Posted by gillispie1 on 7/10/2019 10:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 7/10/2019 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Gillipsie - I'm fairly confident you and Topdogg are saying the same thing about walkons here. Everything you said about what adds value is what he meant by the comment of 'a byproduct'.
we are, but he is being too weak in standing up to shoe's ridiculous assertion that walkons have no value, so i was giving him **** for that. he's trying to find common ground with shoe, which i get - i tried to do the same in my first post by agreeing with shoe that topdogg's overall post was a bit extreme, especially for a new-to-d1 coach, even though i 90% agree with dogg's sentiment (which i think i made fairly clear). however, trying to find that common ground by defining value as what has direct impact in a game (as dogg did in the post i took exception to), as opposed to what has an impact on the program or something even greater (like the coaches career - or something else similarly large in scale), is defining value in a ridiculously narrow way, to the point where one is basically twisting the concept of value beyond recognition. its really no different than how shoe is defining value so narrowly (well, it is, because dogg was defining it narrowly, while shoe is defining it nonsensically to the extent it is just plain wrong), by saying, well if you have a guy but he can't play this year, even if hes a living god the next 3 seasons and is hands-down going to be the best player in the country all 3 years - he has no value. you know, because he can't play this season - which might fly if we were all cartoon versions of millennials who are so instant-gratification oriented that we consider 'immediate value' and 'value' to be the same thing.
im kinda disappointed, food doesn't only have value if i'm eating it at my next meal, and i *thought* we'd have a more interesting exchange than one in which we debate if food only has value if i'm eating it at my next meal. sigh. sorry shoe, i gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were having an exchange in good faith, not just worrying about winning an argument and semantics. but falling back on defining value as 'value for this one season only and nothing else', i just don't think i can continue to do so. i think in a few days you'll come around to the absurdity of the whole thing.
Ok, you’re intentionally obfuscating. Got it.
The “living god” ANQ is not adding value to the team this year. (You should note, I’ve said walkons “don’t add value”, not that they don’t have value. There’s a distinction there too, but we’ve already split too many hairs and the natives are getting restless). The difference between that player and a walkon is that you know what the living god will be. He is, as I said before, a “known commodity”. You don’t know when or if the resources you get for a walkon will translate into a player better than what would have been available had you not followed Benis’s dumb advice to always take two walkons in zone.
If you do want to take a break from trying to make my argument into something it isn’t, you could address the scenario I brought up, weighing the two walkons vs the project and the ANQ. It was a pair of real examples (Getty and Kirby) from OK St in Phelan, which went through a terrible stretch of bad luck lost battles and bad luck EEs stemming back to the team that made a championship game (lost an EE not on the big board after that season, just for Benis). This year’s team was a Final Four caliber team (losing by a point in the elite 8), but only 5 players were from battles won. 7 players on that team are guys I picked up as backups after other lost battles.
So again, I’m not saying you can’t take multiple walkons and make it work. Of course you can, and as I said before you got here, the flexibility to take walkons is a benefit to playing zone. But telling people that’s the way they *should* play, is just bad advice. That calculus confuses potential value with value, and they’re just not the same. The correlation between price and value is not linear. It would have to be linear, or close, to “convert” potential value to value; a player who you spend 1200 AP and 20 visits to battle for is not adding 10 times the value to your team compared with a player you can lock in for 120 AP and 2 visits. Not even remotely close. So talk of “converting” potential value into value, as if it is a self-apparent mathematical reality, is a perversion of the concept of value in a commodity game.