I am trying to understand the complete garbage line of reasoning that playing Burks is considered "developing" and equates to the Jazz having to lose in order for that "development" to happen. Here are some simple #'s for you:
Jazz 2011-12 record when Burks played at least 20 minutes: 12-5 (That would translate to a 57 win season and a 1 or 2 seed most years)
Jazz 2011-12 record when Burks played less than 20 minutes: 24-25 (That would translate to a 41 win season and missing the playoffs most years)
Ok stat nerds, I don't need to hear about correlation, causation, and sample size and all of that. I understand that. But this is all we have to work with and more or less disproves the premise that the Jazz can't win if Alec Burks is playing a significant role. In fact, it proves just the opposite.
And for those who say, well, maybe the Jazz won in spite of him on those days. Simple +/- total shows that he was +21 in the 12 wins and +8 in the 5 losses when he got those 20 minutes. So technically, they were losing in spite of his positive production.
Now I'm not going to extrapolate this and come out and say that the Jazz would win the west if they played Alec Burks 30 minutes a night. I don't think he makes that kind of an impact. But I will say that the Jazz would undoubtedly be a better team if they played Burks over Tinsley and Carroll and in the tight western conference race, that could be the difference between the 10 seed and the 5 seed.