The Toronto Raptors won for the first time against the Utah Jazz for, essentially, the first time in the Cenozoic Era. They were down early, and could have quit -- but did not. They fought, and fought, and prevailed in Double Overtime on the second night of a back-to-back. They exorcized a lot of demons on this road trip by beating both the Phoenix Suns and Utah Jazz. The Jazz, off of multiple days rest, were without Big Man Al Jefferson - their leading scorer and rebounder this season. Not a lot of things went well for Utah after the first 12 minutes of action. Only five guys really showed up - and they were our Quintet.
After the jump – a breakdown of their play from last game!

Paul Millsap: The Paperboy played like the Mailman tonight, getting 30 and 10. Or more precisely, 31 and 11. I guess we kind of took Karl Malone for granted, but this was just Millsap’s 7th 30 and 10 game of his career. Somewhat disappointingly, the Jazz have gone 2-5 in Sap’s 30/10 games. Tonight was another bittersweet experience. Sap was big inside, making 8 of his 9 shots at the rim, however he failed to kill it from his ‘money’ area around the midrange. Between 10’ and 23’ Paul only went 1/9, which is clearly below average for him this season. He did have an amazing three pointer when we needed him most. And he made a number of tough shots – however we just couldn’t get over the Raptors. Sap’s blocked shot in crunch time (by Amir Johnson) galvanized this point. He also added 2 assists, 1 steal, and 1 block last night.
Devin Harris: Harris had a heck of a game. This was one of the few times this season where he’s come out in full-attack mode, and he was going to the basket and putting pressure on the defense to stay in front of him. He finished with 24 points (8/12 shooting, 7/11 at the free throw line, 1/2 from deep), 6 assists, 3 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 block – and the irrational hate from so many fans. Yes, he almost Nick Anderson ‘d it in Double Overtime – but we’re not even in Overtime without him. Forget, we don’t even have that big lead we were all crying about, if it wasn’t for him. In a game where Earl Watson played like Jason Hart it was nice to see Devin Harris have his best game of the season.
Derrick Favors ( @DFavors14): Favors started at center in place of injured Al Jefferson last night, and he had 16 points, 12 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, and 1 block. That’s not bad for a kid who is 20 and 194/356ths years old. Sure, he did not dominate, and he did not shooting 62.5 fg% or anything outstanding like that – but he also played 42 minutes and was called for fouls only 3 times. Furthermore, in the two games he has started this season off at center he is averaging 40.5 mpg, 18.0 ppg (53.3 fg%), 11.5 rpg, 1 bpg, and 3 fouls per game. Sure, the sample size is small, and he was going up against Spencer Hawes and Aaron Gray – but these are things to be happy about with Favors.
C.J. Miles ( @CJMiles34): Last night’s game was 48 minutes, and then on top of that, two over times. It’s a long game. And during this game, a game where Gordon Hayward shot 1/9 (and played 37 minutes), and Josh Howard shot 0/5 (in 16 minutes) – C.J. Miles played only 21 minutes, while shooting 4/11. Obviously 36.4 fg% isn’t great, but it is better than 7.1% that Hayward/Howard shot. The argument we keep hearing is that "it’s not the minutes which make CJ player better, it’s just that when he’s playing well he gets minutes". Is the same statement applicable in reverse, and internally consistent, for the other wings on the team; or do we only apply this rule to C.J. miles? C.J. was going to the rack, penetrating and creating for his team – and making outside shots. He went 1/3 from three, 1/2 from 16’-23’ feet, 1/1 from 3’ to 9’, and was drawing fouls. The only guys who played less minutes than he did in a double overtime game were a) either playing in their first game off an injury, or b) a young newbie (Jeremy Evans, Enes Kanter, Alec Burks). I’m obviously an advocate of playing guys who are playing well. If I want to avoid being a hypocrite, though, I must also advocate for pulling guys who are playing poorly. Our of the three guys named in this write-up, I think C.J. played the least poor, he did finish with 11 points, a couple of boards, steals, and didn’t miss any free throws.
Raja Bell: Bell somehow played 38 minutes, and I hardly remember him at all in this game. He shot 50 fg%, scored 11 points, finished +14 in +/-, and rotated well on defense to prevent Bargnani from shooting even MORE open threes. It was an easy decision to pick Bell here, as we only had 5 people show up all game.
0 recs | 14 comments
Good recap
Like you said, it doesn’t make sense that CJ gets pulled for poor play, but Hayward keeps starting even though he has been fairly lackluster thus far. I’d like to see CJ get more burn with the starters next game to see how he gels with them (not necessarily getting the start though).
