaching mistakes and make the changes needed to improve your team. Heck the way this team has been hitting 3 point shots we should drool when the other team goes into a zone defense. Just let Dwill drive the lane and kick out to the open shooters like the Spurs do and quit forcing the ball inside to Boozer against the zone. Forget the rigid substitute pattern. We have enough good players to run the fast break every time possible before the zone defense sets up, and substitute to keep fresh players in. At least that is what I would do. I would also give Boozer some bench time when he plays no defense. Is Sloan a good coach? Yes, but their are so many areas he needs to improve and he is so set in his ways that it is time for a change.
__________________

[sodapop]

In 1996-97 playoffs Stockton averaged 36.9 minutes per game. In 1997-98 Stockton was playing on his surgically repaired knee. I think most of us remember that.

[idajazz]

In 1996-97 playoffs Stockton averaged 36.9 minutes per game. In 1997-98 Stockton was playing on his surgically repaired knee. I think most of us remember that.

So whats your point?

From my comfy lazy boy it appears to me that this team doesn't have the respect that earlier teams had for Slown, Back in the Stock/Malone era players would have ran through brick walls for Slown. That isn't the case now.

[sodapop]

-= original quote snipped =-



So whats your point?

Sloan hater crickets

[sodapop]

Here is the shining proof to this fact. The 1997 NBA Finals. Jazz lose to Bulls 4-2. Michael Jordan was the Bulls best player (& the NBA's best player). Is it safe to say that John Stockton was the Jazz's best player? I say yes. Now this is the Championship series. The end all. Here is how much Phil Jackson used Michael Jordan: 42.7 mpg with a high of 45 mins played in 1 game. Here is how Jerry Sloan used John Stockton: 37.5 mpg with a whopping high of 39 min played in 1 game. HE DIDNT EVEN PLAY OUR BEST PLAYER 40 MINS IN 1 GAME DURING THAT ENTIRE SERIES.

Now to give you some perspective: 3 of the 4 Jazz losses were by 4 pts or less. Multiple 2 pt losses. Michael Jordan played 256 total minutes. John Stockton played a total of 225 minutes. Jordan ended up playing 31 more mins that Stockton. 31 MINUTES!!!! That is more than half of a game. In our Game 5 loss by 2 pts Stockton played literally 36 mins while Jordan played 44. Do you not think that in even 2 more minutes Stockton could have made at least a 2 pt difference? I certainly do.

Jackson coached the Bulls, Sloan did not do the same for the Jazz and we lost. Simple as that. He cost us Championships and may cost us more. Its time for him to step down. He has hurt us enough.

In 96-97 Stockton's knee needed repair
In 97-98 Stockton was rehabbing repaired knee
If your to young to remember why Stocktons minutes were reduced, you should not be using them as an example of Sloans "poor coaching". It would be better to just use the Sloan sucks approach.

[Malone Strong]

-= original quote snipped =-



In 96-97 Stockton's knee needed repair
In 97-98 Stockton was rehabbing repaired knee
If your to young to remember why Stocktons minutes were reduced, you should not be using them as an example of Sloans "poor coaching". It would be better to just use the Sloan sucks approach.

But isnt it Jerry who preaches "if you put your uniform on, you're 100%...no excuses."??? If so, then he must simply be a hypocrite to not trust his best player can get it done if he himself decided to dress for the most IMPORTANT games in franchise-history.

Now who's hearing crickets?

[sodapop]

Sloan used the 100% as his reason for not blaming losses onto injuries.

He never used it to justify playing an injured player more minutes than he should. Sloan never run an injured player into the ground, and prolonged Stockton and Malones years by time management. Look at Harpring now, and how his minutes are managed with his injury.

Obviously the originator of the first post was not aware of Stocktons injury. And now you are trying anything to discredit me by pointing out his over site by combining two different things.

Thank you for making my point in your logic though. He did trust his injured player to get it done. He just reduced his minutes because of the injury. The writer of the original post wanted to know why his minutes were less than MJ? Now he knows.

[ColdBlue]

Thank you for making my point in your logic though. He did trust his injured player to get it done. He just reduced his minutes because of the injury. The writer of the original post wanted to know why his minutes were less than MJ? Now he knows.

Stockton wasn't injured in the finals. Try again.