← Team Metrics
Latest

Utah Jazz

2019-20
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What were the Utah Jazz in 2019-20, and what needed front-office attention?

UTA 2019-20: the clearest roster problems were Defensive event creation, Interior finishing, Rim pressure. The strongest covered areas were Shooting and spacing. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Rudy Gobert, Joe Ingles, Donovan Mitchell, Royce O'Neale, Bojan Bogdanovic. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoveragePartial8 supported · 3 withheld
Cap positionOver the cap, below the tax line, on selected player charges
Next decision dateNo calendar release at this as-of time

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.
Shooting and spacing
96th percentile
Bojan Bogdanovic carries 25.0%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Heavy or redundant salary already committed here
Full reading

UTA 2019-20 Shooting and spacing: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 96.2 league percentile. Bojan Bogdanovic supplied 25.0% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. The team already committed substantial or redundant cap resources here.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Defensive event creation
4th percentile
Royce O'Neale carries 26.9%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Comparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Full reading

UTA 2019-20 Defensive event creation: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 3.8 league percentile. Royce O'Neale supplied 26.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. The cap allocation to this critical need was comparatively low.

Interior finishing
12th percentile
Rudy Gobert carries 43.5%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Heavy or redundant salary already committed here
Full reading

UTA 2019-20 Interior finishing: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 11.5 league percentile. Rudy Gobert supplied 43.5% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. The team already committed substantial or redundant cap resources here.

Rim pressure
19th percentile
Rudy Gobert carries 40.1%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Comparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Full reading

UTA 2019-20 Rim pressure: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 19.2 league percentile. Rudy Gobert supplied 40.1% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. The cap allocation to this critical need was comparatively low.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league54th percentileJoe Ingles · 27.0%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Defensive event creationSupportedCritical team problem4th percentileRoyce O'Neale · 26.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonComparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Interior finishingSupportedCritical team problem12th percentileRudy Gobert · 43.5%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Passing connectivitySupportedMiddle of the league50th percentileJoe Ingles · 30.2%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldEmmanuel MudiayNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
ReboundingSupportedMiddle of the league46th percentileRudy Gobert · 32.6%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Rim pressureSupportedCritical team problem19th percentileRudy Gobert · 40.1%No recent availability layer for this seasonComparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Rim protectionSupportedCritical team problem19th percentileRudy Gobert · 67.7%No recent availability layer for this seasonComparatively little salary committed to a critical need
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldEmmanuel MudiayNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Shooting and spacingSupportedTeam strength96th percentileBojan Bogdanovic · 25.0%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldEmmanuel MudiayNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Rudy Gobert
Critical basketball and lineup dependence

UTA was highly dependent on Rudy Gobert. Removing him cost about 67.7% of rim protection production, and lineups with him performed 7.3 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Mike Conley, Jordan Clarkson, Joe Ingles, Georges Niang, Tony Bradley] over 183 possessions.

rotation 68%loses 67.7% of rim protection
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Rudy Gobert

Mike Conley · Jordan Clarkson · Joe Ingles · Georges Niang · Tony Bradley

shrunk net 4.417 over 183 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,533 possessions · off floor 2,159 possessions

Joe Ingles
Critical basketball and lineup dependence

UTA was highly dependent on Joe Ingles. Removing him cost about 30.2% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 7.6 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Mike Conley, Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] over 712 possessions.

rotation 62%loses 30.2% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Joe Ingles

Mike Conley · Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell

shrunk net 5.66 over 712 possessions

on floor 4,167 possessions · off floor 2,541 possessions

Donovan Mitchell
Lineup performance dependence

UTA lineups performed 3.6 points per 100 possessions better with Donovan Mitchell than without him. The best supported alternative was [Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Joe Ingles, Emmanuel Mudiay, Royce O'Neale] over 156 possessions.

rotation 69%loses 26.1% of creation
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Donovan Mitchell

Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Joe Ingles · Emmanuel Mudiay · Royce O'Neale

shrunk net 5.873 over 156 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,668 possessions · off floor 2,061 possessions

Royce O'Neale
Lineup performance dependence

UTA lineups performed 4.7 points per 100 possessions better with Royce O'Neale than without him. The best supported alternative was [Mike Conley, Jordan Clarkson, Joe Ingles, Georges Niang, Tony Bradley] over 183 possessions.

rotation 60%loses 19.3% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Royce O'Neale

Mike Conley · Jordan Clarkson · Joe Ingles · Georges Niang · Tony Bradley

shrunk net 4.417 over 183 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,010 possessions · off floor 2,703 possessions

Bojan Bogdanovic
Lineup performance dependence

UTA lineups performed 4.6 points per 100 possessions better with Bojan Bogdanovic than without him. The best supported alternative was [Mike Conley, Rudy Gobert, Joe Ingles, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] over 346 possessions.

rotation 56%loses 30.3% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Bojan Bogdanovic

Mike Conley · Rudy Gobert · Joe Ingles · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell

shrunk net 7.096 over 346 possessions

on floor 3,756 possessions · off floor 2,959 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.

No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season.

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
WithheldThe team was over the cap but below the tax on selected player charges; exception detail remains withheld.
Selected player charges
$118.9M
Share of cap
109%
Tax line
$13.7M under
First apron
$20.0M under
Second apron
No governed line that season

Most salary is mapped to creation; the highest-need area is defensive event creation. Salary-to-function mapping covers 89% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $109,140,000Luxury tax line: $132,627,000First apron: $138,928,000Second apron: Selected player charges: $118,910,311Source-reported payroll: $118,910,311 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
PartialTeam picture available; recent availability layer unavailable8 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Screening: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.