Bebop - January 26, 2012
CJ, sadly, has always seemed to have special rules about his playing time.
Yucca Man - January 26, 2012
My only concern is
that if pull Hayward from the starting lineup, it will completely destroy what little confidence he has left. He hasn’t been playing well, but he’ll play even worse if we pull him.
Caderade - January 26, 2012
Maybe a relief?
At the same time maybe it would be a relief to him? Maybe he would really like to get more playing time with other young guys and would step up in that role. He may be kind of intimidated and not be playing like his true self next to all the vets? Just a thought.
BigGreen - January 26, 2012
Of course I agree with CJ thing
It makes absolutely no sense to me how they use him. they puthim in for the last second shots, and once they fell behind by 5 or 6 with a minute left in 2OT.
CJ could be an incredible part of the team by now if he would have been handled better. Last night showed that Ty isn’t being 100% truthful about how he is distributing minutes.
davidthecomposer - January 26, 2012
Annoyed with Howard..
Josh Howard tonight looked like the Howard from the first few games just tossing the ball up randomly at the basket. Don’t need to see that Ty should have pulled him immediately when he starts doing that and put in someone else.
About Hayward being pulled because of somewhat bad start I think he’s a good and consistent distributor even when he has turnovers and bad shooting nights he’s the kind of player that makes things happen. Yes, he’s been having some bad nights but I think he has to play in order to develop into the player we all know and want him to be.
And what the heck did we ever do to Linas Kleiza? That guy always has monster games against us..
utahspazz - January 26, 2012
How many times has that happened this season?
In almost every game I’ve watched there has been a jump shooting big off the bench that has murdered us. usually it doesn’t cost us the win.
Kfunk - January 26, 2012
I blame this loss on utahcoyote and jrclone.
JazzHype - January 26, 2012
People should make a distinction between Hayward not shooting well....
… and Hayward not playing well. Take away the atrocious shooting, and Hayward is playing quite well for a second year player. I re-watched the end of regulation and OT, and OG pulled down boards, made a great steal and outlet, played great D… he is playing well. Just not shooting well.
Frank5 - January 26, 2012
Everybody read what Frank5 just wrote, because it's true and an important distinction.
clarkpojo - January 26, 2012
I disagree that he's playing well.
I think contributors have said that there are pieces coming out next week about his play, but despite good numbers other than shooting, I think he’s hurting the offense. Too many possessions where he doesn’t get credited with a turnover, but gets stuck in the paint or on the perimeter which puts the Jazz offense in a scramble, leading to a bad shot or turnover by someone else. No clue how many times a game this actually happens, but it feels like it happens a lot. He often looks nervous or tentative with the ball to me and I think it has an effect on the other guys he’s playing with.
This is one of those posts where I wish I’d gotten Synergy, so I could see if my perceptions were reality, but instead, I’ll just have to try to pay closer attention to the games the first time through.
He could certainly be playing a lot worse, but I wouldn’t say he’s been playing well, with or without his shooting. Just seems to project a feeling of discomfort offensively. Defensively I haven’t noticed him much, which is a drastic improvement from him getting dominated repeatedly. Could have something to do with the offensive quality of the players he’s defending lately too though. Too bad they don’t play Denver for so long. Gallinari would be a good test of how much he’s improved.
JazzHype - January 27, 2012
What I worry most about still is this....
Right now, the Jazz look like they are the 9th or 10th best team in the West, leaning hard on their vets. I like that the team is competitive… but still, this is probably not the best trajectory for a five-year plan. And the fault for that is NOT on the coaching staff. Their job is to maximize the success for the season. It is the FO’s job to maximize the success for the longer term.
Frank5 - January 26, 2012
Everybody read what Frank5 just wrote, because it's true and an important distinction.
clarkpojo - January 26, 2012
I disagree on several counts.
I think the Jazz have shown that they are competitive in 4th-10th place in the West.
I think a five-year plan is actually best served if our young guys aren’t all starters putting up good numbers for a bad team, looking for max deals when it’s time to extend their contracts.
I disagree that the FO’s job is to maximize the success for the longer term. Do you mean the Jazz’s FO in the Jazz’s current situation? Or do you mean in general? I disagree either way, but I’m curious. Also, even if their goal is to maximize success for the longer term, wouldn’t success now make for a longer term than losing now?
Maybe the problem is in the definition of “success”?
JazzHype - January 27, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of SLC Dunk to post a comment.