Brandon Jennings 2008-09 European Season Stats

[Alfred]

Because they are using a flawed method of determining who is the leader in a statistical category.

Not accepting a player who has played over half of the required games, and is #3 in total steals means you have a flawed evaluation system.

In the NBA you have to play 85% of the total games to qualify.

Tell me, is there a difference between the way the Euroleague works and how an NBA season works?

[Alfred]

You can certainly call him a liar. You probably won't have much traction in that argument, as what he is saying is not out of the realm of possibility, like what you are saying.

In terms of how you wish to "attack" what he is saying, you will have to abide by the TOS, which will be determined by the moderator who moderates this forum. That goes for him as well.

See my friend you yourself decided that what I said was impossible. You yourself claim it is impossible.

How does that have anything to do with what you just quoted?

Quoting this.

[vincecarter4pres]

Because they are using a flawed method of determining who is the leader in a statistical category.

Not accepting a player who has played over half of the required games, and is #3 in total steals means you have a flawed evaluation system.

In the NBA you have to play 85% of the total games to qualify.

But you have been arguing semantics the whole time.

It would be like a foreigner on an all NBA website that had no idea about NBA statistics and players asking who averaged 20 and 10 for the season and I kept conveniently leaving out Al Jefferson because the NBA decided he didn't play enough games this season to be on the leaderboard even thoug he played in 53.

[Alfred]

Because they are using a flawed method of determining who is the leader in a statistical category.

Not accepting a player who has played over half of the required games, and is #3 in total steals means you have a flawed evaluation system.

In the NBA you have to play 85% of the total games to qualify.

But you have been arguing semantics the whole time.

It would be like a foreigner on an all NBA website that had no idea about NBA statistics and players asking who averaged 20 and 10 for the season and I kept conveniently leaving out Al Jefferson because the NBA decided he didn't play enough games this season to be on the leaderboard even thoug he played in 53.

Actually, it's a little worse than that, because the Euroleague is actually a lot more similar to the NBA Playoffs than the NBA Regular Season.

For example, imagine that Chris Paul's Hornets made it to, and were eliminated from the second round, but he had like 5 steals a game and ended up with the most steals in the playoffs, and then he wasn't listed on the Steals leader board because he didn't get past the second round.

So if someone asked you who the steals leader was in that system, would you be like "Oh yeah it was Chris Paul, he had the most steals", or would you be like "NO IT WAS MIKE JAMES BECAUSE HE HAD 1.5 STEALS A GAME AND HE MADE IT TO THE 3RD ROUND."

[casey]

You know talkbasket, if you just provided the documented proof that you claim to have then you wouldn't have people laughing at you and calling you a liar. When you make such an outrageous claim, and then back it up with nothing whatsoever, how could you expect any different result? Especially for somebody as smart as you, I would think that you would've saw this coming.

[Star-Lord]

You know talkbasket, if you just provided the documented proof that you claim to have then you wouldn't have people laughing at you and calling you a liar. When you make such an outrageous claim, and then back it up with nothing whatsoever, how could you expect any different result? Especially for somebody as smart as you, I would think that you would've saw this coming.

I think the answer is fairly obvious at this point...

[pj_tor]

Because they are using a flawed method of determining who is the leader in a statistical category.

Not accepting a player who has played over half of the required games, and is #3 in total steals means you have a flawed evaluation system.

I

It would be like a foreigner on an all NBA website that had no idea about NBA statistics and players asking who averaged 20 and 10 for the season and I kept conveniently leaving out Al Jefferson because the NBA decided he didn't play enough games this season to be on the leaderboard even thoug he played in 53.

Actually, it's a little worse than that, because the Euroleague is actually a lot more similar to the NBA Playoffs than the NBA Regular Season.

For example, imagine that Chris Paul's Hornets made it to, and were eliminated from the second round, but he had like 5 steals a game and ended up with the most steals in the playoffs, and then he wasn't listed on the Steals leader board because he didn't get past the second round.

So if someone asked you who the steals leader was in that system, would you be like "Oh yeah it was Chris Paul, he had the most steals", or would you be like "NO IT WAS MIKE JAMES BECAUSE HE HAD 1.5 STEALS A GAME AND HE MADE IT TO THE 3RD ROUND."

Exactly Alfred, good point. Rubio was the REGULAR SEASON STEALS LEADER. I guess that makes everybody a liar, or victims of the manipulations of spanish homers.

KWSN-Men you're of Basque origins? You mean Spanish? Or what? Now I understand everything. First I thought you were a Greek hooligan, then a French full of envy, now I see what you have against Spaniards

[john2jer]

I laughed so hard while reading this thread.

From what I can understand of talkbasket's ridiculous posts, the Euroleague and pretty much basketball in general on the other side of the pond is better than the NBA. At least in his opinion. I might be wrong, but that's how he comes across.

It's funny, though, that he says Rubio would barely play on the top Euroleague clubs, when their backcourts are full of guys who couldn't cut it in the NBA, yet Rubio will likely be starting in the NBA if he comes over this year.

[Rebel INS]

LOL @ this thread

I haven't even seen jennings name over the past 4 pages

That 197 iq quote is hilarious though. Every point kwsn/talkbasket makes about anything is going to be automatically invalidated by that ridiculousness

well either that or he's one of the 10 smartest people in the world...in which case you better get off realgm and back to the chalkboard Einstein. Humanity needs your genius

[Rebel INS]

To Sportsguy8

Yea I know, I was just asking a rhetorical question, but I think you are also failing to look at the big picture. I am under the impression that most GMs and scouts are competent people who know how to evaluate talent. If they had it their way, they could easily put together a team of average players from 1-12, but they won't win you a championship: you need all-star caliber guys for that. Obviously, all-stars aren't easy to come by, and the obvious ones are easily snatched. But from time to time, there are little gems that aren't so recognizable, and these are the talent that teams take a chance on. Whether they pan out and become a Dirk Nowitzki is hard to predict of course.

