What's new
By:

Jazz back in talks with Josh Howard

infection said:
How long did it take Corbin to grow enough balls to bench Bell? I don't see Howard taking it to the extreme of hopping off the team bus (which still didn't lose Bell minutes) so I see Corbin feeling guilty about letting an "experienced vet" who signed here to get minutes not get playing time.
Click to expand...

I see that as a rationalization for Corbin having a different opinion on the overall contributions of Howard than many members of this board have. Corbin's seen a lot of coaches get fired for losing. I don't believe for a moment he would chance losing more games out of guilt over who signed where.
 
One Brow said:
I see that as a rationalization for Corbin having a different opinion on the overall contributions of Howard than many members of this board have. Corbin's seen a lot of coaches get fired for losing. I don't believe for a moment he would chance losing more games out of guilt over who signed where.
Click to expand...

Well said. The thought that Ty plays people out of obligation or any reason other than believing they help the team win is absurd. You can disagree with his decisions but lets not be ridiculous. It is about W's.
 
Then why the hell was Bell playing, especially considering the BS he pulled?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
We praised him for heaving the ball into the air at random intervals?
Click to expand...

yeah, oddly. boler and harp were all over his junk in some of those early games for being "so aggressive" and "just knowing how to score"... the PR campaign worked because people started talking about josh like he was some sort of automatic scorer.
 
theNBAnerd said:
yeah, oddly. boler and harp were all over his junk in some of those early games for being "so aggressive" and "just knowing how to score"... the PR campaign worked because people started talking about josh like he was some sort of automatic scorer.
Click to expand...
People are sp in love with raw numbers, they don't look at efficiency. If Josh were to start and score 16 pts on 8-20 shooting, the media would write about how he's providing much needed offense. On the other hand, if Marvin, in a back-up role was only getting 5 shots, but making 4 (because J. Howard was getting all the minutes), boler and others would be talking about a wasted trade.
 
MoTown16 said:
People are sp in love with raw numbers, they don't look at efficiency. If Josh were to start and score 16 pts on 8-20 shooting, the media would write about how he's providing much needed offense. On the other hand, if Marvin, in a back-up role was only getting 5 shots, but making 4 (because J. Howard was getting all the minutes), boler and others would be talking about a wasted trade.
Click to expand...

that's pretty much exactly what happened. he had that string of double-digit games and there were feel-good stories on TV and in print about how great he was playing and how he was resurrecting his career and showing his all-star scoring prowess. all the while he was doing the same things that people flame CJ for. bleh.
 
infection said:
Then why the hell was Bell playing, especially considering the BS he pulled?
Click to expand...

The same as any other player. Corbin felt he was more likely to win with Bell on the floor. Perhaps your judgment is better than corbin's, but probably not. Either way, assuming he has any other motive seems ridiculous.
 
One Brow said:
The same as any other player. Corbin felt he was more likely to win with Bell on the floor. Perhaps your judgment is better than corbin's, but probably not. Either way, assuming he has any other motive seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So we're basically arguing over whether or not Corbin played Bell because he felt obligated vs. playing him because he was blind. Good argument to be having. Of course, I get the 'authority trumps' attitude from your post as we are just lowly JF members who lack the experience that NBA coaches and executives have. Corbin may very well have been right in Bell making us better, just as Scotty Layden may have been right to pile up on undersized PFs in NY, sign Houston to that large contract, and then stack the team with Marbury, Francis, Crawford and Jalen Rose. Kahn's done well for Minnesota. Of course, I would presume you would oppose a lot of those moves, but obviously you have no ground or experience from which to offer valuable discourse.
 
infection said:
Of course, I would presume you would oppose a lot of those moves, but obviously you have no ground or experience from which to offer valuable discourse.
Click to expand...

The benefit of hindsight helps, as does the standard-in-all-humans cognitive bias of noticing events which confirm our preconceptions and and disregarding events that do not.

For example, Layden's piling up PFs in NY was bad, but the Jazz once played a fairly successful lineup of Williams and four forwards, three of which could have been considered undersized PFs.

