It's not about punishment. It's about training. Parents hopefully don't punish children for the sake of punishment, unless they are evil people. They train their children. Bagley was a "child" when he came into the NBA. He needed some tough coaching love, not punishment for the sake of punishment. From my gleanings, if anything Walton pandered to the kid, the opposite of the tough coaching love he needed in order to become an NBA professional. It's no wonder that Bagley wanted to do what he wanted to do when he'd been sucked up to by recruiters, coaches, AAU guys, etc. for most of his adolescence Throw in his stupid family's influence, plus all the injuries, and it's a wonder he's come this far. He nows seems to know his role, which is rebounding, defense, and making some open outside shots or inside shots when he can get them. He also knows that the offense is not going to revolve around him. It's a start.
Bagley refused to come into game
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
This is not a parent child situation. Anything stated regarding Marvin's attitude in AAU is pure speculation and based on you seeing Marvin as a child and needing to be fathered by Luke, apparently.
Marvin got this far because of his talent and hard work. End of story. There are thousands of young men trying to make it to the NBA. Marvin didn't luck into being a lottery pick.
In my mind, sitting someone down and saying, regardless of your talent, I need to reshape your behavior to fit my comfort level before I will let you do what you do best is in fact a punishment.
Marvin got this far because of his talent and hard work. End of story. There are thousands of young men trying to make it to the NBA. Marvin didn't luck into being a lottery pick.
In my mind, sitting someone down and saying, regardless of your talent, I need to reshape your behavior to fit my comfort level before I will let you do what you do best is in fact a punishment.
Because, that's not how I saw it play out. Marvin actually worked on his 3 pt shooting and sat in the corner as a last resort option on offense as asked by Walton. If we're talking defense, the whole team had defensive issues, and does to this day. So him being singled out for that by the coach would be inconsistent of what he asked of other players. So there was something else beneath the surface.
In line with the discussion I was having, the beneath the surface speculation was that Marvin needed humbling. So yeah.
In line with the discussion I was having, the beneath the surface speculation was that Marvin needed humbling. So yeah.
Well, shoot. I guess you got me there. 
I mean, if that's how YOU saw it play out, with attending every practice, being in the film sessions, talking with the coaches and training staff, etc., then I guess that's what it was. My bad.
I mean, if that's how YOU saw it play out, with attending every practice, being in the film sessions, talking with the coaches and training staff, etc., then I guess that's what it was. My bad.
It's a discussion on why a player needs to be or does not need to be humbled. There are no right answers when speculating on a person's motives. Only life experiences that shape our perspectives.
With that being said, not a big fan of do as I say or I'll put you in your place.
Well, shoot. I guess you got me there. I mean, if that's how YOU saw it play out, with attending every practice, being in the film sessions, talking with the coaches and training staff, etc., then I guess that's what it was. My bad.
I mean, if that's how YOU saw it play out, with attending every practice, being in the film sessions, talking with the coaches and training staff, etc., then I guess that's what it was. My bad.
also is there a way we can use emojis from our keyboard here
You keep ascribing various actions as "punishment" or "intentional humbling" when there is no overt indications that that was indeed happening. It could just as well have been a number of basketball or off-court/non-basketball related things that are much more feasible than such personal and unprofessional behaviors. Even Gentry (when asked about Bagley playing recently) said that rotations, etc., were discussed with the staff and agreed to by everyone. Without any confirmation of personal malice causing him not to play, please forgive me if I'm, ahem, *skeptical* of your conspiracy theories about intentional benching of Bagley. Please forgive me if my sarcasm was a bit over the top.
The skepticism is fine. However, one conspiracy theory is as good as the next.
