@Texas-Hawk-10
I may have misunderstood the point of this thread and your posts, as I am often predisposed to do, despite my best efforts to the contrary, sir.
I thought the premise of the thread in general was that young Master Aaron Miles was supposed to be a better point guard coach than Assistant Head Coach Jerrance "Snacks" Howard, because he was a point guard.
So: I pointed out that Jerrance had been either a PG or a combo himself; i.e., he had the same basic playing back ground as Aaron. I thought that rather conclusively invalidated the logic of that argument.
Thus stunted, the shifted the thread discussion shifted to asserting that there had been poor point guard play and that it coincided with Howard's tenure. It occurred to me that there was a long list of more probable and plausible reasons for poor point guard play than Howard being an incompetent bungler. I listed them. Boom. The logic of that argument seemed refuted repeatedly. I did not even mention that Self did not have a history of hiring incompetent bunglers. Perhaps I should have.
In any case, my response was found wanting.
Next, the objection was that I had given too many what-if's. I was charged with violating Bill of Okham's single-edged, non-safety razor heuristic. I was in no uncertain terms told that it was more simple to blame Howard by correlation (guilt by association really), rather than enumerate a list of drivers embedded within a vastly more plausible operational scenario than the alarmingly counter-intuitive "Self is so flawed that he not only hired an incompetent bungler in Howard, but insisted on keeping him on despite his poor PG coaching" scenario.
Having both shaved cleanly, and cut myself occasionally, with the stropped razor of Okham a time or two in my life, I thought I ought at least re-examine the edge and the whiskered surface to which it had been applied this time. Had I hit a major artery of illogic in my neck and missed the gushing blood of fallacy? I looked closely in the mirror of my argument. I leaned so close I could note the very pores of the argument. No, I concluded, there was not even a hint illogical blood, not a scratch, not even any razor rash. It occurred to me that Okham's Razor, correctly stropped, or not, was never intended as a rationale for reduction to absurdity, or reduction to oversimplification, or reduction to simple correlation without further quantification into empirically based probability. As I rubbed the cleanly shaved skin of my argument, by then as smooth as a newborn's bottom, it occurred to me that Oakham's Razor was never intended to make an argument that, because my car is often parked in my garage, somehow my car caused my garage to stand up the way it did due to the simplicity of its presence within, and coincident with, the garage around it. No doubt such an argument was much simpler than the physics involved in the hidden wood frame that more probably held up the garage, but even old Okham would not try to attack me with his shaving instrument and try to slit my throat for saying that the structure of the garage was more responsible for holding up the garage, than was the car inside. No, it occurred to me, Okham's Razor was supposed to bias me toward choice of the least complicated explanation among several proposed mechanisms (systems, drivers, logics, etc.) that rationally explained a phenomenon, so that I would not fool myself with unnecessary complexity. This, I concluded, was something that even Jeeves, my quite frankly infallible butler, would likewise agree upon without so much as a reconnoitering.
But then I was informed that, well, really, the issue had nothing at all to do with Jerrance having been a point guard, or with my supposedly egregious misuse of Okham's Razor, but rather had to do with a laundry list of other things including, but perhaps not limited to: Naadir "Selfie" Tharpe "regressing; and with an allegedly "worst 2-year stretch in 25 years of guard play the last two years" (though I was not presented with the calculus of arriving of this breathtakingly broad generalization); and with having only landed 1 recruit in 2 years; and with a misdemeanor drug conviction; and with unconcealed forecasting that Brennen Bechard, whom to my knowledge never started a game in Division 1 at PG, would a possible replacement for Howard because of Assistant Head Coach Howard being sent to the WUG instead of Becherd (note: I am not yet entirely clear how a future possibility of Becherd replacing Howard might be simultaneously viewed as a reason for Howard being replaced, rather than as a result of it, but far be it from me to quibble over such minutia).
And it was at this very moment--not a moment sooner, nor a speck of a second later, that I, Bertie Woosterbate 1.0, became aware of the remote, but also near, possibility that very possibly reasons were being constructed and flailed about for dismissing Assistant Head Coach Jerrance Howard in order that someone should take the blame for the trials and tribulations experienced afflicting Kansas basketball in general and the frustrations of certain fans in particular, AND that any attempts at exposing the fallacies of the reasons given might meet with further, and increasingly facile reasons being advanced for the dismissal, or replacement, or demotion of Master Howard, so as to make of him a suitable, if rather extremely rotund scapegoat. Further, it occurred to me that if one were to continue to expose the fallacies in the premises constructed for his justification of his dismissal, however gently done and well meaning in purpose, one might eventually be confronted with the allegation that Assistant Head Coach Howard was, rather like a KU football coach once upon a time, found simply too bloody fat to coach at KU.
Jeeves! Do come at once. I am caught up in a trying situation quite beyond me, as usual, and I am in need of your inestimable assistance...Jeeves? JEEVES!!!
:-)
