Who else is sick with the Great Hype surrounding Andrew “Bust”num?

If you’ve ever wandered onto an LA Lakers blog, message board, or listened to a nationally broadcasted game by Mike “Fellatio for the Lakers 24/7” Tirico then you’ll know, with complete certainty, that Andrew Bynum is one of the best centers in the league, and will without giving any prior notice, become the next best center in the league and join the pantheon of great bigmen. He will rightfully sit alongside Wilt, Russell and Kareem while using Ewing, Robinson and O’Neal as foot rests. The third footrest will be necessary because of how great and grand his male organ must be – as he has been photographed at the Playboy mansion (who cares) and is curiously linked to Rihanna right now. (who? exactly.)

As impressive as his potential appears, and as great as his off-court life may or may not be (I’d rather hang out at the Acharya mansion any day of the week) – I’m less than impressed with him as a player. I’m even less impressed when I actually look at his accomplishments as a player in the playoffs (aka. when it counts). Furthermore, I’m pretty much sick to death by the hype that he has received from casual fans, homer fans, and the media alike. Now, this isn’t meant to trash the hopes of the future of the Lakers at all – I strive to temper the expectations of him a little bit. For his sake, and ours.

My brother is the most rational Lakers fan I know, he is passionate, but not completely under the spell that countless others are on the internet. He’s more concerned with consistent play, rebounding and solid defense from all of the Lakers and does not have the time to worry about if Bynum is going to be the next Kareem – he’s worried about right now. If I was a Lakers fan I wouldn’t be worried about right now – you guys will trounce Denver on your way to the NBA Finals (where anything can happen). I would, on the other hand, be worried about the past – specifically Bynum’s past.

He’s 21 years old right now and was drafted as a 17 year old. What do we know about him that should really count? How about the fact that he had an injury ruined high school career (leg/knee injury), and in the NBA has had two more leg/knee injuries in his young career. He’s tall, but not nearly as super athletic and fit as freaks like Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire are – I don’t expect him to be physically made of the same stuff as those guys are. When you get over 7 feet tall, any injuries to your lower body seriously limit how reliable you can be, regardless of how much work one may put on their upper bodies. (You’re only as strong as your base is – look at Yao Ming, who has just a storied lower body injury history as Bynum, he misses lots of games every year, and is never 100% due to the strain his body puts on his lower body) Amare had two career ending (had this been the 80’s/90’s) knee injuries, but has come back due to a great work ethic. Bynum puts women on his shoulders during rehab. I wouldn’t be making a huge leap by suggesting that Bynum may have a career that features a number of injuries to his lower body, not unlike Yao Ming – as opposed to being virtual injury free like Dwight Howard. But I have no crystal ball, I’m just going on the fact that he’s a big guy with a history of lower body injuries who was injury prone as a teen and only looks to put an increasingly large strain on those same joints as his ages and increases mass.

That’s not very empirical though, it’s just an assumed health arc based on his body type, job, apparent work ethic, how healthy other big guys his size have been and medical history. What is empirical, on the other hand, is to dig deep and look at stats. I love stats. Stats are flawed, as I’ve explained on this blog before, but they still give a pretty good indication of on court production. (After all, that’s what counts, points, rebounds, blocks, assists, steals, turn overs and fouls, right?)

After this last game against the Houston Rockets the total number of playoff games that Bynum has participated in stands at 18. These 18 games have taken him from 2005-2006 till now to amass. In that time he has been brought along slowly – thanks to the fact that he doesn’t need to be useful when he’s so far down the pecking order behind at least 4 other guys. That said, his production does not appear to be indicative of him joining the pantheon of great bigmen any decade soon. I want to look at his stats in the playoffs and see the promise that appears to be there (and only appears in regular season games against bad teams sandwiched between injuries). As a point of reference I looked at Patrick Ewing’s first 19 games (why not 18? wanted to complete that one series to make it an even number of playoff off series for the two) in the playoffs. Ewing was a great center, but never will he be called the best of his generation, and thus, not up for entry into the pantheon of greatest bigmen ever (though the media has already reserved a spot there for Bynum).

Bynum’s first 18 Playoff games, and how they stack up:

Ewing creams Bynum statistically. And Ewing played in a time where big guys weren’t bailed out with foul shots, and played against much better competition. Bynum played against the Phoenix Suns, twice anchored in the paint by Frenchman Boris Diaw; the injury depleted Utah Jazz that was forced to start Jarron Collins; and the Houston Rockets, who during the course of the series, lost Yao Ming to injury a little more than 2 games in – and had to turn to a rotation of Chuck Hayes, Carl Landry and Luis Scola to battle LA’s 7 footers. Bynum gets killed – just look at the stats.

Alas, he is immune to any criticism for a great rebuttal exists: Ewing had much more experience from being a guy who actually went to college, won a National Title; and also played in the NBA for a few seasons before making the playoffs. All this is true, but nothing prevented Bynum from going to college himself – if he was really interested in experience. That said, I also took a chance to look at another young bigman, and saw how he faced the NBA pressure. David Robinson did manage to make the playoffs as a rookie (he led his team there, unlike Bynum who did his best to stay out of Kobe’s way). David Robinson is far from my favorite player in the world – but he also creams Bynum’s numbers when you take out experience and look just at Bynum’s FIRST FOUR SEASONS against David’s ROOKIE season.

Let’s not forget that David had to go to war against Joe Barry Carroll and the plethora of tough guys in the paint that Portland sported back when David was a rookie. Bynum, with 4 years of experience in the NBA, has yet to face anything like that in the NBA playoffs – and his numbers are completely pathetic.

Ewing: 22.1 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.37 bpg

Robinson: 24.4 ppg, 12.00 rpg, 4.00 bpg

Bynum: 4.83 ppg, 3.78 rpg, 0.67 bpg

Obviously the data is heavily skewed against poor, young Bynum. His first few playoff sorties were short and he was inexperienced. Obviously the stats are going to go against him when you include some of his early games. The Bynum of today is a beast though! Look at Bynum’s numbers from just his 4th season in the playoffs against other greats and you’ll see! You’ll all see!

Okay, let’s do that then.

