Why did the Jazz accomplish so little from 88-95?

[microfib4thewin]

using the Kings as an excuse for the Jazz not winning a title

I am not sure where you get the idea that the Kings of the early 00s were always dominant teams or that they were one of the best teams to not win a title. The only year where they really had a shot was 2002, their window of opportunity was only 3 years when Peja started playing well and Webber became a top 10 player in the league at that time. This is a huge contrast to the Jazz where Malone, a top 15 player, and Stockton, a top 40 player, had 14 years of their peak overlap each other and had plenty of opportunities to do damage.

It IS circular logic, because if you are a top player its because you win championships and you win championships if you're a top player, there is no way to prove either. It IS consistent, but its also circular. Its the one unavoidable flaw in sport fandom.

Or maybe, one becomes a top player because they are good enough to push their team to a title. Having two players who are top 10 each season for over a decade and not win a title is practically unheard of. Basketball is a sport where one player can have big influence over the outcome because there are only 10 players on the court and the game is not nearly as static as the other major sports. I don't think anyone can question how much impact a basketball star player can make compared to star players from all the other sports.

Really, two players of Malone and Stockton's caliber, no injury problem, and having the luxury of working with the same coach for 15 years, it shouldn't take a specific or an all world supporting cast for them to win. I've seen Sloan mentioned a few times in the past when explaining why they always fall short, Malone plenty of times for failing to deliver in the clutch, yet anyone who defends the Jazz never put anything on Stockton, because he's a short and not very athletic PG whom people are more willing to forgive for underperforming. It's as if, since his apologists think he's supposed to be a limited player, having disappointing performances should not be held against him because he usually plays above expectation, which would be any 15/12 game that he has.

Ironically the 98 Jazz had the best chance to win the title, and that was the year when Stockton was on a clear decline.

[lorak]

Ironically the 98 Jazz had the best chance to win the title, and that was the year when Stockton was on a clear decline.

Decline or not he still lead the league in AST%, ORTG and TS%

BTW, great post erudite23!

[bastillon]

perhaps Stockton's inflated assists didn't make his teammates better or at least not much better ? Nash for example significantly lowered teammates TOs and improved their shooting efficiency to ridiculous levels. Stockton ? not so much, funny that you're complaining about Jeff Malone who was about as good as Richard Hamilton before he went to Jazz, funny that you're complaining about Eaton who was a great defender and a perfect compliment to offensively dominant Stockton and Malone.

I'm gonna be back...

[erudite23]

I think you misunderstood my mention of the 80s Bucks. I do not think they were better than the 90s Jazz. I brought them up more to illustrate the difference the media hype of making the 97-98 finals watched by 70 mil can bring. Stockton/Malone Jazz have a lot more hype and 'best team to never win the title' talk than the 80s Bucks despite the two teams having similar runs for their eras

I am not denying the late 90s Jazz are one of the better non title teams we've had in the last 30 years. What I denying is that they're one of the greatest teams of all time and the best team ever to not win the title. This is what's wrong. If the Jazz are one of the greatest teams of all time then so are the 90s Blazers, Suns, and Sonics and 80s Bucks and the 00s Suns and Mavs. MY argument is that NONE of these teams are 'one of the greatest teams of all time'. The 96 Bulls are one of the greatest of all time. The 86 Celtics are one of the greatest of all time. The 71 Bucks are one of the greatest of all time. The 90s Jazz, Suns, and Sonics are not in the conversation with those teams

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting the Jazz in the same breath with the absolute greatest teams of All-Time. But I am saying that they are one of the best teams to ever lace them up, and if they had won even ONE of those finals, you'd have to put them up there...maybe not on the same level as the 96 Bulls, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 01 or 02 Lakers, 83 Sixers....etc etc. but they would have been a second tier all time team.

As is, I wouldn't put them with any of those second tier teams, either, but I would put them above a small handful of teams that actually won the championship who were clearly not championship caliber teams (06 Heat? Lol) and right at the forefront of all teams who never won it all.

Also, keep in mind that whenever I say something about history and such, I'm talking about post merger. As far as I'm concerned, the pre-merger NBA was a completely different league and nearly a different sport. So the 72 Bucks may very well have been all that you're saying, but I do not recognize them. Apples to oranges, imo.

