RealGM

It sure would be funny if Markkanen and Sexton outperformed Barrett, Quickley, Toppin and Grimes.

Inigo Montoya wrote:It sure would be funny if Markkanen and Sexton outperformed Barrett, Quickley, Toppin and Grimes.

Could you elaborate on that joke, bud?

FranchisePlayer wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:It sure would be funny if Markkanen and Sexton outperformed Barrett, Quickley, Toppin and Grimes.

Could you elaborate on that joke, bud?

Knicks fans claim the Knicks' offer was better, so having the players we got from the Cavs outperform them and giving them another L and cementing another treadmill season for them would be kind of funny, especially when Mitchell is tearing it up in Cleveland.

Inigo Montoya wrote:

FranchisePlayer wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:It sure would be funny if Markkanen and Sexton outperformed Barrett, Quickley, Toppin and Grimes.

Could you elaborate on that joke, bud?

Knicks fans claim the Knicks' offer was better, so having the players we got from the Cavs outperform them and giving them another L and cementing another treadmill season for them would be kind of funny, especially when Mitchell is tearing it up in Cleveland.

Oh right, indeed! Sorry, this hasn't been my day. Completely missing a lot of "duh" jokes.

Like my wife, said to me this morning she loves me. I laughed the wrong way, I guess. She wasn't joking.

Clarkson has overtaken and passed Markkanen in average fga/game, and at the same time, Clarkson's 3p% is coming back down to earth. For the last four games, Clarkson is at 28.6, 25, 28.6 and 27.3 for 3p%. We are 1-3 over those games.

Respect to the Knicks, they played well. Better than I thought they would be, and their defense was very good.

Olynyk was great in this game, dude was everywhere and doing everything.

It feels like Markkanen is regressing to the mean. He needs to be more aggressive on offense, and the team needs to do a better job at finding him at his spots. He does deserve credit for continuing to battle on defense even when an offensive possession doesn't go his way, instead of pouting and arguing with the refs, which is a common practice in this league.

Kessler was great, and we also need to see more of Fontecchio. THT was fine as well.

Other than Beasley, it seems like our guards are in a funk. Conley still manages to have a positive impact on the game but he's still not on his A game, just like Clarkson and Sexton.

Brunson is a baller. Dude can really play. I still think the Knicks overpaid but the guy is the best player on that team imho.

This is the kind of game that makes me wish the Jazz had a clear direction. We seem to be trying to compete but if we're capable of losing the Knicks at home and let Embiid dominate us and score 59 points with a historic statline, we should probably be tanking.

Inigo Montoya wrote:Respect to the Knicks, they played well. Better than I thought they would be, and their defense was very good.

Olynyk was great in this game, dude was everywhere and doing everything.

It feels like Markkanen is regressing to the mean. He needs to be more aggressive on offense, and the team needs to do a better job at finding him at his spots. He does deserve credit for continuing to battle on defense even when an offensive possession doesn't go his way, instead of pouting and arguing with the refs, which is a common practice in this league.

Kessler was great, and we also need to see more of Fontecchio. THT was fine as well.

Other than Beasley, it seems like our guards are in a funk. Conley still manages to have a positive impact on the game but he's still not on his A game, just like Clarkson and Sexton.

Brunson is a baller. Dude can really play. I still think the Knicks overpaid but the guy is the best player on that team imho.

This is the kind of game that makes me wish the Jazz had a clear direction. We seem to be trying to compete but if we're capable of losing the Knicks at home and let Embiid dominate us and score 59 points with a historic statline, we should probably be tanking.

I think we are tanking- just not throwing games. The Jazz benefited from some hot shooting, players playing better than they can sustain, and being a brand new team that opposing teams didn't know how to scout. We also have benefited from playing underperforming teams. Shooting is coming back to averages, players aren't playing a ove their heads, and teams are scouting us better.

The vets are on the team for their presence, and because Ainge doesn't like the deals offered. Still think this team is headed to 30ish wins this year- which is what I thought before the hot start.

Rauxcee wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:Respect to the Knicks, they played well. Better than I thought they would be, and their defense was very good.