Bynum’s Playoff stats from his 4th season, and how those stats stack up:

Bynum’s numbers improve very slightly, he ups his ppg from 4.83 to 5.58, his free throw percentage from 62.96% to 76.47% and he swats almost 0.2 more blocks per game. Still not impressed. He’s a far cry from, let’s just randomly say, Hakeem Olajuwon. In the Dream’s 4th NBA season he happened to tear the NBA playoff’s a new one with his scoring -- 37.5 ppg (57.14 fg%, 88.37 ft%); rebounding – 16.75 rpg; and all around game – 2.75 bpg, 1.75 apg, 2.25 spg.

Not only did Hakeem obliterate Bynum’s pitiful offensive output by a magnitude nearing 7x, but absolutely owned him all over the boxscore. He also did it against much tougher competition as well.

Heck, Bynum is so far from being impressive that Greg Ostertag’s fourth year playoff stats could (and do) give Bynum’s fourth year playoff stats a run for their money. It’s horrible to say, but really Lakers fans (and media, or is that redundant?) – take a look and weep.

Bynum is a much better offensive player than Ostertag (is this even saying anything?), but Ostertag owns Bynum when it comes to rebounds and blocks. Greg even managed to out-assist Bynum and made less mistakes (as seen in less turn overs and fouls per game).

What’s worse, the fact that Bynum just got his lunch handed to him by Ostertag; or the fact that Ostertag was doing this against super duper vets and talented players like Vlade, Arvydas, Dale Davis and Rasheed (when Ostertag was a 4th year player) – and looking better than media adored Bynum going up against Chuck Hayes and the guy who was behind Ostertag on the depth chart?

Furthermore, Bynum’s had 5 scoreless games in the playoffs, out of 18. And he’s scored less than 5 points 11 times out of 18. Ouch.

Take a look at Hakeem’s 37.5 ppg average again. Ouch.

Of course, there HAS to be a rebuttal for this . . . no way can Bynum been so far behind Hakeem at the same stage of NBA experience, and yet so close to NBA laughingstock Greg Ostertag . . . right?  . . . .right? Don’t worry Lakers fans, of course there is . . . forget about NBA experience, that’s a flawed concept. Let’s not forget that Hakeem and Greg both played college ball (like Ewing and Robinson did) . . . Bynum didn’t play college. Look at how young he is! He’s only 21! Surely when you take that into account it makes up for 32 ppg (in the case of Hakeem), or nearly a block and a half (in the case of Ostertag)!!!

Okay, let’s take at a look at that. Try me.

Bynum’s Playoff stats as a 21 year old, and how those stats stack up against another 21 year old:

Bynum is a very brittle 21 year old who doesn’t have to do anything, and his team makes it to the NBA Finals. I’m not lying, the Lakers did that last season. That said, Bynum is a force of nature, and the future of the center position in the NBA. His 21 year old production is unrivaled. Right? Wrong. Take a look at this guy, and what he did in the playoffs at the tender age of 21 (his 2nd season in the L, not his 4th like Bynum). I just have one hyphenated word to describe this: Shaq-Attaq.

A lot of the same Lakers fans who champion Bynum marginalize how great Shaq was. I can clearly see why Kobe went out of his way to suggest that Bynum needed to be traded – because Kobe knew how good Shaq was. The difference between the two is quite telling when you look at these two centers at the age of 21, Bynum in his 4th season and Shaq in his 2nd.

The difference between the two was almost 15 points, 10 rebounds and over 2 blocks and almost 2 assists . . . in favor of the 2nd year player.

That’s a huge difference.

The difference between being called one of the best bigmen of all time, and being called a bust.

Bynum was a lotto pick man, and aside from his inspired dirty play in injuring two guys this season, and being afraid of Fesenko in the paint, he’s done nothing to earn the high praise that’s heaped on him. And he’s done nothing to make me feel like giving him any props.

His current playoff run isn’t over yet, and he’s got one, most likely two more playoff series to make his 2008-2009 playoffs slightly more memorable than his complete no-show in the 2007-2008 playoffs.

I’m taking it easy on Bynum here by comparing him to guys that he may yet one-day reach . . . even if it doesn’t seem like it. I could really try to down him if I wanted by comparing him to his contemporaries who are out-playing him right now. For example take Dwight Howard -- in his first 14 playoff games: 17.86 ppg (57.23 fg%, 51.72 ft%), 15.5 rpg, 2.71 bpg, 1.14 apg, 0.714 spg . . . those numbers are way better than Bynum’s. Also better are Dwight’s numbers as a 21 year old and Dwight’s numbers in his 4th NBA season.

If I really wanted to be a dick I’d mention that Dwight also has 3 less leg injuries. I’m not a dick though, so I’m not going to mention that.

 

 

What did we learn?

What did we learn? Well, for starters we learned that Andrew Bynum’s playoff performances leave much to be desired. His first 18 games in the playoffs pales in comparison to Ewing’s numbers over the same situations – and Ewing played against much better defensive clubs like Michael’s Bulls and the Bad Boy Pistons. We learned that David Robinson’s rookie season playoff numbers invalidates the argument that Bynum’s rookie numbers shouldn’t count. We also learned that Hakeem’s numbers as a fourth year player completely eclipse Bynum’s as a 4th year player. I didn’t even have to look up 2nd tier NBA centers like Rik Smits at all after I found out that at the same level of NBA experience that Greg Ostertag’s playoff performance was a wash with that of Bynum’s. Lastly, we learned that Bynum can’t even hide behind his age as an excuse for how poor his performances have been – as Shaq as a 21 year old eats Bynum up. Ultimately, we learned that it’s a bit too premature to call Bynum anything other than a bust at this stage. He’s much closer to Ostertag, albeit one who rebounds and blocks less, and fouls and turns the ball over more, than he is to being one of the greatest bigmen of all time – let alone in his own generation.

After all, Dwight’s numbers at each break down (first x number of games, 4th NBA season, and at age 21) are vastly superior to Bynum’s. Oh yeah, also Bynum has a history of injury problems to the same parts of his body and young guys who sustain so many injuries in short succession tend to have injury plagued careers. Yeah, I wasn’t supposed to mention that again . . . I guess I am a dick after all.

Bynum doesn’t deserve his hype until he does something. Something other than sucking when it counts, that is.

If you liked the stat breakdown, and would like a full version at full resolution, click on the image below. I dunno, maybe you are just into making Bynum look silly . . . or want a stat heavy window’s desktop wallpaper . . . or both? Go nuts!

