Flame away, but....
- Thread starter typeviic
- Start date
I think Matt would appreciate our invitation to a Rivals PU BB chat tutorial on basketball theory and practice. We could explain how we would do it if we were him. My working title is "Basketball, and How to Coach It." I am certain that he would be happy to have our input.
Coaches are not immune to mistakes, but fans rarely discern whether something was good or bad due to execution and/or theory. What we do know is that the coaches have a hell of a lot more understanding going into a decision than fans and so a fan can question things...I get that. However, when they start to have the "true" answer...they just really may not.
Any volunteers to teach him the finer points of the various zones?
you could be stoned to death. The problem as I see it is not questioning when something doesn't work out but understanding there were a lot of reasons to do what was attempted and try to separate poor execution from the intent. When someone says why didn't Purdue do such and such instead of pretending there was only one choice and it just happened to be the posters position and a blanket statement on an event or Matt. It is then you understand that they are not really interested in understanding, but in rather declaring they are right and that is it. It is never said from a position of strength.
Painter is an idiot who knows nothing and Painter never makes a mistake and posters are idiots for ever claiming he does are equally nonsensical positions.
Anyone can go into Costco and buy alcohol and think 1.75l is around $41???
Last edited:
Costco liquor stores (which I think are actually independent from Costco) have some hidden gem deals from time to time......at least in the Texas and Ohio stores I have "visited."
As I stated, coaches can make mistakes but they come from a wealth of information that most if not all posters don't have...not only knowledge of what failed and why based upon the desire of the situation not only for those directly involved but the other members of not only their team, but the other team. Every approach is tempered by the ability to do something and every way of playing takes into consideration many variables that posters rarely if ever have. You and I...both of us don't have all the relevant information needed for higher level thought since it is logically impossible for higher level thinking to exist without relevant knowledge in the appropriate domain of which has already been pointed out. I have no trouble accepting it. I have questions from time to time, but I don't state this or that as the fact either on Matt or the game in general. If something comes up that I've said, just consider yourself smart and me a dumba$$ because it doesn't bother me. I offer my views and explanations of my views or the whys behind the ways. None of that means I'm correct, but, support the contentions not just a declaration of something as an absolute
That doesn't mean that a poster could not end up with a correct decision, but when a poster states as a fact what should have happened...that simpleton thought many times is shallow in the potential outcomes. If something doesn't work it certainly doesn't suggest that something else couldn't be worse. Realizing I don't have all the info or answers does not hurt my self-esteem.
I need to correct my type. It is where almost all my alcohol is bought. it is inside the grocery store here in Indiana
I mean that's not true. I can make an obvious mistake as an attorney, which is a pretty high level thought field, that a layperson can recognize without any training.
I can even do it when ordinarily being extremely good at it.
It doesn't require having all the answers by either party.
In education and learning...it is understood that higher level thinking can only happen by having relevant knowledge in the appropriate domain. I don't think you understood what I said? If I don't understand multiplication, division and fractions I can't solve an algebra equation. I could be extremely smart in history or a fantastic artist or basketball player and so it isn't a matter of being smart since I couldn't solve an algebra problem without the other relevant knowledge. It is a matter of having "the relevant knowledge in the domain" that is needed. Now many could solve an algebra problem, but if they were to study mathematical relationships in crystal formations...algebra may not provide the relevant knowledge to understand that. You and I don't have most the relevant knowledge as I tried to say. We really don't know all the coaches see when players go against each other. We really don't know the other team as the coaches (plural) that have viewed other teams in "context" to the Purdue players. We generally watch a game and interpret what we see based upon whatever understanding we may have, whether through study, direct contact, listening to color commentators or Osmosis.
Could fans be right? Yes! My points were that right or wrong coaches have a LOT more information (relevant knowledge) and any error would come from less guessing and more understanding. Could they be wrong? Yes, but they come from an informed position that I can guarantee has a LOT more thought than a random fan. The other point is that there is no problem with questions from fans. I have no desire to stifle discussion, but when fans make statements as an absolute as though there is one single answer...it shows that not much thought went into that. I'm certainly not one to bow my head because that is what I'm suppose to do. Hell, I probably got "swatted" more in school than the readers of this post for not following protocol and certainly not advocating that people have to follow or believe Matt. However, when I type something outside of joking around I have no problem offering my reasons for such.
Lastly, it isn't a dumb/smart thing, it is the "relevant knowledge" of which we have a "little", but not near what the coaching staff has in the context of which I wrote
Coaching isn't Calculus. Most things aren't math. And sometimes really smart people make obvious errors.