Olynyk was great in this game, dude was everywhere and doing everything.

It feels like Markkanen is regressing to the mean. He needs to be more aggressive on offense, and the team needs to do a better job at finding him at his spots. He does deserve credit for continuing to battle on defense even when an offensive possession doesn't go his way, instead of pouting and arguing with the refs, which is a common practice in this league.

Kessler was great, and we also need to see more of Fontecchio. THT was fine as well.

Other than Beasley, it seems like our guards are in a funk. Conley still manages to have a positive impact on the game but he's still not on his A game, just like Clarkson and Sexton.

Brunson is a baller. Dude can really play. I still think the Knicks overpaid but the guy is the best player on that team imho.

This is the kind of game that makes me wish the Jazz had a clear direction. We seem to be trying to compete but if we're capable of losing the Knicks at home and let Embiid dominate us and score 59 points with a historic statline, we should probably be tanking.

I think we are tanking- just not throwing games. The Jazz benefited from some hot shooting, players playing better than they can sustain, and being a brand new team that opposing teams didn't know how to scout. We also have benefited from playing underperforming teams. Shooting is coming back to averages, players aren't playing a ove their heads, and teams are scouting us better.

The vets are on the team for their presence, and because Ainge doesn't like the deals offered. Still think this team is headed to 30ish wins this year- which is what I thought before the hot start.

You might be right in almost every point.

Rauxcee wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:Respect to the Knicks, they played well. Better than I thought they would be, and their defense was very good.

Olynyk was great in this game, dude was everywhere and doing everything.

It feels like Markkanen is regressing to the mean. He needs to be more aggressive on offense, and the team needs to do a better job at finding him at his spots. He does deserve credit for continuing to battle on defense even when an offensive possession doesn't go his way, instead of pouting and arguing with the refs, which is a common practice in this league.

Kessler was great, and we also need to see more of Fontecchio. THT was fine as well.

Other than Beasley, it seems like our guards are in a funk. Conley still manages to have a positive impact on the game but he's still not on his A game, just like Clarkson and Sexton.

Brunson is a baller. Dude can really play. I still think the Knicks overpaid but the guy is the best player on that team imho.

This is the kind of game that makes me wish the Jazz had a clear direction. We seem to be trying to compete but if we're capable of losing the Knicks at home and let Embiid dominate us and score 59 points with a historic statline, we should probably be tanking.

I think we are tanking- just not throwing games. The Jazz benefited from some hot shooting, players playing better than they can sustain, and being a brand new team that opposing teams didn't know how to scout. We also have benefited from playing underperforming teams. Shooting is coming back to averages, players aren't playing a ove their heads, and teams are scouting us better.

The vets are on the team for their presence, and because Ainge doesn't like the deals offered. Still think this team is headed to 30ish wins this year- which is what I thought before the hot start.

If that is the case (30ish wins), then that is an absolute FAIL on the part of the front office. It would give us what, like the 10th pick maybe? While losing about 10 more games by trading away the vets would get us in the conversation of a top 4 pick and possiby VW.

Really, there should only be two options: 1) this team is good enough for home court advantage in the playoffs and we'll see where it takes us; or 2) aggresively tank for the best chance of drafting VW or our choice of a "consolation prize". Being outside of the bottom 5 or barely making it into the playoffs would be absolute fails given that DM and RG and Bogey were just traded.

SoCalJazzFan wrote:If that is the case (30ish wins), then that is an absolute FAIL on the part of the front office. It would give us what, like the 10th pick maybe? While losing about 10 more games by trading away the vets would get us in the conversation of a top 4 pick and possiby VW.

Really, there should only be two options: 1) this team is good enough for home court advantage in the playoffs and we'll see where it takes us; or 2) aggresively tank for the best chance of drafting VW or our choice of a "consolation prize". Being outside of the bottom 5 or barely making it into the playoffs would be absolute fails given that DM and RG and Bogey were just traded.

I don't disagree 30 wins is too much. Making the playoffs is a failure to me as well- simply because this team presently assembled doesn't have a high ceiling. Most of these players won't even be on the team next year, or for the long haul. There is what, 3 maybe 4, guys worth holding onto for now? What is the point of getting eliminated from the first round?

