RealGM

How good would Utah be if Kirilenko 04' to 06' aligned with real life Jazz of 96' to 98'? Do they win the chip?

Jazz would be the title favorite in all three seasons. The upgrade in the starters from Byron Russell to AK is big, from solid roleplayer to All-NBA level impact. They were already pretty close to the title in all three seasons.

Kirilenko's defense would have been pretty awesome, but it's not like he was going to contain Jordan.

Utah's problem was offensive, and Kirilenko wasn't a volume scorer or an especially good isolation guy or anything.

They'd crush the West and run into the same issues that they had in 97 and 98. And would likely have a third loss against the Bulls in 96 after beating the Sonics.

I would favor them over the Bulls. Prime healthy Kirilenko was a considerably better player on offense than Byron Russell as well as being a better defender and that gives them 3 starters who can act as a 2nd option if needed (Stockton, Hornacek, and Kirilenko). They will get synergy from having another guy whose man won't be looking to double off him onto the PnR as well plus Kirilenko is the greatest shotblocking 3 of all time.

Early career AK was also one of the best ever perimeter lockdown guys, crazy fast feet/length combo. If anybody is containing MJ it's him.

Favorites every year AK was healthy in the playoffs (I'd guess they get 2).

tsherkin wrote:Kirilenko's defense would have been pretty awesome, but it's not like he was going to contain Jordan.

Why not? Especially 2nd 3-peat Jordan, slower and already "containable" in multiple series.

Jaivl wrote:

tsherkin wrote:Kirilenko's defense would have been pretty awesome, but it's not like he was going to contain Jordan.

Why not? Especially 2nd 3-peat Jordan, slower and already "containable" in multiple series.

Because there was nothing that Kirilenko did which was going to stop what Jordan was doing, which largely comprised bombing fadeaways and jumpers to begin with. His length wouldn't be valuable enough in changing that.

That's in about 1:30 of action. AK was as good at bothering midrange shooters as anyone ever was.

This is a huge win for Utah.

1) Adding a great player. 04-06 the production is great as is the impact signal
PER: 22.2
WS/48: .175
BPM: 7.6
On-off: 12.0

2) He's a huge upgrade ...
(a) obviously on whoever, because he's great
(b) phrasing doesn't seem to suggest "for Russell" ... so we can use the additional quality player minutes to shore up some of the junk units that absolutely killed the Jazz. There's less Morris, but maybe with Kirilenko at 4 and Malone at 5, less Foster too (and perhaps less Carr?).

3) fwiw, not a scouting guy but when the "not going to bother MJ" idea came up I thought of that same clip and of Hollinger talking about the Hornets going to a Mashburn fadeaway 4 times in a row (which I think he said nobody blocks) and Kirilenko blocking 3 of them and shutting him out that quarter. He could also swoop in from behind. Stopping MJ is easier said than done but at very least it's a different look and to me it's an intriguing one.

For title specifically it depends on what else is assumed to be held constant, what is changed ... where are we restarting from ... but per above this is a very significant and substantial upgrade to an already strong team.

eminence wrote:That's in about 1:30 of action. AK was as good at bothering midrange shooters as anyone ever was.

He was quite a good player, yes, but he's hardly the only shot blocker Jordan faced.

tsherkin wrote:

eminence wrote:That's in about 1:30 of action. AK was as good at bothering midrange shooters as anyone ever was.

He was quite a good player, yes, but he's hardly the only shot blocker Jordan faced.

Quite good is a decent if conservative description of AK overall. At this specific skill (bothering midrange shooters) AK is the best ever. No, MJ has never seen anyone like him. Not even Scottie in practice.

I'd favor the Jazz. The problem is that in a lot of people's minds the floor of what it took to beat any of the Bulls title teams may be a lot higher than what it actually takes simply because we never saw them getting beat outside of 95 which is always glossed over. So no one knows how good of a team it takes for sure to beat those teams but I don't trust 96-98 MJ to hit the gear it takes to beat teams that may be better talent wise the way I would 90-93 MJ who could put up 35-40ppg at very high efficiency when required. Adding AK47 makes it even harder for him to do that.

eminence wrote:
Quite good is a decent if conservative description of AK overall. At this specific skill (bothering midrange shooters) AK is the best ever. No, MJ has never seen anyone like him. Not even Scottie in practice.