[erudite23]

perhaps Stockton's inflated assists didn't make his teammates better or at least not much better ? Nash for example significantly lowered teammates TOs and improved their shooting efficiency to ridiculous levels. Stockton ? not so much, funny that you're complaining about Jeff Malone who was about as good as Richard Hamilton before he went to Jazz, funny that you're complaining about Eaton who was a great defender and a perfect compliment to offensively dominant Stockton and Malone.

I'm gonna be back...

Look at Jeff's numbers pre-and-post Utah. His PER was pretty good, but its mainly because he was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah. His efficiency certainly improved when he came to Utah, as he posted career highs in FG%, eFG% and TS% within his first two years with the team. Jeff was a guy who, before coming to the Jazz, had a huge Usage rate, creating a lot of shots but not doing it particularly efficiently.

As we know, those are the types of players that look good on bad teams but struggle to fit in on better teams. That was Jeff. His PER dropped even though his shooting percentages went up significantly, because he wasn't able to iso and create for his teammates like before. Since he had no range on his jumper and he didn't create a lot of easy shots by getting to the line, his shooting numbers were still just better than middle of the road and he didn't rebound, pass, or generate any defensive numbers. He was, literally, a typical "good player on a bad team" who was only average when he came to a good team.

[TrueLAfan]

Getting back to the OP ... the Jazz were a very good team from 1988 to 1995. Perennial MVP candidate low post player, top 15 in the league player at PG. Good perimeter play (Jeff Malone and Hornacek) from others. Good interior D. Effective player platooning. Great at getting to the line (on one of slower paced teams in the league, the Jazz were always in the top half of teams in FTA and often in the top 5...they averaged about 2 more FTA than their opponents between 1988 and 1995; a huge differential). Disciplined, respected coach with an effective system. Did they underperform? To some degree, but not substantially. There were more great teams.

Were the 1997 and 1998 Jazz better? I'd say yeah. A lot better? Well, the league was certainly markedly worse. They may have been a lot better with respect to their competition. But a lot better in the sense of "one of the best teams to ever lace them up"? Come on. Stockton was player fewer minutes with somewhat declining effectiveness. Malone remained a rock. Are we really going to give that much credit to Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, Shandon Anderson, and Greg Ostertag? Are those guys really so much better than, say, Jeff Malone, David Benoit, Blue Edwards, and Mark Eaton in 1992? (btw, Jeff Malone averaged 21.5-3-3 for six years, and his team made the playoffs in four out of those six years...he was better than "good" and his teams were better than "bad.") So the 1992 Jazz are also an "undiscovered" great team? Not buying it.

Are the 1997/1998 Jazz one of the best teams never to win it all? I don't see any reason to say no, but they've got plenty of company and competition. (And have we really sunk so low that we're seriously looking at PER--a statistic that is able to tell us that great players are great, is erratic--to be charitable-- at everything else, and is zeroed out each year so that overall changes in quality of league play can directly affect individual numbers--as something that can "tell" us something?) Are we going to reach so far that we're going to say that Jeff Hornacek "was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah"...when the Suns averaged 54 wins a year between 1990 and 1992, and he played alongside people like Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, and Charles Barkley? With virtually identical numbers and, yes, efficiency?

Code: Select all

                   MPG   PPG  RPG  APG  FG%  FT%  3P%  TS%
Hornacek 1990-2   35.5  18.3  4.6  5.1 .521 .425 .881 .591
Hornacek 1995-8   31.8  15.1  2.9  4.3 .496 .420 .890 .606


He scored about 1.5 points more per 36 minutes of court time. His TS% is higher because he took more threes...but that's more indicative of the league wide shift in putting up threes (and, possibly, the shortened three point line that just happened to coincide with his arrival at Utah). All of which combined to change his TS% by .015...and almost all of that small rise was in 1995 and 1996, i.e. before the "great" Jazz teams. Still, yeah, he's a more complete player than Malone was.