I know people are afraid of a losing culture, but utah has never had that, even when they rebuild. And again, most of these players won't even be around in 2 years so it's not like a tanked season or two will forever make them lovers or have a long lasting impact.

I think come January- regardless of our standings-Conley, Clarkson, Beasley will be moved. Maybe Vanderbilt as well.


If not than this season was a waste IMO.

SoCalJazzFan wrote:If that is the case (30ish wins), then that is an absolute FAIL on the part of the front office. It would give us what, like the 10th pick maybe? While losing about 10 more games by trading away the vets would get us in the conversation of a top 4 pick and possiby VW.

Really, there should only be two options: 1) this team is good enough for home court advantage in the playoffs and we'll see where it takes us; or 2) aggresively tank for the best chance of drafting VW or our choice of a "consolation prize". Being outside of the bottom 5 or barely making it into the playoffs would be absolute fails given that DM and RG and Bogey were just traded.

The difference between pick 10 and pick 4 is about a 10% better chance at the #1 pick. Worst record in the league only gets a 14% chance at #1.

Aggressive tanking doesn't significantly increase your odds at #1 like some people believe.

Cappy_Smurf wrote:

SoCalJazzFan wrote:If that is the case (30ish wins), then that is an absolute FAIL on the part of the front office. It would give us what, like the 10th pick maybe? While losing about 10 more games by trading away the vets would get us in the conversation of a top 4 pick and possiby VW.

Really, there should only be two options: 1) this team is good enough for home court advantage in the playoffs and we'll see where it takes us; or 2) aggresively tank for the best chance of drafting VW or our choice of a "consolation prize". Being outside of the bottom 5 or barely making it into the playoffs would be absolute fails given that DM and RG and Bogey were just traded.

The difference between pick 10 and pick 4 is about a 10% better chance at the #1 pick. Worst record in the league only gets a 14% chance at #1.

Aggressive tanking doesn't significantly increase your odds at #1 like some people believe.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the NBA draft odds.

If you have the worst record, you end up with only a 14% chance of the #1 pick, but you have a 100% chance of a top 5 pick.
2nd worst record, 14% and 100% chance of top 6 pick, and 80% chance of top 5 pick.
3rd worst record, 14% and 100% chance of top 7 pick, 93% chance of top 6 pick.
4th worst record, a 12.5% chance of #1, 100% chance of top 8 and over 80% chance of top 6 pick.

Moreover, the worst 3 teams have more than 2x the chance of getting the top overall #1 pick as the worst 6-9 teams, and over a 7x chance compared to the worst 10-12 teams. Let that sink in.

If you have the 10th worst record, you only have a 2% chance of the overall top pick. You would have only a 2.2-3% chance of top 4 pick, and over 88% percent chance of the #10 or #11 picks. Once again, this would be a failure on the part of the front office.

Tony Jones and other Jazz media members have been blowing the only 14% horn without providing any other context, which is confusing fans, IMO.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

I'm going to flesh it out even more (perhaps this should be on another thread):

If you are tanking, you want to be in the bottom 3, and really, really need to be in the bottom 5 to realistically improve your chances to move up in the draft.

If #6- odds are you'll end up with #7 or #8 pick
If #7- odds are #8 pick
If #8- odds are #8 or #9
If #9- odds are #9 or #10
If #10- overwhelming odds #10 or #11
If #11- overwhelming odds #11
If #12- overwheliming odds #12
If #13- nearly certain #13
If #14- nearly certain #14

Nobody is going to just gift us the #1 pick. 14% is the most that we can get, so let's just go and get it instead of wallowing in sub-mediocrity. It's great that Ainge put us in a position where we have a lot of other team's picks, but you have to make your own luck. Getting bounced in the first round is why the previous team was broken up, so what's the point in assembling a new team that achieves the same results? There is a supposed a generational talent in this draft, and the #2 pick would be the #1 pick in many other years. Having the worst record gives you 27% to get one of them.

Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'd rather play those odds than having a feel-good season that ends with the team going nowhere, and 2 seasons later almost all of the players from that team will not be here anyway.