# Could this be Typical Jazz Slide?



## HighNDry

Jazz ended their winning streak last night when lowly Hawks swooped in and made the Jazz look pathetic.

It is about that time in the season when the typical slide occurs. Could this be the beginning of a slide to keep the Jazz out of the playoffs?


----------



## 3arabians

Embarrassing loss indeed. I think their next game at Dallas will tell us a lot. Schedule is not nice with games at San Antonio and Golden State then home vs Boston. Things could snowball quickly if they dont get a win at Dallas. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

As their coach said last night after the game. "We just couldn't make a basket"

Sometimes that happens to even the best of teams. Usually just one or two players go cold but when the whole team goes cold a game like last night can be expected.

We need to wait for a few more games to put the lid on the coffin.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I think the Jazz will make the playoffs and believe they could move to the 5 seed. I think you can put a fork in them, though, if they don't get above the 7 seed.


----------



## Kwalk3

Are we really talking about a slide after losing 3 games in the last 25? Asking for a friend.......

It was a bad loss, for sure. But I ain't jumpin' out any windows. I'll still be keeping my 5 year old up way past his bed time to watch the Jazz games out here on the east coast(League Pass is amazing.)

Regardless of the outcome of this season, this team has shown some serious grit, and I'm really excited about what they'll be able to put together over the next few years.


----------



## HighNDry

Kwalk3 said:


> Are we really talking about a slide after losing 3 games in the last 25? Asking for a friend.......
> 
> It was a bad loss, for sure. But I ain't jumpin' out any windows. I'll still be keeping my 5 year old up way past his bed time to watch the Jazz games out here on the east coast(League Pass is amazing.)
> 
> Regardless of the outcome of this season, this team has shown some serious grit, and I'm really excited about what they'll be able to put together over the next few years.


Unless some of the best players bail. Remember, Hayward said he loved it here, was loyal, was the future of the franchise until...


----------



## Critter

HighNDry said:


> Unless some of the best players bail. Remember, Hayward said he loved it here, was loyal, was the future of the franchise until...


He got offered more money.


----------



## Kwalk3

Gobert is under contract for a few years, Mitchell is in the 1st year of his Rookie deal and has been immediately impactful on a nightly basis. Ingles is also under contract along with Crowder, O'Neale, etc....

I've seen enough from Dennis Lindsey and the Jazz management that they'll be able to fill in the gaps around their centerpieces(Gobert and Mitchell). Whatever those two do at the end of their contracts is a different story, but that's kinda like me planning my funeral in my early 30's.

I'm growing tired of the comparisons to Hayward leaving. Water under the bridge now, and the dude wanted to play for his college coach. Each player makes decisions for different reasons.

I'm heartened that the Jazz have been so resilient this season after losing Hayward and are in a position to even be having the conversation about them starting to slide after they lost their 1st game in 10 tries(realize how ridiculous the OP is?). Things are looking bright. They could lose out from here and I still think they would have had a better year than I was anticipating at the beginning of the season.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Here's the thing: this year's version of the Jazz have been more entertaining to watch than any year the Jazz had with Hayward, and I wouldn't trade Mitchell for Hayward on any day of the week. So, combine the fact that the Jazz lost Hayward, were expected to see a serious decline in losses, and yet are right in the mix and could jump up to the 5 or even possibly 4 seed...well, I will take it and run! Reading about Hayward's rehab makes it even sweeter...


----------



## caddis8

For context, The Hawks own two of the wins against the Jazz in the last 25 or so games (maybe 26). The first win in Atlanta was a horrible loss. The only other loss they've had in 25 or 26 games was against Portland and they were in that game also. 

I read some good stuff the last couple of days and I think that rather than think about how bad the Hawks were, maybe the style that they play is tough for Jazz. They packed the key last night and made it very difficult to play the pick and roll. They shot poorly from 3 which is very atypical. Ingles has been money and he was off. Schroder was out of his mind, again atypical. I chalk it up to a bad match up and poor shooting, that happens. Even great teams have bad shooting nights. Or in baseball, even great pitchers throw a stinker occassionally. 

I don't think it's time to throw in the towel. Andy Larson from KSL had some good analysis on the rest of the season. Their opponents are beat up. They've beaten them in the last streak, so I think they're looking ok. They match up worse against Houston and Golden State. Anyone else, they're looking pretty good. So, hopefully they can get a 6 seed or higher. Their defense has been elite the last 30 games (really since Gobert has been back in earnest). I don't see that changing. 

Not predicting a finals appearance, but I think they could make it to the second or Western Conference finals depending on the seed they earn and the health of the team they're playing.


----------



## HighNDry

But what about the typical Jazz slide? The theory that players really don't want to play here. It's not a comparison it's a fact. Even the favored-child Malone tried to get out of Utah so he could get a ring in the end. It's the Jazz curse: when it starts to really count, you can count the Jazz out because the other teams step up. It happens every year.


----------



## Kwalk3

HighNDry said:


> But what about the typical Jazz slide? The theory that players really don't want to play here. It's not a comparison it's a fact. Even the favored-child Malone tried to get out of Utah so he could get a ring in the end. It's the Jazz curse: when it starts to really count, you can count the Jazz out because the other teams step up. It happens every year.


Again, I think this analysis is nonsensical given the Jazz recent successes. I think the guys on the team right now like playing here and in Snyder's system.

They may eventually leave, but why worry about that now? You seem to be projecting some kind of insecurity onto the players currently under contract. They haven't given any indication that they want to leave, and in my opinion have spoken more favorably of Utah than Gordon ever did.

You are speaking in generalities of the typical Jazz slide and talking about past players as if they are somehow remotely relevant to this specific iteration of the Utah Jazz. What Karl Malone did(after being loyal to the Jazz his ENTIRE career) or what Gordon did aren't particularly relevant to the current players or situation.

Additionally, this Jazz team is unique to all previous versions of the Jazz. If we think there is some superstition or curse that causes late season slides( of 1 SINGLE GAME) then I suppose we are at an impasse. If we want to talk about slides, lets talk about the slide in Nov-Dec, and how awesome it is that they climbed out of that.

This team is different. The system is different. The players are different. I don't concern myself much with some babble about the Jazz not performing well late in the season. What about last year? That may be a more apt comparison. Let's enjoy the ride, eh?

http://https://twitter.com/spidadmitchell/status/975860754766336005


----------



## caddis8

Basketball is a game of momentum. Baseball is also. Teams that are playing well in the end of the season are dangerous no matter the seed. Utah has been playing extremely well and I think is peaking at the right time. They have great role players (Jae Crowder in place of Hood is a huge defensive plus) and good core of players who are for the most part locked up (Favors being the exception). Favors has played well because he's healthy (and because he's a free agent).

I applaud the roster building and efforts of Dennis Lindsay. That the Jazz are in a relevant conversation about playoff consideration is a huge task- especially given the injury history at the beginning of the season with Gobert's knee issues. When he's out, Jazz aren't defensively tough. When he's on the floor, game changer. There's a couple of very good rotations that will give even great teams fits. 

Look at the defensive plus minus rating of the Jazz, it's a full 10 points lower than the next lowest team. That's not the last 4 games. That's the last 30 games. That's insane.


----------



## PBH

HighNDry said:


> Remember, Hayward said he loved it here, was loyal, was the future of the franchise until...


did he really do any of that?

What Hayward said while he was here, and what Mitchell has said this year are very different. Mitchell already understands how to win fans over off the court. Hayward won fans during the last half of his final year in Utah on the court. I don't think he ever tried to win our hearts off the court.

It is very evident that Mitchell is a special player. Will he stick around after his rookie deal is complete? I don't know. I hope so. At some point in time there is going to be a Jazz player that's going to walk past those statues in front of Vivint Arena and say "that's pretty cool. I want one of those...". Personally, I hope we get two (three?) more statues. Maybe one will be Mitchell? 
We could place it right next to Ingles!!


----------



## Kwalk3

PBH said:


> did he really do any of that?
> 
> What Hayward said while he was here, and what Mitchell has said this year are very different. Mitchell already understands how to win fans over off the court. Hayward won fans during the last half of his final year in Utah on the court. I don't think he ever tried to win our hearts off the court.
> 
> It is very evident that Mitchell is a special player. Will he stick around after his rookie deal is complete? I don't know. I hope so. At some point in time there is going to be a Jazz player that's going to walk past those statues in front of Vivint Arena and say "that's pretty cool. I want one of those...". Personally, I hope we get two (three?) more statues. Maybe one will be Mitchell?
> We could place it right next to Ingles!!


I'm not sure I've ever loved a Jazz player as much as I love Ingles! Talk about loyalty too? Anyone remember his comments last year when he was a free agent? He wasn't exactly clamoring to get out of here....