But, again, on the whole, I'm just not seeing how the replacement players in 1997 and 1998 were that much better--so much to offset some of the loss from slightly less productivity and 8-15% less court time from Stockton and then some. The Jazz from 1988 to 1995 averaged 53 wins a year. The 1997 and 1998 Jazz averaged 63 wins. IMO, half of that differential was from the weakened league (Atlanta and Charlotte were 50+ win teams in both 1997 and 1998...how do they stack up to the 1988-95 Jazz?). You don't have to get a lot better than a 53 win team to be a great team, and the Jazz certainly did that. But I'm nowhere near seeing--or saying--they are the best team not to win a title.

[bastillon]

Look at Jeff's numbers pre-and-post Utah. His PER was pretty good, but its mainly because he was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah. His efficiency certainly improved when he came to Utah, as he posted career highs in FG%, eFG% and TS% within his first two years with the team. Jeff was a guy who, before coming to the Jazz, had a huge Usage rate, creating a lot of shots but not doing it particularly efficiently.

As we know, those are the types of players that look good on bad teams but struggle to fit in on better teams. That was Jeff. His PER dropped even though his shooting percentages went up significantly, because he wasn't able to iso and create for his teammates like before. Since he had no range on his jumper and he didn't create a lot of easy shots by getting to the line, his shooting numbers were still just better than middle of the road and he didn't rebound, pass, or generate any defensive numbers. He was, literally, a typical "good player on a bad team" who was only average when he came to a good team.

PER dropped because usage dropped as they are strongly connected. what amazes me the most is how he didn't improve his efficiency by much when his usage dropped (by much) ? on another note, why didn't Stockton make him better ? Stockton's assists are so overrated.

[lorak]

TrueLAfan, could you post these votes totals for All NBA Teams before 1995?

[TrueLAfan]

TrueLAfan, could you post these votes totals for All NBA Teams before 1995?

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQlwuTuVOEwwZGQ1ZG1ucjRfMzRjZGp0d3NncA&hl=en

[erudite23]

Look at Jeff's numbers pre-and-post Utah. His PER was pretty good, but its mainly because he was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah. His efficiency certainly improved when he came to Utah, as he posted career highs in FG%, eFG% and TS% within his first two years with the team. Jeff was a guy who, before coming to the Jazz, had a huge Usage rate, creating a lot of shots but not doing it particularly efficiently.

As we know, those are the types of players that look good on bad teams but struggle to fit in on better teams. That was Jeff. His PER dropped even though his shooting percentages went up significantly, because he wasn't able to iso and create for his teammates like before. Since he had no range on his jumper and he didn't create a lot of easy shots by getting to the line, his shooting numbers were still just better than middle of the road and he didn't rebound, pass, or generate any defensive numbers. He was, literally, a typical "good player on a bad team" who was only average when he came to a good team.

PER dropped because usage dropped as they are strongly connected. what amazes me the most is how he didn't improve his efficiency by much when his usage dropped (by much) ? on another note, why didn't Stockton make him better ? Stockton's assists are so overrated.

Lol, I've never seem someone with a more blatant agenda. What's funny is that if this were a 6-5 athletic black dude putting up the same numbers, people would probably have him as an indisputable top 15 guy who just didn't ever have the help he needed to win it all. But because he was a 6 foot white dude who wasn't much of a leaper, his assists HAVE to be inflated. Don't they?


Don't they?


Guys?

[sp6r=underrated]

Look at Jeff's numbers pre-and-post Utah. His PER was pretty good, but its mainly because he was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah. His efficiency certainly improved when he came to Utah, as he posted career highs in FG%, eFG% and TS% within his first two years with the team. Jeff was a guy who, before coming to the Jazz, had a huge Usage rate, creating a lot of shots but not doing it particularly efficiently.

As we know, those are the types of players that look good on bad teams but struggle to fit in on better teams. That was Jeff. His PER dropped even though his shooting percentages went up significantly, because he wasn't able to iso and create for his teammates like before. Since he had no range on his jumper and he didn't create a lot of easy shots by getting to the line, his shooting numbers were still just better than middle of the road and he didn't rebound, pass, or generate any defensive numbers. He was, literally, a typical "good player on a bad team" who was only average when he came to a good team.

PER dropped because usage dropped as they are strongly connected. what amazes me the most is how he didn't improve his efficiency by much when his usage dropped (by much) ? on another note, why didn't Stockton make him better ? Stockton's assists are so overrated.

