Do you agree with this quote?

[Fez Hammersticks]

From Dwight Jaynes (via Sports Sunday)

"I'll take talent over experience every time"

He thinks that if we make the playoffs we can make some noise. When games get tight I think we have a coach who'll instruct his young players what to do. So in short, I agree with Dwight.

 

[THE HCP]

You can gain experience, you can't gain talent. You're born with it!

 

[DaRizzle]

No I dont agree with that statement. With experience comes knowing how to close games and deal with adversity

Its a give and take and he is trying to make it an absolute

 

[bodyman5001]

I absolutely agree 100 percent with that quote.

Here is a weird analogy that is impossible but should prove my point.

If someone were to build a time machine and take today's Michael Jordan back in time to 1991, would 40 something year old Michael Jordan be better at basketball than 1991 Michael Jordan?


No fucking way.

In my line of work I know people that have more experience than I have years as an adult. They are still hacks, they have just been exposed to this trade enough to know that they suck at it. With that experience they have learned how to get by, they will never be great.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

No I dont agree with that statement. With experience comes knowing how to close games and deal with adversity

Its a give and take and he is trying to make it an absolute

But isn't it much more difficult to gain talent than it is to gain experience?

 

[DaRizzle]

I absolutely agree 100 percent with that quote.

Here is a weird analogy that is impossible but should prove my point.

If someone were to build a time machine and take today's Michael Jordan back in time to 1991, would 40 something year old Michael Jordan be better at basketball than 1991 Michael Jordan?


No fucking way.

In my line of work I know people that have more experience than I have years as an adult. They are still hacks, they have just been exposed to this trade enough to know that they suck at it. With that experience they have learned how to get by, they will never be great.

Well how about you dont use the extremes...How about a 3rd year MJ compared to an 8th year MJ...thats a more relevant argument

 

[PapaG]

In my line of work I know people that have more experience than I have years as an adult. They are still hacks, they have just been exposed to this trade enough to know that they suck at it. With that experience they have learned how to get by, they will never be great.

Hah. I remember when I was in my early 20s and thought the same thing about those that I worked with, but the weird thing is they got a lot smarter as time went on. So you'll be either the upwardly mobile guy that everyone talks about behind your back, or you'll be the know-it-all who really doesn't know-it-all.

The fact that you post on a message board tells me you are the latter, which isn't a bad thing, and you'll be in the group you loathe in another ten years or so.

 

[DaRizzle]

But isn't it much more difficult to gain talent than it is to gain experience?

You gain talent with experience whether it physical or mental. Obviously everyone gets experience but not everybody uses that to their advantage

 

[rocketeer]

From Dwight Jaynes (via Sports Sunday)

"I'll take talent over experience every time"

He thinks that if we make the playoffs we can make some noise. When games get tight I think we have a coach who'll instruct his young players what to do. So in short, I agree with Dwight.

yes i absolutely agree with the statement.

especially when people start talking about "playoff experience". the real significance of playoff experience is that it comes as a byproduct of being a good team.

 

[Nikolokolus]

When the margin between victory and defeat at such a high level of athletics is so small, and the talent gap between most players so miniscule, experience can be a huge benefit. Dwight presents false choice here; it not talent or experience, most elite teams have talent and experience.

On the bright side we'll have some more experience at season's end.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I got to watch the 1990's Blazers team against the Spurs on TV last week...

One Rod Strickland boner basically caused the start of our 3-year run...if he holds onto the ball and they score there, the Spurs win. The Spurs, with a 2nd-year Admiral, a young Sean Elliott, older Terry Cummings, etc. would have gone to the WCF.

You could make the argument Strickland's "inexperience" cost them. But I tend to think that "experience" can be overrated. The greats get great when they get great, and in games with fewer players on the field/court at the same time superior talent means more. Gretzky, Tiger, Russell, etc. just started winning. MJ may have, if his Bulls teams weren't so horrible or the Celtics and Pistons (each of whom had their own talent stores) weren't so great.

I think our team falls in the "Gretzky and Tiger" category, rather than the "early MJ" category.

 

[bodyman5001]

Hah. I remember when I was in my early 20s and thought the same thing about those that I worked with, but the weird thing is they got a lot smarter as time went on. So you'll be either the upwardly mobile guy that everyone talks about behind your back, or you'll be the know-it-all who really doesn't know-it-all.

The fact that you post on a message board tells me you are the latter, which isn't a bad thing, and you'll be in the group you loathe in another ten years or so.

It really bothers me when people assume they know something they obviously don't know. Your post is a good example of this. Assuming that there are these two specific groups of people in a bodyshop? funny.....You last worked in one when?

I was talking about people who have been fixing CARS LIKE YOURS for 30 years and couldn't weld bubblegum to more bubblegum. I am talking about people who take a torch to high strength steels when they have no idea of the makeup of the steel involved, and are too ignorant to know that they just reduced steel that is made specifically for a certain purpose, to the type of steel they have EXPERIENCE with. Which is mild steel and most definitely not the best choice for the safety of your vehicle.

Just so you know, in an accident you might die if your vehicle was repaired improperly. The bad thing is that 99.99 percent of the time nobody will know that you might have lived if it had been done right, because your car is supposed to be smashed when you wreck it. They don't send out someone like the FAA to see why YOU died, regular accidents aren't that important.

It may be a little known fact to the real world but unless we are talking a simple bumper job on a new car we are ACTUALLY talking about something that can put your life in danger if you don't have it fixed properly.

I am 34 and I am the guy the boss gives the jobs to when he wants to make sure they are done right.


I am the guy he sends to class to make sure that someone in the shop knows about current vehicles and proper repair procedures.