----------



## Catherder

I've enjoyed the recent winning streak and this years team as much as anyone, but last nights loss *did* hurt significantly. They are not out of the woods yet for even making the playoffs and San Antonio and OKC appear to have righted their ships. Denver and the Clippers won on the road tonight too. There is a lot of basketball to be played yet, but this loss very well could be the difference between a 5th and 8th seed. Also, while I wouldn't use the term typical "slide" yet, it is inevitable that the Jazz will at some point regress to the mean, especially on offense, as they have been having stretches of nearly unsustainable excellence on offense.

Defensively, I do believe they can sustain their current numbers and that should see them through to the playoffs, but I see them finishing 7th or 8th, and having a rough go with Houston or Golden State.


----------



## 3arabians

Good win last night vs a fiesty mavs team. Tonights game is a BIG one and will be fun to watch

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

Gawd.

I'm afraid this is very typical of the Jazz. They simply cannot stand to take advantage of opportunities. This is the second time the Jazz had the door wide open to a #5 seed....and they blow it.

I understand that Boston is good. But I cannot accept losing to a group of players that I've never heard of. I'm not saying they aren't good players....but my goodness...

Interesting stats on this loss:
only 1 Boston starter had a positive +/- rating.
3 Utah starters had a positive +/- rating. None of those 3 were named Gobert or Mitchell.
Utah's highest +/- played the fewest minutes (of the starters). Boston's highest +/- played the most minutes for Boston.
Utah did not score in the final 2:25. (that's something pretty common for past Utah teams...)

The difference in this matchup was the bench. Utah's bench was all negative in the +/-, while Boston had 3 out of 4 bench players positive -- and Shane Larkin was a +25!

We still have a good chance of dropping to the lottery.


----------



## Kwalk3

PBH said:


> Gawd.
> 
> I'm afraid this is very typical of the Jazz. They simply cannot stand to take advantage of opportunities. This is the second time the Jazz had the door wide open to a #5 seed....and they blow it.
> 
> I understand that Boston is good. But I cannot accept losing to a group of players that I've never heard of. I'm not saying they aren't good players....but my goodness...
> 
> Interesting stats on this loss:
> only 1 Boston starter had a positive +/- rating.
> 3 Utah starters had a positive +/- rating. None of those 3 were named Gobert or Mitchell.
> Utah's highest +/- played the fewest minutes (of the starters). Boston's highest +/- played the most minutes for Boston.
> Utah did not score in the final 2:25. (that's something pretty common for past Utah teams...)
> 
> The difference in this matchup was the bench. Utah's bench was all negative in the +/-, while Boston had 3 out of 4 bench players positive -- and Shane Larkin was a +25!
> 
> We still have a good chance of dropping to the lottery.


Was definitely a tough one to swallow. I was pretty bummed last night. I really really really wanted them to beat Boston.

Not sure why exum came out of the game. He seemed to provide a spark offensively with how well he gets to the bucket. He could attack the closeout when Boston was frustrating the jazz with their zone.

They could end up in the lottery, as you say. Conversely, they are still just a game out of the 5th seed. Razor thin margins this year.

I still think they've exceeded expectations this year and I'm hopeful for the future, in or out of the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians

The schedule down the stretch seems to favor the Jazz. The big game that jumped out at me is at Minnesota. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

3arabians said:


> The schedule down the stretch seems to favor the Jazz. The big game that jumped out at me is at Minnesota.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


@ Minnesota
Vs LA Clippers
Vs Golden State
@ Portland

Our schedule certainly does not favor the Jazz. The only hope down the stretch is that Golden State and Portland have nothing to play for, and allow their reserves some game time.

the good news with all of this is:
Baseball starts today.


----------



## HighNDry

The game last night was very telling: The Jazz are not as good as the fans think they are. For our starters to lose to the 2nd and 3rd tier players for Boston tells us the Jazz are just a middle of the PAC team at best. I didn't let the current win streak get to my head because it has always been the Jazz nature to lose when it really counts.

I bet Hayward gave the players a pep talk before coming to Utah letting them know the reasons he bailed. 

I'm glad Hayward didn't play--it would have been a real blowout then.

Slide in progress.


----------



## 3arabians

PBH said:


> @ Minnesota
> Vs LA Clippers
> Vs Golden State
> @ Portland
> 
> Our schedule certainly does not favor the Jazz. The only hope down the stretch is that Golden State and Portland have nothing to play for, and allow their reserves some game time.
> 
> the good news with all of this is:
> Baseball starts today.


If you look at the schedules of the teams in the hunt with jazz - spurs, clips, nugs, wolves, etc. I would say the jazz have the easier road. I would agree it will depend on golden state and portland resting players or not. With those being the last 2 games chances are good that they will be resting players.

The timberwolves game is huge.

However, if we continue to play like last night it doesnt matter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

HighNDry said:


> The game last night was very telling: The Jazz are not as good as the fans think they are. For our starters to lose to the 2nd and 3rd tier players for Boston tells us the Jazz are just a middle of the PAC team at best. I didn't let the current win streak get to my head because it has always been the Jazz nature to lose when it really counts.
> 
> I bet Hayward gave the players a pep talk before coming to Utah letting them know the reasons he bailed.
> 
> I'm glad Hayward didn't play--it would have been a real blowout then.
> 
> Slide in progress.


Holy cow man......No one is saying the Jazz are world-beaters. I haven't seen anyone here saying they were anything more than what they are this year. I personally didn't see the Jazz win streak as any indication that they had leap-frogged Portland, OKC, and GS as far as title contention. That doesn't diminish the fact that it was a special streak and they have played well with a few exceptions.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread talking of title contention. We are just hoping to make it into the playoffs. Which, given the hole they had to climb out of, would be awesome. They are a really good team, even without Hayward. They weren't better than the celtics last night, and thats unfortunate.

I don't really see this as a slide, as much as it is what Catherder mentioned, a regression to the mean.

Again, this team is a different team than all other iterations of the Jazz. They may lose out, but the superstitious losing when it counts stuff is nonsense. Enjoy the ride and hope they make the playoffs. I'm impressed that the team had the fight in them to get to where they are now.

Also, regarding the Hayward playing blowout comment: Remember when the Jazz were in the midst of their ACTUAL(not perceived) slide in Mid-December and they went into Boston and handled the celtics by double digits with Rudy only playing 2 minutes and Favors getting hurt too? Easy to forget when you're just trying to find something to be down on them for. Oh yeah, Kyrie, Tatum, Horford, etc. all played that game too.

I didn't think that game was indication of anything big picture, and the same goes for last night. Making grand inferences off of a single game isn't super beneficial. That's why the Jazz will probably play the rest of the games on their schedule I'd bet instead of hanging it up for the year.


----------



## 3arabians

Fighting the slide tonight! I was nervous. How about Exum? The guy has potential!

Minnesota barely escapes the mavs headed into the showdown on Sunday. Loses by the pelicans and thunder have us in a 4 way tie in the loss column for spots 5-8 and 1 game behind the spurs for the 4th seed and homecourt advantage (jazz hold tie breaker with spurs). 

Like Kwalk said. Nobody expects the jazz to win the championship. But they are fun to watch and they have the ability to surprise a lot of people this year. 

They also have the potential for the lottery this year. Big game on Sunday!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## BG1

Dang we’re so close! A few of those games we should have won we would be in 4th! So much better than I hoped for the season and I am actually in love with the Jazz for the first time in 23 years! Lots to look forward too and I’m quite greatful. Dante looks very promising also!


----------



## Kwalk3

Exum looked great!! He looked really confident tonight. It was strange that Memphis decided to lose in the middle of the game by not playing gasol at all in the 4th, but I'll take it. Wins are all that matter at this point, and they got one. 

I haven't enjoyed watching a team this much for a long time. As soon as this one was over I flipped to the Portland v. Clippers game to cheer for the clippers to lose. So many games that matter right now. Lots of fun.


----------



## 3arabians

Well that was a statement game!! I circled this one on the calendar a couple weeks ago. Didn't expect a jazz blowout. 

How about Stockton!? Good to see him out there playing with his hall of fame dads intensity in garbage time!! 🤣


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

3arabians said:


> Well that was a statement game!! I circled this one on the calendar a couple weeks ago. Didn't expect a jazz blowout.
> 
> How about Stockton!? Good to see him out there playing with his hall of fame dads intensity in garbage time!! &#129315;
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


This is one hell of a slide isn't it?


----------



## Kwalk3

3arabians said:


> Well that was a statement game!! I circled this one on the calendar a couple weeks ago. Didn't expect a jazz blowout.
> 
> How about Stockton!? Good to see him out there playing with his hall of fame dads intensity in garbage time!! &#129315;
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Some people don't like blowouts. I loved to see this tonight. Team ahead of us in the standings, and Ricky Rubio came out and played like a man tonight.

Exum, once again was really impressive with his speed and his ability to get to the rim at will. Oh yeah, and Donovan Mitchell added a quiet 20+ too. Just seems normal now, and that's crazy.

