Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ESPN 5-on-5: Rudy Gay most Overrated Small Forward.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • p00ka
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Nothing malicious or disrespectful at all in my post.

    I did not examine the post very closely.

    You came back with a great, indepth view that contradicts findings.

    So I took back my original reply: it is Rudy time!

    Believe it or not p00ka, I really have no beef with someone having a difference of opinion on topics. In this case you convinced me to share the same one.
    My apologies for misunderstanding. It seemed that "it's Rudy time", coming out of left field considering the "medical study" subject we were discussing, was snark.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    p00ka wrote: View Post
    Don't know how to take the sarcasm, but whatever. Moving target of rules of "respect" I guess.

    That William Lou character that published the article referencing the 8 year old "medical study", and twisting the results to mean something different than they couldn't conclude, is the guy now posting on the front page here. He needs attention I guess, but that article is ridiculous and I can't understand the motive in publishing crap like that.
    Nothing malicious or disrespectful at all in my post.

    I did not examine the post very closely.

    You came back with a great, indepth view that contradicts findings.

    So I took back my original reply: it is Rudy time!

    Believe it or not p00ka, I really have no beef with someone having a difference of opinion on topics. In this case you convinced me to share the same one.

    Leave a comment:


  • p00ka
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Thanks for dissection. I appreciate it.

    Honestly did not read too close.


    So scrat h that: it's Rudy time
    Don't know how to take the sarcasm, but whatever. Moving target of rules of "respect" I guess.

    That William Lou character that published the article referencing the 8 year old "medical study", and twisting the results to mean something different than they couldn't conclude, is the guy now posting on the front page here. He needs attention I guess, but that article is ridiculous and I can't understand the motive in publishing crap like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    p00ka wrote: View Post
    Sorry man, but this seems to be one of the most ill-researched, misguided things I've ever paid attention to on here.

    1. My initial reaction was that, however "meaningful" this study may or not be, baseball batting skills are drastically different than basketball shooting skills. There's good reason that most say hitting a baseball for hits is the most difficult thing in sport. Success 30% of the time makes you an All-star. Nothing a player does in basketball is like hitting a 95 MPH baseball. The greatest of all time, Michael Jordon's venture into baseball netted him a .202 batting average (BA) in bloody tier 3 AA ball.

    2. That aside, having spent some time in the past looking at some "medical studies" curiosity drove me to look at the basics of this one.
    - The first thing that jumped out at me was that the study group was a whopping 12 players. Not a number that instills confidence in the results.
    - The second thing was that it's a 6 year old study of surgeries that were performed 9-14 years ago, when I would imagine Laser surgery procedures/techniques weren't exactly current in a relatively new field of surgery
    - But hey, worth the time to have a look at the results anyway. Brushing the OBP, SLG, and OPs (which simply combines the other 2) aside, I figured I'd just look at Batting Average (BA) because that's the number less influenced by other factors. Depending on what i found, perhaps I'd return and have a look.
    - When looking at individual players, my eyes shot down to Larry Walker (Canadian!!!). He was included in this study at the very end of a 17 year career. I can't take any stock in that one, so I began looking at the other 11 players:
    - Al Martin..... before surgery, his BA had plummeted for a year, way below anything before. After surgery, it went way back up. A huge difference actually, so it boggles my mind that this study concluded that the surgery didn't help.
    - Greg Vaughn.... his BA actually plummeted with a mid-season move from AL pitching to NL pitching (a common thing when moving between leagues). It continued to be very low the next year,,,, then he had the surgery and it shot back up to higher than it had ever been. Again,,, failure?
    - Mike Lansing..... again, his average went up to his best year ever initially after surgery,,, and didn't take a big dip until the second year, when he moved from NL pitching to AL pirching
    - Bernard Gilkey... BA had dropped significantly for 2 years... yet shot right back up the year after surgery.

    I can't be bothered to look into it any further, but it would appear someone manipulated the data to serve some agenda, as each of these players showed big improvements in Batting Average after having the surgery.
    Thanks for dissection. I appreciate it.

    Honestly did not read too close.


    So scrat h that: it's Rudy time.

    Leave a comment:


  • p00ka
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    If one is banking on eye surgery to improve Rudy, don't read this:

    http://btphard.blogspot.ca/2013/08/r...wont-help.html

    Money shot:
    Sorry man, but this seems to be one of the most ill-researched, misguided things I've ever paid attention to on here.

