There's a lot of content in this thread, so I'm not going to read this all. But to the OP, I don't think that there's a logical fallacy at all.
High major college athletics is a performance based profession. Earlier in the year, the team's performance was subpar, and our rotation exacerbated some of the team's on-paper issues.
Toward the end of the season [after the embarrassing UVa / Duke blowouts], the team began playing better, and JB expanded the rotation. And the results got a lot better.
It's fine to criticize through the lens of hindsight, but it doesn't mean posters who were clamoring for some of the things that eventually came to be were wrong.
In my mind, a couple of things happened:
- Buddy morphed into a true go-to guy, and got en fuego
- Our rotation expanded to a legit 8-player rotation
- Edwards gave us not just 5 extra fouls, but improved interior defense / shot blocking / rebounding
- Braswell [who played a lot throughout the season] suddenly became a consistent ~10ppg scorer
- JB put JGIII on a shorter leash if he wasn't producing [and played him more / in conjunction with Kadary when he was]
That all of those things occurred essentially simultaneously the last 1/4 of the season is a BIG reason why the team got a lot more competitive, got better defensively, and became much more formidable.
Again, not seeing the logical fallacy.
JB might not be on the Mt. Rushmore of college coaches, but he's in the top next tier, IMO. He's an all time great. My opinion only, but I don't believe that can be disputed. But despite all that, the team wasn't performing -- and it began to perform like a top 15-ish [or better] team once the HOF coach made late season adjustments that ran counter to what he was doing for the first 3/4 of the season.
Okay, let me take another go at it...
It's the
causal fallacy, specifically a
correlational fallacy.
The implicit claim Boeheim's rotation critics were advancing a month+ ago was that poor team performance early-mid season occurred because the coach did not play his reserves when members of the First Team were struggling in one way or another. A secondary, related argument was that playing those reserves earlier in the year--
at any excuse, actually--was going to enhance overall team development more than failing to do so, cuz reserves are so important (and they are).
That's an opinion.
While I disagree with that POV, it's the follow up argument Boeheim's critics have been advancing lately that I'm declaring fallacious: that
because the reserves are playing more now and the team is playing superbly--in part because the reserves have been making important contributions--their earlier claims that the reserves should be playing more
then have been vindicated.
That conclusion is not justified by the known facts. I say that because it can be shown that Boeheim
not playing his reserves more earlier--the actual facts of history we are assessing--has resulted in the superb team play we've witnessed lately.
His critics counter that the reason they've been playing better is because the reserves have been playing more recently and demonstrating that they can contribute. But that coincidence/correlation does not prove that their criticism of
Boeheim's earlier decisions to
not play the bench more was justified.
The fact is, both outcomes (more bench, better team performance) could have been directly attributable to Boeheim
not playing the bench more earlier.
I thought I explained
why pretty well in the OP, but I'll give it another go...
___________________________________________
It should be abundantly obvious that Boeheim's #1 concern every season is being able to put five players on the court who--as a team--can beat the best five of those teams he'll face in the NCAAT.
Those five will get all the PT that he believes they need to be able to become such a team at the end of the year.
Of course Boeheim & every other coach knows that they need key reserves that they'll turn to when someone's in foul trouble or being dominated at their position. Most years he can go 7 deep, other years 8 deep like this year, other years only 6. He
wants to develop those 6-8 players optimally,
but not at the expense of the starting five if they are making too many mistakes.
That's the problem. Sure, Boeheim knows that his 6-12 players would all benefit with some generous PT, but he'd have to be a coaching fool to sacrifice the performance/development of his starting five by doling out their PT to bench players because it would be good for the bench players if he did so.
So that's the big consideration. The inescapable trade-off. It's the reason why Boeheim--especially early in the season--is ALWAYS going to keep his starters in the game if the outcome is at all in doubt, if he believes they need it to improve as a unit, cuz he's thinking end-of-season performance.
That's why all coaches make their best guess at which 5-7 players have the ability to develop as a team over the course of a season to where they are hopefully 'unstoppable.' He wants them to get all the time, the repetitions, they need working together to where their team play is on an instinctive level (see Loyola Chicago) by the end of the season.
And yes, the 6-8 players also need some time playing with the starters if they've going to be at all helpful and not a detriment. So their PT is important too, but
only if your starting five's development
allows it.
This is why Boeheim had a good reason for not playing his reserves when his starting five was struggling to win games. They clearly had a lot to learn as a unit, and that means sufficient PT to get there.
At the same time that his reserves were not playing during this 'difficult time' for the team, they were nevertheless improving throughout the season
during practice. That's the development that Boeheim was looking for from his reserves over the course of the season, that gained from practice.
From previous seasons, he's seen his less-experienced players learn
a lot over the course of a season and most especially toward the end of the season.
That is when he was expecting that they might be 'ready' to contribute without making serious in-game errors and without having handicapped the development of the starting five when
they needed most of the PT to get better as a unit.
So why is it that the reserves are playing more now and making contributions to the team's success?
Quite plausibly, it is because
the starting five have developed well enough (cuz they got the PT they needed earlier) for the reserves to be more effectively blended into the mix and because
the reserves have improved enough in practice to where they are now ready to contribute.
So there's a reason why Boeheim's rotation critics are
wrong in their belief that they possess a keen insight into coaching that has escaped JB. Playing a deeper bench earlier in the season
at the expense of the starting five could very well have held back the development of the starting five, making the current run an impossibility.
Developing the bench
in practice at the same time that the starters are ironing out all the mistakes that had been holding them back in actual games was clearly the reason why Boeheim wasn't playing the bench more earlier and it would account for the eventual outcome we've seen: superb team play
and greater contributions from the bench (with fewer mistakes than they would have committed in games earlier, cuz they understand better how to execute Boeheim's Plan on both defense & offense.)
So yeah, when Boeheim said his players were not "ready" earlier, he was not saying that he didn't foresee them ever being ready down the road, which is what his critics seemed to just assume when they were getting themselves all worked up about the way JB was developing his team.
I hope that helps...