Man, it's fun when every game matters like this.


----------



## 3arabians

Kwalk3 said:


> Some people don't like blowouts. I loved to see this tonight. Team ahead of us in the standings, and Ricky Rubio came out and played like a man tonight.
> 
> Exum, once again was really impressive with his speed and his ability to get to the rim at will. Oh yeah, and Donovan Mitchell added a quiet 20+ too. Just seems normal now, and that's crazy.
> 
> Man, it's fun when every game matters like this.


Yup!! I sat down after my easter dinner and was ready for some ups and downs and a battle.

This was much better for the ole blood pressure. Ricky was the man and a well balanced attack overall.

How cool is it to see David Stockton out there!? You cant help but cheer for that guy!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians

Nice to see the Jazz in the 4th spot right now!! Not much of slide going right now. 🤣

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians

Big game tonight. I'm having heart palpitations.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

HighNDry said:


> Slide in progress.


This is a slide:









This is not a slide:

























Questions?


----------



## wyoming2utah

And, as Harpring pointed out on the broadcast last night, the Jazz have a reasonable, if not outside, chance at jumping to that 3rd spot considering Portland's remaining schedule.


----------



## Kwalk3

wyoming2utah said:


> And, as Harpring pointed out on the broadcast last night, the Jazz have a reasonable, if not outside, chance at jumping to that 3rd spot considering Portland's remaining schedule.


I made it into town last night for business and got lucky and got my hands on my boss's 8th row tickets. The energy in the arena was awesome! Everybody knows that what they're watching is special.

I was nervous about the game last night because I assumed the Clippers would be playing with desperation. The Jazz came out like they were the ones playing for their playoff lives, and never let off the gas from the tip.

I hope Rubio's hamstring isn't a serious issue going into the playoffs. He's been phenomenal as of late.

I'm not sure we'll hang onto home court or climb to the 3 seed, but to think that the Jazz might finish as an equal or higher playoff seed than last year after losing Hayward is pretty remarkable.


----------



## RandomElk16

Everyone on here sounds ready for that first round exit!


----------



## Kwalk3

RandomElk16 said:


> Everyone on here sounds ready for that first round exit!


Sure. It may very well happen. Doesn't diminish the fact that this season has been a success given the circumstances. It's been fun to watch.


----------



## 3arabians

RandomElk16 said:


> Everyone on here sounds ready for that first round exit!


I think they get out of round 1 if they end up with a 3 - 6 seed. Go Jazz!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## HighNDry

Kwalk3 said:


> This is a slide:
> 
> View attachment 129057
> 
> 
> This is not a slide:
> 
> View attachment 129065
> 
> 
> View attachment 129073
> 
> 
> View attachment 129081
> 
> 
> Questions?


I've seen that picture in the Jazz locker room. Maybe this year they will understand what it is and actually do something about it.


----------



## RandomElk16

3arabians said:


> I think they get out of round 1 if they end up with a 3 - 6 seed. Go Jazz!!!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Unless they fall to 7/8 they will be playing one of the teams they have been battling for a spot. So it could be tough.

Depends, they are a really match-up reliant team.

My first comment was just to see if I could get you guys triggered.



Kwalk3 said:


> Sure. It may very well happen. Doesn't diminish the fact that this season has been a success given the circumstances. It's been fun to watch.


Gonna push back here a little bit. They scored with DM, and so they actually have a good roster. I know that wasn't planned. When Hayward left all I heard was negativity and how the Jazz built him, etc etc.. so ya'll made it sound like no love lost.

Also, if Hayward stays and gets hurt on the Jazz, you are in a worst spot. I would actually argue the circumstances worked out almost as good as they could have for the Jazz.

I get the "success in strides" narrative. The Jazz have been "rebuilding" for a long time. At what point do they push the definition of success to at least be the WCF or one of the favorites? A lot had to happen this year to get them to the 3/4 spot. Now that they are there, if they don't make waves I don't see it as a success - personally.


----------



## 3arabians

RandomElk16 said:


> Unless they fall to 7/8 they will be playing one of the teams they have been battling for a spot. So it could be tough.


I'm not following you. This comment seems very pessimistic. How does battling with another team in the playoffs that has endured the same fight to get there seem tough compared to having a matchup with one of the top 2 teams in the west that are favored to win it all??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

RandomElk16 said:


> Unless they fall to 7/8 they will be playing one of the teams they have been battling for a spot. So it could be tough.
> 
> Depends, they are a really match-up reliant team.
> 
> My first comment was just to see if I could get you guys triggered.
> 
> Gonna push back here a little bit. They scored with DM, and so they actually have a good roster. I know that wasn't planned. When Hayward left all I heard was negativity and how the Jazz built him, etc etc.. so ya'll made it sound like no love lost.
> 
> Also, if Hayward stays and gets hurt on the Jazz, you are in a worst spot. I would actually argue the circumstances worked out almost as good as they could have for the Jazz.
> 
> I get the "success in strides" narrative. The Jazz have been "rebuilding" for a long time. At what point do they push the definition of success to at least be the WCF or one of the favorites? A lot had to happen this year to get them to the 3/4 spot. Now that they are there, if they don't make waves I don't see it as a success - personally.


I had zero expectations for this year's team after Hayward left. Many didn't think the Jazz would be in the playoff picture without the guy they wanted to build their future around.

I agree with you that things worked out as well as they could have, but it was still unexpected. Teams don't generally rely on a rookie to lead them in scoring and win a lot of games in the process. As we got into November and December without Rudy, I was enjoying Mitchell's play, but had even less expectation of postseason or otherwise. I would love for the Jazz to be in contention, but I never anticipated that this was that year.

This year has been a great success to me because they strung together a few impressive win streaks and inserted themselves into the playoff picture after a rough stretch. If you anticipated that the Jazz would be in the WCF this year, you might be the only one.

I would love to see them make waves, and I understand where you're coming from as far as your definition of success. I hope they can make some noise in the playoffs, but if not, I'm still pleased with the way the year has turned out. There are no easy outs in the Western conference playoffs this year, so I don't feel like the Jazz are going to be a heavy favorite(nor underdog) in any matchup, outside of HOU and GS.


----------



## RandomElk16

3arabians said:


> I'm not following you. This comment seems very pessimistic. How does battling with another team in the playoffs that has endured the same fight to get there seem tough compared to having a matchup with one of the top 2 teams in the west that are favored to win it all??
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Sorry, my wording was bad. If they are 7 or 8, they are out in first round for sure. My point was you said you think they make it out if they are 3-6. I was countering that those teams all had a similar record and were battling for 3-8. So I don't think it's a given. If they are 3-6 they are playing a comparable, if not better, team. It will be tough.

I say "if not better" because Portland slid due to Dame injury. OKC has potential to do what they did vs the rockets and match up well. Spurs have Pop and could (lol) have Kawhi.

I just don't believe the first round is a given for them by any means.


----------



## RandomElk16

In other news, you all can be happy. They clinched a spot!


----------



## 3arabians

RandomElk16 said:


> Sorry, my wording was bad. If they are 7 or 8, they are out in first round for sure. My point was you said you think they make it out if they are 3-6. I was countering that those teams all had a similar record and were battling for 3-8. So I don't think it's a given. If they are 3-6 they are playing a comparable, if not better, team. It will be tough.
> 
> I say "if not better" because Portland slid due to Dame injury. OKC has potential to do what they did vs the rockets and match up well. Spurs have Pop and could (lol) have Kawhi.
> 
> I just don't believe the first round is a given for them by any means.


Im with ya now. Its going to be tough for sure no matter the matchup. But we have a chance to get out of the first round if we do better than a 7-8 seed. I do think they will win the first round if they end up with a 3-6 seed. Why? Because I'm a Jazz fan....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

RandomElk16 said:


> In other news, you all can be happy. They clinched a spot!


Yep, they slid in with the win. Apparently, they also can now finish no worse than 7th, so no Houston in the first round. Third is definitely in play now.

As for the playoffs, my take is that all 8 playoff teams will be tough and no win is a given for the Jazz regardless of the draw. Even though they made it last year, this will be the first playoff action for both Mitchell and *Rubio*. That could be a factor in the outcome. Regardless of how they do, the experience will be huge. While my expectations for this year will be satisfied even with a first round exit, next years expectations will be much higher as it looks like we will have the core of the team back, except possibly Favors and a year together under their belts.


----------



## Critter

If they started the playoffs tomorrow Utah would have the second best record for the last 10 games at 7-3, Houston is first at 8-2. 

Utah is also playing some of it's best basketball this year and it looks like the team just may go a ways into the playoffs


----------



## wyoming2utah

Personally, I just never thought Hayward was that great. I thought the Jazz were trying to make a complimentary piece a star---they were trying to make Bryon Russell out to be as good as John Stockton or Karl Malone or even Jeff Hornacek.

