Are the Jazz worse without Boozer?

To really get an accurate answer I think it's best to focus on the past two seasons. Why?

a) Boozer missed either 49 or 53 games (depending on how you define it), giving us a sample size that is reasonable.

b) The past two years are when Millsap was actually able to perform as a starter. Looking at either the 05 or 06 seasons (during Boozer's first bout of injuries) isn't nearly as useful because the Jazz did not have an actual replacement for him then. They have during the past two years.

Here we go:

There are two ways to define the games without Boozer: 1) Games in which he didn't actually play, 2) All in category 1 plus the first four games in which he returned to play in 2009 but only averaged 20 minutes. I think it's legit to count these because in these games Boozer was still working his way back to his regular minutes and rotation, he was not at full strength, he was working off 3 months of rust, etc. In other words, it is still a team without Boozer playing 36 minutes and capable of putting up a 20 & 10. These 4 games do not reflect what the team will be like if Boozer is resigned.

Jazz record over the past 2 years: 101-63 — .615 winning percentage

Jazz record without Boozer (1): 29-20 — .591 winning percentage

Jazz record without Boozer (2): 33-20 — .622 winning percentage

Jazz record with Boozer (1): 72-43 — .626 winning percentage

Jazz record with Boozer (2): 68-43 — .612 winning percentage

So how exactly was the team worse without Boozer? I see a team that was pretty much the same with or without him.

But here's some more stats. Remember how Jerry Sloan credited the turn around last season to his decision to put AK back in the lineup? Well, here's the stats. Again, there are two versions: (1) All of AK-as-a-starter games and (2) AK back in the linueup in January, coinciding with the turnaround. I am not counting the Milwaukee game in which AK injured his calf because he missed the entire second half. In other words, that's not a game that shows what it's like for AK when AK plays a full role as a starter.

I did include AK's two games where he tried to come back from the injury (1 win and 1 loss). I don't know why. He injured his leg again and left both games early, so it's not really showing what the Jazz were like with him vs. without. I guess I thought it important that, even though AK was coming back from an injury Sloan thought he was so important that he put AK back in the starting lineup and tried to give AK his regular minutes again.

Jazz record: 53-29 — .615 winning percentage

With AK as a starter (1): 25-12 — .675 winning percentage

With AK as a starter (2): 22-7 — .759 winning percentage

Why look at when AK was put back in the starting lineup after Jan.? Why not just do his total time as a starter? Four major reasons: 1) The Jazz were missing both CJ and Korver at the beginning of the year (AK's additional 8 starts were the first 8 games of the season) 2) The first 3 Jazz losses (miserable 4th quarter collapses against Denver, Dallas, and Houston) followed the same script: Deron and AK almost single-handedly put the Jazz in the lead going into the 4th quarters before the awful collapses. Yeah it's fair to blame Deron and AK for the collapse, but not without remembering they were the only two reasons the Jazz looked like they were going to win in the first place. 3) The entire first month was miserable, and everyone was to blame (though I can't help wondering how much of the disjointedness happened because of Boozer's previous summer—we'll never know, but I'll always wonder), and 4) I'd like to forget that the first month of last season happened at all.

But anyway, whether you include those first 8 games or not the stats show the same thing: with AK as a starter, and with AK playing starter-type minutes the Jazz were significantly better.

I don't know. When you look at individual stats, yeah Boozer seems pretty good and pretty important. When you watch Boozer in the post and see his footwork and moves, yeah Boozer seems pretty good. 2-time All-Star, Olympian, etc., etc., etc. (Though AK's an Olympian too, and he's led the Russian national team to some pretty high levels despite being the only player of any consequence on the team).

So why doesn't the team improve with Boozer? Why doesn't the team fall off a cliff when he misses games? Why is Boozer's 19 & 11 off-the-charts important but Millsap's 17 & 10 as a starter doesn't even bear mention? Why are the Jazz significantly better when AK starts and plays a major role? Why would anyone be desperate to resign a guy who will put the Jazz over the cap and into luxury tax range for the next 5-6 years but doesn't actually improve the team? I mean, look at the records again with and without Boozer! He doesn't make any difference!

Why would anyone be desperate to trade a guy who's ridiculous salary is coming off the books next year, who will resign for less (who already offered to tear up his current contract for a smaller paycheck), and whose play as a starter significantly improves the team? Especially when any trade involving AK will likely bring (a) someone not as good, (b) someone another team is just trying to dump off, and (c) probably have a lousy contract expiring later than AK's?

Why? Why? Why? Why?

Vince Carter (lifetime stats: 23 PPG, 5 RBD, 4 AST) is NOT a better player than Scottie Pippen (16-6-5), Joe Dumars (16-2-4) or even Dennis Johnson (14-4-5). Shaq (24-11-3) has not had a more impressive career than Duncan (21-11-3) or Hakeem (21-11-2). Isiah Thomas in '89 (18-3-8) was a MUCH better player than Isiah in '85 (21-5-14). And Bill Russell (15-23-5) was always better than Wilt (30-23-5).

And AK makes the Jazz much, much better than Boozer ever will.

* Yes, AK's health is a concern. I worry about it incessantly. But it is the ONLY downside to him. When I think of how much he brings to the Jazz, how much better they are with him playing a starring role, and that his contract will expire in 1 year and he'll resign for less—the rewards far, far outweigh the risks to keeping him.