Yet, not so obvious that you keep it in mind when proclaiming the deficincies of Jazz coaches.
Your claim depends on the assumption that coaches act rationally and perhaps effectively in their use of playing time, which is an assumption that I dispute, especially in the case of the last years of the Sloan era. The basis of my dispute is the repeated observation of the puzzling (at best) and seemingly blatant (at worst) misuse of lineups, matchups, and even enforcement of Sloan own philosophy (which was reportedly centered around effort and defense).
The development of those multiple crucial backup centers that were so desperately and repeatedly needed over the course of the Boozer-Okur years when that combination was vastly lacking in defense and when alternatives had repeatedly shown to stop the frequent hemorrhage of interior defense, usually partially or completely obviating the offensive prowess of these high-dollar players unchecked by any insistence of defensive effort that elite coaches have required (but Sloan did not).
Whose development was hindered? Demonstrate the degree to which hindrance occured, compared to the degree to which Millsap's abilities were aided by the on-court time.
Degree? I'm proposing an argument. I don't care enough to do what would likely be an econometric or statistical analysis of umpteenabytes of data. My argument is based on repeated situations in which these undeveloped players in crucial positions demonstrated favorable performance in specific situations and then were denied further positive reinforcement of that performance in the form of sufficient minutes to develop. It appears that you deny that a minimum amount of on-court playing time is necessary for that development; it might be a chicken-and-egg theory--that favorable performance engenders more minutes and vice-versa. My claim is that such a relationship was ignored for many players during the Sloan reign--and that the Jazz failed to reach their potential when they lacked crucial players (especially centers and controllers of the paint) when they really needed it, which usually occurred against tall playoff contenders and agile young teams that blew by the Matador and the Turkish Torero.
If you want to apply technical terms to it, then we could call it marginal developmental benefit of an additional minute (or 5 or 10 minutes) of playing time for a young player who had already received 15 or 20 minutes of playing time relative to the marginal developmental benefit of a player who had shown signs of ability and had the potential to fulfill a crucial need (i.e., backup center) but had not even received enough time to get into rhythm in an individual game (i.e., 5 minutes to 10 minutes, something that is regualarly afforded to many other players), much less be in the game long enough to develop.
It's hard to do when you argument is based on counter-factuals, isn't it. You really have no idea how close Araujo or Fesenko were/are to their ceiling.
And thus, neither do you. But, given that it appears that you're downplaying the multiple examples of players (especially big men) who did show progress and then were not given playing time to develop this progress, I'll go with my view of the world over yours.
You're basically pleading for the jazz coaches to have played/play them more so you can see what their ceiling would be, rather than trust the coaches to see this for themselves.
Correct, because the regular blunders that Sloan did in terms of his use of lineups, substitutions, and matchups can call into question any trust of the correctness of his use of playing time for development.
Actually, Dunning-Kruger operates even for contentions that can't be proven true or false, such as counter-factuals. It discusses mindset, not ability to test knowledge. If you have not been a regular at jazz practices, you don't have a good basis for deciding how much players could benefit from floor time.
Unless you have been a regular at Jazz practices, I don't think that you are in any better position to argue, then, than I am. Furthermore, you appear to be falling into the trap of overemphasizing what happens in practice relative to what happens in games. I recall in Jazz telecasts how CJ Miles and Korver, in their shooting slumps, were cited as hitting a very high percentage in practice but weren't converting in games--yet another data point of the notion that favorable performance in practice is not a sufficient condition for favorable performance in games, and that in-game playing time is a necessary condition for refinement of performance.
Any garden-variety creationist can provide multiple sources and even quote(-mine)s. They just do understand, or care to understand, what those sources/quotes actually mean.
There was at least some selectivity on my end regarding the sources that I shared; i.e., I focused on sources that are potentially relevant. In any case, I'll still take my sources over your absence of sources to the contrary. Have a nice day.
