Andy Katz' take on Al and Devoe

[GoAUpher]

It can be one or the other, but not both. Either his 'minutes and skills' outweigh 'a player who didn't want to play within the current team concept' or they don't.

This is idiotic. The world isn't black and white. You can miss one thing but not the other. If you used to have a job where you loved the pay but hated the stress there is nothing saying you can't miss the pay but not the stress. It simply means you couldn't have one without the other and you had to make a choice. In my example a decision was made that the stress wasn't worth it for the money. But you can still miss the money.

In my post above I didn't say whether Devoe's attitude issues were worth it not. In a world where Al isn't hurt I say its an ok trade off to keep a bad attitude off the team. I'd have to say I feel differently at this point.

Regardless, my point was that it is possible to miss the skill/contributions he could be bringing on the court right now while recognizing his attitude isn't something the team will likely miss. I think that nuance is lost on you.

 

[USAFChief]

This is idiotic. The world isn't black and white. You can miss one thing but not the other. If you used to have a job where you loved the pay but hated the stress there is nothing saying you can't miss the pay but not the stress. It simply means you couldn't have one without the other and you had to make a choice. In my example a decision was made that the stress wasn't worth it for the money. But you can still miss the money.

In my post above I didn't say whether Devoe's attitude issues were worth it not. In a world where Al isn't hurt I say its an ok trade off to keep a bad attitude off the team. I'd have to say I feel differently at this point.

Regardless, my point was that it is possible to miss the skill/contributions he could be bringing on the court right now while recognizing his attitude isn't something the team will likely miss. I think that nuance is lost on you.

If 'it simply means you couldn't have one without the other and you had to make a choice,' then one outweighed the other, no?

One thing (pay) outweighs the other (stress) and I stay at the job, or is doesn't, and I quit.

One thing (talent) outweighs the other (attitude, etc) or it doesn't.

Either the team is better without Joseph, or it isn't. If you think the team is better off without Joseph, fine. I disagree, but it's only my opinion, certainly not provable fact.

But it can't be both, by definition.

 

[GoAUpher]

If 'it simply means you couldn't have one without the other and you had to make a choice,' then one outweighed the other, no?

One thing (pay) outweighs the other (stress) and I stay at the job, or is doesn't, and I quit.

One thing (talent) outweighs the other (attitude, etc) or it doesn't.

Either the team is better without Joseph, or it isn't. If you think the team is better off without Joseph, fine. I disagree, but it's only my opinion, certainly not provable fact.

But it can't be both, by definition.

Did you read the part above where I agree that one can outweigh the other (hint, I mentioned making a choice)? And even admitted that in light of Nolen's injury that I'd be willing to change my evaluation of which one is more important? I guess so. Because the only other explanation is that you can't grasp simple logic. It is possible for someone to think one option outweighs the other and still miss/have positive thoughts about the item that was outweighed. This isn't a hard concept. Let's try it out in 2 examples:
1) We're better off without Devoe b/c of his attitude. While this means I think the benefits of his skill were less vital then getting rid of his attitude I can still lament the fact that the team doesn't have his offensive presence.
2) We're better off with Devoe b/c of his skills. While this means I think his skills are the most important thing I can still lament the fact that he's a selfish kid who refuses to buy into his coach's team concept.

Wow. That was hard. No wonder you can't figure out how that concept works. Took me all of a minute to type that out. That was tiring. Can you wait to respond until I've had a nap to recover my mental strength?

It's not having it both ways. But since you are so hung up on painting anyone who doesn't want Devoe here as a "hater" I guess it's easier if you don't admit that its possible for the "haters" to still like and respect elements of what Devoe brought to the team.

 

[USAFChief]

1) We're better off without Devoe b/c of his attitude. While this means I think the benefits of his skill were less vital then getting rid of his attitude I can still lament the fact that the team doesn't have his offensive presence.
2) We're better off with Devoe b/c of his skills. While this means I think his skills are the most important thing I can still lament the fact that he's a selfish kid who refuses to buy into his coach's team concept.

Since you're now arguing my point for me (as you said above, it's either 1 or 2, team is either better with him or better without him, can't be both) I see no further need to discuss. Enjoy your nap.

 

[GoAUpher]

Since you're now arguing my point for me (as you said above, it's either 1 or 2, team is either better with him or better without him, can't be both) I see no further need to discuss. Enjoy your nap.

Yawn. I wake up and find that you still can't read the words that make up the second half of each example. I know someone who is getting Hooked on Phonics for their birthday this year. You'll get there eventually. Right to left...sound them out.

 

[underground629]

Don't waste your time with him. The frustration will only grow.

Yawn. I wake up and find that you still can't read the words that make up the second half of each example. I know someone who is getting Hooked on Phonics for their birthday this year. You'll get there eventually. Right to left...sound them out.

 

[USAFChief]

Don't waste your time with him. The frustration will only grow.

That happens when you're arguing that a>b doesn't mean b<a.

 

[GoAUpher]

Don't waste your time with him. The frustration will only grow.

No offense, but he's the one who started talking about one thing outweighing the other when I was talking about missing Devoe's skill yet being glad his attitude was gone. I reiterated what I was talking about then agreed that one certainly can outweigh the other. I've only gone after his comments because he keeps focusing on the "outweigh" thing without ever acknowledging the rest of what I was saying (i.e. the comment he initially responded to).

 

[GoAUpher]

That happens when you're arguing that a>b doesn't mean b<a.

All I said was A (lamenting the absence of something) and B (choosing which part, game or attitude, is more important) can exist together. In fact, I agreed with you that you can't lament something (my initial statement) without deciding whether you think the tradeoff was worth it (what you were saying). You're the one who kept talking about B while failing to acknowledge A.

 

[underground629]

Exactly. I guess I didn't make it clear but I was telling you to stop wasting your time arguing with him because it's not worth it. He doesn't understand basketball, he states opinions as facts, and he won't acknowledge most of the points you bring up. That's why he has so many (long) debates.

No offense, but he's the one who started talking about one thing outweighing the other when I was talking about missing Devoe's skill yet being glad his attitude was gone. I reiterated what I was talking about then agreed that one certainly can outweigh the other. I've only gone after his comments because he keeps focusing on the "outweigh" thing without ever acknowledging the rest of what I was saying (i.e. the comment he initially responded to).

 

[USAFChief]

Let's recap:

Gopherhoopsfan: "Gophers are better off without Joseph."

Me: "I disagree."

GoAUpher: "But, they can be better off without him AND better off with him."

Me: "It's one or the other. Can't be both."

GoAUpher: "That's idiotic. What about when you have to choose a job for pay or quit over stress."

Me: "Right. It's one or the other. I might believe the wrong side, but they can't be both better AND worse at the same time."

GoAUpher: "No, it's either 1) They're not better off without Joseph, or 2) They are better off without Joseph."

Me: "Right."

GoAUpher: "Wait, that's not what I meant. Random insult."

Underground: "(Nothing of value) Insult, Insult."

Did I miss anything?

 

[Dr.Don]

The way I look at it after reading the dialogue, it is either a pi$$ing contest, or it isn't. It can't be both.