If Nate doesn't want the job who is your choice?

[JayBirdHawk]

38 minutes ago, sturt said:

I would fear that my team made the hire feeling some pressure from the league office... and perhaps even feeling some internal pressure to be politically correct, knowing the politics of Ressler are what they are.

Put another way, I fear brownie points that make Candidate XX seem equivalent to Candidate XY in the final evaluation.

 

But on the flip side, if she is qualified having been on an NBA bench and better than the other candidates - why be afraid?

And like she has said, don't give her the job because she's a woman, give her the job because she is qualified.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

why be afraid?

And like she has said, don't give her the job because she's a woman, give her the job because she is qualified.

Be afraid because there is typically a pool of qualified candidates... but that from that pool of qualified candidates, she gets some brownie points based on chromosomes and genitalia that give her advantage in spite of what the candidate herself asserted that the hiring person should do.

We all agree in theory... hire the best person for the job... or so I would think.

The concern becomes how the hiring person consciously, or more likely unconsciously, constructs the hiring appraisal that would end up with the female option as the top candidate. Is there a better candidate in the pool, except he wasn't equipped with the physical features that provide the bonus points, so he becomes the runner-up.

 

[AHF]

54 minutes ago, sturt said:

I would fear that my team made the hire feeling some pressure from the league office... and perhaps even feeling some internal pressure to be politically correct, knowing the politics of Ressler are what they are.

Put another way, I fear brownie points that make Candidate XX seem equivalent to Candidate XY in the final evaluation.

 

Got it.  I would just say that (a) the NBA doesn't have much of a track record of giving opportunities to women that they wouldn't give to a similarly situated man and (b) there are a bunch of men who have been hired as head coaches with worse resumes than she has right now.  So if we hired her, I'd be wary like any hire without NBA head coaching experience but also excited from what I've seen of her.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

Be afraid because there is typically a pool of qualified candidates... but that from that pool of qualified candidates, she gets some brownie points based on chromosomes and genitalia that give her advantage in spite of what the candidate herself asserted that the hiring person should do.

We all agree in theory... hire the best person for the job... or so I would think.

The concern becomes how the hiring person consciously, or more likely unconsciously, constructs the hiring appraisal that would end up with the female option as the top candidate. Is there a better candidate in the pool, except he wasn't equipped with the physical features that provide the bonus points, so he becomes the runner-up.

 

I'd say it is much more likely she gets excluded from consideration based on her gender than gets "brownie points" to get hired when she is undeserving.  I think teams will fear the backlash that will come (think of any prominent female politician in the US for examples) and the anti-"woke" agenda people and will stay away from her unless they are truly convinced she is the best candidate.  She will attract a lot of attention and if men on the internet have proven anything it will be that a lot of the attention is very negative so a team will have to have some actual resolve to see that through if they want to go down that road.

[sturt]

13 minutes ago, AHF said:

excited from what I've seen of her.

Why though?

I mean, given the very same resume' for a XY person, I would react pretty much like I reacted to Lloyd Pierce's hiring.... and I wasn't excited at all, the receipts will show.

I haven't actually seen anything that tells me she would be successful, any more than I could have said then that I'd seen something that predicted LP's success.

Moreover, there's reason for suspicion that she would have gotten some higher evaluation score than others related to her female-ness. The very fact that we're even having this conversation points out that it can be difficult to tease out the effect that that could potentially have.

To be fair... it's the exact same difficulty that went the other way back-when I proposed Pat Summit... she was instantly dismissed because of her female-ness. Obviously, that's been the bigger problem all these years, ie, the sex factor going against plausibly legit candidates.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'd say it is much more likely she gets excluded from consideration

It's been that way.

The day is coming, if it's not already here, that that script flips.

And. There will be those who justify their brownie points by saying, in effect, "But look at all the time she was excluded from consideration... she deserves those brownie points."

[sturt]

Does Ainge's opinion change any minds about Quin Snyder's desirability?

 

[AHF]

18 hours ago, sturt said:

Why though?

I mean, given the very same resume' for a XY person, I would react pretty much like I reacted to Lloyd Pierce's hiring.... and I wasn't excited at all, the receipts will show.

I haven't actually seen anything that tells me she would be successful, any more than I could have said then that I'd seen something that predicted LP's success.

Moreover, there's reason for suspicion that she would have gotten some higher evaluation score than others related to her female-ness. The very fact that we're even having this conversation points out that it can be difficult to tease out the effect that that could potentially have.

To be fair... it's the exact same difficulty that went the other way back-when I proposed Pat Summit... she was instantly dismissed because of her female-ness. Obviously, that's been the bigger problem all these years, ie, the sex factor going against plausibly legit candidates.

The comparison to Lloyd Pierce is on point even though I like her resume of an extended run in SA better than his when we hired him.  I rooted hard for him to succeed when he came in but was wary of his inexperience and that is probably a better way to describe how I would react to a Becky hire.  I am biased right now towards a head coach with a proven track record so she would not fit the mold of the coach I would want.  (I view our roster as very attractive to a coach so think we should be able to land a demonstrably strong candidate.)  I wouldn't assume she got the job because she is female but the risks I saw with an unproven Pierce would apply to her as well.

Good point.

18 hours ago, sturt said:

It's been that way.

The day is coming, if it's not already here, that that script flips.

And. There will be those who justify their brownie points by saying, in effect, "But look at all the time she was excluded from consideration... she deserves those brownie points."

I just don't believe that.  Teams care about wins and the bottom line and know there will be a significant (or at least highly visible) portion of the fan base that hates her or questions her competence right out of the gate because she is a woman so I see a decision to go with  her as one that will have to overcome those issues.  Any team that hires her will be accused of being "SJW", "woke", etc. by a very vocal minority.  I don't think any team will take that negative attention gratuitously because of unearned "brownie points" just because she lacks a Y chromosome.  I don't believe that at all. 

A team hiring her will undoubtably get praised by some people for being the first team to hire a female coach but I think that is significantly outweighed by the negative blowback they will get.  She isn't going to drive a sustained spike in ticket sales because she is female but if a fan base sours on her that will hurt revenues and there will be a vocal group of people doing everything they can to undermine her.  (Think Tucker Carlson style questions about her competence like demanding the LSAT scores of a supreme court nominee who was editor of the Harvard Law Review on the "light" end and outright threats of violence and rape that female politicians have repeatedly seen on the "heavy" end.) 

I strongly believe she will have to clear a higher bar to convince a team that the gamble on her is worth the flack they will inevitably take unless and until she proves herself.  The only advantage she has in this respect is being a white woman rather than a minority since ticking both of those boxes triggers stronger reactions from the kind of people who engage in this trolling.