I'm excited that the Jazz made the playoffs and have a very similar record to last year because it shows that even though they lost George Hill and Gordon Hayward and traded Rodney Hood that they are able to rebuild quickly. Why? Because the major piece was already in place; their foundation was set with their true star in Gobert. Fortunately, the Jazz also have found an offensive star in the making as well in Mitchell.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> except possibly Favors


I really really really hope the Jazz and Favors can find a way for him to stay. I believe he has been really undervalued this year as a key component to the Jazz success. It might be wishful thinking, but keeping him (or replacing him with someone comparable) will go a long way towards the Jazz and their future success.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Personally, I just never thought Hayward was that great. I thought the Jazz were trying to make a complimentary piece a star---they were trying to make Bryon Russell out to be as good as John Stockton or Karl Malone or even Jeff Hornacek.
> 
> I'm excited that the Jazz made the playoffs and have a very similar record to last year because it shows that even though they lost George Hill and Gordon Hayward and traded Rodney Hood that they are able to rebuild quickly. Why? Because the major piece was already in place; their foundation was set with their true star in Gobert. Fortunately, the Jazz also have found an offensive star in the making as well in Mitchell.


That's fair, although it's hard to say Hayward wasn't great. Maybe just not the center of the system? I mean they did more with him then they have done in how long? I can't agree that he wasn't working for them. If they Jazz had Hayward, Gobert, and Mitchell... I can't see them being worse than they are. That would likely make for one hell of a team. Then a guy like Rubio and his experience really shines as a facilitator.

Either way, Rudy missing 20+ games a year won't cut it. He did put in two full seasons, but if he keeps doing that he can't be the center piece. It's hard to say he isn't the DPOY, but it's also hard to say someone who missed almost 30 games is eligible for that award.

I am not disagreeing on his value. I would love to see where the Jazz would be this year if he didn't miss games. 3 would likely be a lock right now, ensuring an easier first two rounds.


----------



## wyoming2utah

To me, Hayward wasn't great; he was good and only all-star good for one season. If the Jazz had kept Hayward, I believe we would not be seeing the full capability of Mitchell. The Jazz were force feeding the star status on Hayward and Mitchell would have been second, third, or fourth fiddle. Certainly, knowing what we know now (without Hayward) together they could have been really tough.

Think of the situation differently...imagine how things would have been had it been Gobert who had left and Hayward had stayed. Would the Jazz be as good? I don't think so. Gobert is the one who gives the Jazz their identity; he is the difference maker. The Jazz would have been a nice team with Hayward and Mitchell, but you take Gobert out of the equation and it makes them much worse.

Understand also that the trio of Mitchell, Rubio, and Hayward would probably not play a lot together and that all of them are guys who need the ball in their hands to be successful.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> To me, Hayward wasn't great; he was good and only all-star good for one season. First Jazz allstar since Williams. He was about as high of caliber player you get with the Jazz (chances of a Westbrook, Harden, Russ, Lebron are low. Can get lucky in draft though - and hope they don't leave for big market!)
> 
> Think of the situation differently...imagine how things would have been had it been Gobert who had left and Hayward had stayed. Would the Jazz be as good? I don't think so. Gobert is the one who gives the Jazz their identity; he is the difference maker. The Jazz would have been a nice team with Hayward and Mitchell, but you take Gobert out of the equation and it makes them much worse. This is an assumption. However, I am not arguing the value of Gobert at all! Him being valuable does not mean Hayward isn't.
> 
> Understand also that the trio of Mitchell, Rubio, and Hayward would probably not play a lot together and that all of them are guys who need the ball in their hands to be successful.Gonna disagree a bit here, just based on usage rates. Gobert has a pretty low usage rate. I think the second highest this season is Hood (no longer on the team) - second to Hayward was Hill. They actually would have worked well together I think. It's not the same as Lebron always needing the ball and would be no where near as extreme as pairing say... Carmelo, PG, and Russ together.


I definitely don't devalue Gobert. He is solid. I do question his durability.

One thing I will say that we haven't touched on - and it has a lot to do with any of these guys success- Quin Snyder is a GREAT coach. The league is full of mediocre and good coaches. I believe he hasn't touched his ceiling and is one of the best offensive minds in the league. (open looks all day for many players). I tend to be a Jazz skeptic and so this statement comes with no "jazz fan" biased - he really is good!

He has some 'Brad Stevens' in his offense - maybe why the pairing with Hayward was well for both.


----------



## PBH

Kwalk3 said:


> ... to think that the Jazz might finish as an equal or higher playoff seed than last year after losing Hayward is pretty remarkable.





Joe Ingles said:


> Who?


You guys have all missed the boat. The identity of this team is INGLES!! It is easy to explain using only two words: Dunk Life


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983394500423725056


----------



## wyoming2utah

Randomelk16, a few things:
1) Hayward might be the first all-star for awhile, but the one season he was an all-star didn't make him great. He is no John Stockton or Karl Malone. I would argue that he is even no Jeff Hornacek, Mark Eaton, or even Paul Milsap, Al Jefferson, Deron Williams, or puke Boozer. Those players were all better than Hayward while in Utah...all-star or not.

2) The idea that we can't keep all-stars in Utah is based on what? Hayward. What other star potential or all-star caliber players left Utah?

3) I didn't say Hayward wasn't a valuable player...I will say and believe it wholeheartedly that he isn't and wasn't as valuable as Gobert. For what it is worth, I think the numbers would support that too. I would also say that the Jazz's record would be much worse had Hayward stayed and Gobert been hurt all year. The Jazz's identity is their defense, and we all know that Gobert is the anchor to that defense.

4) You bring up usage rates to make your argument as to how Hayward would have fit in with this year's team. Keep in mind that Gobert will NEVER have a high usage rate on the offensive end--his value is on the other end. Also, Hood's usage rate this year for the Jazz was high because it was expected for him to carry the load of Hayward's absence. But, as the season progressed and his injuries mounted, it became more and more obvious that Mitchell was the one the Jazz needed with the ball. This made Hood expendable and eliminated the need for a Hayward. As the Jazz now stand, Hayward's absence is Ingles' gain as much as anyone else. If Hayward were with the team, he would be playing the same position as Ingles. The difference between the two is that Ingles is a better spot up 3-point shooter and passer; Hayward the better scorer. Whether the trio on the floor together would have worked or not is pure conjecture, but I do believe 100% that had Hayward been here, Mitchell would not have been given the time nor opportunity to develop as he has. And, we might not even know what we had. Again, I will take this Jazz team over last year's in a heartbeat. Like Bolerdork said last night, "This team is better than last year's!" I don't care what the record states, this team, right now, is better than last year's team with Hayward. So, good riddance Hayward!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Randomelk16, a few things:
> 1) Hayward might be the first all-star for awhile, but the one season he was an all-star didn't make him great. He is no John Stockton or Karl Malone. I would argue that he is even no Jeff Hornacek, Mark Eaton, or even Paul Milsap, Al Jefferson, Deron Williams, or puke Boozer. Those players were all better than Hayward while in Utah...all-star or not.How long ago were the first 4 players? He isn't that good. As far as the recent ones, he is as good if not better than all. Also, to your next point, where are all of those players? I am not talking an all time great - but he is more than "good" and was great for the Jazz. Let's ignore the playoff and allstar droughts, let alone a second round to face a juggernaut.
> 
> 2) The idea that we can't keep all-stars in Utah is based on what? Hayward. What other star potential or all-star caliber players left Utah? I didn't say you couldn't keep allstars. I said he is the highest caliber player you can expect on Jazz unless you get extremely lucky in draft. Who is the last BIG name to come to Utah? You really want to argue the market isn't a super desirable one in the NBA? I think that's one of the coolest parts when Utah does good, is that it doesn't get a shot at these guys but does it anyways.How many perennial allstars have retired with the Jazz since the 2000s?
> 
> 3) I didn't say Hayward wasn't a valuable player...I will say and believe it wholeheartedly that he isn't and wasn't as valuable as Gobert. For what it is worth, I think the numbers would support that too. I would also say that the Jazz's record would be much worse had Hayward stayed and Gobert been hurt all year. The Jazz's identity is their defense, and we all know that Gobert is the anchor to that defense.Gobert gets hurt anyways. I still don't see where the argument came from. I am confused if it is Hayward v Gobert now? I started conversing when you downplayed how good Hayward was. Again, Gobert is great
> 
> 4) You bring up usage rates to make your argument as to how Hayward would have fit in with this year's team. Keep in mind that Gobert will NEVER have a high usage rate on the offensive end--his value is on the other end. Also, Hood's usage rate this year for the Jazz was high because it was expected for him to carry the load of Hayward's absence. But, as the season progressed and his injuries mounted, it became more and more obvious that Mitchell was the one the Jazz needed with the ball. This made Hood expendable and eliminated the need for a Hayward. As the Jazz now stand, Hayward's absence is Ingles' gain as much as anyone else. If Hayward were with the team, he would be playing the same position as Ingles. The difference between the two is that Ingles is a better spot up 3-point shooter and passer; Hayward the better scorer. Whether the trio on the floor together would have worked or not is pure conjecture, but I do believe 100% that had Hayward been here, Mitchell would not have been given the time nor opportunity to develop as he has. And, we might not even know what we had. Again, I will take this Jazz team over last year's in a heartbeat. Like Bolerdork said last night, "This team is better than last year's!" I don't care what the record states, this team, right now, is better than last year's team with Hayward. So, good riddance Hayward!You said "all of them are guys who need the ball in their hands to be successful" and now are saying Gobert doesn't. My argument about usage rate was that between Hayward and Mitchells average rate, and historical rates available, they would each have enough opportunity. Two "stars" aren't hard to feed (Lebron and Kyrie, Paul and Harden, Beal and Wall, Lowry and Derozen.. It goes on and on). I still am not sure why all the pressing about it. I stand by the Jazz would be better this year with Hayward. You are saying Ingles is better apparently. I don't know how productive this convo can be if you believe Joe is better than Gordon.


