So..... Can way say that bench assignment is not the best way to develop talent..??

[LogGrad98]

Tyreke Evans developed so well playing every minute in Sacramento.

Oh wait...he's regressed. MY BAD.

Proof positive that not playing is a far better way for players to develop. Let's just not play any of our core 4/5 and then we will win the championship!

 

[LogGrad98]

Haywards per 36 numbers have increased dramatically this year. Granted, we are only five games in, but he is playing very well. His numbers this year are better than Paul George was last year in almost every category, and about equal in those he is not better in. If he had played a more prominent role a year ago, I think we would have seen a different player. Hayward is starting to look like the player he thinks he is.

I missed out on reading his mind and knowing his most intimate thoughts, so I missed what he thought he was. Please elaborate with "Being John Malkovich"-esque details.

 

[b_line]

I missed out on reading his mind and knowing his most intimate thoughts, so I missed what he thought he was. Please elaborate with "Being John Malkovich"-esque details.

He thinks he is a player that deserves 13 million a year...

 

[Siro]

You guys are so cynical. A few games in and you're already turning on the youth? Give them time. Allow them to get used to one another. Allow the injured players to return. The sky is not falling.

 

[addictionary]

Agree with the OP. Two seasons gone complete waste. You have a 3rd overall pick, you play him. Especially if he had terrible experience sitting on the bench, being ineligible, getting stuck with lock-out (and now the injury), if you don't play him, you're doing him a big evil considering you don't have any decent reason not to play him. Of course there was the possibility of Kanter getting eaten by the bigmen of the league, but I don't see that killing his motivation. Anyhoo, I think his was not the worst background and experience in the Jazz. I feel bad for Alec worse. He needs PT and responsibility. He is a killer baller.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Proof positive that not playing is a far better way for players to develop. Let's just not play any of our core 4/5 and then we will win the championship!

Yep, that's the obvious and absolute interpretation of my post.

 

[The Norm]

Yep, that's the obvious and absolute interpretation of my post.

Your post was really stupid because for every one young player that regresses after getting more minutes, there are a dozen others that end up improving. Evans is an exception, and a big part of his regression was being in an awful situation.

Then again I'm not sure you can't classify the situation in Utah as any better.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Your post was really stupid because for every one young player that regresses after getting more minutes, there are a dozen others that end up improving. Evans is an exception, and a big part of his regression was being in an awful situation.

Then again I'm not sure you can't classify the situation in Utah as any better.

Which with this logic, of course, has nothing to do with a player getting older, more mature, filling his body, and learning in practice and sitting with coaches. It's ONLY with playing time do players improve.

 

[The Norm]

I don't think anybody implied that playing time is the only possible method of improvement. But I also think you'd have to be a dumbass to say that it isn't one of the best methods.

 

[Siro]

Which with this logic, of course, has nothing to do with a player getting older, more mature, filling his body, and learning in practice and sitting with coaches. It's ONLY with playing time do players improve.

This is easy to test. Do players who don't get a lot of playing time typically improve, regress, or stay the same with age?

 

[franklin]

Your post was really stupid because for every one young player that regresses after getting more minutes, there are a dozen others that end up improving.

Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and causation?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This is easy to test. Do players who don't get a lot of playing time typically improve, regress, or stay the same with age?

You'll have to define the parameters. Also have to throw out variables like coaching changes, personnel changes and team changes. Have to define "improve." Eye test is useless. Something like per/36 dictates that someone playing 15 minutes will produce in the same fashion as 38 minutes, which isn't true in actuality. Role matters as well. Plus/minus relies on teammates.

I would think too many variables would lead the relationship to not correlate too well statistically. I'd say the r wouldn't be terribly close to 1 and thus unreliable.

 

[The Norm]

Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and causation?

I don't think the correlation=/=causation argument really belongs in a discussion about whether or not playing in a game will actually make you better at playing in a game.

 

[One Brow]

I don't think the correlation=/=causation argument really belongs in a discussion about whether or not playing in a game will actually make you better at playing in a game.

It belongs in a discussion about whether playing 30 minutes offers more improvement than playing 15 minutes.

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't think anybody implied that playing time is the only possible method of improvement. But I also think you'd have to be a dumbass to say that it isn't one of the best methods.

this

 

[GVC]

This is easy to test. Do players who don't get a lot of playing time typically improve, regress, or stay the same with age?

Not easy to test. There's undoubtedly a positive relationship between playing time and performance/improvement. How do you propose to test the causal direction?

 

[franklin]

I don't think anybody implied that playing time is the only possible method of improvement. But I also think you'd have to be a dumbass to say that it isn't one of the best methods.

You mean fighting Mike Tyson is the best way to learn to box?

Baptism by fire rarely works. In the NBA's case, it works for players who have the physical and mental talent to succeed anyway.

 

[The Norm]

You mean fighting Mike Tyson is the best way to learn to box?

Fighting Mike Tyson every night would help you improve far more than watching somebody else box Mike Tyson every night would, yes.

 

[One Brow]

Fighting Mike Tyson every night would help you improve far more than watching somebody else box Mike Tyson every night would, yes.

Spending 12 minutes watching a seasoned professional box Tyson and 2 3-minute rounds of boxing Tyson yourself would help you more than either 18 minutes of watching or 18 minutes of boxing would individually.

 

[The Norm]

Spending 12 minutes watching a seasoned professional box Tyson and 2 3-minute rounds of boxing Tyson yourself would help you more than either 18 minutes of watching or 18 minutes of boxing would individually.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Need I point out that thanks to the magic of game film, actually playing in an NBA game doesn't have to take away from the experience of observing other professionals playing in a game?