RealGM

To be clear

Kessler shoots 79% at the rim
He shoots 54.5% from the line
He's one of the best offensive rebounders in the NBA

But following the outcry over Kessler sitting while healthy, the Jazz have seemingly turned up the hate attacking their critics, having Kessler stay far away from the paint where he could be effective and instead have him jack up three after three, Mark Madsen style.

This, of course, has not "worked" in terms of succeeding at offense. Kessler is 1/11 from three since the Jazz made this change and the Jazz have collapsed to close to the worst offense in the NBA in these two games. The Jazz own the worst record in the NBA and don't have to tank this hard, but are seemingly just very focused on taunting Silver as much as possible and it's very weird.

paying homage to the great Mark Madsen, IYKYK

Reminds me a bit of Popovic making Sohan a lead ballhandler for months. Team don't want to win and just trying to "develop" their guys through unconventional play, trying yo fix their weaknesses through trying.

UcanUwill wrote:Reminds me a bit of Popovic making Sohan a lead ballhandler for months. Team don't want to win and just trying to "develop" their guys through unconventional play, trying yo fix their weaknesses through trying.

It was 20 games. Didn't work. We moved on.

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:Reminds me a bit of Popovic making Sohan a lead ballhandler for months. Team don't want to win and just trying to "develop" their guys through unconventional play, trying yo fix their weaknesses through trying.

It was 20 games. Didn't work. We moved on.

Yes, but Spurs went on that losing streak during that time and they wouldn't have done it if they really tried to win that season. That experiment was dumb from the start. This season failed, injuries, but I remember a lot of people criticized Spurs over under line for this year, saying its way too high, team can't improve by that much, but I think people didnt pay attention to last season, because Spurs record significanly improves if they just don't do Sohan experiment for two months. Thats just what I am saying.

I do find it a little unprecedented. The sitting healthy players, to giving a DNP-CD after getting fined to skate around it to now this. It’s cheating, really. It reinforces that the leagues is a joke.

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:Reminds me a bit of Popovic making Sohan a lead ballhandler for months. Team don't want to win and just trying to "develop" their guys through unconventional play, trying yo fix their weaknesses through trying.

It was 20 games. Didn't work. We moved on.

Yes, but Spurs went on that losing streak during that time and they wouldn't have done it if they really tried to win that season. That experiment was dumb from the start. This season failed, injuries, but I remember a lot of people criticized Spurs over under line for this year, saying its way too high, team can't improve by that much, but I think people didnt pay attention to last season, because Spurs record significanly improves if they just don't do Sohan experiment for two months. Thats just what I am saying.

Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:It was 20 games. Didn't work. We moved on.

Yes, but Spurs went on that losing streak during that time and they wouldn't have done it if they really tried to win that season. That experiment was dumb from the start. This season failed, injuries, but I remember a lot of people criticized Spurs over under line for this year, saying its way too high, team can't improve by that much, but I think people didnt pay attention to last season, because Spurs record significanly improves if they just don't do Sohan experiment for two months. Thats just what I am saying.

Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:
Yes, but Spurs went on that losing streak during that time and they wouldn't have done it if they really tried to win that season. That experiment was dumb from the start. This season failed, injuries, but I remember a lot of people criticized Spurs over under line for this year, saying its way too high, team can't improve by that much, but I think people didnt pay attention to last season, because Spurs record significanly improves if they just don't do Sohan experiment for two months. Thats just what I am saying.

Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

You need to resort to that defending Pop nugget as a weak strategy to a weak, unexamined point. Again, there was precedent for it at Baylor. We were not a good team. You can tell it wasn't some grand ruse to keep losing because 1. We didn't stick with it and 2. The rest of the games when we started Tre Jones an actual PG hardly fared any better for the remaining like 75% of the season. The numbers debunk your point.

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:
Yes, but Spurs went on that losing streak during that time and they wouldn't have done it if they really tried to win that season. That experiment was dumb from the start. This season failed, injuries, but I remember a lot of people criticized Spurs over under line for this year, saying its way too high, team can't improve by that much, but I think people didnt pay attention to last season, because Spurs record significanly improves if they just don't do Sohan experiment for two months. Thats just what I am saying.

Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

You keep saying it was stupid, but also acknowledge that part of the experiment was that it helped the tank.

It can't be dumb if there's no downside to it. Spurs got to lose more games and Sochan got a shot to develop other skills.