My experience from coaching high school athletes has been that no matter the talent, the player has to be in the right situation. Seen a couple of highly talented players be told by their coaches that they were not really that good. Only for those same kids to change teams and immediately skyrocket to success and eventually a D1 scholarship. Seen talented kids get criticized for everything outside of their sport (hair, music, slang, upbringing) and be told that they weren't playing as much as they could because they just weren't talented enough. Just to leave the team and join another higher ranked team and take on a starting and leadership role, where the new coach never criticized those outside attributes of the player
So I have skepticism that every time a player is NOT playing that it's automatically the players fault. Life isn't fair and is full of bias. So it is completely plausible to ME when I see a talented kid sitting on the bench and less talented kids playing ahead of them, that things may not be right with the coach. Alarm bells go off double time when to prove the player shouldn't play, people attack the kids family, friends, hobbies, etc.
My conspiracy theory is more plausible to me than a player suddenly having an epiphany of how to play basketball the exact day his old coach is fired.
As far as the coaches saying they all agreed on the lineups, well that's what they're supposed to say. After Vivek said he wanted Stauskus, then went around the table and asked who they wanted, did those FO members really have a choice but to agree? Subordinates usually fall in line with little dissent at the end of the day.
My experience from coaching high school athletes has been that no matter the talent, the player has to be in the right situation. Seen a couple of highly talented players be told by their coaches that they were not really that good. Only for those same kids to change teams and immediately skyrocket to success and eventually a D1 scholarship. Seen talented kids get criticized for everything outside of their sport (hair, music, slang, upbringing) and be told that they weren't playing as much as they could because they just weren't talented enough. Just to leave the team and join another higher ranked team and take on a starting and leadership role, where the new coach never criticized those outside attributes of the player
So I have skepticism that every time a player is NOT playing that it's automatically the players fault. Life isn't fair and is full of bias. So it is completely plausible to ME when I see a talented kid sitting on the bench and less talented kids playing ahead of them, that things may not be right with the coach. Alarm bells go off double time when to prove the player shouldn't play, people attack the kids family, friends, hobbies, etc.
My conspiracy theory is more plausible to me than a player suddenly having an epiphany of how to play basketball the exact day his old coach is fired.
As far as the coaches saying they all agreed on the lineups, well that's what they're supposed to say. After Vivek said he wanted Stauskus, then went around the table and asked who they wanted, did those FO members really have a choice but to agree? Subordinates usually fall in line with little dissent at the end of the day.
None of that means that it was "punishment" or "intentional humbling" as you keep insisting. Luke was a crappy coach, with rotations nobody agreed with, personnel choices that didn't make sense, and play sets that were baffling. We all know that.
The extra conspiracy theory extras you are throwing on top are, most likely, just hogwash. You keep ascribing to malice what is almost assuredly just gross incompetence.
The extra conspiracy theory extras you are throwing on top are, most likely, just hogwash. You keep ascribing to malice what is almost assuredly just gross incompetence.
With all due respect, Warhawk, I was in a discussion where the term "humble-pie" and "lower the boom" on Marvin was used.
While I'm fairly certain @Kingster has no ill will towards Marvin personally, our discussion touched on something that is obvious "touchy."
There may not have been actual malicious intent by Walton, but implicit bias by itself can still be harmful. For the vicitm of it, it most definitely may feel like something more than incompetence. And it is.
As far as where my theory comes from, I'm just following an actual pattern of behavior from Walton regarding the high draft picks he has coached who are still in the development stage. Motives are speculation, but there is a pattern.
So, I reject the idea that my discussion is a "conspiracy" theory, implying that it's out of left field with no basis in reality. Some of the underlying implications may be uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it hogwash.
While I'm fairly certain @Kingster has no ill will towards Marvin personally, our discussion touched on something that is obvious "touchy."
There may not have been actual malicious intent by Walton, but implicit bias by itself can still be harmful. For the vicitm of it, it most definitely may feel like something more than incompetence. And it is.
As far as where my theory comes from, I'm just following an actual pattern of behavior from Walton regarding the high draft picks he has coached who are still in the development stage. Motives are speculation, but there is a pattern.
So, I reject the idea that my discussion is a "conspiracy" theory, implying that it's out of left field with no basis in reality. Some of the underlying implications may be uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it hogwash.
Last edited: