[BostonCard]

another problem with that stat (and I AM a big fan of stats) -- does not take into account potential. So for example Stevenson-Eschmeyer debate is meaningful because Stevenson likely at or near her peak potential vs. Eschmeyer's cap is much higher so we need to get her the experience so she continues to grow and reach it sooner...making her that much more effective as her ceiling on the stat much higher...

Agree. There seem to be misconception on this board that the Eschmeyer/Stevenson debate is about who is currently playing better, and taken a step further, that the coach should play the better player. That's not the debate, AFAIC. Many coaches play their young talent during the preseason, and even sacrifice wins, with the belief that they will be a better team later in the year. And then there's the transfer portal, which makes it even more important to play your young talent. That's the debate.

This seems like shifting goalposts, as there are plenty of comments about why MAS is inadequate getting substantial minutes right now and Eschmeyer would be better taking her minutes right now.

I don’t disagree that giving young talent a chance to develop early in the season, especially in blowouts or games that are well under control makes sense.  However, it’s not like Eschmeyer hasn’t been given significant minutes; she is one of the top 8 players in the rotation, which is usually the defining line between a regular back-up and a benchwarmer.  She’s played in all 12 games and is getting double-digit minutes on average; she is in the game 29% of the time (140/480 available minutes).

I understand you’d like to see her get more minutes (presumably at the expense of Stevenson).  While I get the desire to give high potential players early opportunities, it is possible to take it too far.  First of all, “potential” is a nebulous term and it is very subjective and thus can lead to bias.  Lots of examples of supposedly high potential players who never develop it as well as late bloomers who might have been thought to be at their ceiling, who burst through it.  So, saying that a certain player should play less to make room for a supposedly higher potential younger player, is, in essence, writing the first player off.  At every level from pee wee leagues to the pros, coaches will harp on the idea that players “earn” playing time.  Giving playing time out on the basis of potential undermines this premise, and is a recipe for discord in the locker room, since a player who believes they have earned playing time by doing what the coach asks doesn’t see it at the expense of a player who has been anointed the future on the basis of their “potential”.

Lastly, I think it is easy to fall prey to the back-up fallacy when evaluating players who don’t see a lot of playing time.  We get to see the warts of the players who are in the game, but don’t get to see the downsides of the players who are not, especially ones who we view as having a high potential.  It is natural to assume that such a player will always play to that potential, not recognizing that young players are inconsistent, at best.

Bottom line, I think the handling of Eschmeyer to date has been fine.  She has a lot of things to work on, so it is appropriate to bring her along at a measured pace, and increase her playing time as she (or if she) develops as we all hope.  I know we are all scarred by Betts’ transfer, but playing time was one of many (and probably not the biggest) reason she transferred, and I don’t think that the threat of transfer is a good reason to allocate playing time.  As the saying goes, if you coddle a player who is only in it for themselves you get a player is only in it for themself.  Fortunately, by all indications, including her parents’ comments, Eschmeyer is not such a player.

BC

[BostonCard]

another problem with that stat (and I AM a big fan of stats) -- does not take into account potential. So for example Stevenson-Eschmeyer debate is meaningful because Stevenson likely at or near her peak potential vs. Eschmeyer's cap is much higher so we need to get her the experience so she continues to grow and reach it sooner...making her that much more effective as her ceiling on the stat much higher...

Agree. There seem to be misconception on this board that the Eschmeyer/Stevenson debate is about who is currently playing better, and taken a step further, that the coach should play the better player. That's not the debate, AFAIC. Many coaches play their young talent during the preseason, and even sacrifice wins, with the belief that they will be a better team later in the year. And then there's the transfer portal, which makes it even more important to play your young talent. That's the debate.

This seems like shifting goalposts, as there are plenty of comments about why MAS is inadequate getting substantial minutes right now and Eschmeyer would be better taking her minutes right now.

I don’t disagree that giving young talent a chance to develop early in the season, especially in blowouts or games that are well under control makes sense.  However, it’s not like Eschmeyer hasn’t been given significant minutes; she is one of the top 8 players in the rotation, which is usually the defining line between a regular back-up and a benchwarmer.  She’s played in all 12 games and is getting double-digit minutes on average; she is in the game 29% of the time (140/480 available minutes).

I understand you’d like to see her get more minutes (presumably at the expense of Stevenson).  While I get the desire to give high potential players early opportunities, it is possible to take it too far.  First of all, “potential” is a nebulous term and it is very subjective and thus can lead to bias.  Lots of examples of supposedly high potential players who never develop it as well as late bloomers who might have been thought to be at their ceiling, who burst through it.  So, saying that a certain player should play less to make room for a supposedly higher potential younger player, is, in essence, writing the first player off.  At every level from pee wee leagues to the pros, coaches will harp on the idea that players “earn” playing time.  Giving playing time out on the basis of potential undermines this premise, and is a recipe for discord in the locker room, since a player who believes they have earned playing time by doing what the coach asks doesn’t see it at the expense of a player who has been anointed the future on the basis of their “potential”.

Lastly, I think it is easy to fall prey to the back-up fallacy when evaluating players who don’t see a lot of playing time.  We get to see the warts of the players who are in the game, but don’t get to see the downsides of the players who are not, especially ones who we view as having a high potential.  It is natural to assume that such a player will always play to that potential, not recognizing that young players are inconsistent, at best.

Bottom line, I think the handling of Eschmeyer to date has been fine.  She has a lot of things to work on, so it is appropriate to bring her along at a measured pace, and increase her playing time as she (or if she) develops as we all hope.  I know we are all scarred by Betts’ transfer, but playing time was one of many (and probably not the biggest) reason she transferred, and I don’t think that the threat of transfer is a good reason to allocate playing time.  As the saying goes, if you coddle a player who is only in it for themselves you get a player is only in it for themself.  Fortunately, by all indications, including her parents’ comments, Eschmeyer is not such a player.

BC