The maturity we have with Kat
I love the guy, but mature isn't high on my list of ways to describe him.
Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks
The maturity we have with Kat
Baseline81 wrote:Nick K wrote:Thank You. But why not be optimistic?
Because some of us are rational beings.
Slim Tubby wrote:Baseline81 wrote:Nick K wrote:Thank You. But why not be optimistic?
Because some of us are rational beings.
You can’t be optimistic and rational at the same time? I thought Nick did a good job of explaining his rational reasoning behind his optimism. Will he prove to be correct? I certainly hope so…we have the talent.
Baseline81 wrote:Battletrigger wrote:And this is the definition of a very optimistic person
I would say Klomp-esque.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.
Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.
We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.
Baseline81 wrote:shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.
Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.
We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.
Shall I go through my reasoning?
He points to the return of Towns. Can we all agree he and Gobert struggled earlier? What has changed since then? The injury has not allowed the two to work together. Instead, several are simply going off of what Towns said about learning as he's watched from the sidelines (something along those lines). As much as I want to believe KAT, he's said things in the past and not followed through -- arguing calls and playing too emotional being the two elephants in the room.
The poster also brings up how Finch has had to change schemes the past few years. He conveniently leaves out effort levels and how Minnesota can win a game just as easily as it can lose one. Both factors, at least to me, fall under the head coach. For a 4-through-6 seed, that doesn't happen. Losses to Detroit (both times), Charlotte, San Antonio (two times) and Houston are back breakers considering they all are amongst the worst teams in the league this season.
Regarding scheme, how many of us have complained about late fourth quarter offense?
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Baseline81 wrote:shrink wrote:Yeah, good response. Many people, especially on the internet, think rational means “correct,” and are quick to claim any opinion that isn’t the same as theirs is “irrational.” Rational is a logically consistent serious of contentions that support your conclusion.
Maybe pessimists are always going to see optimists as irrational. Maybe optimists are always going to see pessimists as irrational. You could both come to completely different conclusions and both have legitimate rationales on how you reached them.
We all believe we are rational people, and it felt to me like unnecessary self-importance to say that one’s own prediction of the future is the rational one.
Shall I go through my reasoning?
He points to the return of Towns. Can we all agree he and Gobert struggled earlier? What has changed since then? The injury has not allowed the two to work together. Instead, several are simply going off of what Towns said about learning as he's watched from the sidelines (something along those lines). As much as I want to believe KAT, he's said things in the past and not followed through -- arguing calls and playing too emotional being the two elephants in the room.
The poster also brings up how Finch has had to change schemes the past few years. He conveniently leaves out effort levels and how Minnesota can win a game just as easily as it can lose one. Both factors, at least to me, fall under the head coach. For a 4-through-6 seed, that doesn't happen. Losses to Detroit (both times), Charlotte, San Antonio (two times) and Houston are back breakers considering they all are amongst the worst teams in the league this season.
Regarding scheme, how many of us have complained about late fourth quarter offense?
Klomp wrote:While I may not be as optimistic to the extent of that poster, I do understand why he feels the way he does.
The biggest reason is Ant. He has made the leap. This is his team. I think even KAT knows it. And Finch has talked about using Towns differently as a result.
All teams have bad games against bad teams in an 82-game season. The 73-win Warriors did, losing a handful of times to sub-.500 teams. I'm fairly certain the 72-win Bulls did too. It's a long season, and these players aren't robots.
shangrila wrote:Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.
Hush you, no facts allowed in here.
TimberKat wrote:shangrila wrote:Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.
Hush you, no facts allowed in here.
What is so statistically significant about since Jan 1st? Did the team had New Year dinner at DLo's house and hash out a new way to play? What about the Wolves' record compared with the league for: the last 20 games? since 12/20? Since 1/11? On Saturdays? Or the last 30? Maybe 10 games moving avg?
Feels like since Jan 1st is a feel good fact.
TimberKat wrote:shangrila wrote:Domejandro wrote:This is despite a number of disappointing losses.
Hush you, no facts allowed in here.
What is so statistically significant about since Jan 1st? Did the team had New Year dinner at DLo's house and hash out a new way to play? What about the Wolves' record compared with the league for: the last 20 games? since 12/20? Since 1/11? On Saturdays? Or the last 30? Maybe 10 games moving avg?
Feels like since Jan 1st is a feel good fact.
Return to Minnesota Timberwolves