Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
Why is Keyonte playing then?
Bingo. You'll have to ask Hardy.
Why is Keyonte playing then?
Because we had THT, Clarkson, and Sexton to start the season that couldn't look up, run an offense, and move the ball. He could and did.Why is Keyonte playing then?
Trying to find logic in Keyonte getting rotation minutes is a fool's errand. He's literally been one of the worst NBA players getting steady burn.Because we had THT, Clarkson, and Sexton to start the season that couldn't look up, run an offense, and move the ball. He could and did.
Playing him is partially for the future but it's also allowed the Jazz to bench these guys and force them to actually play the right way. You can still see it used with Sexton when he reverts back to head down scoring no matter what mentality. He is inconsistent on offense but consistently moves the ball and gets it in other guys hands and plays team ball. Those other guys sometimes do that but usually not. They might be scoring well and even getting assists but the ball tends to stick.
This is one of the main reasons for the turn around this year.
Disagree and there was no trying. Its very obvious why he is getting burn.Trying to find logic in Keyonte getting rotation minutes is a fool's errand. He's literally been one of the worst NBA players getting steady burn.
A rookie isnt going to help the defense much at all. More likely they would make it worse.We have a defender who doesn’t play who we drafted at 9th overall.
The logic isnt hard. Keyonte has shown a lot of promise and generally plays how Hardy wants a guard to play.Trying to find logic in Keyonte getting rotation minutes is a fool's errand. He's literally been one of the worst NBA players getting steady burn.
Because they think Keyonte is Him and not that far away from being Him and Hendricks is a development project.Why is Keyonte playing then?
The theorem remains undefeated.If Hendricks could handle regular NBA minutes and contribute more effectively than the vets, he would absolutely be playing. We're trying to win.
The theorem remains undefeated.
Yes, I understand this. I don't emphasize the inverse because the inverse has a pretty decent track record of always being called out (rightfully so) as a logical fallacy. Its opposite, not so much. You need to appeal to some kind of argument, and that's generally accepted that you need some level of evidence, but for this argument we require very little evidence other than an appeal to authority. Now, that's not nothing, to be sure, but what it certainly isn't is a trump card. It most certainly doesn't hold enough value to end debate. My frustrations with it isn't that it can or can't be used as an argument, just the imbalance in the acceptability of which situations are appropriate for appealing to a "common sense" argument and how prevalent those arguments are.I've read and think I understand your stance on this, but just to be clear: Just because a player that isn't playing isn't necessarily bad, doesn't make him necessarily good either. Also, just because it's impossible to know if handling of a young player (limiting minutes/G League/Etc.) ends up being responsible for them playing well eventually, it doesn't necessarily mean that the handling wasn't responsible for that.
I think you understand this, but sometimes when you post it feels like you are going to the opposite logical fallacy, or in other words if a young player doesn't get minutes and then eventually does and plays well, that he would have played well all along and that him being held back (limiting minutes/GLeage/etc.) has nothing to do with him playing well.
The truth is it's impossible to say and by drawing either conclusion you are making assumptions that aren't based on anything that can be 100% known.
Yes, I understand this. I don't emphasize the inverse because the inverse has a pretty decent track record of always being called out (rightfully so) as a logical fallacy. Its opposite, not so much. You need to appeal to some kind of argument, and that's generally accepted that you need some level of evidence, but for this argument we require very little evidence other than an appeal to authority. Now, that's not nothing, to be sure, but what it certainly isn't is a trump card. It most certainly doesn't hold enough value to end debate. My frustrations with it isn't that it can or can't be used as an argument, just the imbalance in the acceptability of which situations are appropriate for appealing to a "common sense" argument and how prevalent those arguments are.
You'd think Knicks/Pelicans would be making moves with all those picks. Both are kind of on the cusp of being threats to make it to the conference finals.this is the challenge in getting firsts for guys like KO and JC. Unless one of these teams want them you are going to have a hard time finding a first.
I doubt the Knicks use their assets soon. They are probably still holding out hope for Donovan this this summer.You'd think Knicks/Pelicans would be making moves with all those picks. Both are kind of on the cusp of being threats to make it to the conference finals.
I mean this isn't true at all. Some players pop after some time in the league (SGA and Lauri for a couple) and there are some players who look really, really good as rookies who never really turn into what you project from their rookie campaign (Rodney Hood is probably an example, Scotty Barnes if you are feeling adventurous.) The trick is that the average player level is so good in the NBA right now that giving Development Time to a rookie isn't always a no brainer, especially when the G league is becoming more relevant every year. I would much rather have Hendricks in the G league than another year of college.When a young player is good enough you just realize it (Lively, Jaquez...). Our rooks don't belong there.