Lol, I've never seem someone with a more blatant agenda. What's funny is that if this were a 6-5 athletic black dude putting up the same numbers, people would probably have him as an indisputable top 15 guy who just didn't ever have the help he needed to win it all. But because he was a 6 foot white dude who wasn't much of a leaper, his assists HAVE to be inflated. Don't they?


Don't they?


Guys?

Why do you always bring race up when discussing Stockton?

I've never seen any evidence during my years following the NBA that player's race influences how players are evaluated except in two areas. White players are generally stereotyped as being smarter than black players but softer as well. On the whole though white players aren't underrated. If anything they get slightly overrated.

[Mayap]

I think it's the issue of race(mostly in terms of athleticism) mixed with his height that erudite brings up, not simply his race.

[erudite23]

Getting back to the OP ... the Jazz were a very good team from 1988 to 1995. Perennial MVP candidate low post player, top 15 in the league player at PG. Good perimeter play (Jeff Malone and Hornacek) from others. Good interior D. Effective player platooning. Great at getting to the line (on one of slower paced teams in the league, the Jazz were always in the top half of teams in FTA and often in the top 5...they averaged about 2 more FTA than their opponents between 1988 and 1995; a huge differential). Disciplined, respected coach with an effective system. Did they underperform? To some degree, but not substantially. There were more great teams.

Were the 1997 and 1998 Jazz better? I'd say yeah. A lot better? Well, the league was certainly markedly worse. They may have been a lot better with respect to their competition. But a lot better in the sense of "one of the best teams to ever lace them up"? Come on. Stockton was player fewer minutes with somewhat declining effectiveness. Malone remained a rock. Are we really going to give that much credit to Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, Shandon Anderson, and Greg Ostertag? Are those guys really so much better than, say, Jeff Malone, David Benoit, Blue Edwards, and Mark Eaton in 1992? (btw, Jeff Malone averaged 21.5-3-3 for six years, and his team made the playoffs in four out of those six years...he was better than "good" and his teams were better than "bad.") So the 1992 Jazz are also an "undiscovered" great team? Not buying it.

Are the 1997/1998 Jazz one of the best teams never to win it all? I don't see any reason to say no, but they've got plenty of company and competition. (And have we really sunk so low that we're seriously looking at PER--a statistic that is able to tell us that great players are great, is erratic--to be charitable-- at everything else, and is zeroed out each year so that overall changes in quality of league play can directly affect individual numbers--as something that can "tell" us something?) Are we going to reach so far that we're going to say that Jeff Hornacek "was allowed to create far more on a bad team before coming to Utah"...when the Suns averaged 54 wins a year between 1990 and 1992, and he played alongside people like Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, and Charles Barkley? With virtually identical numbers and, yes, efficiency?

Code: Select all

                   MPG   PPG  RPG  APG  FG%  FT%  3P%  TS%
Hornacek 1990-2   35.5  18.3  4.6  5.1 .521 .425 .881 .591
Hornacek 1995-8   31.8  15.1  2.9  4.3 .496 .420 .890 .606


He scored about 1.5 points more per 36 minutes of court time. His TS% is higher because he took more threes...but that's more indicative of the league wide shift in putting up threes (and, possibly, the shortened three point line that just happened to coincide with his arrival at Utah). All of which combined to change his TS% by .015...and almost all of that small rise was in 1995 and 1996, i.e. before the "great" Jazz teams. Still, yeah, he's a more complete player than Malone was.

But, again, on the whole, I'm just not seeing how the replacement players in 1997 and 1998 were that much better--so much to offset some of the loss from slightly less productivity and 8-15% less court time from Stockton and then some. The Jazz from 1988 to 1995 averaged 53 wins a year. The 1997 and 1998 Jazz averaged 63 wins. IMO, half of that differential was from the weakened league (Atlanta and Charlotte were 50+ win teams in both 1997 and 1998...how do they stack up to the 1988-95 Jazz?). You don't have to get a lot better than a 53 win team to be a great team, and the Jazz certainly did that. But I'm nowhere near seeing--or saying--they are the best team not to win a title.

So basically "the league was watered down" is your excuse? Its interesting that, even though Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Penny, Payton, Kemp, et al, not to mention the greatest player, greatest duo and greatest team of all time, were still in the league playing at or near their peak, it was suddenly the league that was on a downward trend?

Excuse me? That's pathetic, man. The league began to go backwards a little in 99, with the lockout, the loss of interest in the NBA as a result, the post-Jordan hangover and before the jolt that the incoming Euros provided, and it didn't recover until the middle part of this decade. But the league was at its strongest point of All Time in the mid part of the 90s.

That's patently ridiculous. The Jazz rose to the top, its as simple as that.

[erudite23]

Also, you need to learn reading comprehension. I said Jeff Malone, not Jeff Hornacek. Hornacek's #s did very well upon coming to the Jazz, even though he aged quickly as he approached 30.

Also, the idea that "his TS% is higher because he took more threes" is patently ridiculous. His two seasons in Philly he averaged 3.2 and 3.1 3PA per game. In Utah, his 1st three seasons he averaged 2.7, 2.7 and 2.4. Now, he MADE more with the Jazz, which is why his TS% is higher, but of course that is...what? A result of league trends? Improved ability to see the rim? Random **** chance? There's no way that his three point shooting jumping from 39% and 32% in Philly to 43%, 41% and 47% could have had anything to do with, perhaps, John Stockton's ability to create good shots? And I don't suppose the fact that those same numbers fell after leaving KJ and Phoenix would support that, either? No, let's just dismiss facts, or at least construe them, because it wouldn't fit with our need to undermine the accomplishments of other great players besides our own.

All you need to do is listen to the actual players who played against John Stockton to know how great he was. Barkley, for example, lists him right at the top of any player he has ever played against.

But hey...I know the numbers, visual observation and the consensus of his peers all say the same thing, but....HE WAS SHORT AND WHITE *** DAMMITT!!

[Mayap]

Also, the idea that "his TS% is higher because he took more threes" is patently ridiculous. His two seasons in Philly he averaged 3.2 and 3.1 3PA per game. In Utah, his 1st three seasons he averaged 2.7, 2.7 and 2.4. Now, he MADE more with the Jazz, which is why his TS% is higher, but of course that is...what? A result of league trends? Improved ability to see the rim? Random **** chance?

shortened 3 point line.

[TrueLAfan]

Doesn't really change the falsity of the premise. John Stockton was a terrific athlete. We are talking about a multi=sport athlete as a youth (Stockton was a top high school baseball pitcher who struck out Ryne Sandburg three times in a game.) His side to side quickness was always excellent. A 1988 SI article describes it this way:

"John has tremendous quickness, a quality without which he simply would not have made it as a pro, as well as superb natural endurance—he once ran an eight-mile race in about 42 minutes without training. His peripheral vision and his hands—"Cousy-sized hands," says Hundley—are ideal for a point guard."

Multi-sport skills, tremendous quickness, superb natural endurance, quick hands...how is that unathletic? Especially for a point guard?

Same thing with his height. Stockton is 6'1". How is that short for a great PG? Does the same criteria paply to Cousy? Isiah? Wilkins? Archibald? Kevin Johnson? TIm Hardaway? Mark Price? Chris Paul?

John Stockton's assist totals were inflated by home court score keepers. So were Magic's. So are many players'. It's a leaguewide issue. (Although, mysteriously, not for Nash, whose home assists appear to be slightly underrated.) Anyway, it's not a real reason to knock Stockton.

But, yeah, the comment about race is pretty far out of context and stupid. I continue to find it ultimately demeaning to John Stockton to insist that he was unathletic (he wasn't) or short (he was the same height or taller than plenty of great PGs). Trying to make John Stockton into something he wasn't--or saying or implying he lacked skills, traits, or abilities he clearly did have--does not strengthen his legacy.

And erudite23--you need to keep calm here. That's a moderator comment.

[erudite23]

(btw, Jeff Malone averaged 21.5-3-3 for six years, and his team made the playoffs in four out of those six years...he was better than "good" and his teams were better than "bad.") So the 1992 Jazz are also an "undiscovered" great team? Not buying it.

His teams:
Record SRS
39-43 (-1.28)
42-40 (-1.01)
38-44 (-0.16)
40-42 (-1.77)
31-51 (-2.43)

He never played on a team with a positive SRS. To me, that's the dividing line between "good" and "bad". Below .500 you are bad, above is when you can begin to say you are anywhere near "good".

