RealGM

Bringing players back a 2nd time hasn't worked out very well for the Jazz.

Here's the list.

T. Bailey, Barnett, Benoit, Boswell, Crotty, Edwards, Eisley, S. Howard, Kelley, Ostertag, Toolson & Bell

Only Rich Kelley and Bell lasted more than a year and what did that get the Jazz? Not much!

Forget Williams, Korver, and Brewer. It's a chump play to make it look like the Jazz are doing something. Bringing back former players is a waste of time and money.

Thomas Wolfe said, "You can't go home again." And he didn't even know he was talking about basketball.

You definitely could make legitimate arguments about why bringing back any of those guys is a bad idea (Williams costs too much, Korver is relatively one-dimensional, Brewer would only exacerbate our outside shooting problems, etc.), but citing other instances where bringing back an ex-Jazz player hasn't worked out sheds exactly zero light on how well bringing back Williams, Korver or Brewer would work out. Purely from a basketball standpoint, I love the idea of bringing Mo back, but I guess money complicates things. If the organization's willing to pay him, though, I'm on board with that. He'd help significantly in the shooting, depth and experience departments.

by d-will8 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:51 am
but citing other instances where bringing back an ex-Jazz player hasn't worked out sheds exactly zero light on how well bringing back Williams, Korver or Brewer would work out.

Analysis of past history is important to understand the probabilities of future success. The number of players doing a round trip with the Jazz is large enough that it constitutes a legitimate sample size and does allow for making future statistical inference.

Bringing back former players has a very low probability of working out. It's not zero, but it's out around the 3 sigma level. It's not worth the time or the money.

A lot of those guys were past their primes when they came back and some weren't really all that great to begin with.

I guess the argument could be made that Brewer and Korver weren't all that to begin with. I would be more okay with Korver coming back out of the three.

Deron isn't coming back. It is a worse than a pipedream people need to let it go.

I agree that analyzing past history is important to understand future success's probability. I'll also concede that I was incorrect in saying that past history sheds zero light on future success's probability in this case. I feel, however, that there are too many other factors involved in this equation (talent level, skills, fit, age, attitude towards the organization, etc.) to simply say that the probability that bringing Mo Williams back will work out is equal to the number of past instances where bringing back a former player has worked out divided by the total number of instances where we've brought back a former player.

In a vacuum, your sample size and sigma 3 gibberish probably carries quite a bit of validity. This is not a vacuum, though. Whether or not adding Williams to our roster will work out does not boil down to a statistical survey of past instances where we've brought back former Jazz players, but to a survey of how Williams's skills, character, attitude and trajectory fit in with and complement our roster and its trajectory. A statistical survey of past instances where we've brought back former Jazz players might be relevant as well, but it certainly shouldn't be the only consideration. That's just my opinion, though.

Remember the saying, that making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different outcome is one sign of insanity.

Well, making the same low probability bet over and over either means that a person doesn't understand the odds, or their hoping to hit one big win that makes up for all the other loses. Down at Gambler's Anonymous they hear that story all the time.

retiredcoach wrote:

by d-will8 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:51 am
but citing other instances where bringing back an ex-Jazz player hasn't worked out sheds exactly zero light on how well bringing back Williams, Korver or Brewer would work out.

Analysis of past history is important to understand the probabilities of future success. The number of players doing a round trip with the Jazz is large enough that it constitutes a legitimate sample size and does allow for making future statistical inference.

Bringing back former players has a very low probability of working out. It's not zero, but it's out around the 3 sigma level. It's not worth the time or the money.

You can't use statistical probability with such a wide open pool and expect it to have any value. I like the objective approach but come on... each case is unique.

ColdBlue wrote:

retiredcoach wrote:

by d-will8 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:51 am
but citing other instances where bringing back an ex-Jazz player hasn't worked out sheds exactly zero light on how well bringing back Williams, Korver or Brewer would work out.

Analysis of past history is important to understand the probabilities of future success. The number of players doing a round trip with the Jazz is large enough that it constitutes a legitimate sample size and does allow for making future statistical inference.

Bringing back former players has a very low probability of working out. It's not zero, but it's out around the 3 sigma level. It's not worth the time or the money.

You can't use statistical probability with such a wide open pool and expect it to have any value. I like the objective approach but come on... each case is unique.

Bingo. That's a much more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say.

That's like saying you shouldn't make a trade if it helps out the other team in the deal.

No offense, but it's a stupid philosophy.

The arguement that it is harmful to bring back former players based on the organizaton's past experience is tantamount to arguing against finding players in the draft after a poor draft record. And, I believe Steve Nash provides a legitimate enough counter example by himself to show that the situation can work out beautifully for both the player and the organization.

All these arguments against using stats and past historical data to make inferences about the future are just dead ass wrong. They have no basis in fact. If someone doesn't understand probability, stats, distribution functions and other statistical methods, that's not a problem. But that doesn't make it false.

