What's new
By:
Filters

If Conley is out another 12 days...

NAOS said:
How many times over the years have dudes around here tried to give lessons on the sunk cost fallacy or something adjacent to that? Thousands?

The argument for why Mike should automatically be inserted back into the starting lineup smells an awful lot like it rests on the evidence of “because he makes all that money, he has to.” I’d prefer to hear a well-reasoned, game-play based argument. I haven’t seen one.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more a question of whether or not the 22 game sample of Conley is accurate or if the past 8 games is accurate. Conley is a known quantity who possibly has some question marks about this year. Sunk cost is more about investments with no return... so Exum was a tanking season, plus a bunch of waiting, plus a bunch of opportunity cost. Thus far we paid a large price for a known quantity of which we don’t know what the outcome is, unless we’re confident in our 22 game sample. So, to me, it’s less about a sunk cost fallacy as it is about a recency bias.
 
Last edited:
infection said:
I think it’s more a question of whether or not the 22 game sample of Conley is accurate or if the past 8 games is accurate. Conley is a known quantity who possibly has some question marks about this year. Sunk cost is more about investments with no return... so Exum was a tanking season, plus a bunch of waiting, plus a bunch of opportunity cost. Thus far we paid a large price for a known quantity of which we don’t know what the outcome is, unless we’re confident in our 22 game sample. So, to me, it’s less about a sink cost fallacy as it is about a recency bias.
Click to expand...
This^ is deeply unconvincing and reveals more about your assumptions than it does anything else.

Conley’s “known quantities” are a set of skills that were developed elsewhere with totally different players and their respective skill sets. Translation is necessary before anything is KNOWN TO THE JAZZ.

This discussion is always about the combination of players’ skill sets. And as far as that is concerned, Conley is a far less known quantity than combinations involving Mitchell, Ingles, Royce, and Gobert. And, by this point, throw Bogdanovic in there, too.

This isn’t about cutting Conley out. It’s about adding his skill set back into BETTER-KNOWN combinations in the most effective way. The 22 game sample we have clearly shows that the team was very much in the early a stages of figuring that out. Then his body broke down while the team went on without him, figuring out a ton along the way.

My ears and mind are fully open to game-play based arguments, as my previous post indicated. You quoted that post, then delivered precisely nada.
 
I really trust our staff will try to find the solution which will be optimal both for Conley and the recent balance and chemistry the team has achieved. They cut Jeff, benched Ed, gave Tony a chance, traded for Clarckson, put Joe back in the starting line up when Conley returned first time after injury. They showed that they are not afraid to make changes.
 
Jazzmix said:
They showed that they are not afraid to make changes.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I think they are very afraid to make changes. Joe only started again due to Conley's injury. TB only played initially because of injuries to Davis and Rudy, then was benched again as soon as Ed came back, and it's taken a long stretch of bad play by Ed for TB to get another chance. I expect they'll put Conley back in the starting line-up again (in place of Royce this time), and he'll get his 30 mins/game same as before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top