As far as Mitchell and time and development - It's season 1 and no one expected this! It's not like he is getting time and development in season 1 that he wouldn't have gotten with Hayward. A lot of what he is doing is simply him! Coupled with what I said about the coach, he is offensively gifted. That's why Ingles gets so many wide open looks, the scheme is great.


----------



## 3arabians

RandomElk16 said:


> I definitely don't devalue Gobert. He is solid. I do question his durability.
> 
> One thing I will say that we haven't touched on - and it has a lot to do with any of these guys success- Quin Snyder is a GREAT coach. The league is full of mediocre and good coaches. I believe he hasn't touched his ceiling and is one of the best offensive minds in the league. (open looks all day for many players). I tend to be a Jazz skeptic and so this statement comes with no "jazz fan" biased - he really is good!
> 
> He has some 'Brad Stevens' in his offense - maybe why the pairing with Hayward was well for both.


Completely agree about Snyder. I was skeptical when he got hired. He is a solid coach on both ends. Jazz run a very efficient offense and are also great defensively. Gobert playing a big part of the defense

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

Portland lost again last night. Wow.
Tonight's game against GS has some meaning for the Jazz, assuming they want that 3-seed.

I'm still trying to figure out who you guys are talking about. Isn't that person a Fortnite character? Good riddance. I'd take Joe Ingles any day over him.


----------



## RandomElk16

I also gotta say one last thing on Hayward - He has a defensive efficiency over 100 and always has a great net-efficiency and PER. He is also long and athletic (isn't that the Jazz system?)

I honestly can't think of 5 SF that are better than him. I would say he is right about #5. I don't know how that isn't great.


Oh well, he is gone now and the new Jazz are here. I would have loved to see them with him this season. Having two players (him and Donovan) that can handle the ball sure would take pressure off and I think they could have made a great run. 

Will be interesting to see how this finishes out. The bottom 4 playoff spots in the west are looking interesting!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Random, I said that Hayward, Rubio, and Mitchell would have a hard time succeeding together on the floor at the same time. You brought Gobert into the argument as you began talking about his usage rates. I stand by the argument that playing Hayward, Rubio and Mitchell all at the same time would lessen the effect of all three. I would also argue that Ingles fits this Jazz team better than Hayward. Individual talents should be combined to make a good team...sometimes the talents of the individual don't fit together. How often have teams tried to combine all-stars into one team without success? 

I would also say that Hayward had one good season with the Jazz...before that one season he was not anywhere near great. He was at best Harpring good. Again, I don't see the Jazz as being better with him!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Best small forwards? My list: 1) Lebron James 2) Kevin Durant 3) Kawhi Leonard 4) Demar Derozan 5) Jimmy Butler 6) Paul George 7) Kris Middleton/Hayward tie

FWIW, many also classify Giannis of Milwaukee a small forward and Ben Simmons of Philadelphia even though they are more point guards, but so is Lebron a lot of the time.

Anyway, one more thing about stats and advanced metrics...a players stats are affected greatly by the team around him. For example, Kevin Love averaged 26 PPG and nearly 13 RPG his final year in Minnesota for a bad team. The very next year in Cleveland, on a good team, he averaged 16 PPG and 10 RPG, significantly less. I would contend that the individual defensive metrics of Jazz wing/guard players are all inflated because of Gobert. You put some of those same players on different teams and their defensive metrics go way down.

My point is that in a team and with a team system, individual strengths have to be meshed and combined in order for a team to be successful. Sometimes, individual all-stars can't be placed on the same team and still be successful. The classic example of this was the miracle on ice USA hockey team whose college players won the gold medal away from the Russian squad. For years the NHL all-star elites could not compete agains the Russians because the players didn't mesh as a team.

I do believe--100%--that Mitchell is getting playing time and developmental opportunities that he wouldn't have gotten had Hayward stayed just like Jayson Tatum is getting opportunities that he would not have gotten had Hayward not been injured. In fact, I believe a big reason the Jazz looked at Hood as tradable and expendable was that Mitchell needed those extra opportunities....


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> As far as Mitchell and time and development - It's season 1 and no one expected this!


No, you are right. No one expected this. In fact, if you look at Mitchell's numbers and compare them to Hayward's second best season--2015/16--you will find that Mitchell is putting up numbers as good and possibly even better as a rookie that Hayward did in his 6th season. So, as for time and development, I am thinking the sky is limit and the Jazz might have their Harden, Westbrook, Durant....


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Random, I said that Hayward, Rubio, and Mitchell would have a hard time succeeding together on the floor at the same time. You brought Gobert into the argument as you began talking about his usage rates. I stand by the argument that playing Hayward, Rubio and Mitchell all at the same time would lessen the effect of all three. I would also argue that Ingles fits this Jazz team better than Hayward. Individual talents should be combined to make a good team...sometimes the talents of the individual don't fit together. How often have teams tried to combine all-stars into one team without success?
> 
> I would also say that Hayward had one good season with the Jazz...before that one season he was not anywhere near great. He was at best Harpring good. Again, I don't see the Jazz as being better with him!


I misread. I would take Hayward over Rubio any day. He also was assisted on like 50% of his shots with the Jazz so Rubio would compliment. But if I have to give the ball to one or the other, Rubio? No way. You keep arguing why he didn't fit and I don't see why? They made it to the second round and he was an allstar. HOW was he holding them back? It just doesn't seem reasonable and this is why I have such a hard time with the Jazz despite living here. The fans who say things that just don't make sense to me. I hear it all the time. Most recently on Hayward. If you have a top 5 player at his position, who is a two way player and a culture and team fit, it's hard to argue he was bad for the team.

I also stand by my coach comment. He made it work and would have made this season special. But I forgot how freaking awesome Ricky Rubio and Joe Ingles are.

One good year? He had three straight years around 20-5-3.5. Again- he was great for the Jazz but oh well.. Keep hyping up Joe Ingles lol.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> No, you are right. No one expected this. In fact, if you look at Mitchell's numbers and compare them to Hayward's second best season--2015/16--you will find that Mitchell is putting up numbers as good and possibly even better as a rookie that Hayward did in his 6th season. So, as for time and development, I am thinking the sky is limit and the Jazz might have their Harden, Westbrook, Durant....


As a guard, he should be putting up those numbers. It's a different position. Keep to the Ingles v Hayward comparison.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Best small forwards? My list: 1) Lebron James 2) Kevin Durant 3) Kawhi Leonard 4) Demar Derozan 5) Jimmy Butler 6) Paul George 7) Kris Middleton/Hayward tie


Other than time on the floor, which he would get.. how would Mitchell not be getting "developed"? The lakers are developing, but without vets and experience its just because of time.

Also, Demar and Jimmy play Shooting Guard. Demar pretty exclusively.

I put him above middleton so on your list if you remove guards.. that's 5 or they tie for 5. Like I said. And in a league of 30 teams, if you have a top 5 it's hard to argue the team isn't better. Especially when he is versatile like Hayward. Guys like Lebron and KD who play whatever position they want and shoot when they want - yes they can effect the entire system.

Hayward wasn't that way. He fit.


----------



## wyoming2utah

They are all guards....in today's NBA and in the Jazz system, they all play on the perimeter as guards. The traditional roles of point, off guard, small forward, power forward, and center don't really apply to today's game. And, Hayward was never great...that third year was significantly better because he decreased his turnover rate, increased his scoring average, and his shooting percentages. Taking Hayward over Rubio on this Jazz team would work as probably as well as bringing Carmelo on board....you have a weird perception of what "great" is. I will give you good, but not great. By your definition, Milsap, Jefferson, Boozer, Williams were also "great" players. All of those guys had runs with the Jazz with statistically similar or even better numbers.