Was Layden and is Kahn bad? Sure. Any notion you might have that you'd have been better: see the first paragraph. I know enough to know that my cognitive biases are not the same thing as real knowledge.
 
One Brow said:
The benefit of hindsight helps, as does the standard-in-all-humans cognitive bias of noticing events which confirm our preconceptions and and disregarding events that do not.

For example, Layden's piling up PFs in NY was bad, but the Jazz once played a fairly successful lineup of Williams and four forwards, three of which could have been considered undersized PFs.

Was Layden and is Kahn bad? Sure. Any notion you might have that you'd have been better: see the first paragraph. I know enough to know that my cognitive biases are not the same thing as real knowledge.
Click to expand...

I'm giving you the exact same opinions now that I had then. Also the same opinions 75% of people had then, too. The only difference is the guys making the decisions were the experts. Let's not pretend that it was the advantage of hindsight that brought everyone to a knowledge of how bad these moves were. Saying Bell sucks is calling a spade a spade. Spare everyone on defending an obviously terrible move by an appeal to authority.
 
infection said:
I'm giving you the exact same opinions now that I had then.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. I'm not doubting your sincerity. Humans are much better at listing the 100 times they were right than the 1000 times they were wrong. It's who we are.

infection said:
Also the same opinions 75% of people had then, too.
Click to expand...

Humans are also great at remembering agreement better than disagreement.

infection said:
The only difference is the guys making the decisions were the experts. Let's not pretend that it was the advantage of hindsight that brought everyone to a knowledge of how bad these moves were. Saying Bell sucks is calling a spade a spade. Spare everyone on defending an obviously terrible move by an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

I recall opinions on Bell being fairly mixed when he was signed. It's easy to say now, and was easy to say last year, it was a bad move.
 
One Brow said:
Of course you are. I'm not doubting your sincerity. Humans are much better at listing the 100 times they were right than the 1000 times they were wrong. It's who we are.
Click to expand...

Like when I thought Pavlovic would be a 20 ppg scorer or thought Andrei was more mentally tough than he proved to be or when I thought Mo Williams couldn't shoot, etc., etc. But, of course, you knew that.

Humans are also great at remembering agreement better than disagreement.
Click to expand...

While this may be true generally, it was blatantly obvious at the time that Layden was destroying the Knicks, as did his successor.

I recall opinions on Bell being fairly mixed when he was signed. It's easy to say now, and was easy to say last year, it was a bad move.
Click to expand...

Not concerned. What I'm talking about is last season. It was obvious to anyone with a television set that Bell getting minutes was a travesty, yet despite his absolutely ****ty play and his off-the-court antics, he still got playing time.

What I'm talking about now is how puzzling signing Howard would be. Feel free to chime in with the same claim of hindsight bias next year as if nobody foresaw this.

But thanks for the pop-psychology lesson. It was fun.
 
infection said:
Like when I thought Pavlovic would be a 20 ppg scorer or thought Andrei was more mentally tough than he proved to be or when I thought Mo Williams couldn't shoot, etc., etc. But, of course, you knew that.
Click to expand...

Good to see you can recall a couple of errors. I knew they existed, of course, but would have had no idea what they were.

infection said:
While this may be true generally, it was blatantly obvious at the time that Layden was destroying the Knicks, as did his successor.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, the Jazz successfully ran a team full of undersized PFs. A lot of people thought it was likely Layden was m,aking an error, but sometimes those things work out.

infection said:
Not concerned. What I'm talking about is last season. It was obvious to anyone with a television set that Bell getting minutes was a travesty, yet despite his absolutely ****ty play and his off-the-court antics, he still got playing time.
Click to expand...

I thought the time stopped once the antics started?

infection said:
What I'm talking about now is how puzzling signing Howard would be. Feel free to chime in with the same claim of hindsight bias next year as if nobody foresaw this.
Click to expand...

If you read anything in what I said that indicated "nobody foresaw this", you misread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top