Contract years, Developing Talent & Front Office Subterfuge

The work of a General Manager is easy to criticize, yet hard to fully quantify. Team owners are like dragons sleeping on their hoard of gold coins and other priceless treasures. Coaches want to build winning resumes. Players want to get paid. The GM has to be the go-between that gets all these parties (with differing motivations) on the same page. The GM has to get a coach the players he needs to win. The players want the promises they need before signing on the dotted line (salary, role, playing time, etc). And for the team owner, well, the GM has to placate this obstacle on a near daily basis and convince the owners not to devourer the GM on sight -- while suggesting that parting with part of their hoard (on the 1st and 15th of each month) is the smart thing to do.

At times the NBA can be distilled to purer components, of winning and losing, and of the honesty of the game. Yet, at other times the NBA can expand into a complex juggling act more akin to micromanagement in a strategy game, or a RTS click-fest. For players, the game is the game. It's simple in that way, and relies on skill, speed and quick reflexes -- a Video Game analogy would be the first person shooter. For coaches, it's series of complex decisions, not unlike the original turn based strategy game called "Chess". (you may have heard of it) The GM, though, has to delve into the previously mentioned RTS click-fest:

But instead, imagine dealing with salaries, egos, scouts, coaches, players and injuries . . . also less cannons, probably . . .

*Ahem* Back to the point . . . a GM's job is rarely done perfectly because of how difficult it tends to be. Some GM's are great talent evaluators (for example, there's Isiah Thomas, just look at the player's he has drafted in his career, most of them have been All-Stars or award winners in some regard: Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Marcus Camby, Damon Stoudamire, David Lee, and so on) but poor on other sides of their job description. Other GM's have good connections with other teams, and always seem to do business with them (look at Kevin O'Connor and all the deals he has made with Philly over the years). Some GM's are really good with managing money, while others are known for turning things around in short order. At the end of the day, though, the GM is a salesman. He is essentially selling his services to a consumer -- in this case the team owner. Part of sales is to buy low and sell high. Another part of sales is to be consciously deceptive in just what your wares are. That last part does not really apply fully to the GM - Team Owner relationship, but rather to the GM to GM relationship. Sometimes you get a lemon, but you have to pass it off as a safe family sedan. Other times you (as the GM) are working not against the team owner, the other GM's, but the actual assets -- the players and their agents.

You want to keep a good player on your team for the least amount of money it's going to take to keep him there. All Team Owners expect the GM to be able to do such a thing. This part of the job ties in directly with the buy low/sell high and deceptive doctrines. If the first step is acquiring a player (via a Trade, Free Agency or the Draft), then the next step is evaluating that player (though, we hope that some evaluations have taken place before the player is traded for/signed/drafted). The next logical step would be to give playing time to that player and develop him. The last step? Making a decision on that guy -- sign him again when his contract expires, trade him, or let him walk. Parts of the last step depend greatly on each of the previous steps.

• For example, say the team acquires player A. They evaluate him, see some things they like, some things he needs to improve on, and play him accordingly. He either gets better or worse. If he does well, he becomes more valuable to the team -- and more valuable as a player. His asking price may go up, and making the last step (in this case: deciding to keep him) harder to do. An example of this Jazz fans may be familiar with would be All-Star Mo Williams.
• Player B, on the other hand, does not appear to have much upside, does not make the most of his chances on the court, and is not in the future plans of the team. They can get rid of him in a variety of ways, the team's disinterest in retaining him opens up options for his removal. An example of this Jazz fans may be familiar with would be Kris Humphries.

It's not always this simple, though.

• What about Player C . . . the team that drafts him knows him best, and knows that there is hidden potential deep inside. If they go about normally giving him playing time, allow him to develop openly (instead of only during closed practices and workouts with the team), then other GM's may wish to pry him away. Even if the original team wishes to keep him, retaining him may become very difficult as the exposure led to quicker development, which led to a greater player value. This would be repeating the same mistake with Player A all over again. What if, instead, the team decides to develop him secretly, give him less exposure, drive his asking price down, remove interest other GMs would have in him, and basically, keep him on the "down low".

This is pretty much the only way to retain those people that you think *can* blow up (in a good way), without having to give them a lot of money to make them stay. Deron Williams deserves the contract he got. It's an expensive contract though. Some teams are forced to over-pay to retain their talent (don't need to look farther than a young, uninjured Andrei Kirilenko half a decade ago). In general, you want to avoid doing that. If anything, I think we can clearly place the curious case of C.J. Miles as an example of a Player C scenario.

At the end of C.J.'s first season he was getting more playing time, and in the last game of the season he played really well. How well? 23 points (8/13 fg, 2/5 3pt, 5/8 ft), 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 blocks, 1 steal -- as a rookie with extend playing time playing against a tough Western Conference team. Every off-season since then there have been fishy things going on. He was a consistent no-show in future summer leagues, but instead opted to work on his game by himself. During times of injury he would be pressed into the starting line-up, only to return to the end of the bench only a few days later. C.J. should have played more than he did in when he was on his rookie contract. The clock struck 12 on C.J.'s contract though, and the Jazz simply put themselves in a situation to match whatever contract someone threw his way by virtue of him being a restricted free agent. No one really bit, not knowing what they would be getting . . . until Oklahoma City offered him a 4 year $15 million dollar contract. We all know how that story ended, as the Jazz eventually matched. Was $3.75 million per season too much for C.J. Miles? Perhaps . . . but at the same time, it's a lot less than it could have been had C.J. been playing like he is now at this time last season. (or perhaps, getting the playing time that he is getting now at this time last season) Back then I thought the Jazz were (in chronological order) a) not developing C.J. enough, b) using him only for spot duty, c) giving his playing time to guys who did not deserve it.

This season Ceejay has been everything from a solid deep threat, a versatile 2nd option on offense, to invisible . . . sometimes all in the same week. This is his 4th season in the league, and his first where he has averaged over 11.5 mpg. I'm sure he would be better, more seasoned player than he currently is if he was playing 20 mpg every season after his rookie campaign. I'm also pretty sure that he wouldn't be on the Jazz then. In effect, one could directly point to a systematic way in which the Jazz brass (Sloan and O'Connor mostly) lowered interest in a prospect, sequestered him from exposure (he only got one short stint in the NBA DL), yet did not develop him for fear of losing him. At the end of the day the Jazz have C.J., but not the C.J. he could be right now, and C.J. is not earning as much as he perhaps thought he would be after his rookie contract expired.