I never said Hayward held them back. What I have said is that he wouldn't mesh with this group this year; I stand by that because to be successful he needs the ball in his hands. He is not a spot-up shooter; he plays more of a point-forward like Lebron. If you take the ball out of his hands, his numbers go down. Same thing with Mitchell and Rubio...if the Jazz had to spread out the love among Hood, Mitchell, Rubio, and Hayward, I don't believe they would be better overall. I believe you would have one or two unhappy guys or a seldom used rookie. The bottom line to me is that the Jazz lost their top scorers from last year's team and are better...and who did they replace them with? Crowder, Mitchell, Rubio...


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> They are all guards....in today's NBA and in the Jazz system, they all play on the perimeter as guards. The traditional roles of point, off guard, small forward, power forward, and center don't really apply to today's game. And, Hayward was never great...that third year was significantly better because he decreased his turnover rate, increased his scoring average, and his shooting percentages. Taking Hayward over Rubio on this Jazz team would work as probably as well as bringing Carmelo on board....you have a weird perception of what "great" is. I will give you good, but not great. By your definition, Milsap, Jefferson, Boozer, Williams were also "great" players. All of those guys had runs with the Jazz with statistically similar or even better numbers.
> 
> I never said Hayward held them back. What I have said is that he wouldn't mesh with this group this year; I stand by that because to be successful he needs the ball in his hands. He is not a spot-up shooter; he plays more of a point-forward like Lebron. If you take the ball out of his hands, his numbers go down. Same thing with Mitchell and Rubio...if the Jazz had to spread out the love among Hood, Mitchell, Rubio, and Hayward, I don't believe they would be better overall. I believe you would have one or two unhappy guys or a seldom used rookie. The bottom line to me is that the Jazz lost their top scorers from last year's team and are better...and who did they replace them with? Crowder, Mitchell, Rubio...


Allstar - Great. I'm not talking freaking all time great. In current NBA, as an allstar and top 5 of his position in the hardest league in the world - you have to be great to do that. Kyle Kuzman is a great player - doesn't mean I am ready to get his HOF bust out. I said Quin is a great coach. Doesn't mean I put him up there with Phil, Pop, or even Kerr at this point.

Jazz stats:

Leader in Points.

Top 3 in rebounds, assists, fg%, steals.

How is it a weird perception? Again, we will never agree because you don't believe a two way player that played under a coach very similar to snyder and worked well in the system would "mesh". It is soooo different from Melo. You even said Boozer was better so this won't get anywhere.

I stand by Hayward is a great player, and ESPECIALLY so in the Jazz system. I also believe you put him on the team right now and Joe comes of the bench, and they are better.

*Anyways, we disagree.* That is cool! I don't want to go back and forth about it anymore since it's just becoming arguing. We made our cases.


----------



## Kwalk3

What a slide!



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

I watched a show on ESPN where they were talking about the NBA playoff teams. 

They mentioned that Utah is the most dangerous one in the playoffs right now just for how good that they are playing.


----------



## hunting777

Man I wish we could get Golden State for the first round. I know its not looking that way, But I would love nothing more than to see the Jazz nock of the Warriors. Jazz are playing pretty good right now. It has been fun to watch as the season has played out. I would have never guessed that Jazz to be playing like this from watching the first of the season. I know if the Jazz can play as a team, and get their heads in the game. They can beat anyone.


----------



## PBH

RandomElk16 said:


> Allstar - Great.


And that, right there, invalidates your arguments.

When allstars are chosen by fans, and not by who the best players at those positions are, there is a problem. If you are calling Hayward "great" because he made the all star team in 2017, you've been hoodwinked.

Isaiah Thomas also made the all start team in 2017. Is he great?
Paul Millsap was also on that team. You keep discounting him.
DeMarcus Cousins is also a recurring all star. I would say that his numbers reflect a statistical "greatness" -- but would you want him on your team?

Hayward had a "great" second half of last year. All the development Utah put into him finally paid off, and he left. That's fine. I never liked him. I never liked how much he had to "force". The last 2 minutes of Jazz games with the ball in Hayward's hands were painful.

He never endeared himself to Utah fans. While always _trying_ to say the right things, it always came out wrong. There was never sincerity. Utah was just a nice place that he happened to be.

You don't get that feeling with Mitchell. And Joe Freakin' Ingles!

Gordon Hayward was an all star last year. He was #29 in RPM at 3.06 (9.45 Wins). He was our "go to". Our star. Our leader. Our "best" player -- even though Rudy Gobert was #8.

Joe Ingles, for comparison to Hayward, is #34 on RPM at 2.89 (9.37 Wins). Joe is a "role" player. He is not an all star. Yet his value in games is nearly as high as Gordan's in his best year, an all star year.
Utah pays him [Ingles] $11 Million vs. the $29 Million Boston paid Hayward.

Finally, in the Joe vs. Gordan discussion, Joe is living the Dunk Life. Gordon never did that.

I'll take Joe over Gordon any day on my team.


----------



## RandomElk16

PBH said:


> And that, right there, invalidates your arguments.
> 
> When allstars are chosen by fans, and not by who the best players at those positions are, there is a problem. If you are calling Hayward "great" because he made the all star team in 2017, you've been hoodwinked.
> 
> Isaiah Thomas also made the all start team in 2017. Is he great?
> Paul Millsap was also on that team. You keep discounting him.
> DeMarcus Cousins is also a recurring all star. I would say that his numbers reflect a statistical "greatness" -- but would you want him on your team?
> 
> Hayward had a "great" second half of last year. All the development Utah put into him finally paid off, and he left. That's fine. I never liked him. I never liked how much he had to "force". The last 2 minutes of Jazz games with the ball in Hayward's hands were painful.
> 
> He never endeared himself to Utah fans. While always _trying_ to say the right things, it always came out wrong. There was never sincerity. Utah was just a nice place that he happened to be.
> 
> You don't get that feeling with Mitchell. And Joe Freakin' Ingles!
> 
> Gordon Hayward was an all star last year. He was #29 in RPM at 3.06 (9.45 Wins). He was our "go to". Our star. Our leader. Our "best" player -- even though Rudy Gobert was #8.
> 
> Joe Ingles, for comparison to Hayward, is #34 on RPM at 2.89 (9.37 Wins). Joe is a "role" player. He is not an all star. Yet his value in games is nearly as high as Gordan's in his best year, an all star year.
> Utah pays him [Ingles] $11 Million vs. the $29 Million Boston paid Hayward.
> 
> Finally, in the Joe vs. Gordan discussion, Joe is living the Dunk Life. Gordon never did that.
> 
> I'll take Joe over Gordon any day on my team.


Dudes... let it goe.

I made multiple arguments why he was great. He was great for the Jazz - the best offensive player and a great two way player they have had in a long time. Rudy is the best defender they have had.

LET IT GO.

And yes, Isaiah was great. They made him play through an injury he was misguided on. He was averaging 30 points a game. All of you arguing are also saying Donovan is great. Why? The same points I said about hayward? It's only been one year, what if he has one of the worst injuries you can have to your hip?

Again, saying you would take Joe over Hayward invalidates everything you guys are saying.

The argument could be made that of all the players in the entire world, only 450 are in the NBA. One of the smallest leagues in terms of personal. They all have to be pretty great to get there, but once in the league they separate themselves. Hayward did and does stand out.

Let's drop it holy cow. We disagree. I think Hayward is great and is a top 5 SF. I do not think he is an all time great. I also don't think Joe Ingles is. I wouldn't put Rudy in the conversation with Stockton and Malone who were brought up earlier, and I won't sell the farm for a first year player (although I really like him).


----------



## RandomElk16

PBH said:


> When allstars are chosen by fans, and not by who the best players at those positions are, there is a problem.


False. Fans get 50%, Media 25%, Players 25%.

It is hard to argue most years who was a snub - like the west playoff race there were 4-5 spots open for 8 teams.


----------



## RandomElk16

Anyways.. I came to this thread today to say that I loved watching the Jazz destroy the Warriors. My friend is a die hard warriors fan so I asked him if I should call the police to report this assault.

I really hope they have a REAL playoff. Two years ago watching them face teams with a combined 6 point guards injured was boring. Last year they were on a tear. This year they finally have adversity, teams aren't as afraid of them so the mental barrier isn't there, and they could face some good matchups. OKC in round one, Portland round two, and Rockets in finals (if they make it through each) could make for some really competitive playoff ball!

I don't discredit the Jazz matching up with them. The young players can play good Defense. The type of hustle needed to keep up with GS. However, if they Jazz saw them in round two they will likely have Curry. In my opinion, although KD is probably #2 to Bron, the ball moves through Curry. It completely changes their game. That could still be a good one though!


----------



## 3arabians

Random, that was an assault!! Haha. Refs should have called mercy for the warriors at halftime and ended it. But, that was a thing of beauty and I enjoyed every minute. Granted the warriors didnt have much to play for. The jazz can do no worse than the 5 seed. Tonight should be a really good game. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

RandomElk16 said:


> False. Fans get 50%, Media 25%, Players 25%.