The situation is just as I described. Mo Williams is a long shot to provide much long term benefit to the team. As I said the probability is not zero, it's just low. In addition, Mo Williams only has a one year contract.

Steve Nash has nothing to do the the Jazz. The data I sighted is only for the Jazz. The Jazz have a poor track record when it comes to bringing back former players. That's the facts in regard to the Jazz. It has nothing to do with other teams.

by UTJazzFan_Echo1 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:20 pm
That's like saying you shouldn't make a trade if it helps out the other team in the deal.

No offense, but it's a stupid philosophy.

I'm not offended by nonsensical comparisons. I never said one word about other teams and trades. I only referred to the JAZZ TRACK RECORD at bringing back players a second time. That's it, nothing more.

Some people are trying to argue that each player has an independent probability of performing well. That would be true if the players returning to the Jazz a second time were picked at random from all former Jazz players. But they are not being picked at random. They are being picked by a group of staffers who have a specific philosophy in regard to how the Jazz operate.

That takes away the randomness.

If it were a random process, then the time that each 2fer stayed with the team should be a normal distribution. It's not. It's a Poisson distribution. Which essentially means there's a 95% plus chance Williams will only be the Jazz one year based on what has happened in the past. So there is a small chance his contribution could be good enough that the Jazz are willing to pay him whatever he can get elsewhere and keep him, and that he'll accept the contract.

It's a simple problem. Mo W has to contribute above what the Jazz had, and he has to be willing to stay more than one year. If he does that then he's one of the really rare exceptions. If he either fails to contribute or leaves after year, then he fits right into the typical Jazz experience with 2fers.

Well I am a stats and probability guy but you don't need to use it here. Its much simpiler than that. If the player isn't leading us to being a title contender, we can get a better player of their skill set for cheaper or we are not getting a young/future asset for taking their contact on, then there is no point in bringing them to the Jazz. Every former player besides Deron falls into one or more of those categories.

Bringing in Mo is completely and utterly pointless. Mo is only useful for this coming season. I don't care about this coming season, only about 3-5 years from now. We can do better with that trade exception or we can sign a more useful long term free agent.

Actually I like Mo Willams. Haywood is a good player but needs to develop, and there's not really a own shot creator outide the paint. Mo is also a good 3 point shooter, so he'll give space for Big Al and Millsap to play one-on-one inside.

Don't forget Mo got 44% from 3 in 2009. He could be a good player. He just has to play harder defense than he has played last year.

Korver is one-dimensional but in certain situations having a 3 point shooter like him can help a lot.


Does this make us a contender team? I don't think so. But surely not a worse team.

This is different since he left after what would have been his sophomore college season. It isn't bringing back a guy who's beyond over the hill (though obviously Mo is past his peak or his peak was a Lebron enhanced mirage).

by reapaman on Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:26 pm
Bringing in Mo is completely and utterly pointless. Mo is only useful for this coming season. I don't care about this coming season, only about 3-5 years from now. We can do better with that trade exception or we can sign a more useful long term free agent.

I agree. Unless the Jazz can sign Mo to a longer term contract, trade Harris and find a young PG with a lot of potential to develop while Mo is here, this trade gets the Jazz nothing in terms of the long term team building.

I think the loss of the first round draft pick was a major blow despite KOC downplaying it. The 11th pick and up had a high probability of helping Jazz over the next couple of years big time. If the Jazz had not made the playoffs, they might have been able to trade the 14th pick for a 10th pick and a player. The Jazz couldn't control GSW tanking without which they would have gotten Lillard. Combining Lillard and Williams would have made long term sense.

When I say the Jazz not making the playoffs, I'm not suggesting they should have tanked. They earned their playoff spot, but unlike so many other people, including the talking sports heads, this former coach doesn't think the playoff experience was nearly as valuable as it's being made out to be and that in fact making the playoffs this year will turn out to be very expensive in the long run. But only time will tell.

The Jazz are going to play Burks at the PG spot in the Summer League, but I don't see that as a long term solution. Machado didn't distinguish himself in his individual workouts, so he probably wouldn't have helped. The Jazz can get by without a top 10 PG if they have a significant SG, which they don't have right now.

retiredcoach wrote:All these arguments against using stats and past historical data to make inferences about the future are just dead ass wrong.

Don't quit your day job.

by ColdBlue on Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:59 pm
Don't quit your day job.

Sorry to disappoint you Blue. I don't need a day job. I haven't had to work since I retired at 49. Thanks for the Cold compliment though.

Kinda feel like this Mo is a totally different one then the rookie who left thr Jazz. I mean he's been to the finals, an All Star and LeBrons ward in the mean time. Totally different then a washed up scenario

I think that you are wrong on this one RCoach. Mo Williams is going to be a difference maker!

Now all that we need to do is sign kirilenko, and get a legitimate SG that can shoot and defend, or have Hayward step it up.