I was a big fan of AK during his career. I think he was an excellent 3rd guy on the team. I don't really think he'd be of huge consequence to how Jordan was playing during that period of time, though.

tsherkin wrote:

eminence wrote:
Quite good is a decent if conservative description of AK overall. At this specific skill (bothering midrange shooters) AK is the best ever. No, MJ has never seen anyone like him. Not even Scottie in practice.

I was a big fan of AK during his career. I think he was an excellent 3rd guy on the team. I don't really think he'd be of huge consequence to how Jordan was playing during that period of time, though.

Excellent 3rd guy is absurdly low on Andrei. He was conservatively a top 10 guy in the league in '04.

If it weren't for KD going to the Warriors he'd be a strong contender for best #3 guy ever (and would have a good argument over Stockton).

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I'd favor the Jazz. The problem is that in a lot of people's minds the floor of what it took to beat any of the Bulls title teams may be a lot higher than what it actually takes simply because we never saw them getting beat outside of 95 which is always glossed over. So no one knows how good of a team it takes for sure to beat those teams but I don't trust 96-98 MJ to hit the gear it takes to beat teams that may be better talent wise the way I would 90-93 MJ who could put up 35-40ppg at very high efficiency when required. Adding AK47 makes it even harder for him to do that.

This is probably the point to note that the 1998 G6 featured 2 wrong clock calls that - if holding all else equal - swung the game for the Bulls. WIthout them the Bulls go to game 7 in Utah with Pippen maybe still not in great shape.

eminence wrote:of time, though.

Excellent 3rd guy is absurdly low on Andrei. He was conservatively a top 10 guy in the league in '04.[/quote]

Would you build a franchise around him?

No, you'd shoot yourself in the foot trying.

That's what I mean by third guy. You could argue second, but I still don't like his ability to support scoring volume for that level of role. He was an a good tertiary offensive player and an exceptionally valuable defender, but there are limits to what he could do. I'd be more inclined to call him a top 15 guy, but I can see how very bottom of the top 10 might play, for sure.

I guess some of my reticence come from how abbreviated his career was. He wasn't ever really healthy again after his 3rd season, and came up shy of 800 games, was routinely injured, was largely playing less than 30 mpg for most of his career after that third season, you know? At what peak he had, he was an excellent defender but availability does matter.

If you're not confident in prime AK as a #2 guy I don't know what to tell you.

'04-'06 Stats
Jazz without AK: -9.6 Net, 14-44, 20 win pace
Jazz with AK: -1.1 Net, 95-93, 41 win pace

10th in RAPM over the 3 year span

+7.9/+9.2/+6.6 BPM over the 3 years

Averaged 37.1/32.9/37.7 mpg over the 3 years.

Any PO run he's healthy they're stomping the league, Bulls included. My guess is 2/3. 1/3 and 3/3 reasonably likely. 0/3 seems unlikely, he wasn't *that* injury prone.

tsherkin wrote:

eminence wrote:Excellent 3rd guy is absurdly low on Andrei. He was conservatively a top 10 guy in the league in '04.

Would you build a franchise around him?

No, you'd shoot yourself in the foot trying.

That's what I mean by third guy. You could argue second, but I still don't like his ability to support scoring volume for that level of role. He was an a good tertiary offensive player and an exceptionally valuable defender, but there are limits to what he could do. I'd be more inclined to call him a top 15 guy, but I can see how very bottom of the top 10 might play, for sure.

I guess some of my reticence come from how abbreviated his career was. He wasn't ever really healthy again after his 3rd season, and came up shy of 800 games, was routinely injured, was largely playing less than 30 mpg for most of his career after that third season, you know? At what peak he had, he was an excellent defender but availability does matter.

Well
1) this hypothetical is bounded in taking his 04 and 06 seasons. So the other seasons thing is moot. It doesn't really get to his rank in one season either.
2) Regarding "build around" him ... the health concern is a different thing and perhaps fair enough. If it's about "option" you aren't going to make him an "alpha" scorer. Does he need building "around" or will he fit into whatever ... for the time I'd say whatever ... with the defense and the passing and cutting (maybe more concerns if now because maybe the weakness on long and mid 2s means the 3 doesn't improve ... idk, FT% was fine). Is he a foundational piece ... absolutely ... cf the numbers.

Seriously ... try and find a guy with 3 years posting
PER: 22.2
WS/48: .175 (honestly I'd suggest this is dragged down by playing on a bad team)
BPM: 7.6
On-off: 12.0
in either a 3-year spell or any 3 years over their career. Not besting all the numbers (the trap of thresholds) but broadly equivalent. It's going to be very, very good players.

[post edited to fix botched quoting in previous post]

Owly wrote:1) this hypothetical is bounded in taking his 04 and 06 seasons. So the other seasons thing is moot. It doesn't really get to his rank in one season either.['/quote]

No, they aren't moot at all. They are relevant to how I was quoted. I agree that they are not salient to the OP, though, for sure.

2) Regarding "build around" him ... the health concern is a different thing and perhaps fair enough. If it's about "option" you aren't going to make him an "alpha" scorer. Does he need building "around" or will he fit into whatever ... for the time I'd say whatever ... with the defense and the passing and cutting (maybe more concerns if now because maybe the weakness on long and mid 2s means the 3 doesn't improve ... idk, FT% was fine). Is he a foundational piece ... absolutely ... cf the numbers.

If you build with him as your focal player, you lose. That's fairly straightforward. That's not an indictment of him, of course, only improper deployment. That is only salient to the reply made to my remark about him being a strong #3, though, and isn't terribly relevant to the core focus of this thread.

Inside the context of the 96-98 Jazz, he WOULD be a #3, and his deployment WOULD be appropriate. He doesn't really give them any improvement to their major, critical failing against Chicago, however (which was their inability to apply significant scoring threat against the Bulls to any consistent degree), which is an issue. His defense was amazing, I just don't think it would really matter to how Chicago in particular scored against them. It's not like the Bulls beat them with brilliant offense, either. Particularly in 98, they were nothing remarkable (nor had they been during the RS). They were slow, plodding, not at all stunning/dominant. Scottie was only so good when he was even playing. Rodman's offensive rebounding and ball movement went only so far because he flatly couldn't score to save his life and the team was riddled with inefficient scorers.

Might the series go to 7 games in 98 with AK? Sure. I don't think much else changes, though. Stockton and Hornacek still couldn't get it done and Malone (while far better in 98 than in 97) wasn't going to dominate either. And the Jazz were sloppy when they had the ball, and more vulnerable to Chicago's ability to generate turnovers. Again, I just think Utah's issues on O would remain more of a problem than the bonus produced on D by adding Kirilenko.

I think, though, that they'd look PHENOMENAL crushing the West during the RS, and would skate through the WC in the playoffs.

tsherkin wrote:

Owly wrote:1) this hypothetical is bounded in taking his 04 and 06 seasons. So the other seasons thing is moot. It doesn't really get to his rank in one season either.

No, they aren't moot at all. They are relevant to how I was quoted. I agree that they are not salient to the OP, though, for sure.

We're agreed it's moot to OP question. You quote someone saying

Excellent 3rd guy is absurdly low on Andrei. He was conservatively a top 10 guy in the league in '04.

