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!

Charlie Rosen sez: 'D-Will > CP3'

Don't know how I feel about this one . . . I'm not a fan of Rosen, but he does make statements that I tend to personally believe to be significant factors in the long run. Only time will tell though . . .

Carlos Boozer to English Dictionary -- Episode 1

Communication is essential in all group efforts; it doesn't matter if you work at a pizza parlor or a professional sports team -- if your communication skills are lacking then you may actually hurt your team. Carlos Boozer, I've come to believe, speaks his own language. How else can you justify his comments to the press and his in-game chatter? As a result I've taken it upon myself to translate some of what he says into what it means. Here's the first batch, enjoy!

5. "My _______ (injured body part) is fine. I'm ready to play!" Situation: Any given interview with Carlos Boozer that discusses his injury du jour. What this means:

"I'm so unbelievably brittle that at times I can make Tracy McGrady look like Cal Ripken Jr. I fully expect that ______ (injured body part) will never, ever heal, or will be surgically removed in the next few days. The pain I feel is a deep as an ocean. An ocean of pain, if you will. I will never admit that I am going to miss months of action for fear that it may interfere with any potential trades and/or my current contract year aspirations of becoming even more wealthy. In conclusion: don't hold your breath for me to return from my injury."

Example: Pretty much every few months / planned Boozer family vacations during the year.

 

 

4. "Memo!!! Get it!!" / "Memo!!! Grab it!!" Situation: Utah Jazz players are on defense and Carlos Boozer has just been beaten by his man, or failed to box out his man, or is himself boxed out and cannot effectively defend the play. There are several variations on this, depending on the in-game situation, for example, sometimes he says "AK!!!! Get it!!" instead of "Memo!!! Get it!!!" What this means:

"Memo! I suck at defense, grab the rebound before the other team gets it / rotate and end up fouling my man -- whom I was unable to stay in front of, yet did not wish to foul on my own!"

Example: Almost every game.

 

 

3. "And one!" Situation: Carlos Boozer, or any other Utah Jazz player has just taken a shot in the paint. This is proclaimed at all times: shot goes in, shot doesn't go in, ref calls a foul, ref does not call a foul, there is actually no foul, or there was a legit foul on the play. What this means:

"I wish to suggest strongly that I (or Jazz player who took the shot) was fouled, yet we still were good enough to score -- and I will continue saying this even in the event that the ref does call the foul, or in the event that the ball has no chance to go into the hoop. I'm so good at saying "And One!" that they should be counted as assists."

Example: Boozer scoring against the Golden State Warriors . . . this one is actually an example where the ball goes in, but if you watch as many Jazz games as I do, you know that the ball going in (or an actual foul being committed) is not a prerequisite for this exclamation.

 

2. "Rrraaaaghghaghghahghhhh!" Situation: Any play where Carlos Boozer exerts himself beyond the breaking point of any lesser man, or mortal who ever lived. This can be a tough rebound, a hard finish, or alternatively, whenever Boozer shoots a free throw that so obviously has no chance of going in, that he is forced to deflect some of the attention from the shot to the large man making noises at the free throw line. What this means:

"Hey! Everybody! Don't look at my horrible shot, look at me! I'm really sorry for missing, I usually make them, gimme another try! I can make animal noises!"

Example: A few highlight plays every game, or, 30.3% of his free throw attempts.

 

 

1. "Oohh! SH*T!!!" Situation: Carlos Boozer just committed an in-game infraction or otherwise made a bad play / is unable to react to a disadvantageous situation in any meaningful way except to announce that something bad just happened. What this means:

"Something bad just happened."

Example: Just watch this video of Chuck Hayes (of the Houston Rockets) shooting free throws . . .

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!

How is Gasol the Player of the Month?

Okay, Pau Gasol is a great flipping 2nd option. On Kobe's team he was able to chip in 20.9 ppg (58.6 fg%) and 10.9 rpg. Kobe's Lakers went 11-2 this last month of February. Gasol was named Western Conference Player of the Month. The Jazz went 10-1 in that same month, and Deron Williams (not the second banana on his team, and playing without starters during the month due to injuries) averaged 23.2 ppg (51.2 fg%, 87.1 ft%, and averages a made three for each game), 10.9 apg, 2.9 rpg and 0.9 spg. Deron also led his team to wins over Pau's Kobe's LA Lakers, the defending World Champion Boston Celtics, and ESPN's not-so-secret crush's New Orleans Hornets -- all in the same month.

So . . . better records . . . better stats . . . played on team filled with injuries = Kobe's cabana boy gets PotM?

Thanks NBA. You stay classy.

p.s. I know Sloan won Coach of the Month . . . but really, this is not something that even is worthy of debate.

Forward March!

The Utah Jazz finished February with their best record in franchise history: 10-1. It was a spectacular month filled with victories over the likes of the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, New Orleans Hornets and playoff teams from both conferences. As good as February was, January was a travesty where the Jazz limped to a 7-8 record. There are only 23 games left in the regular schedule -- and only 23 games left for the Jazz to make any solid moves up in the standings. March sees the Jazz playing in 15 games, and April has the Jazz playing in 8 regular season games. They are on the road 14 times, and at home only 9 times.

The major problem I can see, when looking over the schedule, is that fatigue is really going to set in late. Hopefully this is the case with all of the teams in the running for the playoffs -- but the Jazz have a particularly tough task. First of all, there's another extended Eastern Conference road trip that needs to happen, one that will span 8 days, and have the Jazz playing 5 times. (we already know how poor the Jazz are on the road, and how poor they are against the East . . .) The Jazz will face off against Toronto, Indiana, Atlanta, Miami and Orlando. The games against Atlanta and Orlando are both the 2nd night of back to back sets; furthermore, the game against Atlanta would be the 3rd game in 4 nights. If the Jazz win three out of those five games I'll be bouncing off the walls.

