Three thoughts on the Utah Jazz’s 112-102 win over the Charlotte Hornets from Salt Lake Tribune Jazz beat writer Andy Larsen.
1. I thought the Jazz played very well tonight
Can I tell you everything I loved about how the Jazz played tonight?
• First, the Jazz played tremendous defense. The Hornets are the 3rd-best offensive team in the league, and the Jazz forced them into having just a 95 offensive rating, their 2nd-worst performance of the year. Yes, some of that was made easier by the fact that the Hornets didn’t have Gordon Hayward, and yet they limited LaMelo Ball, Terry Rozier, Kelly Oubre, Miles Bridges, P.J. Washington, and Ish Smith all to iffy efficiency nights.
• They even did this while the Hornets played small-ball; in fact, the Hornets were least-efficient offensively when playing 5-out. The Jazz kept in front far, far better than they did against Washington.
• The Hornets average 21 free-throws a game, tonight; they got nine.
• Despite shooting a lower percentage, the Jazz dominated the glass: they got well over a third of their own missed shots, and won the rebounding battle 68-51. Royce O’Neale had 13 rebounds, which is pretty impressive; Rudy Gobert had 21.
• The Jazz’s offense generated a really impressive number of open threes. They had 13 corner threes (making only two), and Synergy Sports reported they had 23 unguarded threes — to the Hornets seven. That’s good offense. The only problem was that the Jazz only made six of those 23 wide-open ones, or just 26%.
• After ignoring him nearly all game against the Wizards, the Jazz found ways to get Gobert involved offensively to big results: 23 points. More on this later.
• And speaking of the Wizards loss, in that game, they struggled at moving the ball — the classic “oh no, we don’t have Mike Conley, we’re going to be super stagnant on offense” loss. If anything, they moved the ball too well tonight.
Look: I’m a process over results guy — certainly until we get to the playoffs, anyway. The Jazz’s process tonight was very, very good. I think you can quibble with the turnovers, but that’s about it. I just thought they missed the open shots. Now, if that was for some definable reason, then you’d get worried, but I don’t think it was.
Sometimes, you just miss shots, even to the tune of shooting just 35% from the field. Randomness works that way. That the Jazz defended well enough to win anyway, is, in my book, shows how well they played.
2. Gobert’s versatile game
Another talking point after the Jazz’s loss to the Wizards was how infrequently the Jazz got Gobert the ball down low. Our partner at Salt City Hoops, Dan Clayton, put together this video from the game where he counted 17 times the Jazz could have gotten Gobert the ball with a mismatch down low, but chose not to or couldn’t figure out how to.
I think it’s pretty clear the Jazz worked on that since. Tonight, the Jazz got Gobert the ball over and over again, to good results: the 23 points (he shot 15-16 from the free-throw line, impressive!) and a whole bunch of good kickouts to the outside.
So what was going differently? First, when Gobert was down low, he did a good job of sealing the paint. You can see how physical Oubre is with him here (small guys are allowed to get away with murder down low), but Gobert sticks out one of his big mitts with to give Mitchell a target, he delivers it, and finally, the second foul is called.
You can also quickly kick it to the wing, making it an easier angle from which to deliver the pass. The Jazz take advantage of the Hornets panicking to switch back here — a better defense would have played better, but this is still an option.
Or you can hit Gobert on the short roll, before the small player is able to get to him on the switch. This is a good example: Conley just kind of quickly lobs it up to Gobert, who reads the situation well to find the open man. He’s really improved in his passing in these situations.
All of these plays lead to high-efficiency offense. Now, does it work all the time? Of course not — Gobert is going to drop his fair share, some fouls aren’t going to be called, and more free-throws are going to be missed than tonight. But in general, finding Gobert more is a great idea. It worked for France in the Olympics this year, and it can work almost as well for the Jazz too.
3. Thinking about the Trent Forrest minutes
About a month ago, I wrote that I felt Trent Forrest needed to be more aggressive on the offensive end. He’s scored six points, and had six assists in seven shots in 42 minutes since. It’s a usage rate of 11%. That’s not really being more aggressive.
Tonight, he was a -6 in the 2:26 he played in the second quarter — those were the only minutes he played all game. It’s a little bit better than the 59 seconds he played against Philadelphia last week before the game got away from them, but not by much.
The eye test was worse. The Hornets were aggressively helping off of Forrest; here, for example, they’re not afraid to help on the post-up only one pass away.
He actually does the right thing here, cutting through the middle to draw the defender. But in the end, it’s a late-shot-clock effort from Clarkson that gets the points.
On another occasion, it looked like they were ready to leave Forrest just to go help on the perimeter.
Here’s the thing: Forrest plays right now because he’s a better fit with the lineup than Jared Butler would be. If Rudy Gay and Jordan Clarkson and Joe Ingles are all out on the floor — as they are in the spot where Forrest plays — you have plenty of shot-creation ability. That’s what Butler brings, and it would be redundant. There’s no question that Forrest is a better passer and defender than Butler right now.
But if Forrest is being left alone to go double the other, better players, then it becomes a problem: Forrest is actually hurting the Jazz’s players, not helping them. Butler, with his shooting ability, would probably keep them honest.
There are layers to this. What’s better for Butler’s development: three minutes a night in the NBA, or 35 minutes a night in the G-League? I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I suspect the latter, but it’s a real question.
Of course, there is door No. 3... why not both? If the Stars have a game, Butler plays 35 minutes, but if they don’t, he gets to play the Forrest three minutes. It’s easier said than done, because one team is frequently on a road trip when the other isn’t, but when it was feasible, you could try to make it work.
But wait, one more layer to consider: Butler missed time last week due to knee soreness. Is playing in more games the best thing for him?
Either way, I don’t think it matters hugely whether or not Butler gets those three extra NBA minutes a night. I’d like to see Butler when possible, but Forrest is a 23-year-old point guard too, his development isn’t nothing. I do, however, hope he starts to play better.
(Or the Jazz could sign Kris Dunn and have him play those minutes. But writing about that would be beating a dead horse, wouldn’t it?)
