Would the franchise be better served if Schlenk just goes ahead and hires his own guy to coach?

[sturt]

12 hours ago, KB21 said:

Subjective absolutely means that.  That's why there is a difference between subjective and objective.  Something that is subjective is based upon personal feelings, and I will admit that my personal feelings about tanking is that I despise the notion of intentionally losing at anything.  That is definitely subjective.

My view that tanking is a foolish strategy that only prolongs misery is based upon objective data.  Subjectively, I wouldn't be a proponent of tanking even if it guaranteed that you win a championship.  

Can't help myself.

My friend, you're just wrong on this one.

It can mean "based on personal feelings," but that's too specific.

It refers, rather, to any conclusion that is subject to personal biases. And WE ALL BRING PERSONAL BIASES to EVERY decision that is our own to make.

Again, a jury's decision is ALWAYS subjective, even if/when they make the correct one. Their decision hopefully is based on OBJECTIVE evidence, but it cannot help but be SUBJECTIVE by definition... zero human beings are EVER bias-free.

Case in point, you've defined what Schlenk is doing as tanking, and most all of us agree with that. But what are the MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE data that DEFINE "tanking?" We can disagree legitimately on what data define the term... hence there is subjectivity even to that key term.

So, that's why I would agree that your statement above was OBjective, when you put some numbers to it (25 wins or less) over some defined amount of time. You can reach an objective conclusion SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HAS OCCURRED. 

HOWEVER, you can only reach a SUBjective conclusion about what that data says about what WILL happen. That's because, as suggested by my list of questions toward an imaginary calculation of probability, there can be all kinds of data points that can be studied and potentially salient for how they modify understanding of what has happened and, in turn, what is most likely to happen in the future...

Put another way, why is it that smaller market teams do not experience very similar results in the three major sports? Reasonably, it's because each of the three major sports have different sets of conditions on talent acquisition, from no salary cap, to a hard cap to a soft cap, and even so, that only scratches the surface in how the conditions differ.

Same applies here... who's to say that all those sub-25 win teams each had their own unique fatal flaw... an injury here, incompetent head coach there, or one over-the-top-stupid-but-consequential player acquisition in another place...?

Answer: No one.

Subjective only means just that... subjective. It can be altogether logical. It can prove to be altogether correct over time. But it's still subjective... ie, human bias is part of the equation.

So I'm really really done now because I really really have to get back to work.

 

[sturt]

On 6/2/2017 at 5:30 PM, sturt said:

I ask b/c we all pretty much knew when Ferry came in that Larry Drew's days were numbered, though he denied that at the time. Sooner than later, Ferry was going to want his time to be judged by how the team performed once he had someone he himself wanted for the job, and not just a nice guy who he inherited.

So, given that it appears we've come full circle back to the traditional GM approach, and that by his absence it's difficult to surmise that Bud is still regarded as one of the inner circle and is fundamental to the team's future success (at least where the owner is concerned)...

Should Schlenk just save himself and Bud and all of us fans some unnecessary time going down that road, and just seek a buy-out of whatever contract Bud has left?

I'm asking, not advocating. 24 hours ago, it wasn't even a reasonable question to put out there, but now it seems it most certainly is.

Question answered.

Sad to say.

 

 

[JTB]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Question answered.

Sad to say.

 

 

Well good prediction though I wish you were very wrong 

[Resslemania]

Who does he want?  I always wanted us to sign Doc Rivers.  The next few months are going to be NUTS.

[sturt]

Nah, just a question, not a prediction, @JTB.

But I do think some of the Hawk congregation were in a great deal of denial to brush off Bud's planned absence at Schlenk's presser as meaningless.

 

[JTB]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Nah, just a question, not a prediction, @JTB.

But I do think some of the Hawk congregation were in a great deal of denial to brush off Bud's planned absence at Schlenk's presser as meaningless.

 

I can admit I was one of them...just didn’t think any gm was actually dumb enough to get rid of him.

[sturt]

Great deal of respect for all of us fans who have been humbled and can admit it.... emphasis on "us fans." I'm right there, too.