Alphonso de Lamartine (who surely we all know and revere) wrote in his 1854 documentation of the French Revolution, “History teaches all things, even the future”. While the great Frenchman was writing of something with greater consequence than the Jazz’s projection for the 2027 season, the principle stands – if we would like a forecast for this upcoming season, we need only to understand the success of some of the team’s historical parallels.
Now, this is not a perfect science. For starters, the NBA
is rapidly evolving; a team in 2026 cannot craft wins from the same formula that a team in 1986 could. Additionally, the game is complex enough that you will never find a 1-to-1 comparison for a player by scouring the history books. This is to say that the task is more strenuous than finding the team with the 1980s version of Lauri Markkanen and Keyonte George.
So, instead of drawing specifics from NBA history, we are going to look for general principles that link teams together. For example, the primary lesson that we learn from the French Revolution is not that we need to bolster the fortifications of the Bastille, but that when the government upholds unfair economic structures, people may seek radical change. The concept is timeless, even if the particulars of the playing field shift with time. So, while the Utah Jazz will undoubtedly shoot more three pointers than any of the team historical comparisons I discuss today, that difference in playstyle does not negate the concepts of basketball that connect the eras. Teams have needed and will continue to need playmakers, shooters, defenders. Teams that win the possession battle have been and will continue to be successful. Teams with a dynamic, creative coach have and will continue to exceed expectations. There is no historical team with Darryn Peterson and Ace Bailey, but that fact does not impede our ability to learn from history.
In this article, I will attempt to find three teams from NBA history similar in construction to the 2026-2027 Utah Jazz. One of these teams will be the worst-case scenario; where has a team gone wrong with a make-up similar to Utah? Another will a more likely, closer to 50th percentile outcome; if we simulate Utah’s season 100 times, what type of success will we most often encounter? Finally, a best-case scenario; if everything clicks, just how good can this team be? As I look for comparisons, I will not be taking age or career trajectory into account. For example, none of these teams need to have a player with as much potential as Darryn Peterson, but we are trying to find a team with a player that plays like current Darryn Peterson. Finally, before we jump into things, let me reiterate one more time – none of the team or player comparisons I make are 1-to-1, so do not come for my throat if the historical player that I say plays the Lauri Markkanen role is, in your opinion, better or worse than Lauri Markkanen. We’re just trying to have a good time.
Worst case outcome: 2006-2007 Milwaukee Bucks
Record: 28-54
Key Players: Michael Redd, Mo Williams, Andrew Bogut
Offensive Rating: 107.0 (12 out of 30)
Defensive Rating: 111.7 (29 out of 30)
Season Outcome: Lottery
This was the most encouraging aspect of my historical studies – it was very, very difficult to find a team with the Jazz’s level of talent that truly failed. The Bucks are the team that with the least clean comparison to the Jazz. That isn’t to say that I’m totally off-base here. This is a team who found offensive success with fairly limited playmaking and the lack of a tier 1 star. Additionally, this is a team that simply could not hang defensively, even with the presence of a genuine defensive anchor (Andrew Bogut was young, but already quite impactful on that end). Michael Redd fills the Lauri Markkanen role as a sturdy wing who devastates teams with off-ball scoring. Mo Williams functions as the Keyonte George: a smaller guard who is additive to a good offense but who can’t keep one afloat on his own. Charlie Bell, the teams starting shooting guard, was a solid off-ball shooter with some playmaking juice (about what I’m expecting from DP in year one). The Bucks had solid offensive pieces, but it wasn’t enough to build a genuinely competitive team.
