The Logical Fallacy Some Fans Have Embraced To Justify Their Criticism Of Boeheim

[IthacaMatt]

How about this?

I think Boeheim would argue that when/if you're team is struggling/losing that is when you need to play your primary starters more--and your bench less--because it's obvious that your best/most experienced players need more PT together to correct the mistakes they're making that are costing them wins.

Ultimately, coaches go with their hunches re: which move is going to maybe hurt them more, playing the inexperience guy on the bench or playing your starters who obviously need more time playing together. Boeheim's record suggests that his hunches are a safer bet than those of a bunch of fans watching in their living rooms with a remote in their hands...

I think you nailed it. JB's tendency is to be conservative when the team isn't doing well, and sticks even more with his starters, even when they are banged up and hurting.

But none of those guys is Derrick Coleman or Carmelo Anthony out there. So when those guys are not getting it done, you really do need to see what the other guys on the bench can give you. Maybe there's a solution there that you didn't see before.

I think that's what people were asking for, and I think you described exactly why his tendency is to go in the opposite direction. He's not wrong; it's just his approach.

 

[two3zone]

No body knows for sure, including JB. But IMO this is really pretty simple. Lets look at the game logs for Jesse Edwards...

View attachment 198695

Jesse did not play more than 6 minutes in any of the first 10 games, other than the Miami game in a huge blowout.

His first game with more than 6 minutes (other than Miami game) was against Georgia Tech, with 23 minutes.

He then played double digit minutes in 4 of the last 7 games of the season.

So back to this Georgia Tech game where Jesse's minutes changed drastically... Was THAT the exact time that JB decided that Jesse was "ready?" Or was it because of the 5 fouls Marek accumulated and JB was forced to play Jesse?

Pretty obvious answer here.

We are 5-1 in games Jesse plays more than 10 minutes.

 

[djcon57]

He was given opportunities in subsequent games, but did not play as well. Had he come into the UNC game and struggled, he would not have stayed on the court, as was the case against Clemson, UVA, and WVU.

no he didn’t.

after the Miami game, he played 2 mins vs Va Tech, didn’t play vs UVa in a game we got outrebounded, 2 mins vs Nc state, and didn’t play vs Clemson in a game we got out rebounded by 20

 

[IthacaMatt]

Gotta put things in context, we have a coach with a history of playing a short bench and putting bench players on a short leash. It was really painful earlier in the season to watch Buddy and/or Joe have some of those 3 for 14 shooting games while Kadary sat. It was painful when we had to watch Alan on some of his off games go for an 0 fer while Bras sat, it was painful watching Marek get out muscled and outsized while Edwards sat. It was not coaching genius that determined keeping in starters, who were playing ineptly, would make us a better team. It was stubborness. Thankfully, even Jimmy eventually came around.

I am with Dasher on this one.

The Mission Man has spoken!

 

[Day2]

no he didn’t.

after the Miami game, he played 2 mins vs Va Tech, didn’t play vs UVa in a game we got outrebounded, 2 mins vs Nc state, and didn’t play vs Clemson in a game we got out rebounded by 20

Clearly he did: Va Tech and NC State. He didn’t show enough for JB to trust him against UVA or Clemson.

You might not like the quick hooks, but he was given chances.

 

[djcon57]

Clearly he did: Va Tech and NC State. He didn’t show enough for JB to trust him against UVA or Clemson.

You might not like the quick hooks, but he was given chances.

fair enough. I don’t believe that a fair chance. I believe that’s setting up someone to fail. I thought the whole deal with playing Joe through his troubles was to gain confidence. Why wouldn’t that same logic apply to Jesse?

 

[jec1521]

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, Edwards didn’t only play 23 minutes against Miami because it was a blowout. He came in and played well (he also had a good game or two last season).

He was given opportunities in subsequent games, but did not play as well. Had he come into the UNC game and struggled, he would not have stayed on the court, as was the case against Clemson, UVA, and WVU.

Your argument is that he should have played more earlier, at the very least after Miami. He was given that chance, though, and he didn’t take advantage. That even led to some DNPs.

So again, I think we all agree that we always needed more from Edwards. Where we differ is what was required to get him there.

the 3 games after miami he played 2 min, 1 min, and 1 min. If you call those real opportunities I don't know what to tell you. I think JB is a really great coach, but he is extremely stubborn with his bench. He always has been, this is nothing new.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This thread has it all.

 

[Day2]

fair enough. I don’t believe that a fair chance. I believe that’s setting up someone to fail. I thought the whole deal with playing Joe through his troubles was to gain confidence. Why wouldn’t that same logic apply to Jesse?

Because they’re different people.

 

[NateW]

Because they’re different people.

And one started 30 games and averaged 12.4 points/g the year before.

 

[Day2]

the 3 games after miami he played 2 min, 1 min, and 1 min. If you call those real opportunities I don't know what to tell you. I think JB is a really great coach, but he is extremely stubborn with his bench. He always has been, this is nothing new.

Well, if you’re trying to win a game and a player - whom you don’t trust - comes in and makes a mistake or doesn’t show you enough, you can understand taking that player out, can’t you?