I guess I was a bit naive about posting on a message board. I thought it was something I do for fun. My bad.

The good part is that I can now assume that most other people are like you said, the know it all who doesn't really know it all. Kinda funny how neither one of us must know it all.

 

[bodyman5001]

Well how about you dont use the extremes...How about a 3rd year MJ compared to an 8th year MJ...thats a more relevant argument

That is an absolutely irrelevant argument. So far from being relevant as to be almost worthless.

I think it is pretty safe to say that Dwight would rather have an equally talented player with MORE experience. Why wouldn't he?

Try this example of extremes

You choose one of these for your next (or first ever) date.

A: Hot 20 year old girl who only had one boyfriend and never went all the way

or

B: Wore out 65 year old women who has been married 8 times and has six grandkids.

You take the experienced one if you want (shudders at the thought)

 

[handiman]

Meaningless quote... You don't get experience without talent. You have to be talented to stick around long enough to gain experience, at least the type that counts for anything.

 

[Ed O]

The quote doesn't really have enough detail to agree with or disagree with.

I would rather have a more talented team overall, but in a five or seven game series, it's ENTIRELY possible that a more experienced team will beat a more talented one.

Of course, if the gap is too extreme in favor of talent (or the experience gap is too narrow), talent should overcome.

The reason I prefer talent to experience is because I'm not just concerned with a single playoff series or a single year of playoffs... if we have talent, we will get experience.

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

I would rather have a more talented team overall, but in a five or seven game series, it's ENTIRELY possible that a more experienced team will beat a more talented one.

in a 5 or 7 game series, the most talented team almost always wins. it just happens that they are also usually more experienced because their talent level has continuously gotten them that far.

 

[Ed O]

in a 5 or 7 game series, the most talented team almost always wins. it just happens that they are also usually more experienced because their talent level has continuously gotten them that far.

I disagree.

I haven't done a systematic study of NBA champions or general playoff success, but older teams, from my experience as a fan, seem to do better. Talented teams rarely emerge from the lottery and make a splash deep in the playoffs. Teams like the Bulls and the Lakers in the 90's stub their toes a time or two before finally breaking through. I think that few would argue, taking a more recent example, that the Spurs were more talented than the Hornets last year, but the Spurs beat them.

When a team like that breaks through it's not because they got more talent, necessarily... the same team can be more successful simply because they know how to use their existing talent more effectively. They learn that through experience.

Ed O.

 

[KingSpeed]

I absolutely agree 100 percent with that quote.

Here is a weird analogy that is impossible but should prove my point.

If someone were to build a time machine and take today's Michael Jordan back in time to 1991, would 40 something year old Michael Jordan be better at basketball than 1991 Michael Jordan?


No fucking way.

In my line of work I know people that have more experience than I have years as an adult. They are still hacks, they have just been exposed to this trade enough to know that they suck at it. With that experience they have learned how to get by, they will never be great.

But 1991 Michael Jordan had a TON of experience. Lost to the Pistons a couple times in the playoffs. Had been in the league for 7 years.

 

[JAFO]

I'll take experienced and talented over talented with no experience any day.

JAFO

 

[RW#30]

Well how about you dont use the extremes...How about a 3rd year MJ compared to an 8th year MJ...thats a more relevant argument

Bird and Magic was old and Stern needed a new marketing cow. Experience had nothing to do with it. Like previously stated you born with talent, you either have it or not.
Players like Kurt Rambis stayed in the league because of his smarts and determination.The Lakers didn't win because of him.Others like Elton Brand, Danny Manning (after horrible injuries) could stay because of talent.

 

[Shooter]

Hah. I remember when I was in my early 20s and thought the same thing about those that I worked with, but the weird thing is they got a lot smarter as time went on. So you'll be either the upwardly mobile guy that everyone talks about behind your back, or you'll be the know-it-all who really doesn't know-it-all.

The fact that you post on a message board tells me you are the latter, which isn't a bad thing, and you'll be in the group you loathe in another ten years or so.

Ha, ha. Now that's a smackdown!

 

[Shooter]

I disagree.

I haven't done a systematic study of NBA champions or general playoff success, but older teams, from my experience as a fan, seem to do better. Talented teams rarely emerge from the lottery and make a splash deep in the playoffs. Teams like the Bulls and the Lakers in the 90's stub their toes a time or two before finally breaking through. I think that few would argue, taking a more recent example, that the Spurs were more talented than the Hornets last year, but the Spurs beat them.

When a team like that breaks through it's not because they got more talent, necessarily... the same team can be more successful simply because they know how to use their existing talent more effectively. They learn that through experience.

Actually, we're leaving something out of the equation. A great "system" can help overcome a talent deficiency. The best example I can think of is the '77 Blazers, who had less talent than Philly but beat them in the finals because they played better as a team.

 

[BenDavis503x]

Yeah I can agree with that quote! Just cuz I am a super homer!!!

 

[MrJayremmie]

You can gain experience, you can't gain talent. You're born with it!

Agree.

 

[Ed O]

Actually, we're leaving something out of the equation. A great "system" can help overcome a talent deficiency. The best example I can think of is the '77 Blazers, who had less talent than Philly but beat them in the finals because they played better as a team.

The system definitely matters... and coaching generally. I had assumed we were leaving everything else constant and just considering the experience and talent variables...

Looking back, though, I wonder whether the Blazers were really THAT much less talented. Walton was the best player in that series, and Lucas and some of the other guys had careers that were the equal of many of the Sixers. Isn't it possible that the 76ers were at least SLIGHTLY overhyped because they were an East coast team?

Ed O.