That's the full extent of your quote. So the other angle seems to be regarding his rank in one season. I'm not sure how later health relates to this. That is what I assume you are responding to. Maybe you meant to quote more? I'm confused here.

tsherkin wrote:

2) Regarding "build around" him ... the health concern is a different thing and perhaps fair enough. If it's about "option" you aren't going to make him an "alpha" scorer. Does he need building "around" or will he fit into whatever ... for the time I'd say whatever ... with the defense and the passing and cutting (maybe more concerns if now because maybe the weakness on long and mid 2s means the 3 doesn't improve ... idk, FT% was fine). Is he a foundational piece ... absolutely ... cf the numbers.

If you build with him as your focal player, you lose. That's fairly straightforward. That's not an indictment of him, of course, only improper deployment. That is only salient to the reply made to my remark about him being a strong #3, though, and isn't terribly relevant to the core focus of this thread.

Inside the context of the 96-98 Jazz, he WOULD be a #3, and his deployment WOULD be appropriate. He doesn't really give them any improvement to their major, critical failing against Chicago, however (which was their inability to apply significant scoring threat against the Bulls to any consistent degree), which is an issue. His defense was amazing, I just don't think it would really matter to how Chicago in particular scored against them. It's not like the Bulls beat them with brilliant offense, either. Particularly in 98, they were nothing remarkable (nor had they been during the RS). They were slow, plodding, not at all stunning/dominant. Scottie was only so good when he was even playing. Rodman's offensive rebounding and ball movement went only so far because he flatly couldn't score to save his life and the team was riddled with inefficient scorers.

Might the series go to 7 games in 98 with AK? Sure. I don't think much else changes, though. Stockton and Hornacek still couldn't get it done and Malone (while far better in 98 than in 97) wasn't going to dominate either. And the Jazz were sloppy when they had the ball, and more vulnerable to Chicago's ability to generate turnovers. Again, I just think Utah's issues on O would remain more of a problem than the bonus produced on D by adding Kirilenko.

I think, though, that they'd look PHENOMENAL crushing the West during the RS, and would skate through the WC in the playoffs.

[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by "focal" player and "If you build with him as your focal player, you lose. That's fairly straightforward."
As covered he's not an alpha scorer, nor someone who required you to build "around" him.

But put it this way ... look at the 2004 Jazz. They're a circa .500 standard team. Go down the roster and see how many of those guys you like ...
you could very substantially upgrade every other player still not have them touching Kirilenko for best player ... and those upgrades would get you a lot of extra wins ... contender level wins.

There aren't many players like this that are this good so comparisons are limited ...
Fwiw as comps go Bobby Jones clearly wasn't perceived as the star but ... '81 76ers have the best SRS that year. He's the very clear team leader in on-off. He's pretty clear leader in raw plus-minus at +562 (from Cheeks at 470) ... with Erving lagging at +351 (with more than 800 extra minutes on a good team - fitting a broader long term trend of Jones looking more impactful in Philly). That team didn't happen to win the title. Jones didn't get credit for driving their goodness. ... they could and have the impact side data seems to suggests he should have ... and Jones was playing significantly less than Kirilenko and was less "rate" productive.

Even if we assume things as they were as a baseline (and these things certainly aren't locked in, small samples at play here especially for individual factors within games), I don't see why Kirilenko can't make things that are bad for Chicago worse.

If IRL is the baseline "Might the series go to 7 games in 98 with AK?" seems like the wrong question because as already noted, without close scrutiny of all calls it seems like one series already should have gone 7 but for referee mistakes (see above). So if how the series played out is your baseline (and you do seem to be thinking that way) ... that really should have already happened for one series.

Then too, I think you've erred in only seeing Kirilenko as a defensive addition. One could offer the passing and the cutting and the efficiency (drawing fouls especially) or some getting to the offensive glass for a 3 ... but on the box side you could just note his OBPM is better than his DBPM for the span in question and his offensive impact seems to be greater - eyeballing it - than his defensive for the 3 years span discussed ... and especially the two years the OP suggested are to be inserted here (cf: https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2029/onoff#tab-team_efficiency).

But we're looping here so I'd prefer to leave it at that from my side if possible.

[post again edited to fix botched quotation in original - apostrophe causing end-quote not to function]