Burks or Rush?
- Thread starter Hantlers
- Start date
****ing mind-blowing.
GVC
Well-Known Member
How much better? What are the odds he turns himself into an above average off-ball player? What are the odds he turns himself into an above average off-ball player and above average defender as a starting 2? His skills utilized in that role would render him easily replaceable; average shooters who can't defend are a dime a dozen. Putting the ball in his hands against bench players is a better way to get value out of a player like Burks.
Yeah. I know. Also, I think his defensive problems stem from some combination of him not being very smart and being coached very poorly. He seems to always guard tight or loose in precisely the wrong situations (i.e. tries to smother ballhandlers 5 feet beyond the 3 point line).
Like I said, it's probably fantasy. I guess I just see making him a combo-guard bench scorer as giving up on making him an actually good player. That said, it doesn't seem to me that he's been given any kind of consistency in terms of role or spot in the rotation so I'm allowing myself to believe that he can still substantially improve.
Sunk costs
I agree. But then there is human nature & biases. Mgmt (GM/ head coach) suffer from confirmatory evidence bias -- meaning they are looking for reasons to justify their past decisions and prove that they were correct and wise. So they have some "skin in the game" and are invested in their previous decisions (to draft a certain guy, for example). If their high pick does not pan out, they look foolish and therefore have less job security. So they want to give their high draft picks every chance to succeed (versus some guy in the 2nd round, who, if they fail, people shrug "yeah well, just a second round pick, no biggie"). Economic theory says that your past decisions are a "sunk cost" and therefore should not influence your future decisions. But human nature and incentives sometimes get in the way.
I agree. But then there is human nature & biases. Mgmt (GM/ head coach) suffer from confirmatory evidence bias -- meaning they are looking for reasons to justify their past decisions and prove that they were correct and wise. So they have some "skin in the game" and are invested in their previous decisions (to draft a certain guy, for example). If their high pick does not pan out, they look foolish and therefore have less job security. So they want to give their high draft picks every chance to succeed (versus some guy in the 2nd round, who, if they fail, people shrug "yeah well, just a second round pick, no biggie"). Economic theory says that your past decisions are a "sunk cost" and therefore should not influence your future decisions. But human nature and incentives sometimes get in the way.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I can see the value in giving him an opportunity to learn the role. If he struggles, however, and spacing is compromised, the development of Kanter/Favors/Burke could be negatively affected. Burks played pretty well in 2 guard sets with Foye last year, and the Jazz picked up 2 new small guards (Lucas and Clark). Playing with those guys will still allow him to get reps off ball (having another reliable big would help).
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Really man, you can't see why they're relevant? At all? Maybe the fact that he's not being given minutes in an awkward, uncomfortable and unpredictable manner, and can instead develop a routine and a rapport, and can have time to get in the game, in a flow, and contribute without the fear of "oh my god, I only play 5 minutes a game, I better shoot and score otherwise some peeps are going to bring up my ****ty averages out of context to paint an unfair and inaccurate picture of the type of player I am". It does not breed good basketball. This is something that's common sense.
There may be a bit of "sunk cost fallacy" in your argument.... some reading if anyone is interested (I like this stuff, many others don't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs
However, if the point is that the player has some unlocked potential that was reflected in his draft order that may take time to develop, so that in the long haul he will be a superior value, that part I could agree with.
If the point is that another player has better long-term value but just because another guy was drafted we play him anyway, then we would disagree (more likely that mgmt is trying to justify their previous mistake in an act of self-preservation).
Issue is tricky because it is tied up in human psych.
One could make the argument that Burks got those minutes BECAUSE he was playing well. I wouldn't make that argument, because Burks got those minutes because Corbin was running out of bodies so his hand was forced to play Burks.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Yeah, someone can make that argument I suppose... but it would be wrong. Corbin's pattern of behavior on these sorts of things (Enes 20/20... then back to 10 MPG) is well established.
GVC
Well-Known Member
This has been grossly exaggerated by Jazzfanz posters. Take a look at his game logs for his first two seasons.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Mostly, yes. The first month+ of his rookie season, and the first two months last season, no.
He played under 10 minutes in only 7 of his last 51 games (averaging 20.1 mpg over that stretch) last season. He played under 10 minutes in only 3 of his last 38 games (averaging 18.7 mpg over that stretch) his rookie season (66 game schedule).
edit: He played in 13 of 14 Jazz games this past January, averaging 16.1 mpg. He played in 22 of 24 Jazz games in March and April, averaging 18.6 mpg. Why is February so special?
bjunior
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
This hasn't been the case in either of Burks' first two seasons. Ignoring facts doesn't change them.