It's not an all star selection in the sense that the "best" players are chosen. It's a popularity contest.

the change in voting is better than it used to be. The biggest problem is that players have contracts with incentives for making the all star team. The incentive has nothing to do with performance -- but rather only an incentive to receive enough votes to make the all star team. Thus, Zaza Pachulia and the resulting voting changes.

Even Steve Kerr has said that players don't take the voting serious, as evidenced by Alexis Ajinca and Cole Aldrich receiving votes.

Categorizing a player as "great" by the number of all start votes received is a poor way to rate.

It's also one major reason market size is always brought up.

It's always nice to see the All-NBA teams announced. Interesting to compare them to the all star teams.


----------



## PBH

It was fun to watch the Jazz, with 0 all stars, trounce the Warriors, who started 3 all stars. 

Ouch.


----------



## Catherder

Oh man, the Jazz lost tonight. They didn't finish third and the whole season is an abject failure.



Ok, just kidding. I thought they were kind of out of gas tonight. Not nearly as much energy as last night and Portland was fresher and desperate. 

So on to OKC. Of the possible matchups besides the top two, I least wanted OKC. They play strong defense and obviously have a lot of star power, although there has been some underachievement at times. Adams doesn't seem to be as bothered by Gobert as most other centers are. No homecourt doesn't help. All that said, I expect a close and exciting series. We won last year as a 5 seed, so precedent is there for us. I think our defense will be stout. 29-6 cannot be ignored either and we played OKC mostly when Gobert was hurt. I will predict a 7 game series. If Rubio balls out, we will probably win. If he is average or less, we will lose. Should be fun.


----------



## PBH

Catherder said:


> Adams doesn't seem to be as bothered by Gobert as most other centers are.


but Gobert does seem to be bothered by other big [physical] centers, and Adams will probably give Gobert some problems.

This matchup scares me -- but I'm looking forward to it. This should be fun.


----------



## RandomElk16

PBH said:


> It was fun to watch the Jazz, with 0 all stars, trounce the Warriors, who started 3 all stars.
> 
> Ouch.


Man.. sure could have used an allstar against portland....


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> but Gobert does seem to be bothered by other big [physical] centers, and Adams will probably give Gobert some problems.


True, but Gobert seems to still traditionally do well against other physical guys like Deandre Jordan or Demarcus Cousins. Adams though, seems to bother Gobert more. It could be mental. Hopefully, he can push through it because he will need to be dominant for the Jazz to win.


----------



## HighNDry

Damian really showed what a previous rookie of the year is capable of. He schooled Mitchell. Maybe Damian was tired of hearing how Mitchell beat his rookie three-point record. Whatever the reason Portland looks to be the better team. Portland handed it to the Jazz first game after the all-star break too. The excuse then was that we were coming off the all-star break and was a little rusty. This time it is we are too tired because of a back-to-back.

Man up boys. Portland is a better team right now--even with the 4 game skid. 

Jazz has a long way to go and as typical when it REALLY counts, they just don't have it. I would imagine OKC and Westbrook will step it up now. 

Still, Jazz made the playoffs which no one thought they would this year.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

HighNDry said:


> Jazz ended their winning streak last night when lowly Hawks swooped in and made the Jazz look pathetic.
> 
> It is about that time in the season when the typical slide occurs. Could this be the beginning of a slide to keep the Jazz out of the playoffs?


It was an A-typical slide and it sucks they play OKC in the first round.

I thought the reffin' was subpar last night in Portland, but they would have had to play OKC either way.

So, here is too the draft.


----------



## wyoming2utah

HighNDry said:


> Damian really showed what a previous rookie of the year is capable of. He schooled Mitchell. Maybe Damian was tired of hearing how Mitchell beat his rookie three-point record. Whatever the reason Portland looks to be the better team. Portland handed it to the Jazz first game after the all-star break too. The excuse then was that we were coming off the all-star break and was a little rusty. This time it is we are too tired because of a back-to-back.
> 
> Man up boys. Portland is a better team right now--even with the 4 game skid.
> 
> Jazz has a long way to go and as typical when it REALLY counts, they just don't have it. I would imagine OKC and Westbrook will step it up now.
> 
> Still, Jazz made the playoffs which no one thought they would this year.


Man, that sounds so atypical of most BYU fans! You must NOT be a Jazz fan. Because the guy who is a BYU fan and a Jazz fan would most likely be talking about how the Jazz would be championship bound if they would just sign Jimmer. You seem to be discounting the Jazz before a single playoff game has been played....

...Portland has proven to be the better team this year. After all, they did win one more game (in an 82 game schedule) than the Jazz. Though the two teams split their season series, last night's home win versus the Jazz (after the Jazz were playing the second game of a back-to-back) really showed how much Portland really is better. And, because the Jazz lost last night there is no hope of beating a higher seeded OKC team who has three all-stars....right? Really? Is that what you are saying?

Ouch! This normally cynical Jazz fan just had his ego and pride slammed into the proverbial wall and squashed! Personally, I will take the Jazz in a 7 game series over either Portland or OKC! I may be wrong, but I love this Jazz team and their resiliency! And, even if they do lose to OKC, this season has been successful!


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Dudes... let it goe.
> 
> I made multiple arguments why he was great. He was great for the Jazz .


My last point to this argument and then I will let it go....

...maybe it is because I teach English; maybe it is because I coach basketball and have coached football, baseball, and softball; or maybe it is just because people seem to so often hyperbolize things. You know, those comments that people make like, "This is the best steak I have ever had." Or, "This is the worst hunt I have ever had."

BUT, great is John Stockton. Great, is Karl Malone. Great is Michael Jordan. Great is Lebron James. Great is Russel Westbrook, James Harden, Damian Lillard, Steph Curry. Great are those very special players that come along only once in a long while. Gordon Hayward was a good player on a pretty good team last year. But, I just can't put him into the "great" category. "Great" is a special place only reserved for the very best.

We certainly disagree on his "greatness." I think we also disagree on what "great" really is or means. In my opinion, nobody on the Jazz right now is "great." And, the Jazz haven't had a "great" player for a long time. To say Hayward is great, diminishes what "greatness" truly is.


----------



## HighNDry

Probably looking at a sweep.


----------



## Kwalk3

HighNDry said:


> Probably looking at a sweep.


You're just a cheery bundle of optimism aren't ya?

It's been a great Jazz season. I'm nervous about what they can do against OKC, but they've far exceeded expectations thus far. I'm happy no matter what happens.

Oh yeah, your "typical slide" nonsense never happened, just like I don't believe a sweep will happen. If it does, however, I'm still thrilled with this season and optimistic about the future.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> My last point to this argument and then I will let it go....
> 
> ...maybe it is because I teach English; maybe it is because I coach basketball and have coached football, baseball, and softball; or maybe it is just because people seem to so often hyperbolize things. You know, those comments that people make like, "This is the best steak I have ever had." Or, "This is the worst hunt I have ever had."
> 
> BUT, great is John Stockton. Great, is Karl Malone. Great is Michael Jordan. Great is Lebron James. Great is Russel Westbrook, James Harden, Damian Lillard, Steph Curry. Great are those very special players that come along only once in a long while. Gordon Hayward was a good player on a pretty good team last year. But, I just can't put him into the "great" category. "Great" is a special place only reserved for the very best.
> 
> We certainly disagree on his "greatness." I think we also disagree on what "great" really is or means. In my opinion, nobody on the Jazz right now is "great." And, the Jazz haven't had a "great" player for a long time. To say Hayward is great, diminishes what "greatness" truly is.


I am totally fine with changing the overall word. My point was "He fit the Jazz system, they would be better with him this year, he is better than Ingles, and he is a top 5 SF which Jazz fans should appreciate."

I am 100% ok with great being changed. If we just call him "good" then we have to call Ingles and company "average" - he is above Ingles and is the "best" player they have had in a long time (you can tie him with Gobert, for different reasons).

I don't put him even top 15 in the league. GREAT is Kobe, Bron, MJ, KD, etc... I agree.

Sometimes the logistics get tied up. I do think he is as good as the Jazz could have hoped for and as good as they see. A guy like Gobert may stick around but he is like Giannis or even Simmons to where he will be called "great" one day. He is awesome at defending. He fits a system. He will never be straight up dominant.

So I agree, it was for the sake of argument and in the context we were speaking. Like I said, the argument can be made all NBA players are great, compared to _____. There are 450 players in the NBA, from a pool that is the size of the entire world. Tons of Developmental league, college champions, etc never touch the court.

I am very aware what greatness, an all time great, and a HOF are. I even stated that he wasn't those. It was context.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> or maybe it is just because people seem to so often hyperbolize things. You know, those comments that people make like, "This is the best steak I have ever had." Or, "This is the worst hunt I have ever had."


You must never have a "great day"... Lol.