You still don't get it...you really don't. You need to review my two points again. I've stated them several times. Of course a coach can make an error. THAT was stated. That Error...should it exist (who can determine that?) comes from a more informed stance, which doesn't mean that it couldn't be an error. What you obviously fail to understand again, is that if something doesn't work, an alternative might be worse. Lastly, presenting something as a fact in a vacuum is short sighted. This is really quite simple and not sure why you drag something out that doesn't exist. I stated what I believe and if you think you know better than the coaches you are welcome to do so. I don't think I know more than the coaches. I may understand some things basketball wise, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't have all the relevant knowledge they do. Now if I didn't understand that I needed their understandings I might think my thoughts were as sound with less information in important areas...which takes me to Rumsfield
For a guy so focused on math and logic, committing the clear logical fallacy of argument from authority is perplexing.You still don't get it...you really don't. You need to review my two points again. I've stated them several times. Of course a coach can make an error. THAT was stated. That Error...should it exist (who can determine that?) comes from a more informed stance, which doesn't mean that it couldn't be an error. What you obviously fail to understand again, is that if something doesn't work, an alternative might be worse. Lastly, presenting something as a fact in a vacuum is short sighted. This is really quite simple and not sure why you drag something out that doesn't exist. I stated what I believe and if you think you know better than the coaches you are welcome to do so. I don't think I know more than the coaches. I may understand some things basketball wise, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't have all the relevant knowledge they do. Now if I didn't understand that I needed their understandings I might think my thoughts were as sound with less information in important areas...which takes me to Rumsfield
Regardless, it doesn't require knowing better than the coaches to spot a mistake. Just like someone doesn't have to know a single thing about the law to spot a clear mistake a very good lawyer can make. Because smart and experienced people, every once in awhile, make a "101" level mistake in every field. Including me. Including Painter.
So a fan can say, oops that was a mistake without believing they generally know better than Painter or even that they more than rarely know better.
And if any other choice was worse, then by definition it wasn't a mistake so yeah you're right I don't understand your argument that it can both be a mistake and be the best possible choice. If another choice was better, then yes it was a mistake.
Regardless, I'll put you in the camp of either Painter makes a mistake or Painter makes mistakes but only highly experienced coaches can possibly detect it which suggests you think it impossible that Painter can ever ever make a mistake unless it's a high level one which doesn't track with how humans work.
And citing that rather nonsensical quote from one of the worst Defense Secretaries in history doesn't help your argument
Put me where you want, just don't waste my time with your silly takes of insecurity
Yawn. Insecurity is being unable to admit that someone can't ever make a single mistake that others can recognize as if that somehow wipes out their otherwise excellent performance.
It's like pretending Jordan never made a dumb turnover that anyone who isn't on his level can recognize.
He's still Jordan. No one is pretending they understand the game like him.
But thanks, I get exactly what you're about now.
That play or not, if we hit the front-end of two of three 1&1's, we win.....
Boiler up!
Typical you couldn't begin to comprehend what I am. I've typed slow. I've repeated myself. I've spent a lot of time stating I never had all the information either, but you can't seem to take it that you don't have the requisite knowledge to know what goes behind what you see, nor that ability to understand (again I stated this) that an alternative could be worse in spite of me admitting I don't have the required knowledge).
Your deflection about Rumsfield doesn't make his statement incorrect. There are things we know. There are things we know we don't don't know, but it is the things we don't know that we don't know that bites us. Genghis Khan could say that and it doesn't change truth. Truth in not a function of who says it, but what it says. Anyway, nothing has changed in my points and if you want to believe that the coaches are not better informed (which was the topic, not that they couldn't make a mistake ,which has been repeated incessantly) who am I to say you shouldn't do that?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but quoting Rumsfeld isn't helping your argument.You still don't get it...you really don't. You need to review my two points again. I've stated them several times. Of course a coach can make an error. THAT was stated. That Error...should it exist (who can determine that?) comes from a more informed stance, which doesn't mean that it couldn't be an error. What you obviously fail to understand again, is that if something doesn't work, an alternative might be worse. Lastly, presenting something as a fact in a vacuum is short sighted. This is really quite simple and not sure why you drag something out that doesn't exist. I stated what I believe and if you think you know better than the coaches you are welcome to do so. I don't think I know more than the coaches. I may understand some things basketball wise, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't have all the relevant knowledge they do. Now if I didn't understand that I needed their understandings I might think my thoughts were as sound with less information in important areas...which takes me to Rumsfield
As I stated...the quote is true even if typical, you or I said it. It truly are the things we don't know that we don't know that bites us...and has always been that way before Rumsfield was born. It makes no difference whether someone likes him or not, it is a correct statement and attributed to him...therefore he gets credit
Similar, but different I've used before came from Sowell. Everyone has islands of knowledge. Some islands are larger than others, but all are dwarfed by the sea. He wouldn't like that one either since some islands are larger than others and the sea which is larger suggests that the larger island (coaches) may make a mistake (as previously stated) inside the sea, but that the island is more informed. My statements are really quite easy. coaches know more. coaches can make a mistake, but it comes from a more informed position. An alternative to something that doesn't work, might be worse...and last but not least, an absolute such as Matt will never change or Matt is stupid or we lost because of...comments without supporting reasoning
Bud I give a flying funyon about how slow you think I am. So you're wasting your time with the childish insults.