The second, and perhaps larger, problem is the cumulative effect of all of these games. The Jazz play 8 back to back sets still. (15 of our last 23 games are either the first or second game of a back to back set, or 70%) If that was not enough, 9 of these last 23 games will be the 3rd game in 4 nights for the Jazz. (@ Atlanta, vs. Washington, @ Portland, @ Denver, vs. Minnesota, @ New Orleans, vs. Golden State, vs. LA Clippers, @ LA Lakers) Do any of those look like important games to win? I see a few there.

The largest obstacle will be around the end of March and the beginning of April where the Jazz will play Houston at home, then the next night fly to Phoenix to take on the Suns. Two days later the Jazz face the Suns at home. I don't know the exact injury situation with Phoenix, but as far as I can tell, they will either be in full tank mode, or swing for the fences mode. The next week the Jazz will face the Knicks at home, then fly the next night to play the Blazers -- one of the previously mentioned 3rd game in 4 nights sets. This will be the last game of March, and it goes all downhill from there. The Jazz then fly over to Denver to play the first game of a back to back set, which is also the 3rd game in 4 nights, and yes, the 5th game in 6 nights. How often do you get the 5th game in 7 nights? Very rarely, but only when you play a game the very next night, at home against Minnesota, that's the second night of a back to back, and ultimately, the 6th game in 7 nights. Yes, this is how the Jazz start off April -- playing 6 times in a week, with one of our last remaining 'gimmie' games at home against a non-playoff team being scheduled at the worst possible time. [EDIT: This is incorrect, the Jazz game vs. the Timberwolves will be the 5th game in 7 nights, not 6th in 7]

To add insult to injury, the Jazz play again, on the road in New Orleans on that Sunday, a single game that does not look too hard, but will be the 3rd game in 4 nights, and the 4th game in 6 games, 5th game in 7. The Jazz will have a needed two day rest, and then finish the last 5 games of the seasons @ Dallas, @ San Antonio, vs. Golden State (2nd game in a back to back set, 3rd game in 4 nights), vs. the LA Clippers (3rd game in 4 nights), and then on the road to face the LA Lakers (2nd night in a back to back set, 3rd game in 4 nights).

I really pray that this is the case for all teams right now, and that everyone will be equally tired to finish the season. The Jazz play against a Top 10 team in the Western Conference 13 times (out of 15 remaining Western Conference games) to finish the season. The Jazz are shaky on the road . . . hopefully Boozer will be full of energy from that mid-season holiday he took.

Just because I am insane, here it all is in chart form:

	Game	Opponent	Location	Date	Conf.	Playoff Team	Part of B2B Set?	Other:
March	1	Golden State	Road	March 1	West		2nd game
	2	Houston	Home	March 4	West	Yes		Season series 0-2
	3	Denver	Home	March 6	West	Yes		Season series 1-1
	4	Toronto	Road	March 8	East
	5	Indiana	Road	March 10	East		1st game
	6	Atlanta	Road	March 11	East	Yes	2nd game	3rd game in 4
	7	Miami	Road	March 14	East	Yes	1st game
	8	Orlando	Road	March 15	East	Yes	2nd game
	9	Washington	Home	March 17	East			3rd game in 4
	10	Oklahoma City	Road	March 20	West
	11	Houston	Home	March 24	West	Yes	1st game
	12	Phoenix	Road	March 25	West	?	2nd game	Season series 1-1
	13	Phoenix	Home	March 28	West	?
	14	New York	Home	March 30	East		1st game	Last game vs. East until Finals
	15	Portland	Road	March 31	West	Yes	2nd game	3rd game in 4
April	16	Denver	Road	April 2	West	Yes	1st game	3rd game in 4 4th game in 6
	17	Minnesota	Home	April 3	West		2nd game	3rd game in 4 4th game in 5 5th game in 7
	18	New Orleans	Road	April 5	West	Yes		3rd game in 4 4th game in 6 5th game in 7
	19	Dallas	Road	April 8	West	Yes
	20	San Antonio	Road	April 10	West	Yes	1st game
	21	Golden State	Home	April 11	West		2nd game	3rd game in 4
	22	LA Clippers	Home	April 13	West		1st game	3rd game in 4
	23	LA Lakers	Road	April 14	West	Yes	2nd game	3rd game in 4 4th game in 5

The Jazz are currently sitting at 36-23, and need 14 games to win 50 for the season. ESPN.com predicted that the Jazz would win 51 games -- a number that I thought was ridiculously low back in Pre-Season. I was so bold as to suggest that the Jazz would finish the season (including playoffs) with 65 wins this year. The last two seasons the Jazz won 60 games total (2006-2007: 51 regular season, 9 playoffs; 2007-2008: 54 regular season, 6 playoffs) -- so I felt like a 5 game improvement wouldn't be that far out of the realm of possibility. For my statement to be true (65 wins), and let's assume the Jazz win 6 playoff games (2nd round exit) the Jazz will need to win each of these last 23 games. As much as that would be awesome, I just don't see it happening. (In my defense, though, I could not know that the Jazz would miss over 150 man games to injury this year)

Instead of doing the whole 'poke holes into my ability to gauge how well my team can win games' game, let's move forward . . . into March. The Jazz have momentum right now, having won 7 games straight, 9 in a row at home, and 10 of their last 11. They need to keep it going, or else they may end up facing San Antonio or the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs. I'd take the Jazz' chances in the first round against any of the other teams in the West (Denver, Houston, Portland, New Orleans, Dallas, Phoenix), even without home court. The Playoff Push all starts tonight on the road to the Golden State Warriors -- who killed us last time we played them.

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.