The Jazz financial situation is horrible right now. If it does not improve shortly than there may be a few more Player A type situations in the future with key contributors Paul Millsap and Ronnie Brewer. The Jazz would love to keep them for reasonable contracts, though their development (and production) have elicited quite a bit of exposure. Good for their bank accounts, perhaps not so great for the Jazz.

That's where the micromanagement comes back into play. You want your players to be good, productive and develop . . . but you do not want to lose them to other teams after you put in all the hard work to make them useful. Gilbert Arenas comes to mind, he was drafted, developed, and then left to get paid in free agency. Right now the Jazz are playing the "front office subterfuge game" with some other young players that could possibly be helping the Jazz right now.

Morris Almond: He is a scorer's scorer, who despite having limited quickness and has played defense only once in his life, could be doing a whole lot more for this Jazz team. He's looked horrible in his rookie season with the Jazz where he never got to be involved in the plays that the regular rotation run that get swingmen easy buckets. He didn't play a minute with Deron Williams last year, and was relegated to garbage time spot up shooting from the corner. Reason for not getting playing time: He's behind a few key guys on the depth chart and doesn't rebound or defend as well as others. For some reason this has prevented him from playing one single second in the NBA-DL this season. Something fishy: Why hasn't he played in the D-League at all this season then, if there's no space for him on our current roster? Do the Jazz know that he's a raw gem that only seems to look better when he gets to play?  Utah is healthy now, so there's no real risk to put him in the game at all . . . maybe practice with the Jazz is better than games with the Flash? Or maybe they don't want him to get too much exposure right now? Utah has opted not to extend his contract, so seemingly he is out . . . but maybe they are trying to keep his going rate low so that they *can* still have a shot at retaining him for a while. After all, they scouted him, interviewed him, drafted him, are developing him . . . Harpring's contract expires next year, and the Jazz will need a wing player who can come off that Harpring curl and hit the mid-range jumper. Financial situation aside, that sounds like something the Jazz have in their laps right now with Almond. Alas, this is exactly not the contract type of year a young player wants to have (being buried on the bench). Co-incidentally, this is exactly the type of contract year the Jazz would want him to have . . . after all, they did the same thing with Ceejay, they know what they are doing.

Kyrylo Fesenko: Very large man (7'1, 300+ lbs.) with the same wingspan and standing reach as Greg Oden -- yet uninjured and a capable passer and interior defender who has, due to injuries, been pressed into defending the likes of Yao Ming to Andrew Bynum . . . and done so well. Very likely that he is more talented than the guy ahead of him on the depth chart (Jarron Collins), but lacks experience, familiarity with the system and seasoning. Reason for not getting playing time: Work ethic and personality appear to anchor this man to the bench, though at some level talent and ability should trump that. Something fishy: As a rookie, this wet behind the ears, 2nd round draft pick center joined the Jazz and played in 70 games, and played over 20 mpg. This player joined a playoff team that was contending for a championship. This player had no experience with the Jazz system prior (as a rookie) and ended up getting playing time over a limited, soft center who had much more experience in the system. This young player was Jarron Collins. What, did you think I was talking about Fesenko? Heck no, Fesenko has played only 200 minutes with the Jazz in his 2 year career, let alone played in 70 (@ 20 per) as a rookie. Why is there such a disparity between Collins' and Fesenko's early careers? I don't know, but it seems kind of fishy to me. Even more fishy is that Fes only had one stint in the NBA-DL this season (8 games), promptly did exactly what we'd want him to do (be a defensive presence who rebounded, blocked and changed shots, shot a high percentage and eventually was averaging a double double) . . . and was called back and never played again. Ever. Hmmmm . . . he improves, shows that he's good at what he does . . . and can be a free agent this season . . . 'need to reel that big boy in, and hide him somewhere!' (which was the original plan with drafting a little known, poorly scouted player from a minor European league in the first place) More so than Almond, I think that Fesenko has a future with the Jazz, or at the very least, in the NBA somewhere as teams always want size, and if the guy is talented, he's going to get a contract somewhere. If you gave him the playing time, I'm pretty sure that he'd be able to get Rookie Millsap type of numbers for sure.

Paul Millsap: Speaking of the 'Sap, he got some great exposure this season. He produced as a starter due to injuries to Carlos Boozer. He's a free agent, and he's going to get paid this off-season. No doubt about it. Interestingly enough, at the first whiff of a hobbled, rusty Carlos Boozer the Jazz sent 'Sap back to the bench and as his fantasy owners know firsthand, 'Sap just hasn't been the same since. Reason for being sent to the bench: Boozer was the starter before he got injured, the Jazz/Sloan doctrine on this is that you cannot lose your starting job due to injury. Something fishy: No one said anything about a starting job, but just let Paul start the first 4-5 games after Boozer comes back and then let Boozer slowly work his way back into playing shape, and then give Boozer the starting spot. A lot of teams do this, they bring a starter back from injury on the bench just to test things out a bit. Out of all of my conspiracies, this is among the weakest -- though I don't see why the Jazz didn't keep starting Millsap for 4 games while Boozer (who was playing limited minutes) worked his way back into starting shape. For one thing, this almost looks like a directed attempt to reduce Millsap's exposure (for the open market). It's probably not, but it just looks fishy -- during a contract year, no less.

Kosta Koufos: Let's just say that if this 19 year old was playing Brook Lopez type of minutes on a bad team we'd see Brook Lopez-ish production out of Kosta. Yet, a guy who is clearly more talented than Collins, and is a very hard worker (much more than Fesenko has shown), is completely lost on this team. Kosta isn't on the active roster right now, isn't playing in the development league, and isn't developing. Reason for not getting playing time: Apparently he doesn't know the plays. Sure, he's a smart shot blocking 7 footer who has a nice offensive game AND is a very hard worker who hustles . . . but he's not going to get to play because by playing him he would then be in a position to actually learn the plays, and then we would have even less of an excuse for why he isn't playing. He's almost a gestalt character that takes the size (mostly) and shot blocking of Fess, with the hustle and work ethic of Collins . . . and gets none of the playing time that he should. Something fishy: There is no good reason not to play this guy, develop him with real NBA minutes, or even send him to the NBA D-League for some in game action. He hasn't seen the developmental league at all in his career, instead getting better by wearing suits next to Carlos Boozer for 50+ games. That's another thing, he got some very minor playing time just because of injuries . . . this season was a prime season to be forced into playing and developing younger talent. Sloan had to work many games without being able to call on veteran bigmen . . . but still he elected to instead play Matt Harpring at power forward. Huh?

It's not that difficult to imagine that the Jazz are hurting their futures by risking not getting these guys playing time because they do not want to lose them to other teams . . . but they also get nothing out of these guys. Other teams play younger players during the regular season so that they may become contributors to that team . . . and even help them in the playoffs. Heck, our team did this with Paul Millsap as a rookie, or Shandon Anderson (more on him later), or Bryon Russell and a host of others. There's no doubt in my mind that if Fess of Kosta were getting 12-15 mpg this season that one of them would be able to contribute in the playoffs for us. Instead the development time has become much longer for a bunch of guys who could be helping us now. Also, it's not that difficult to imagine that the Jazz are hurting the values of their players by flat out burying them during contract years. No playing time = no exposure and no stats = bargain prices. They did this with C.J., and if they had a time machine, would probably like to do so with others as well.

The way that the Jazz develop talent seems to be highly unequal. Some young guys get regular burn, while others don't. This time is directly proportional towards development. I think that Jazz Brass feel the financial side to all of this needs to take precedence over the immediate development and returns from the players on the roster. The Jazz gave good minutes to a solid player (Shandon Anderson) as a rookie, and eventually left the team, the Jazz get nothing in the long term for it. The Jazz gave good minutes to a very talented player (Andrei Kirilenko), and end up having to really over-pay to keep him on the team. The Jazz don't want to get into anything like that again, and now underplay most guys during the span of their rookie contracts, so they they do not have to over-pay.

C.J., only after the Jazz matched an offer he got from another team, is finally getting playing time -- but as a 4th year guard with the potential that he had when he was drafted, he is behind where he should be. They seem to be guilty of doing that with Almond and Fesenko by not playing them in the NBA, nor allowing them to rack up stats in the D-League . . . which would have been a great way to audition for other teams during contract years -- or you know, actually get better and be able to help OUR team.

Some Jazz apologists feel like the practices the Jazz have are of greater value to a younger player than actually playing in the development league, or even playing in the NBA on poorer quality teams. I think that this is a very haughty thing to say . . . especially with how closely the Jazz *can* keep an eye on things with their development team being only a few miles away and the coach of that team is related to Jerry Sloan -- it almost seems like a no-brainer to send the kids down at least once each when none of them are even on the active roster with the Jazz. They threw C.J. a bone once by doing that, by giving him a chance to play, and that improved his morale. Why not do the same for a younger player this season? Sloan even goes out to harp on how great the D-League is, and how he wishes they had that when he first came into the league. If it's so great, why not use it, now that the rest of the guys are healthy?

As for how great the Jazz practices are . . . they rarely get a chance to practice on the road (they only practice on days off, and now at the end of the season, with the playoffs coming up, there may be less than the regular number of practices on off-days), so the younglings are getting even less time to improve than normal. This clearly is the case where the GM, at the behest of saving the team owner money, works with the coaches to screw the players out of money / job satisfaction. Or maybe that's by design, especially in their contract years?

Flashback Friday: "WE'RE GOING STREAKING!"

If you're between the ages of 12 and 40, and are a man living in Western society, you should know what I mean. Though, if you don't, there's this video: (totally not safe for work due to full-rear male nudity and frank talk of boudoir activities) (upon further inspection possibly not work safe for another reason: Leah Remini)

Why am I even blogging about this? Well . . . it's because the Utah Jazz are going streaking right now. The Jazz are on the precipice of a 10 game win streak, Frank the Tank would be proud, so would Frank Layden.

In the history of the franchise the team has won 10 games straight only 8 times before:

• 10 in a row during the 1977-1978 season;
• 10 in a row during the 1993-1994 season;
• 14 in 1994-1995 [an even more amazing 23-2 at one stretch];
• 15 TWICE during the 1996-1997 season;
• 10 games in a row during the 1997-1998 season;
• 11 games in a row during the 1998-1999 season;
• and most recently last season, 10 games in 2007-2008

Honorable mention goes out to the 1983-1984 Utah Jazz that only won 8 games in a row, but managed to go 13-1 during a stretch of the season (and followed that up with a 16-3 stretch). The Jazz play the Denver Nuggets tonight and can make it the 9th time in franchise history. If they win, it's great. If they lose, they join the 1989-1990 and 1999-2000 Utah Jazz teams with only 9 wins in a row. The average (over the 35 year history of the franchise) largest win streak in any given season is only 7 games -- a pretty high number, but it could be much higher if it wasn't for those early years where the longest win streaks were only 2-4 games long (4 of the first 10 seasons were like this).

In previous seasons (especially those dominant years of Stockton to Malone back in the mid to late 90s) these streaks included complete road trips against playoff teams, and beating Western powers at home. This streak, admittedly, has been a little different. Sure, this streak happened during the tail end of a difficult period in terms of injuries *and* this streak included wins over the World Champion Boston Celtics, the Los Angeles Lakers and the very respectable New Orleans Hornets -- but as many in the blogosphere will tell you, this streak isn't anything to be too happy about. Simply put, these were all games the Jazz were supposed to win. (This is an obtuse statement, how many people really thought that the Jazz would beat the invincible Lakers *and* Celtics? These were not all games the Jazz were supposed to win.)

That said, you still have to win the games, and the Jazz have done that (for the most part, the streak would be 13 wins in a row if they took care of business on the road in Oakland back on February 8th). As a result, I think that this is a pretty big deal . . . it's hard to win 5 games in a row (the Phoenix Suns have yet to do that this season, and they have at least THREE of HOF guys on their roster: Shaq, Nash and Grant Hill), but to win 10 would be awesome.

During this streak the Jazz have played only three games against 'bad' teams. While some may point to those games against Memphis, Minnesota and Sacramento as reasons not to hype up this streak, let's not forget that the Jazz won those three games by an average of 16 points. So they blew out bad teams during this streak, they didn't just scrape by. They also beat title contenders when the Jazz were missing key guys to injuries during this current win streak. The Jazz (playing without top scorer and rebounder Carlos Boozer) were able to beat both the Boston Celtics and New Orleans Hornets. Furthermore the Jazz defeated the mighty LA Lakers without Boozer, Andrei Kirilenko nor Brevin Knight. So the Jazz beat some great teams while they themselves were not healthy.