If my team was already in the lottery, why not use this time to let the players practice things they aren't used to doing. Kessler is already a good player, could become great if he developed a three ball.

I hope the tanking gods do not forget this.

Profound23 wrote:If my team was already in the lottery, why not use this time to let the players practice things they aren't used to doing. Kessler is already a good player, could become great if he developed a three ball.

I’m open to this but that doesn’t seem like the intention. How do you rationalize a DNP-CD after getting fined for sitting healthy players?

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

You need to resort to that defending Pop nugget as a weak strategy to a weak, unexamined point. Again, there was precedent for it at Baylor. We were not a good team. You can tell it wasn't some grand ruse to keep losing because 1. We didn't stick with it and 2. The rest of the games when we started Tre Jones an actual PG hardly fared any better for the remaining like 75% of the season. The numbers debunk your point.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pop regularly do this with players to develop their skillset? DeRozan credits Pop running him at point in making him a playmaker and seeing the game differently.

Drakeem wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:

G R E Y wrote:Dumb to you maybe, but Sochan played some point in Baylor, and with Wemby added to starters in Sochan's position it was either put a previous starter to the bench or try this. It was to be a season-long experiment but was moved on from quickly relative to that. If we wanted to only tank it would stand to reason to keep Sochan there given the losing streak you pointed out. Fact is, these are the times to see what you have in players, or what you don't. Like when we moved on from vets and let Murray be the focal O point. We spun wheels and moved on. Keldon was once the O focal point. Now he's a key bench contributor. Teams gave a right to try things out with their players, test limits. Not everything is some big covert action. We won 22 games so it's not like starting true PG Tre Jones was some big game changer in the W column. We were just super young, adjusting to Wemby, trying some things out. It wasn't a case of a good team misdirecting by playing point-Sochan. It was a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win many games anyway.

You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

You keep saying it was stupid, but also acknowledge that part of the experiment was that it helped the tank.

It can't be dumb if there's no downside to it. Spurs got to lose more games and Sochan got a shot to develop other skills.

And I guess the Baylor coach was trying to throw games, too? Is he also an idiot? Or do coaches see something in players and give them room to grow? Turns out it was too much for Sochan but he does at times bring the ball up and is more comfortable doing so now.

Anyway, arguing that a team with this roster was otherwise going to make some waves had it not been for a short lived experiment is weak. We won like 19 games the rest - majority of - the season:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2024.html

Why should players get banned for life for trying to intentionally miss shots but teams that try to lose games through intentionally poor roster design and coaching decisions get rewarded with the best prospects?

sackings916 wrote:

G R E Y wrote:

UcanUwill wrote:
You don't need to defend Pop every time, hes the GOAT, but that was just dumb. It was obvious to everyone that it won't work, its Sohan... there is testing players and just doing stupid thing. I am not saying they did it cause of some covert tanking, I am saying they were in no rush to win, but Sohan barely had skills as a big, that experiment was just dumb, plain and simple, hense them losing most games during that span. It went relatively under the radar cause Pistons were on historic losing streak, but that Spurs coaching experiment was ridiculous.

You need to resort to that defending Pop nugget as a weak strategy to a weak, unexamined point. Again, there was precedent for it at Baylor. We were not a good team. You can tell it wasn't some grand ruse to keep losing because 1. We didn't stick with it and 2. The rest of the games when we started Tre Jones an actual PG hardly fared any better for the remaining like 75% of the season. The numbers debunk your point.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pop regularly do this with players to develop their skillset? DeRozan credits Pop running him at point in making him a playmaker and seeing the game differently.

Yes! As I tried to point out, there is precedent for both Sochan to have been tried at point and for other players to get bigger roles, or different ones, sometimes out of necessity (ie/ when Keldon played small ball 4). Keep what works, move on from what doesn't, but growth is growth, even if it doesn't always look great in the process.

sp6r=underrated wrote:Why should players get banned for life for trying to intentionally miss shots but teams that try to lose games through intentionally poor roster design and coaching decisions get rewarded with the best prospects?

Because it's an owners club not a players club. The Heat playing historically bad think they will escape fine because they have the starters in. NBA doesn't seem to care or players/coaches would get small base salary with large bonus only for wins.

What a surprise. Now wait a year and see what happens with wonderboy Derrick Lively.

I think NBA should let Utah forfeit all remaining games this season - they want to lose them anyway and having a banner explaining that during broadcast would be mercy towards unknowing viewers.