Rob Mahoney (SI) vs. David Locke

[SoCalJazzFan]

A point that I think Locke is totally misconstruing (both in this podcast on regularly on his site) is the pairing of Millsap and Favors.

Locke implies that Favors somehow drastically reduces Millsap's shooting percentages, and that the unit can't seem to score.

I looked up 5 man units on 82games, and of the top 20 most used combinations, Millsap and Favors have only played together 35.5 minutes this season. It has been the "big" lineup of Millsap (SF), Favors (PF) and Jefferson. Duh, no wonder Millsap is shooting worse, he is taking outside shots/3pters in those conditions.

Locke acts as if it is completely unfeasible to play Favors and Millsap together, either due to the lower shooting percentages or wondering how Jefferson could possibly be substituted back in.

Classic case of missing the forest from looking too closely at the trees.

Personally, I would really like to know how Favors at center and Millsap at PF with an otherwise ordinary lineup (Mo, GH and/or Foye and/or Marvin) would perform. Probably important in determining how to move forward in the offseason as well (either in attempting to sign Millsap or other PFs and even a center).

Locke's point about Millsap and Favors is that Millsap shoots a worst percentage when Jefferson is off the floor, so that would exclude the big lineup:

http://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/2 ... zz-season/

Well, I have access to 82games, but not subscriptions to other websites that might be able to break it down by two man units. However, in the top 5 man units (which goes down to as few as 30 mins the entire season) Millsap isn't paired with Kanter or Favors, other than the big lineup. So, there are probably precious few minutes that Millsap has played with Kanter or Favors and not Jefferson. Also, in the Locke link you provided, only Jefferson/Kanter has a worse result than Millsap/Jefferson- which doesn't help Locke's argument that Millsap without Jefferson is a disaster.

[StocktonShorts]

One other thing that really bugged me about Locke's line of argument: he rudely cut Mahoney off at one point by saying: "And missing your starting point guard for 30 games doesn't matter?"

I guess that'd be a valid argument if we were talking about Chris Paul, but it's Mo Williams. Oh, and the Jazz went 21-15 with him out of the lineup, 21-23 with him in the lineup.

Would the Jazz have had a better record than 21-15 in those 36 games had Mo played?

Every team deals with injuries; missing Mo Freaking Williams for 36 games doesn't, in my opinion, let a coach off the hook for his team failing to live up to expectations.

[meat tray]

One other thing that really bugged me about Locke's line of argument: he rudely cut Mahoney off at one point by saying: "And missing your starting point guard for 30 games doesn't matter?"

I guess that'd be a valid argument if we were talking about Chris Paul, but it's Mo Williams. Oh, and the Jazz went 21-15 with him out of the lineup, 21-23 with him in the lineup.

I think the issue is not so much that Mo is super talented (he's not), but the drop off from Mo to Jamal/Earl is significant. I mean even with a healthy Mo we have a below average PG rotation, but without him in the lineup that's got to be the worst in the league. Jamal can give you 15-20 min off the bench, but he's not equipped to play starter minutes, and Earl has not been an NBA player this year.

I'd argue we would be better equipped to handle an injury to any other player on our roster (maybe except Hayward) due to depth and similar talent levels at other positions. That's on the front office, not the head coach.

As for the record, we were lucky to have Mo injured during our favorable home-heavy schedule. I think with a health Mo we have a slightly better record during that stretch, but we also don't go 0-4 on the post-All Star road trip where we were still integrating Mo back into the offense.

[countrybama24]

I'm glad we're missing the playoffs, just so it becomes harder for management and the media to cling to this "we've only missed the playoffs once in the last X years" stat. Making the playoffs isn't much of an accomplishment unless you're a bottom dweller. It's a lot closer to a "participation award" than an actual accomplishment. Since they've built up making the playoffs as this great feat, I can only hope falling short of that goal shows them how much work this team needs to truly compete.

[StocktonShorts]

As for the record, we were lucky to have Mo injured during our favorable home-heavy schedule. I think with a health Mo we have a slightly better record during that stretch,

In the games Tinsley started 14 were on the road (Jazz went 6-8), 18 were at home (Jazz went 14-4).*

Those six road wins are half of the Jazz's total road wins for the entire season. The home schedule included wins over Denver, Dallas, Miami, Indiana, OKC and Golden State.

but we also don't go 0-4 on the post-All Star road trip where we were still integrating Mo back into the offense.

The inability to successfully re-integrate Mo seems like another mark against Corbin, not an excuse for his failures.



* Jazz are 1-3 in games Earl Watson started.

[meat tray]

In the games Tinsley started 14 were on the road (Jazz went 6-8), 18 were at home (Jazz went 14-4).*

Those six road wins are half of the Jazz's total road wins for the entire season. The home schedule included wins over Denver, Dallas, Miami, Indiana, OKC and Golden State.

21 of the 36 games Mo missed were home games. The road wins were against NO, ORL, PHO, CHA, DET, MIN. I'd say that is a favorable schedule.

The inability to successfully re-integrate Mo seems like another mark against Corbin, not an excuse for his failures.

They've won 8 of the last 10. I'd say he has been successfully reintegrated. Also, if you are going to pin those road losses on Corbin (3 of which decided by total of 4 points), than don't you also have to give credit to Corbin for all of those impressive home wins you listed?

I'm curious StockonShorts, putting aside rotations, offensive sets, and everything else, where did you expect the Jazz to finish at the start of the year?

I'd argue they are exactly where most people thought they would be at the start of the season, slightly above .500 and fighting for a playoff spot.

[StocktonShorts]

I thought they should be better than last year, both in terms of winning percentage and offensive and defensive efficiency.

Last year:
.545 winning percentage
106.8 Offensive Rating, 6th in the league
106.1 Defensive Rating, 19th in the league

This year (through 81 games):
.530 winning percentage
107.0 Offensive rating, 10th in the league
106.9 Defensive rating, 21st in the league

I thought they'd probably be competing with Dallas, Golden state, Minnesota and the Lakers for a playoff spot. With the significant injuries to all of those teams (save golden state) it's quite amazing to me the Jazz aren't easily in the playoffs.

Edit: added some numbers, comments