Nellie on with Norm

[V2M]

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
My point is that he is being sniped at (by the usual suspects, of course - aka, those who will ALWAYS try to find fault with anything he does) - and it was after an impressive win. If you Greek chorus guys would read the immediate post I replied to, you would see that Nellies "nuances" were being compared to Kerry's as losing nuances - when the context was a huge win, not a loss, for Nellie.

I cant prove he did it on purpose or that it helped. But you cant prove it did NOT help. It is unprovable. BUT - the end result is known.

So the point being made here was somehow that "wow, such moves hurt your team" - and guess what, I can show you this example right here vs Minny that says "no it looks more like they don't." And in this case, there is no question - they did NOT get a loss, but rather got a win (which was a better result than expected).

Tonight's result was a loss. If I say that Nellie missed a trick by not getting tossed out in the first minute... how could you or anyone prove or disprove that theory?! If all we have is to go by the end result, then this forum would be too blase. We rave when he wins and rant when he doesn't. Too simplistic!!

Coach needs to be a strategist off the court, a tactician on the court and a master motivator. Someone who quits on his team in the first minute of a key game, on the road, coming after a disappointing loss at home, can't be seen as a motivator nor a tactician. If the team has won that game, that's despite Nellie's antics and not because of 'em.

[Poindexter Einstein]

Your assertion is that he "quit" on his team. I dont buy it - he is way too competitive. The concept you espouse, that when they win it is "in spite of" Nellie and when they lose it is "because of" Nellie, is classic circular reasoning - ie it is useless because it presupposes its own conclusion.

If a coach gets tossed, sometimes it is deliberate and serves a purpose. In many pursuits in life, there are times when a tactician makes a "sacrifice" that has a unseen positive effects, that are far greater than what is sacrificed.

In my opinion (and it is unprovable of course, but I think this was the idea) - Nellie wanted to take Joey Crawford's anti-Mav bias out of this game. Such a bias could make a huge difference in the calls and the outcome. He cant do that by hollering about calls, from the bench. Cuban cant get it done, by letters to the league or complaints in the press. But when Nellie gets tossed so quickly, Crawford knows that the game is going to be under a microscope as a result - and may go out of his way to try to prove he wasnt "anti-Mav" by leaning the Mavs way the rest of the game. The difference from the lead ref being "anti-Mav" to "pro-Mav" - how many points is that worth?

The idea that he should do such a thing with regularity is of course absurd. But - like a halfback pass in football - you use "trick plays" sparingly, and you pick the spots carefully, and you may get super results that one time.

[V2M]

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
Your assertion is that he "quit" on his team. I dont buy it - he is way too competitive. The concept you espouse, that when they win it is "in spite of" Nellie and when they lose it is "because of" Nellie, is classic circular reasoning - ie it is useless because it presupposes its own conclusion.

If a coach gets tossed, sometimes it is deliberate and serves a purpose. In many pursuits in life, there are times when a tactician makes a "sacrifice" that has a unseen positive effects, that are far greater than what is sacrificed.

In my opinion (and it is unprovable of course, but I think this was the idea) - Nellie wanted to take Joey Crawford's anti-Mav bias out of this game. Such a bias could make a huge difference in the calls and the outcome. He cant do that by hollering about calls, from the bench. Cuban cant get it done, by letters to the league or complaints in the press. But when Nellie gets tossed so quickly, Crawford knows that the game is going to be under a microscope as a result - and may go out of his way to try to prove he wasnt "anti-Mav" by leaning the Mavs way the rest of the game. The difference from the lead ref being "anti-Mav" to "pro-Mav" - how many points is that worth?

The idea that he should do such a thing with regularity is of course absurd. But - like a halfback pass in football - you use "trick plays" sparingly, and you pick the spots carefully, and you may get super results that one time.

Good logic there, PE. It sounds plausible but not quite probable to me. If it had happened late in the game, I'd have given him the benefit of doubt. But to walk out on your team in the first minute is quitting to me. But I do see where you're coming from and we could just agree to disagree on the probability of your "nuance" theory. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Poindexter Einstein]

Think about these points as to whether it is better (in this strategy) to get tossed very early, or very late, which YOU think would have been better:
1. for which of these situations would Crawford be more likely to be on his best behavior - for doing something that was oddly unusual (tossing a coach in the first minute), or for doing something that happens all the time (tossing a whining over-reacting coach late in a game)?
2. would you rather get a whole game's worth of "pro-Mav" calls from Crawford, or just a few at the end?
3. do you want to give the opponent the free foul shots from the techs, late in the game, or early?

I still dont see it as "walking out on the team." I just see it as strategy or tactics, of an unusual kind. This team listens to Avery, who actually coaches as much of the practices as Nellie, and who knows the team. Del was there also, who knows the Nellie system inside and out. They were not abandoned.

This was more like a trick play. Is a trick play "giving up on your team" somehow? Of course not.

And it apparently worked like a charm.

[MavKikiNYC]

Trick. Stunt. Gimmick. Flim-flam.

You say potato, Nellie says vodka.

[V2M]

PE, considering we beat 'em by 10 points plus the 2 technicals... that's a 12 point differential to overcome. That's just way too much credit for Nellie's "nuance" theory. My argument was based on the players getting an emotional lift when they see their coach sticking up for them. But that's only valid usually in the 2nd half or late in the game when we're trailing by a significant margin and a key reason for that is the refs. When they see their coach is willing to get tossed out while standing up for 'em, sometimes that has a +ve effect on their energy. But I don't see how that would work when a coach gets tossed out in the 1st minute of a key road game when the score is tied at 2-2 or something like that.

Your argument of Nellie getting tossed out made the refs more pro-mav versus the opposite is kinda' hard to believe. If it did, it couldn''t have made more than a couple point difference to the game.

To me, the game was won fair & square by AJ who pushed the right buttons to keep the players aggressive and made the right moves to keep the Wolves' playing catch up all game. His timeouts were very timely and personnel changes were very logical. His game plan got KG, the reigning MVP in foul trouble. Of course, you could always argue that's all due to Nellie and his brilliant strategy of getting tossed out in the 1st minute... I just think the odds of that being true are very low. Again we could always agree to disagree. Peace. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]