"Great means winning the lottery" "Great means being launched by shuttle into space"...

The conversation it is in, the context, is everything. We weren't talking Hayward vs Jordan. We were talking about Joe freaking Ingles....

Edit: Since you are a teacher I looked up the definition of great. "of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average." Is Gordon not above average?


----------



## HighNDry

Kwalk3 said:


> You're just a cheery bundle of optimism aren't ya?
> 
> It's been a great Jazz season. I'm nervous about what they can do against OKC, but they've far exceeded expectations thus far. I'm happy no matter what happens.
> 
> Oh yeah, your "typical slide" nonsense never happened, just like I don't believe a sweep will happen. If it does, however, I'm still thrilled with this season and optimistic about the future.


Well, do you not believe the Jazz can sweep OKC?

And I asked he question "Is this the beginning of the typical Jazz slide." I didn't predict it.

Jazz and Ute fans are so easily stirred up.


----------



## 3arabians

HighNDry said:


> Well, do you not believe the Jazz can sweep OKC?
> 
> And I asked he question "Is this the beginning of the typical Jazz slide." I didn't predict it.
> 
> Jazz and Ute fans are so easily stirred up.


Ha! I thought you might say that! I wanted to send the same type of response my man Kwalk did but then thought....this is a set-up??

Either way you have seemed like the bear in a bull market on this thread HND.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

Tough loss tonight. OKC came out looking like the team that everybody envisioned they would be all year long. Paul George balled out. Ingles and Rubio had games that need to be a lot better going forward. 

Donovan Mitchell plays like he doesn't know or doesn't care that he's a rookie. Hopefully the MRI doesn't reveal anything that will hold him out of any games in the series or this will be over quick. 

I know they lost, but it still feels good to be watching playoff basketball.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> You must never have a "great day"... Lol.
> 
> "Great means winning the lottery" "Great means being launched by shuttle into space"...
> 
> The conversation it is in, the context, is everything. We weren't talking Hayward vs Jordan. We were talking about Joe freaking Ingles....


I just don't have "great" days every day....

...Joe Ingles fits the Jazz system with Rubio and Mitchell better. You take the 28% usage rate that Hayward had last year and put that on this year's Jazz team and Mitchell doesn't have near the season. I will take my chances on Mitchell's potential "greatness" and let the door hit the average Hayward on his way out! Top five small forward? No way!


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Edit: Since you are a teacher I looked up the definition of great. "of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average." Is Gordon not above average?


Since I am an English teacher, I value the importance of every word. The question is, "Is Gordon not CONSIDERABLY above the average?" I pretty important clarification.

So, in that context, no way is he "great." In fact, I would still argue that Paul Milsap, Al Jefferson, Carlos Boozer, and Deron Williams (quite possibly among others) were all "greater" than Hayward. And, Andrei Kirilenko was definitely better than Hayward!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Since I am an English teacher, I value the importance of every word. The question is, "Is Gordon not CONSIDERABLY above the average?" I pretty important clarification.
> 
> So, in that context, no way is he "great." In fact, I would still argue that Paul Milsap, Al Jefferson, Carlos Boozer, and Deron Williams (quite possibly among others) were all "greater" than Hayward. And, Andrei Kirilenko was definitely better than Hayward!


He is double the "average" nba per game stats in every category.

Is 200% considerably above average, Mr. teacher?

Where are all those now?


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> I just don't have "great" days every day....
> 
> ...Joe Ingles fits the Jazz system with Rubio and Mitchell better. You take the 28% usage rate that Hayward had last year and put that on this year's Jazz team and Mitchell doesn't have near the season. I will take my chances on Mitchell's potential "greatness" and let the door hit the average Hayward on his way out! Top five small forward? No way!


Hood even had a 23% usage this year. There are places to put it. They would have had enough.

Name 5 active Small Forwards that are better. Don't name guards like the last guy.

I guess we watched a different Ingles last night. The one PG was raining 3's on?


----------



## RandomElk16

Jazz fans.. so funny. "betrayward" will always be there. You love em while they are here.

Funny to hear players brought up again that were hated by the fan base at one point.


----------



## PBH

RandomElk16 said:


> Jazz fans.. so funny. "betrayward" will always be there. You love em while they are here.


I hated him while he was here.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Hood even had a 23% usage this year. There are places to put it. They would have had enough.
> 
> Name 5 active Small Forwards that are better. Don't name guards like the last guy.
> 
> I guess we watched a different Ingles last night. The one PG was raining 3's on?


1) Hood had a 23% usage rate....and what happened to him? Why did it happen? To open up opportunity for Mitchell...

2) I already named 7; want me to do it again? Counting this year, I could name more....

3) You think Hayward would have been any better? I don't.


----------



## wyoming2utah

PBH said:


> I hated him while he was here.


Me too...

...in fact, I hated Boozer for most of his time as a Jazz player, but I think he was better than Hayward.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> He is double the "average" nba per game stats in every category.
> 
> Is 200% considerably above average, Mr. teacher?
> 
> Where are all those now?


"Every" category? Isn't that hyperbole?

And, what are the "great" players above him as far as the average goes? Triple for Lebron? Westbrook? Or more?

No, he isn't "considerably" better than average. And, no, he will never be a great player and never was one.


----------



## PBH

Look, Gordon had a *GREAT* season in 2017 _for him_. But when you compare the numbers against other past Jazz greats, Gordon was just average. He was marginally better than Thurl Bailey and Al Jefferson. Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer had better numbers. I know this graphic isn't the end-all be-all, but it certainly puts some of this discussion in perspective. Like I said, Hayward had a great season based off of _his_ past seasons. But not by others.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> "Every" category? Isn't that hyperbole?
> 
> And, what are the "great" players above him as far as the average goes? Triple for Lebron? Westbrook? Or more?
> 
> No, he isn't "considerably" better than average. And, no, he will never be a great player and never was one.


Lebron and westbrook aren't average.

Average ppg is under 10, he was at 21. He is well above average in points and assists. Above average in rebounds.

Keep arguing.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Hood had a 23% usage rate....and what happened to him? Why did it happen? To open up opportunity for Mitchell...
> 
> 2) I already named 7; want me to do it again? Counting this year, I could name more....
> 
> 3) You think Hayward would have been any better? I don't.


Oh wait.. I forgot you WERE the one naming shooting guards.. Silly me.

Carry on oh great basketball know-all.

Good news is, in a week this thread will be closed and you guys can start a next one about how next year you are going to the conference finals.


----------



## PBH

RandomElk16 said:


> Good news is, in a week this thread will be closed and you guys can start a next one about how next year you are going to the conference finals.


When did this turn into a BYU thread? I thought we were discussing the Jazz!

You obviously don't know Jazz fans very well....


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Oh wait.. I forgot you WERE the one naming shooting guards.. Silly me.
> 
> Carry on oh great basketball know-all..


I will let the thoughts of others carry on for me...

https://thejnotes.com/2018/04/08/utah-jazz-better-off-with-slow-mo-joe/

https://www.slcdunk.com/research-st...h-jazz-pete-maravich-adrian-dantley-best-wing

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/...ld-this-jazz-team-look-like-if-he-had-stayed/


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> I will let the thoughts of others carry on for me...
> 
> https://thejnotes.com/2018/04/08/utah-jazz-better-off-with-slow-mo-joe/
> 
> https://www.slcdunk.com/research-st...h-jazz-pete-maravich-adrian-dantley-best-wing
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/...ld-this-jazz-team-look-like-if-he-had-stayed/


hahahahahaha...

You just posted Jazz articles. Read what they said about him last year.

I wish you guys could feel how it is reading Jazz columnists as a non-Jazz fan.... oh oh... or listening to a broadcast, specifically Matt Harpring and want to hit your head on the desk.

Again, Jazz fans are passionate. Sometimes the stuff they say though... betrayward is very real. No one can actually know what this season would have been like because it never happened. If MJ didn't take off a year and a half, would the Rockets have won? Who knows.

I still believe having two guys who can score(not like, iso joe but run the ball like DM and Hayward) for you is important in today's game. You will witness it with the Jazz in the playoffs having only DM, you are seeing it with the Spurs having only LA


----------



## RandomElk16

Just FYI,

AllthatAMAR was fired for hinting Hayward leaned towards men:
http://awfulannouncing.com/online-o...allegedly-homophobic-joke-gordon-hayward.html

Seems credible.

Here he is in March saying Gordon is top 10:

https://www.slcdunk.com/2017/3/11/1...d-russell-westbrook-james-harden-lebron-james

Here is J-notes saying Gordon went from "good to great" (hey that's what I said):

https://thejnotes.com/2017/04/28/gordon-hayward-move-from-good-to-great/

THE SALT IS REAL IN SALT LAKE CITY #betrayward


----------



## Kwalk3

Sliding straight into round 2 against the best team in the league!!!! If this is what a slide looks like I'll take another next year!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------

