PutARingOnIt#GrizzFan

I have to give Wallace his props..this team really has few flaw besides injury concerns

Recommended Posts

On 10/1/2017 at 3:00 AM, smit-tay griz said:

So I guess that practices and scrimmages are worthless because a coach could not possibly tell if a player was ready, or even close to being ready.

I think that people who think the coach needs to play every player don't trust the coach and just want to second guess him.

Apparently they were with Joerger. And don't forget, they don't really have a lot of time to work with players once the season starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chipc3 said:

Mike Conley and Marc Gasol were developed. JaMychal Green developed. 

I can’t disagree that the GM and coach share responsibility for this but I put the majority of blame on the front office for not finding talent to develop more than a coach under the gun to win immediately choosing veterans over rookies.

 

What irritates me about this discussion is that the available information is always in the favor of the argument just made. 

For illustration, we all know the maxim that a negative can't be proven. In the case of "undeveloped" NBA talent, or young talent that doesn't pan out, the only information available is that the player didn't work out. But, we have almost no information available to us to tell us why. So, the easiest conclusion is that it was the player's fault, alone. And for anyone trying to make the argument that, any "x" player was a good prospect in a bad situation, there's basically no information readily available to make that argument. So, generally speaking, the argument always reverts back to what you just concluded so succinctly: the talent was never there in the first place. 

I actually think there could be a big business in trying to track and illuminate this discussion with more relevant information. And I do wonder what NBA franchises are already pouring into this department.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

 

What irritates me about this discussion is that the available information is always in the favor of the argument just made. 

For illustration, we all know the maxim that a negative can't be proven. In the case of "undeveloped" NBA talent, or young talent that doesn't pan out, the only information available is that the player didn't work out. But, we have almost no information available to us to tell us why. So, the easiest conclusion is that it was the player's fault, alone. And for anyone trying to make the argument that, any "x" player was a good prospect in a bad situation, there's basically no information readily available to make that argument. So, generally speaking, the argument always reverts back to what you just concluded so succinctly: the talent was never there in the first place. 

I actually think there could be a big business in trying to track and illuminate this discussion with more relevant information. And I do wonder what NBA franchises are already pouring into this department.  

Yes, thank you that sums it up perfectly.  It is just easy to assume that coach would have played him if he was good and he didn't have the talent, wouldn't listen, didn't work hard enough, but the only proof of that is that the coach didn't play him.  And there are other factors.  What if the coach was trying to plug a square peg into a round hole?  Eg, taking a scoring point guard and trying to make him a pass first pg.  You can say "well that's coaches system, point guards gotta set people", but we all know darn well that as soon as the same coach acquires Lou Williams he is going to let him loose with no questions asked!

Another example I thought of is CJ McCullom.  He sat on the Portland bench for 1+ years, did nothing and when he got in, he wasn't allowed to do much of anything.  About 3 or 4 players on Portland's team got hurt right before the playoffs a few years and it forced coach to not only play him but let him loose.  Come to find out he was better at putting the ball in the hole than almost everyone on the team except Lilliard.  Now what happens if those guys never get hurt?  Then we are sitting here talking about how he "didn't have the talent" lol.  And do you think that he really wasn't showing anything in practice?  Really, he was just not cutting it in practice at all, showing nothing, but let him go in games and he lights it up.

Plain and simple, coach probably didn't like his style, so he didn't play him much and let him do what he does.  That is clear.  And I think that is what happens in a lot of cases.  Some guys can play, but the coach just doesn't like his style or doesn't see a need to try and develop him and isn't interested in long term gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Herodotus said:

 

What irritates me about this discussion is that the available information is always in the favor of the argument just made. 

For illustration, we all know the maxim that a negative can't be proven. In the case of "undeveloped" NBA talent, or young talent that doesn't pan out, the only information available is that the player didn't work out. But, we have almost no information available to us to tell us why. So, the easiest conclusion is that it was the player's fault, alone. And for anyone trying to make the argument that, any "x" player was a good prospect in a bad situation, there's basically no information readily available to make that argument. So, generally speaking, the argument always reverts back to what you just concluded so succinctly: the talent was never there in the first place. 

I actually think there could be a big business in trying to track and illuminate this discussion with more relevant information. And I do wonder what NBA franchises are already pouring into this department.  

I suppose we’ll get our chance over the next two seasons with Ben McLemore.

There was a report a few years ago showing which coaches actually make a postitive impact on their players. Coach Pops led the way with Pat Riley in 2nd I believe. Then a huge glob of coaches that weren’t positive or negative influences. They judged how players performed with the team versus how they performed after they left or before they came. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now