Others contend still that since a majority of these games have been at home (and scheduled in 'favor' of the Jazz) that these wins shouldn't count. If that's the case, then I propose that you throw out all the losses the Jazz 'earned' on their poorly scheduled road trips as well. Either the schedule is a factor that absolves teams of some losses (and takes away some wins); or the schedule eventually evens out over the course of a season and all wins (and losses) are created equal. Which is it? I'm going for equality.

Hence, this streak is legit . . . especially since this streak isn't just for the sake of winning games, but also evocative of a greater improvement of play by the Jazz. It wasn't but a few weeks ago that the Denver Nuggets were up 6.5 games on the Jazz for the division lead. In what appears to be the blink of an eye the Jazz are now poised to close the gap with the Nuggets for the division lead. A win tonight against the Denver Nuggets will do more than just consummate a 10 game win streak (#9 in franchise history), but also send a message to the rest of the West that the Jazz are going to be major players the rest of the way. The schedule for the rest of this month isn't horrible, and as a result, some would wish for the streak to go to 15 maybe . . . though I'd be happy with 10 right now.

Go Jazz Go!

The Jedi Voodoo Mind Trick Hype Machine

It should come as no surprise that after the Jazz started to get a) some of their injured guys back, and b) allowed some of their banged up guys (who were still playing) to get well again that c) the Jazz would start to win some games. Similarly so, people all over the world would start lauding Utah again. This has been par for the course over the last few seasons. In the 2004-2005 season the Jazz won only 26 games. Why? Not because of any extra-ordinary amount of 'suck', but because of injuries. (AK and Booz were out almost all of the season EACH) The next year -- when healthy -- the Jazz almost made the playoffs. End result: people started to talk about the Jazz. Since that time, the Jazz have increased their wins in each of the successive seasons. Alas, it would be folly to suggest that the Jazz did better when they weren't flying under the radar.

They do. A small market team that no one likes tends to band together better with the 'us against the world' attitude that happens with multiple all-star snubs, and poor projected win numbers. When everyone is flying high with the Jazz bad things happen. (After all, that 2004-2005 season where the Jazz won only 26 games was supposed to be a big win season according to ESPN.com, they had improved themselves the most over the off-season in their power rankings) Perhaps being disregarded early (due to poor playing in December and January each season) helps the team mentally get ready to "show everyone" that they were wrong for counting out the Jazz.

After all, no one was talking Jazz at the All-Star breaks the last few seasons (except for last season maybe), but each time the team is able to have spectacular runs in the final 30 games of the season and have won their division twice in a row. The mental edge that some of our players hone due to being passed over may not be so sharp right now when everyone and their grandmother is counting the Jazz in this time around.

Hollinger, of ESPN.com, once suggested that the Jazz would be the team to watch in 2009. Even after the season of injuries that the Jazz have suffered so far, he contends that the Jazz can still win the division. Mark Stein, also of ESPN.com, moved the Jazz up to 9th best in the league in his power rankings, and in his chat later on this week suggested that he should have moved then up to 7th best.  Chad Ford, again, ESPN.com, chimed in yesterday that when healthy "the Jazz . . . are the Lakers biggest competition in the West." Skeets and Tas over at TheBasketballJones suggest that the Jazz *are* this good, and only injuries got in the way.

As nice as all of this sounds, even the most vocal, yet highly respected, detractors of the Jazz have gotten on the respect wagon of late. AOL's NBA Fanhouse could be my browser homepage, their contributors get the news out from all over the league onto the net almost faster than anyone else. They recently had a roundtable discussion on the Jazz, and anyone who knows their writers knows not to expect glowing reviews. Matt Moore has contested for quite a long time that the Jazz are paper tigers. [fair enough...] He, however, did recant somewhat on his own blog, the amazing Hardwood Paroxysm, with his post "In the interest of fairness". (SLCDunk.com quoted MM yesterday on his LHM tribute) Moore even suggests that reading the comments in the Fanhouse roundtable elicited him to dig a little deeper.

"But I read the comments on our round table today, which featured an amazing combination of actually lucid, intelligent commenters, and I realized that I just didn’t fully give the story."

I'm guessing he wasn't talking about the comment calling everyone a moron, but perhaps maybe this one started things off. That "Doc A" guy sounds really smart. Now only if he had a blog that he could post his thoughts on . . . one that properly formatted itself depending on the browser settings of the viewer . . . grrrr. [For those who didn't get it, I'm "Doc A"] Tom Ziller (you should know who this guy is if you like reading basketball on the internet) goes where no one else has gone before and even suggests that we should, collectively, "Fear the Utah Jazz".

The recent love for the Jazz extends beyond the reaches of ESPN.com's columnists or bloggers . . . Kenny Smith (who has two rings), despite not being able to pronounce Deron Williams' name, goes out and heaps praise on our, small market team. Charley Rosen, Phil Jackson's butt buddy, is an opinionated old coot whose analysis of games is limited to whatever game is on cable TV that month. Dude doesn't even go to games. Essentially, if you look past his mediocre success as an assistant coach in the CBA he has no greater insight into the game than anyone else with a remote control and a laptop. This week he found it within his back heart to say something nice about our players -- one in particular -- the same one that Kenny Smith can't pronounce despite covering him for at least two rounds in each of the last two playoffs. All of this must sound great if you are a Jazz fan, right? On one hand it either shows that the world at large is a) respecting our team, or b) had their head so far up their sigmoid colon that they merely overlooked the Jazz and their lower seed record as evidence that the Jazz were just a bad team. I don't particularly find much comfort in either answer.

The Jazz don't do well with hype. You can look back and see what happened in that eventful 2004-2005 season, or look farther back at what happened in the 1998-1999 playoffs . . . or still farther back to one of those 5 first round exists during the early Stockton & Malone era after looking so good at such a young age by taking the Lakers to 7 games in 1987-1988. Hype can dull the edge, or worse, completely remove the chip off of the shoulders of our hungrier players. By giving the Jazz too much hype, perhaps, our expectations for them will never be attainable? Partly because of our expectations, but alternatively, also due to the hype removing some of the focused insanity that motivates people when they feel disrespected. Utah needs all the focus they can get, just look at their road record vs. under .500 teams . . . they don't play well unless they feel like they have something to prove.

So please, for the sake of the Jazz, don't hype them.