The holes in this comparison are admittedly obvious. For one, the comparison between Andrew Bogut and Jaren Jackson Jr. is a major stretch. Even if Bogut was already effective as a defender in his rookie year, and thus filled the archetype of a real anchor on a bad defense, the offensive gap is so substantial – who knows how good the 2007 Bucks would’ve been if Andrew Bogut was stretching the floor and giving them a fairly efficient 20 points per game? On top of that, the Bucks bench was not nearly as impressive as what I project the Jazz’s to be. A current dilemma the Jazz seem to be facing is having too many competent bench wings (Sensabaugh, Green, Okogie, Svi, Ace, Hinson). I think the majority of those guys would be getting a guaranteed 20 minutes off of the bench for Milwaukee. That is especially true when taking the Bucks’ injuries into account – Michael Redd missed 29 games, Mo missed 14, Bogut missed 16, and backup power forward Charlie Villanueva missed 43. This, again, is encouraging. A team that I view as less talented than the Jazz still needed to suffer significant injury to end the season with only 28 wins – the season before, when Redd played 80 games, the Bucks found a way to sneak into the playoffs. The fact that it is difficult to find an unsuccessful team that was both (a) healthy and (b) as talented as the Jazz is history’s way of teaching us that teams like the Jazz tend to win games. If everything goes wrong (Lauri injured, Keyonte taking a step-back, only minor improvements from Ace), sure, maybe the Jazz fare like the 2007 bucks, but the former’s advantages of the latter makes that seem unlikely.
Summary: A loose comparison built off the precedent an off-ball scoring wing, effective point guard, and defensive anchor failing to lead to wins. Jazz are much stronger on the margins, and the Bucks have no answer for Jaren Jackson Jr.
Median outcome: 1997-1998 Minnesota Timberwolves
Record: 45-37
Key Players: Kevin Garnett, Stephon Marbury, Tom Gugliotta
Offensive Rating: 107.8 (7 out of 29)
Defensive Rating: 107.1 (23 out of 29)
Season outcome: Lost to the Supersonics in the first round, 2-3
The parallel here is much stronger. This Timberwolves team built a strong offense off of ball movement – they ranked 3rd in the league in total assists in 1998, and averaged the 2nd most points per game without any one scorer reaching 21 PPG. Similarly to what many of us are predicting with the Jazz, this offensive cohesion did not translate to defensive success, even with the presence of an anchor like Kevin Garnett (who was young, but still an all-star).
There are cleaner player comparisons among these two teams, as well. A young Garnett is a solid 90’s equivalent of Jaren Jackson Jr. (with some additional rebounding juice) and Tom Gugliotta, with his floor-spacing (to the deep mid-range, but still) and off-ball movement, being reminiscent of Lauri Markkanen. Backcourt ballhandling duties for the Timberwolves were very much reserved to their two point guards – Stephon Marbury and Terry Porter – which is similar to the offensive load we can expect Keyonte George and Isaiah Collier to carry when they are on the court. Anthony Peeler provides some of the passing and shooting and Darryn Peterson, Sam Mitchell brings the defensive intensity of either Okogie or Green, and like the Jazz, the T-wolves employed a few very large players whose primary goal was to be imposing and pull down rebounds. Eras shift the roles a bit, but the general ideas of players permeate across both squads. There are some key differences between the team (Nurkic is more skilled a center than any of the Minnesota bigs, and Garnett+Gugliotta are much better passers than their Jazz equivalents), but their core principle of “shot creating guard dishing to two forwards who are most effective at the receiving end of plays” is very comparable.
The result of the Timberwolves season is very telling. First, I believe it emphasizes the importance of Lauri Markkanen. Tom Gugliotta went down with injury near the halfway point of the year, and the added offensive pressure put upon the rest of the players really hurt their proficiency. I watched some of their first round series against the Supersonics, and I could tell that without their stabilizing offensive force, newly overtasked players began to flounder. It is not some novel observation that a team losing their leading scorer will struggle, but I did find it interesting that the same held true in a context similar to Utah’s; losing a scorer, even if they are primarily off-ball and your attack is balanced, can be very difficult to overcome. Still, this team fought until the very end, and put up a strong fight against the heavily favored Supersonics. If they had another ballhandler, the story might’ve gone differently. However, with Marbury forced to fend for himself against the incessant pressure of Gary Payton, he put up horrendous efficiency, and Seattle was able to advance.
