What's new
By:

If Conley is out another 12 days...

Yeah, Mike will be fine starting. The bigger issue is for Jingles to continue playing well. They should start him instead of Royce. Sub out one of Mitch/Jingles/Bogie early and then let them play with Clarkson in the 2nd unit.

Mike Conely has taken way more than his share of the blame for early struggles.
 
I think having him start/play big minutes right after this hamstring issue would be a mistake on several levels and that doesn’t mean he’s a bad basketball player or a do-do head.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I think having him start/play big minutes right after this hamstring issue would be a mistake on several levels and that doesn’t mean he’s a bad basketball player or a do-do head.
Click to expand...
So how does switching up his routine he's had for his entire career (starting) help his hamstring? If they need to limit his minutes, just pull him early. He's going to start if he's available.
 
Jazz4ever said:
He'll be coming off the bench permanently I think. Doubt they find a taker for him on a trade.
Click to expand...

He's definitely not going to be coming off the bench, and they don't have to worry about finding a taker for him because they have no interest in trading him.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
So how does switching up his routine he's had for his entire career (starting) help his hamstring? If they need to limit his minutes, just pull him early. He's going to start if he's available.
Click to expand...
This isn’t about Conley, first and foremost. It’s about the team, and what the team is currently facing. I thought that was obvious.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top