The King is dead. Love live the King!

Recent events have forced my hand, and I can no longer remain silent. We are all hurting right now. A season filled with injury (no need to elaborate) and insult (lack of recognition from the NBA family, especially during all-star weekend) just got worse. Larry H. Miller died yesterday. Typing the words makes my heart ache and fingers feel ashamed for even punching in the string of offending letters that spells such a statement. Earlier this year Larry was in bad shape, and back when I blogged about it (back when I was a frequent blogger) I even suggested that he was not out of the woods yet. ("after all, 'you know this guy' could have very well become 'you knew this guy' . . . ") It really does pain me that he is gone.

Not just on a Jazz fan level, but on a personal level. While I've never been a Utahn, never been a part of his church, or driven a car from a dealership he owned . . . I am at quite a loss right now. He was on my list of people that I wanted to meet once in my life, and now that will never happen. (For the record, I could easily live without having ever met Stockton, Malone or Sloan in my life)

Larry was different. He was a team owner, and a self-made business man (he used to sell auto parts door to door apparently, and last season generated $3 billion in revenues from his various businesses), but he was a fan first. He had walked the lonely road, and followed his conscience in his endeavors. He wasn't a rich old man chasing girls younger than his grand daughters. He wasn't an over night Internet billionaire who did not work a day in his life. He was the type of man who against logic and sound business sense would be loyal to his initial investments and make them worth the time and blood and effort he put into them.

Some casual people look at the Jazz and see an old school franchise. Their coach, Jerry Sloan, is old school. John Stockton's shorts are old school. They work the ball for layups, that's old school. Well, they were old school from top to down because Larry was old school. He did not cut an run when things went bad. He didn't need any stimulus package because he knew the value of hard work. More than just a hard working, self-made business man he was an even better human being. Sure, his values were conservative (why is this almost automatically a negative adjective today?) but he was more than just a rich old man. I couldn't even begin to list all of good things he did for the community, and the state of Utah, in his life time. Nor am I the right person to do that. What I can do is relate some of my favorite Larry H. Miller stories:

• I remember an incident that occurred early in Karl Malone's rookie season. When Malone arrived in Utah he did not know anyone. One night (which probably led to many nights over the years) he was visiting with the team owner. [How often does this happen? How amazing is it that Miller was even accessible to his most wet behind the ears employee?] Somehow, perhaps after dinner, Miller was driving Malone back to his apartment. Instead they were having such a deep conversation on the way back that Larry pulled into a Wendy's parking lot and they just stayed there, talking for over three hours. Both emotional men talked about their demons, what motivated them, and about life. That night a rotund Mormon business man and a large African American athlete from the south bared their souls to each other and forged a relationship that has lasted the rest of Miller's life. They both laughed, cried (anyone familiar with either individual knows that this is the truth) and a team owner was able to connect with one of his players on a level seldom achieved in professional sports. Karl and Larry have been family ever since, Malone even mentioned on TNT when he was on that he was going to go see Larry shortly. I hope for Malone's sake that he did -- otherwise it would be something Malone would beat himself up over for the rest of his life. [For the record, Malone did see Miller at least as recently as last August]
• Larry did not play favorites though, back in the 1993-1994 season the Jazz were playing the Denver Nuggets in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Malone was having a particularly poor game and killing his own team. Miller -- a Jazz fan first and owner second -- moved out of the stands to personally instruct Sloan to bench Malone. Not to belabor the point, but I'm pretty sure the Lakers owner (Dr. Jerry Buss) isn't even clinically aware of when his team is playing, let alone if it's a home or road game. Larry was a much more hands on coach, but not obnoxiously so.
• Larry took the time to understand and befriend all of his players -- though some more than others. While Deron Williams has only been in the league for 4 seasons, they have known each other well enough to call each other "friends," (ESPN.com, 2009). Miller even admitted that he does not relish playing against Deron in anything, but it's a challenge he does not shy away from. Why? Because they are both super competitive people -- but while Larry can be a gracious winner, Deron is not satisfied being named victor unless someone loses. What other team owner knows these personality quirks of his players?
• He also befriended the SLC media where he even had a frequent (monthly? weekly? I don't even remember anymore as I don't get to listen to the radio over the Internet that frequently anymore) radio address on a local sport talk radio station, 1320 KFan. From those radio address I was able to learn much more about Larry, and where I became a huge fan of his.

Miller, though, was much more than just a Utah Jazz guy, or a Utah guy. He was an NBA guy. Miller was one of the instrumental players who was able to negotiate an end to the NBA Player's Association lockout back in the 1998-1999 season. If you are a fan of the NBA product you have Miller partly to thank for that -- regardless if you love or hate the Utah Jazz franchise. If you do love the Jazz, then you have so much to thank for, for this is the guy who was instrumental in making NBA basketball a possibility all these years in such a small market.

So today is the first day in my life as a Jazz fan where Miller isn't a part of the team. And it still hurts. It hurts his family. It hurts the players. It hurts the Jazz community. It hurts the Utah community at large. It hurts all around. Miller is survived with the new face of the franchise, his wife Gail; the Jazz brass (see sidebar at right) -- particularly his eldest son Greg; and a legion of loyal Jazz fans hungry to cheer on the Jazz to bring Larry his first NBA title.

The King is dead. Long live the King!

Please be sure to visit the other great Jazz blogs for their awesome posts on this subject. Together we can heal and console each other. Right now is the time for the Jazz Family to circle the wagons and take solace in the fact that it is always darkest before the dawn returns. SLC Dunk | True Blue Jazz | The Cowhide Globe

The Five Epic Qualities of Jerry Eugene Sloan

An eternity ago I wrote about The Five Epic Errors of Jerry Eugene Sloan. There were a variety of reactions to that article, some in agreement, others in argument -- ultimately though I think it was a pretty interesting take on things. Jerry isn't perfect -- and the points I made way back in September seem to elucidate that point quite nicely. That said . . . there are very few coaches that I'd want to be the coach of my team (the Jazz), and I can't really think of any off the top of my head. (Maybe Lenny Wilkins? Maybe not . . . no, definitely not.) It's not all bad with Jerry, in fact, there is a lot of good out there. Here are just five:

Photographed by David Zalubowski for AP Photo

1. He's a no nonsense guy:

Jerry is a straight shooter. He tells it like it is. If his team gets beat on the glass he'll say it like it is. If he messes up, he'll own up to it. If he wants a player to do something, he'll try to communicate it. Jerry probably doesn't think himself to be 'smart enough' to be any other way but humble, direct and honest. He may miss out on some of the cerebral mind games that some other coaches play (against their own rosters as much as they play it against the media and refs) like Phil Jackson. (Btw, he's not zen. That's bullshit. Really, stop calling him the zenmaster. Zen Buddhism isn't about making $10 Million dollars per year, possessions are fleeting . . . but he wouldn't know that, because he's a fraud) Anyway, back to Jerry . . . Sloan isn't going to be all smug and cryptic all the time, and then whine to the media in post game interviews about the other team.