Summary: Gugliotta, Marbury, and a young Garnett make up a similar big three to Utah’s Markk, George, and JJJ. While injuries were likely the deciding factor in their season, their lack of ballhandling should be a sign that the Jazz may need to pick up another initiator before they face the pesky hands of OKC or San Antonio.
Best case outcome: 2003-2004 Sacramento Kings
Record: 55-27
Key Players: Peja Stojakovic, Mike Bibby, Brad Miller, Vlade Divac, Doug Christie
Offensive Rating: 110.2 (2 out of 29)
Defensive Rating: 104.9 (21 out of 29)
Season outcome: Lost to the Timberwolves in the second round, 3-4
A man can dream, right?
This is about as good a team that didn’t play defense that there is in NBA history. 2004 Peja Stojakovic is likely the greatest individual season of any Lauri Markkanen comparison. Mike Bibby shows the benefits that can come as Keyonte’s dynamic offense ages and matures. Doug Christie’s union of 3, D, and playmaking could very well be replicated by a rookie Darryn Peterson. Vlade Divac, as a clever ground-bound anchor, likely sees shades of himself if he ever catches any Jusuf Nurkic minutes on TV. Brad Miller was stretching the floor, playing both big positions, and playing positive defense years before JJJ modernized that archetype for Memphis. And even though Bobby Jackson leans more into scoring than playmaking, he and Isaiah Collier effectively fill the same bench change-of-pace role. Fittingly, this Sacramento team that many said was ahead of its time finds its parallel in a 2027 squad.
For some, the success of this team is a mystery. With Chris Webber hurt most of the year (and when he returned, he was really a shell of himself), a traditional #1 scoring option could not be found. Peja led the team in points, but he isn’t a player that you can toss the ball to and ask to create consistent offense. Bibby, Christie, and Miller were all strong players, but were considered to be best when impacted by the gravity of a bigger star. Above all else, the Kings are an example of a team being greater than the sum of its parts, and that formula is what optimistic Jazz fans are betting on this year if the team is to exceed expectations. With a legendary coach and a near-unstoppable high-low, dribble handoff offense (we’ll miss you Jusuf Nurkic), the Kings were able to get the absolute most out of each of their offensive weapons. Go back and watch some of their highlights – some of their sets for Peja are eerily similar to what the Jazz run for Lauri Markkanen. If the Jazz are to make a substantial jump, it will be through the hivemind-esque cohesion exemplified by the Sacramento Kings (before Chris Webber came back from injury, at least).
Because of Webber, it is difficult to analyze the result of the Kings 2004 season. While Webber was out, the Kings had a scorching 42-15 record, or a 60 win pace. When Webber returned, they finished the regular season 13-12. It feels counterintuitive to assume that the Kings would’ve performed better in the playoffs without Webber, but it also seems obvious when you look at the actual results. Something had clicked during the 2003-2004 regular season, and by adding Webber into the lineup was the equivalent of throwing a grenade into the middle of it all. Had things stayed the way they were during those first 57 games, I would not have been surprised at all if the Kings found themselves in the finals playing the Pistons in 2004. Instead, they lost to the Timberwolves, partially because a dilapidated Chris Webber allowed Kevin Garnett to have the best series of his life. Nevertheless, the 2004 Kings provide a proof of concept – this is what the Jazz are gunning for until Darryn Peterson becomes the undebatable superstar that many of us believe he can be.
Summary: The Kings are the precedent. With a roster construction similar to Jazz, they meshed together to the tune of a 60 win pace without Chris Webber, all without a superstar or a strong defense. If it works, it’ll look like this.
Which historical team do you see in the 2026-2027 Utah Jazz? How do you feel about my comparisons? Let me know below!