I think your insecurities are in play and have no idea how slow you are. I just stated the fact that I have said the same things over and over. It is possible you are very sharp and haven't read them. I don't have the requisite knowledge in the appropriate domain to know your intellect. You may not have read them. You may have read them and chose to play around. I don't know your intentions.
You see you just provided exhibit 1 of It truly is the thing we don't know, we don't know that, bites us and I don't know whether you are sincere with your comments on what I wrote or insincere, but if sincere you are struggling (unlike me) in admitting there is much you don't know and if insincere, then you have wasted a lot of bandwidth. Not having that knowledge, I'm left to guessing...if it interested me enough to guess which it doesn't. Let's just say you know twice as much as me and I'm fine with it. You just join a crowd of others I'm sure. Typical, if you think I said you were stupid I apologize. Not once did I suggest I was in a different boat than you...
The point your missing is your trying to attribute that quote to Rumsfeld as if he really understood what he was saying and was being profound. It's much more likely he was confused and kept saying we don't know over and over.
Like I said, I really don't have a dog in this one, you use whatever arguments you want.
I understand you have no dog in it. Rumsfield to me said, There are things we know. There are things we know we don't know, and then follows it with it is the things we don't know that we don't know (the ignorance of our ignorance) that bites us. It is an accurate statement in all of life...
Yes, the only possibilities are that I don't understand you or I'm just insecure and screwing around.
Not a third possibility there eh?
I'm not really interested in any further back and forth with you bud.
I see thee cast the first stone. Actually, I spent a few months of my life on that subject a few years ago, but do think the finer points would be interesting...and I'm not being sarcastic. Even if Matt didn't use it I understand (one) of the ways a zone might be employed could still provoke thought. The first thing is what type of zone for Purdue. I imagine somebody lurking has a particular zone they are very familiar with that would be interesting to see how it is used. I don't wish to see a zone or no zone debate, but the actual type and movement maybe. Understanding the whys and why nots inside a particular zone could generate a lot of thought
Last edited:
yes there could be a third choice different than sincere or insincere since that is only two. I assume the third choice is indifferent where you aren't really sincere or insincere? I suppose something could lie between sincere and insincere other than indifferent, but can't think of it at this time.
Should I have used indifferent? Nobody is trying to stifle your thoughts. If I should have used indifferent then I apologize again for leaving out the third choice. Nobody is mad at you and nobody is trying to diminish your basketball comments. Actually, my comments were general comments and not assigned to anyone and so they were that third way...indifferent to any particular person. Why you would take them personal when I said they applied to me in my posts is a little baffling, but again there is much I don't know and willing to admit such...
There were for sure a lot of things Rumsfeld didn't know, no argument there!
But I get your point.
Put another way, Rumsfeld's quote is an invitation to intellectual humility. After all, it takes massive humility to admit that the scope of our ignorance often extends beyond what we realize. Other people might see that ignorance, however...
Which brings me to Thomas Sowell's quote that is in a post above. All have islands of knowledge. Some islands are bigger than others, but all are dwarfed by the Sea. That quote is tied directly to Sowell's "constrained" view in "A Conflict of Visions" relative to the understanding or basis for the constrained view, but I believe was actually stated in https://www.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Fallacies-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541603923
Geez, this is why are country is in the state it's in. Some people absolutely have to put politics in everything.
Yes. It has to be from the fans who have been insisting that he implement a zone. If they have been watching Painter since he took the HC job at Purdue, surely they have thought this through. Teach Painter something he does not know that will make him a better coach with the personnel he has or will have next year.
Do you even read the previous posts Andy? Geezus TJ is the one that posted a Rumsfeld quote, I'm not bringing politics into anything. Get off your high horse buddy.
We don't use that word. It's "Modified Man To Man" I thought we covered this a couple weeks ago.....
I read every word. Instead of addressing the quote and the point being made, you made it about the messenger. Talk about high horse.
Maybe it would be more acceptable to provide the Painter quote that his critic is ignorant?
Post whatever you want use whatever quote you want. Unlike you I'm not soft and can either engage or ignore. You use Rumsfeld to try and make a point on a basketball message board you are open to anyone commenting on it. Like it, don't like it, don't care either way Andy.
This is why our country is where it is. Soft people that can't handle anyone having a different take from them.
ALL man outside of complete denial can be considered modified man and has been that way for a loooooooooong time. Modified man specifically might be new rules inside the man to the specific man D in question ( a certain team), but outside of man on man only (hugging away from the ball) a lot of different coaches have their modified version from another coach and for a specific team perhaps modified again. Morfing man as needed is one of the luxuries afforded to man defense. You can morf a zone also most easily by shifting it toward a player inside the zone. In the spectrum between pure man and pure zone are many hybrids and those hybrids borrow from each. I know you know that.
Similar threads