I'm not so sure that "most GMs and scouts are competent people". Scouts, yes, probably, but most GMs shouldn't have the jobs that they do. The problem is that too many teams settle on having former NBA players (and/or other NBA personell) at GM positions which is just wrong strategy. Sure, some of them are very good at it, majority not, though.

Teams should act like big companies that already found out that the best thing for business is if they put really smart people (geniuses) to be in charge, people that don't necessarily have a lot in common with the business at the beginning.

So, for NBA, a really smart person who's just a regular NBA fan would be a much better GM than a former player that just doesn't have enough brain-power for making complex decisions ... And I'm not saying they're not smart, just saying they're not super-smart.

Teams have scouts and other personell to provide them data, information, opinions, but then you have to have someone to logically connect all the dots, be able to make complex calculations in his head, think on another level and make right decisions based on all the things ... And most current GMs simply don't have the skills/tool-set for that.

It's like on the floor. You could teach Brian Scalabrine to perfection, give him world class coaching, give him all the experiences in the world, but he would still be nowhere near LeBron James. And the same applies for GMs. Someone can have all the basketball experiances in the world, have whole life concentrated around basketball, but he would still not be able to be close as good GM as some wicked genius ...

I do agree with you how and why teams take chances on certain players and that it's a lot more complex than it looks. But, the problem I have with it, is that teams don't seem to see the right % a certain player has, to be a player that they hope him to be. They should look at every player from a math standpoint and estimate what the probabilities are that he'll be a superstar, a star, a role-player, a bust, black-hole, a cancer, etc. and estimate right value (including calculated risks). I just don't think 90% of GMs are capable of that level of complex thinking and decision making ...

This is very true. Reportedly the highest IQ of any NBA GM is the Rockets GM Daryl Morey. His IQ is 160. That's definitely genius level, but it's hardly by any stretch impressive. It's actually quite an indictment that teams that have billions at stake and only a 160 IQ is the highest in the league. And yeah he's not a former basketball player or coach.

There are lots of people with IQs higher than Morey that could be hired and do a much better job than the average NBA GM does.

And on this point...Daryl Morey played jv ball. Hardly the highest level of competition obviously, but its a foundation nonetheless. Intelligence is mutually exclusive from a feel for the game. That's intuitive and while I won't say that someone who's never played in a competitive team setting could never be successful as a GM, that natural feel is something that can't be learned any other way.

It doesn't take a 197 iq to put together a winning basketball team, just someone with that intuition and an understanding of how pieces fit together on the court.

[RIPskaterdude]

This thread is epic. Thank you KWSN-Men for turning this thread from a boring Brandon Jennings talk into an amazing fight over the IQ of men.

And let me the first to say, thank you for being on RealGM. Instead of simply excelling above us all with your extremely high IQ, you have decided to talk down to us mortals and compare thoughts with us. I never thought I would get the chance to talk to one that has a higher IQ than Steven Hawkins and Bill Gates, and for that, I thank you.

[Promezclan]

Under the more lenient Stanford-Binet distribution (standard deviation = 16), about 1 out of 1.013 billion people have an IQ of higher than 196.

That means there are about 6 people in the world with an IQ of 197 or greater. We now know that, remarkably, three of them come from the same family.

[KWSN-Men]

Under the more lenient Stanford-Binet distribution (standard deviation = 16), about 1 out of 1.013 billion people have an IQ of higher than 196.

That means there are about 6 people in the world with an IQ of 197 or greater. We now know that, remarkably, three of them come from the same family.

Both me and my mother met the President in person after we were tested.

[Star-Lord]

It's, "My mother and I." Or, "Mom and me."




Oh, and this is not the president, of any nation...

[Zeitgeister]

Under the more lenient Stanford-Binet distribution (standard deviation = 16), about 1 out of 1.013 billion people have an IQ of higher than 196.

That means there are about 6 people in the world with an IQ of 197 or greater. We now know that, remarkably, three of them come from the same family.

Both me and my mother met the President in person after we were tested.

For someone wtih a 197 I.Q. you don't sound very smart.

[KWSN-Men]

Under the more lenient Stanford-Binet distribution (standard deviation = 16), about 1 out of 1.013 billion people have an IQ of higher than 196.

That means there are about 6 people in the world with an IQ of 197 or greater. We now know that, remarkably, three of them come from the same family.

Both me and my mother met the President in person after we were tested.

For someone wtih a 197 I.Q. you don't sound very smart.

You can't hear me through a message board.

[eldans]

I´m so sorry my english isn´t good enought to post something about the amazing KWSN.

KWSN could you please post something about your father biography?

You sound as a childist liar looking for attention.
So in case that you are telling the truth, as someone said, IQ is highly overrated. This tread is the proof that you could have a 197 IQ and behave as an ****.

[eldans]

For someone wtih a 197 I.Q. you don't sound very smart.[/quote]

You can't hear me through a message board.

Evidence: 197 IQ people is not suited with the understanding of non-literal language.

[Rebel INS]

Under the more lenient Stanford-Binet distribution (standard deviation = 16), about 1 out of 1.013 billion people have an IQ of higher than 196.

That means there are about 6 people in the world with an IQ of 197 or greater. We now know that, remarkably, three of them come from the same family.

Both me and my mother met the President in person after we were tested.

this thread reminds me why the internet is so entertaining

[FutureKnicksGM]

ummm......... I think that Brandon Jennings will be develop into a good player.............