PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Stats


#1

Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn’t been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/


#2

That’s all well and good, but HOW ARE YOU? Great to see you here again, Tim!


#3

[quote=“tjb, post:1, topic:1370”]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn’t been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Guest appearance? I thought you were our moderator! ;D :wink: Welcome back! :slight_smile:


#4

Welcome Back, tjb.

By the way, Red would still use “eyeballs.” He would not be fooled by the hocus pocus of today’s stat geeks.
By the way, the human mind is the world’s greatest computer. Imagine all the basketball data programed in Red’s mind. You think a pimple faced 20 year old who has never bounced a basketball can top Red’s mind.


#5

hmmmmm…tundra, I was waiting for you to bust out the cliché: “He’s forgotten more than you’ll ever know”

that never made much sense to me, forgotten information useless…also, depending on how much the expert has forgotten, their useful knowledge could indeed be less than the young buck.

however, it’s good to see TJB back on the horse. would have been good even if he posted a link to a snowy video of hamsters making it


#6

[quote=“tjb, post:1, topic:1370”]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn’t been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim. And with a great thread…the eyeballs win it!

Auerbach made some of the greatest draft moves ever. Among just a few:

[i]Picking Larry Bird when he was a junior, then waiting for a year for him to come out. He gave up a year to get the player he really wanted.

Joe Barry Carroll was the consensus pick, but Red wanted Ralph Sampson to come out as a frosh. When Ralph declined, Red traded the #1 pick to the Warriors for the #2 pick. The Warriors threw in their center, who at the time was so so, Robert Parrish. The Warriors took Carroll, the Celts, McHale. Unreal. Added to Bird, the Celts became a force. From zero to 100 over 2 years. Talk about improving a front line!

Convincing Danny Ainge to give up baseball and play hoops. Ainge was on the Blue Jays. I saw him play for them at Yankee Stadium. He couldn’t hit.
[/i]
Interesting that Monta Ellis was mentioned. Curry’s the heart of that team, and should be one with the ball in his hands.

Play with heart? Score when needed? Hit shots at the buzzer? Do more than just score? Rebound like a guy 8" taller? Think Red might like anybody on PSU? Hehehe. :wink:

Welcome back again, Tim. Miss your postings.


#7

Welcome back Tim! Hey what took you so long?

Hope to see you here a lot more.


#8

[quote=“tjb, post:1, topic:1370”]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn’t been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.


#9
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.


#10

Red also had a “great eye” for adding “role players” to help the Celts WIN. Don Nelson, Bailey Howell and Emmitt Bryant come to mind.
I believe Red retired to the D.C. A friend regularly would see Red at GW, James Madison, etc games. Usually sitting by himself in the rafters.


#11

Red was a GW alum according to his book he rarely missed games when he Was in town.


#12

[quote=“tundra, post:10, topic:1370”]Red also had a “great eye” for adding “role players” to help the Celts WIN. Don Nelson, Bailey Howell and Emmitt Bryant come to mind.
I believe Red retired to the D.C. A friend regularly would see Red at GW, James Madison, etc games. Usually sitting by himself in the rafters. [/quote]

Actually, I think Red lived in DC, after he went to George Washington U., in their basketball program in 1935, he stayed. Had a place in Boston, surely, but always a resident of DC area after leaving Brooklyn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Auerbach#Early_years


#13

Welcome back, Tim!


#14
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.

Things have changed in the last twenty years and I think Auerback was smart enough that he would have recognized that.


#15
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.

Things have changed in the last twenty years and I think Auerback was smart enough that he would have recognized that.

I’m on kidcoyote’s side with this one. Stats aren’t something you are “enlightened” to, there seems to be people who are stat people and ones that are eyeball people. If Red was an eyeball guy, then I doubt he would be a stat guy today.


#16
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.

Things have changed in the last twenty years and I think Auerback was smart enough that he would have recognized that.

Some agree with Red…even today. And some of those people might be smart. I know that’s hard for you to accept, i.e., how can they disagree with you and be smart? Ever consider you might be, er. …wrong? Now, if they disagree with me, that’s different. :wink:


#17

Kid has one opinion on Red. Lar has a different opinion. Guess what. They are opinions. And neither side can ever be proven right or wrong on this subject. Why do discussions like this always end up in name calling? Grow up gentlemen.


#18
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.

Things have changed in the last twenty years and I think Auerback was smart enough that he would have recognized that.

I’m on kidcoyote’s side with this one. Stats aren’t something you are “enlightened” to, there seems to be people who are stat people and ones that are eyeball people. If Red was an eyeball guy, then I doubt he would be a stat guy today.

Ten years ago, you wouldn’t have found a single NBA team with an APBRmetrician on the staff (FTR - the first was Bill James who was hired by the Seattle Supersonics in 2004). Nowadays, the majority of the NBA clubs have them. So you may not call it an “enlightening”, but something is happening to the people in power, and I’d like to believe the Auerbach would recognize it just like others have.


#19
[quote="tjb, post:1, topic:1370"]Guest appearance from me, hope this hasn't been posted already:

http://hoopspeak.com/2010/09/advanced-statistics-what-would-auerbach-do/[/quote]

Welcome back Tim.

Thanks for the article. Hadn’t seen that before.

I think there’s little doubt that Auerbach would use stats to his advantage. He was too smart a GM not to.

Little doubt? Too smart? Maybe you should read it again. You’re like Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyeballs?” It couldn’t be clearer how he felt. His interview was in '87, not 1960. As strange as it may seem to you, he didn’t agree with you. You’ll get over it.

I don’t believe in statistics. There are too many factors that can’t be measured. You can’t measure a ballplayer’s heart, his ability to perform in the clutch, his willingness to sacrifice his offense or to play strong defense.

Things have changed in the last twenty years and I think Auerback was smart enough that he would have recognized that.

I’m on kidcoyote’s side with this one. Stats aren’t something you are “enlightened” to, there seems to be people who are stat people and ones that are eyeball people. If Red was an eyeball guy, then I doubt he would be a stat guy today.

Ten years ago, you wouldn’t have found a single NBA team with an APBRmetrician on the staff (FTR - the first was Bill James who was hired by the Seattle Supersonics in 2004). Nowadays, the majority of the NBA clubs have them. So you may not call it an “enlightening”, but something is happening to the people in power, and I’d like to believe the Auerbach would recognize it just like others have.


Did the Trailblazers fire their stat guy. They had Durant ranked ahead of Odom and still took the frail C. They have had their bad luck drafting C’s: Walton, Bowie and now Odom.

#20

Stating what Red said, more than once in that interview, is not an opinion. It’s stating fact. Please do not compare my comment with Lar’s. His is a speculative opinion…suggesting that someone so smart would change 50 years of habit and see it his way? Wow. The conceit is palpable. Having an opinion that stats are more important than experience or eyeballs is legit. Suggesting that you must be dumb to not agree is not. You didn’t miss that, did you?