 

[NateW]

This thread has it all.

Just wait’ll ya read the “most important players next year” thread

 

[Day2]

And one started 30 games and averaged 12.4 points/g the year before.

You and your facts.

 

[CousCuse]

Griffin was one of the highest valued transfers in the country last year and was going get to huge playing time and Bras was not playing all that great early in the season. The prevailing wisdom was that Sidibe's injury was not that serious and he would be back and JE's role this year would be minor so why play him when he wasn't going to be as good as Doley on the court right now. Kadary has had a big role and a lot of PT, it just seems he doesn't want to be a 4 year guy. I thought that's what the staff wanted to get back to instead of 1 and done's.

 

[JustPherU]

In James Arthur Boeheim I Trust.

 

[djcon57]

Because they’re different people.

so by this logic, Griffin should not be taken out either, right? Because he’s shown in games he can score and play well, so we have to make sure he has confidence. I’m just trying to figure out the logic that works with some players and not with others.

 

[Day2]

I’m going to throw a couple more scenarios out there...

Griffin/Braswell - Let’s assume Braswell was 100% healthy and fully grasping the defense early in the season. (Of course, we also have to ignore the fact that he was a chucker who couldn’t hit the side of Manley Field House.) So JB plays him more at the expense of Griffin, who struggles at times. Maybe Braswell becomes the starter. What do we do when Griffin quits the team like that grad transfer from South Florida (whose name I won’t even bother to look up)? I bet at least half the people griping about Braswell’s minutes criticize JB for running Griffin off the team.

Girard/Richmond - Let’s assume (pretend?) Richmond’s conditioning is perfect from day one. He quickly supplants Girard as the starter. Girard becomes an even bigger shell of himself. He can’t even be relied upon to help close out games, as his free throw shooting goes the way of Jay Williams. Maybe he puts on weight. Or maybe his own conditioning never recovers from COVID because he barely plays and gives no effort in practice. Now we’re down to two guards, until Richmond’s tendonitis becomes an issue in January and he can’t finish the season. Who plays PG? Buddy? Dolezaj? Owens?

All I’m saying is that none of us has considered every possible outcome. Not that JB has either, although I have little doubt he’s weighed more possibilities than we have. A lot more. And he knows his players better than we do. Maybe he’s still trying to figure things out with some of them himself. The results speak for themselves, though. I trust his judgment.

 

[Day2]

so by this logic, Griffin should not be taken out either, right? Because he’s shown in games he can score and play well, so we have to make sure he has confidence. I’m just trying to figure out the logic that works with some players and not with others.

I preemptively replied with my last post. To reiterate what I said this afternoon, they’re not robots. You can’t coach every player the exact same way. JB has never done that. None of the greats - in any sport - does that. Just like we wouldn’t supervise every employee the same way or handle every client the same way.

 

[Chip]

Best thread ever.

(forget what I said yesterday).

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Respectfully disagree qqq. Jesse shined when Marek got in foul trouble and JB was FORCED to play him. Richmond got minutes when JG had problems with the press, chucking up bad 3s or made a bone head play. JB is just stubborn and is afraid to experiment.

If Buddy hadn’t gotten sick, we might not have seen Richmond much at all.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Why are you pretending that newer players--no matter what kind of potential they show--don't make a lot of mistakes that can cost a team precious wins early in the season?

You're entire argument is based on wild, unfounded assumption that Boeheim was misjudging the risk/reward potential of playing his less experience players. How can you make such a[n implicit] claim when you have nothing but cynicism and guesswork to back it up? Boeheim's record is proven. His method is proven. You et al. have nothing but speculation that you shamelessly throw up against a coach who produces end-of-season results that other college coaches everywhere envy.

The audacity...

Sorry Juli

 

[Day2]

If Buddy hadn’t gotten sick, we might not have seen Richmond much at all.

JB is the luckiest man alive, I tell ya. Lucky his son got sick. Lucky Dolezaj got in foul trouble. Lucky Juli said yes. When the book is written on James Arthur Boeheim, it will be nothing more than an additional definition of luck in the dictionary.

 

[Cusesky8214]

JB is the luckiest man alive, I tell ya. Lucky his son got sick. Lucky Dolezaj got in foul trouble. Lucky Juli said yes. When the book is written on James Arthur Boeheim, it will be nothing more than an additional definition of luck in the dictionary.

Definitely lucky Juli said yes!!

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Yes, I will agree that Kadary did get minutes in some of those games, mostly because Buddy was out w COVID. However, you are limiting your perspective. In some of those tough outings for Joe, he should have had still been sat. I will not get into the issue of why we only have three serviceable "pure" guards on the roster. Alan could certainly have played some backcourt minutes with either Bras, Newton (who started the season strong), or one of the centers getting more frontcourt time. Actually, Newton in particular looked good in a couple of early outings. So the bottom line is that I buy that you have successfully kicked the can down the road, but not that one of the youngsters should not have gotten some run when starters are not playing well.

Also let’s remember in some of those early games, JB still had Joe run the point and Kadary play off the ball. We’ve all learned that’s not the optimal usage.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

This thread has it all.

Wait for it.