As for his numbers, he was the best perimeter player on a below average team. Think someone like Ricky Davis.

He was a decent player who didn't pass, didn't rebound, didn't get to the line, didn't stretch the floor, and wasn't a particularly good finisher or defender. His mid range game was his strong suit, and he was able to get a lot of easy mid range baskets in a league where the average FG% was a LOT higher than it was a decade later. He was artificial fluff, and when he went to a team that had a system in place, had a creator and a lead dog type scorer, he was exposed as the average player type that he really was. Again, OK type player, but not the type of 3rd wheel you need to win championships.

[TrueLAfan]

Well, call me crazy, but I think a team that's a bit above or within a couple of games of .500 is more in a group that I will go out on a limb and call "mediocre." Kind of like New Orleans, Memphis, Miami, and Toronto are this year.

[erudite23]

Doesn't really change the falsity of the premise. John Stocktonw as a terrific athlete. We are talking about a multi=sport athlete as a youth (Stockton was a top high school baseball pitcher who struck out Ryne Sandburg three times in a game.) His side to side quickness was always excellent. A 1988 SI article describes it this way:

"John has tremendous quickness, a quality without which he simply would not have made it as a pro, as well as superb natural endurance—he once ran an eight-mile race in about 42 minutes without training. His peripheral vision and his hands—"Cousy-sized hands," says Hundley—are ideal for a point guard."

Multi-sport skills, tremendous quickness, superb natural endurance, quick hands...how is that unathletic? Especially for a point guard?

Same thing with his height. Stockton is 6'1". How is that short for a great PG? Does the same criteria paply to Cousy? Isiah? Wilkins? Archibald? Kevin Johnson? TIm Hardaway? Mark Price? Chris Paul?

John Stockton's assist totals were inflated by home court score keepers. So were Magic's. So are many players'. It's a leaguewide issue. (Although, mysteriously, not for Nash, whose home assists appear to be slightly underrated.) Anyway, it's not a real reason to knock Stockton.

But, yeah, the comment about race is pretty far out of context and stupid. I continue to find it ultimately demeaning to John Stockton to insist that he was unathletic (he wasn't) or short (he was the same height or taller than plenty of great PGs). Trying to make John Stockton into something he wasn't--or saying or implying he lacked skills, traits, or abilities he clearly did have--does not strengthen his legacy.

And erudite23--you need to keep calm here. That's a moderator comment.

Of course, I knew all that. But how many others do. Its not that he wasn't athletic, as he was a very good athlete in many other senses of the word, though his explosiveness was only ordinary and that's what most people think of when they think of the term. No, its that people THINK he wasn't athletic. That's all that matters, and that is tied directly in to his race. If he had impressive height to make up or it a bit, then that would be another thing. Magic was a good athlete, but his hops were nothing special. It was his frame and mobility/skill at the size that made him special. Kidd, similarly, was a very good athlete but nothing great. Its his 6'4" stature and physical dominance that make him stand out. Likewise, Chris Paul has amazing speed and very, very good explosiveness, KJ was an amazing athlete, Hardaway likewise, Cousy no one watched, Wilkins few watched, etc etc. Price is in the same boat as Stockton, but even worse. Few but the biggest hoops junkies know just how bad ass Price was back in the day. He was very similar to Stockton but didn't have the longevity or the late-career post season success.

And if you refuse to acknowledge that race plays a part in this debate, you're delusional. People put their trust in two main things: 1) jaw dropping physical attributes and 2) championships. Stockton has neither, so any suggestion that he could somehow be a better player than someone who has one or the other or even *gasp* both is looked at as being ridiculous.

[erudite23]

Well, call me crazy, but I think a team that's a bit above or within a couple of games of .500 is more in a group that I will go out on a limb and call "mediocre." Kind of like New Orleans, Memphis, Miami, and Toronto are this year.

Well, you have a 5 year span without a single positive SRS and with a low-end score that plants them firmly in the "bad team" area. Average those years out and the picture is one of a team that was clearly a bad team, though you could make a case if you were arguing about one specific year that they were an "ok" team. Over the total span, though, its clear they were a bad team and that Jeff was putting up empty numbers that never led to winning.