    1. My initial reaction was that, however "meaningful" this study may or not be, baseball batting skills are drastically different than basketball shooting skills. There's good reason that most say hitting a baseball for hits is the most difficult thing in sport. Success 30% of the time makes you an All-star. Nothing a player does in basketball is like hitting a 95 MPH baseball. The greatest of all time, Michael Jordon's venture into baseball netted him a .202 batting average (BA) in bloody tier 3 AA ball.

    2. That aside, having spent some time in the past looking at some "medical studies" curiosity drove me to look at the basics of this one.
    - The first thing that jumped out at me was that the study group was a whopping 12 players. Not a number that instills confidence in the results.
    - The second thing was that it's a 6 year old study of surgeries that were performed 9-14 years ago, when I would imagine Laser surgery procedures/techniques weren't exactly current in a relatively new field of surgery
    - But hey, worth the time to have a look at the results anyway. Brushing the OBP, SLG, and OPs (which simply combines the other 2) aside, I figured I'd just look at Batting Average (BA) because that's the number less influenced by other factors. Depending on what i found, perhaps I'd return and have a look.
    - When looking at individual players, my eyes shot down to Larry Walker (Canadian!!!). He was included in this study at the very end of a 17 year career. I can't take any stock in that one, so I began looking at the other 11 players:
    - Al Martin..... before surgery, his BA had plummeted for a year, way below anything before. After surgery, it went way back up. A huge difference actually, so it boggles my mind that this study concluded that the surgery didn't help.
    - Greg Vaughn.... his BA actually plummeted with a mid-season move from AL pitching to NL pitching (a common thing when moving between leagues). It continued to be very low the next year,,,, then he had the surgery and it shot back up to higher than it had ever been. Again,,, failure?
    - Mike Lansing..... again, his average went up to his best year ever initially after surgery,,, and didn't take a big dip until the second year, when he moved from NL pitching to AL pirching
    - Bernard Gilkey... BA had dropped significantly for 2 years... yet shot right back up the year after surgery.

    I can't be bothered to look into it any further, but it would appear someone manipulated the data to serve some agenda, as each of these players showed big improvements in Batting Average after having the surgery.
    Last edited by p00ka; Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    If one is banking on eye surgery to improve Rudy, don't read this:

    http://btphard.blogspot.ca/2013/08/r...wont-help.html

    Money shot:
    Yeah, I'm not sure it's entirely on point, though. If you're already wearing top glasses/contacts, Lasik won't make you see any better than they will. It just means you don't wear glasses anymore. I don't claim to understand Gay's issues but, if he was using nothing, presumably seeing better would help. Certainly can't hurt.

    I thought the main speculation was that the shoulder issue had more to do with the shooting last year than anything else. This eye stuff (which has been out there for years) was brought up only when he sorta couldn't shoot there and Colangelo needed another excuse....

    Leave a comment:


  • stretch
    replied
    They did that study on MLB players that had eye surgery which leads to the question, did the surgery help the umpires at all?

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    If one is banking on eye surgery to improve Rudy, don't read this:

    http://btphard.blogspot.ca/2013/08/r...wont-help.html

    Money shot:

    So it's certainly not a hard no, but it's not looking so good for Gay. See what I did there (twice)?

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    That is the only thing keeping me from routinely going in to a depressive state over the pick.

    I am weary of a young man who has been so big/athletic/explosive at an early age. They usually don't last very long. The fractured vertebrae has to be a little worrying for Detroit I would think.
    Good point. The human body was just not designed to withstand those kind of G-forces, but then again that's a given risk with any athlete over 6-10.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    You're joking right?
    Very much.

    He was 13.

    (still joking.... but 16/17 is not a stretch based on writeups at draft sites)

    Leave a comment:


  • NoPropsneeded
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Yes.

    Since he was 8 years old.
    You're joking right?

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    Doesn't Drummond weigh like 275 or something?
    Yes.

    Since he was 8 years old.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    Is Ross injury-prone? He only missed 9 games last season.

    Drummond, on the other hand, missed 22.
    I know he tweaked his ankle towards end of season but a lot of those 9 games were DNP-CD weren't they?

    Then there were another 14 games with single digit minutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoPropsneeded
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    That is the only thing keeping me from routinely going in to a depressive state over the pick.

    I am weary of a young man who has been so big/athletic/explosive at an early age. They usually don't last very long. The fractured vertebrae has to be a little worrying for Detroit I would think.
    Doesn't Drummond weigh like 275 or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    Rapstor4Life wrote: View Post
    Isnt Drummond injury prone? but then again so is Ross so pick your poison I guess.
    Is Ross injury-prone? He only missed 9 games last season.

    Drummond, on the other hand, missed 22.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X