Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
Let's be honest. Both positions are valid. The data point can be used to make either argument, just a matter of choosing which one supports one's position.
Argument 1: The failure of this same core under 4 different coaches suggests coaching isn't the problem, the players are
Argument 2: The failure of 4 different coaches with this same roster suggests this team is hiring the wrong type of coach
Same data point. Opposite arguments. Both valid.
What I don't understand is how can be so locked in that you can't see how the information can be rationally used to argue for either position. So instead you default to "must be a defense mechanism".
Again for the record - I don't like the coach or the roster.
|
Yes, absolutely. And I think both are valid also.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the two data points, with respect to dealing with them:
One is a simple binary decision - replace, or don't
The other is a long-term, evolutionary process that not only takes years, but is already in progress and is always in progress. And each and every one of the players is fluid - they can be better or worse, depending on utilization, confidence, line-mates, etc. So much, much more difficult to ascertain, and requiring a much larger data set to determine.