===============================================================

PRELUDE:  If you have any questions for the Jazz PR director, leave a comment.  I’m going to be sending them to him tonight.  Maybe you want some inside info?

===============================================================

It’s probably a little late to be recapping these games.  They’re out of everyone’s minds by now.  But here’s a few comments.

The Jazz cruised to wins over the Clippers earlier this year.  Maybe it was retribution for my Clippy picture that I made though.  I usually don’t make fun of teams in my posts, maybe that’s why.  Nah.  It was probably the 68% free-throw shooting and 0-13 from the arc that did the Jazz in.  They still shot well from the field, out-rebounded the Clips, and had nearly as many assists.  During the recent run, the biggest think hat has stood out is the good FT shooting.  And they didn’t have it Friday.  They went 26-38 from the line.  They would have had to shoot 100% to match the 38 made by the Clippers.  And besides the obvious lead it would have given them, I think if they made even 6-8 of those, it changes the game.  If you add 6-8 point to the final score it doesn’t give them the win. 

But what I think it does for you is keep the game closer (duh).  And when the game is close, it changes different aspects of the game such as shot selection, and mentally, you’re still in it.  The Jazz were down 5 at the half.  But had they been tied going into the break, maybe it would have been a different ball game.  Five points wouldn’t have helped with the final score.  But it’s a little like time travel.  If you go back in time and change one little thing, it can have a great affect on things later.

The 0-13 three-point shooting was a surprise.  I think a lot of it was trying to catchup or stay up with the Clips.  It got me thinking about the 3-point shot though.  Isn’t there a point where you shouldn’t be shooting threes (as a player)?  Your risk/reward for a three would have to be better than your 2-point percentage.  A three is worth 1.5 that of a 2 pointer.  So if you shoot 55% on 2-pointers, what should your 3-point % be to justify the three?  If you take 100 shots, 55 have gone in for a total of 110 points.  So for your 3-point shooting, you’d have to make 36 (approx) of those 100 shots to score the same 100 points.  So 55% = 36%.  And .36/.55= .6667 (the inverse of our 1.5 reward).  So who should/shouldn’t be shooting the three?  Here’s the stats for the Jazz this year (click for bigger):

The surprising ones are Korver and Brewer (maybe not so much).  Of course this has a lot to do with their overall shooting.  So if they’re shooting bad, then it will allow for bad 3-point shooting.  Korver needs to step it up.  But overall, the Jazz are justified in shooting the 3.  Take that Sloan.  If I’ve assumed something or have the wrong thinking on this, let me know.

But the worst part is that with NO and Denver and GS losing that night, we didn’t move up in the standing when we should have.

In the Atlanta game (which I didn’t watch), Price returned with a good game after having an off night v. LA.  And the Jazz had to hold off Atlanta to win with free-throws.  I didn’t have much interest in this game.  I watched LOTR with by boy instead.  But it seemed to be the Jazz that play down to the level of opponents that they should be handily (at least at home).  They had the fend of Hotlanta to get the W.

But it’s all good for now.  Denver lost again and are now 3 back of the Jazz (and out of the playoffs).  The Rockets just lost Yao.  PHX is sliding.  SA scores 5 points in one quarter and still wins.  Thanks Chicago.  Portland is done.  And NO is showing signs of breaking down.

And now we have a game tonight that we should win against Minnesota.  Of course they’ve given Boston and SA and other fits.  Let’s hope the Jazz take care of business early so that the starters can be ready for the next night against Detroit.