I remember reading an interview of Jackson's years ago when he was first coaching the Lakers -- they lost a game and he blamed the loss on everything from his players injuries, the crowd noise, the pre-game festivities, to refs, the style of play, and on the fouls not called -- he basically blamed the loss on everything BUT the other team doing things well.

That's just a sore loser to me.

Jerry may not have any Coach of the Year awards, or coached any team that's won a ring, but when he does lose, he does it graciously as he's a no nonsense guy. Even better than Jackson, he also wins with humility, and he tries to treat his players fairly (which is subjective). Maybe a more touchy-feely coach would have been able to coax more out of the Ostertags and Giriceks that Sloan has had to coach . . . but that's just not Jerry's strong suit.

2. Jerry fights for his players:

One of his strong suits is that he'll never throw his players under the bus (or, you know, write a book about a particularly difficult season, airing out all the secret details without his players' consent and laugh all the way to the bank while talking trash about his meal tickets). Jerry does the exact opposite, as he's frequently ejected from games because he cares so much about his players. What does Phil Jackson do? He sits with his legs crossed in a chair all game long and occasionally whistles at his players. That's inspiring. Jerry Sloan gets into it with refs when he feels like his players are getting the short end of the stick.

Players are going to be willing to fight if they see how hard their coach his fighting. Very rarely do the Jazz lose games (to the best of my memory) that Sloan is thrown out of, they tend the get fired up and play harder. Not to make this one of those really weepy eyed, inspirational deals . . . I can see Sloan making a Tony D'Amato type of speech while Phil Jackson would be reading a poem about rabbits and hoping that his talented roster does all the work.

Jerry Sloan was a fighter as a player, and as a coach he is responsible for taking care of his team out there. It's not the place of the players to really talk to the refs, but it's the Head Coach's duty to do so when he feels like his guys are getting the screwjob. I'd rather have a coach who actually reacted to the game than one who sat down and did a Sudoku puzzle.

3. Superb game to game adjustments:

I mentioned this in the other write-up, but I honestly don't see the Jazz getting beat the same way more than once, unless in the rare cases that the are playing a team that just has our number (like the Minnesota Timberwolves or Portland Trailblazers last season), or one really unstoppable guy (Kobe Bryant). There's one good reason why we don't get beat the same way often -- it's because Sloan (and his staff) make really good adjustments in-between games. Sloan does his homework, and his vast experience makes it a bit easier to see patterns and develop strategies. He's a very under-rated X's and O's guy -- people talk about Rick Pitino knowing about shooting range and shooting percentage ratios. Pitino was a horrible NBA coach though, and didn't do anything in the league. Partly because he relied a little too much on the three point shot.

Sloan, on the other hand, doesn't rely on anything except rebounding, hustling on defense, and playing fundamentally sound basketball -- especially on offense (layups are emphasized, one on one play and three pointers are not).

4. Fundamentals aren't just buzzwords with him:

Frankly, this is one of the reasons why the Jazz have won so many games under Sloan (closing in on 1000 with the Jazz). If you don't box out your man he'll replace you with someone who will. If you don't run the plays, you'll sit on the bench. There are really three components of Jerry's offense: move the ball around for a layup, get to the foul line, don't try to be a hero -- pass the ball instead of taking a contested shot. There are really three components of Jerry's defense: funnel guards into bigmen, don't leave shooters open, don't foul jump shooters. This is pure, distilled fundamental basketball that can be applied to grade school ball all the way up to the NBA.

Some coaches play lip service to fundamentals, and when the game starts, their players play some undisciplined monkey ball, or alternatively, the game plan shifts to a series of gimmicks . . . like posting up their PF at the three point line (like what Avery had Dirk do instead of posting him up near the basket), or just relying on one player to do everything for his team, and have no real plays or anything ("Chris Paul -- go dribble a lot, and when the defense collapses on you, pass to an open guy. Do this 40 times a game! Go!" -- Byron Scott). Is it any wonder that teams coached by those types of players rarely impress in the post season?

If you play fundamentally sound basketball your team has a chance to win -- regardless of the make up of the roster, or how many super star calls you get. He almost made the playoffs with Carlos Arroyo and Ben Handlogten. Phil Jax would have retired that season because he didn't have any top 2 players on his team. (Seriously Phil, take a chance on your coaching ability and actually coach a team instead of relying on your player's star power . . . remember what it was like when you got beat by Detroit and Boston in the finals the last few seasons? Those teams were coached... yours was on autopilot after having the West given to you on a platter.)

5. Expects you to leave it all on the floor

He may hate you in a game, but off the court, he may be one of your staunchest supporters -- Jerry Sloan was this way with Greg Ostertag. All he wants is your best effort -- which is why he rewards players that play hard. (Like the Adam Keefe's of the world) Why is Jerry so hung up about effort? Probably because he knows that's what got him where he is today -- and if a simple farm boy from southern Illinois can be an NBA All-Star and make it in the NBA that anyone can (well, most gifted athletes that make up current NBA rosters) if they work hard enough. He can't do it for his team, but he can try to make his team work hard, so that they can do it for themselves. His teams can do it for themselves if they work hard.

Simple, huh?

Now watch this video of Al Pacino showing us how to inspire professional athletes/professional actors playing professional athletes. It's not just because it's a good scene, but I'm sure there's a lot of Jerry in this scene . . . especially the part about the guy who's willing to die being the one who's going to come out alive. Sloan's not a perfect coach, but just like how I ended the critical article, I still feel like there is no other coach I'd want to coach the Jazz this season.

His faults are still faults, and his propensity to make people have to earn it when they are clearly better can be a problem at times -- but really, aren't you happy that Jerry coaches the Jazz, and not that smarmy, self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual Phil Jackson?

I know I am.