RE: losing LaFrentz

["R. Singh" <keltsfan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks this is not rocket science, it's basketball.  And as far as that
goes, Kedrick is not the moron that some on this list make him out to
be.  He actually shows a pretty good understanding of the game and as
Kestas has said, it's his lack of confidence that is holding him back.
Last night, after hesitating for what seemed like an eternity on a wide
open three pointer and consequently barely hitting the rim, Kedrick on
his next three shots, showed no hesitation and thought in taking the
open shot. The result were three shots that touched nothing but the
bottom of the net. It's confidence not intelligence.  If he gets his
confidence where it needs to be, he is going to be a solid, solid
ballplayer.  I suspect some mistake his quiet, unassuming demeanor for a
lack of intelligence, which is plain silly and actually rather ignorant.

-Ravi 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Kestas
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 1:25 PM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: losing LaFrentz


Eggcentric@xxxxxxx wrote:

> < His (Kedrick) biggest problem is not lack of intelligence (though
> he's no Jiri Welsch in that regard), but an astounding (given his 
> physical gifts) lack of confidence. >   - kkv (Is that you, Kestas?)
> 
> Keep in mind that former Halliburton employee, Dr. Jonathan
> Inniedofacontractnagel, several months ago tested Kedrick out at a 
> 70+ IQ with a self-confidence trailing indicator of 4.6.  Thank God 
> 70+ for
> the + since I believe the team's cutoff point is 70.

I'm not sure what to make of this info, since 1) I don't know what the 
right boundary of the '70+' range is (is it 75? 90? 150?); and 2) I 
don't know what this 'self-confidence trailing indicator of 4.6' is. And
even if I DID know, it's unclear what the relevance of this test is. 
The type of test that is used can make a huge difference - I know of 
tests from the early 1900s that relied on solely on declarative 
knowledge so idiosyncratic as to favor only members of certain classes. 
All of us would score in the 'moron' range on a test like this (and yes,

'moron' used to be a term in the scientific literature, invented to 
describe people between the 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' categories). 
Furthermore, given "Dr." Niednagel's sterling scientific credentials, 
I'm not sure he'd be able to test a kindergartener on her knowledge of 
the alphabet, let alone select and administer a proper intelligence 
test. And in the unlikely event that he could, I wouldn't put it past 
him to select a test to confirm his evaluation of poor Kedrick.

Anyway, this is not to contest your assertion that Kedrick is probably 
not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, at least academically 
speaking. I'm sure he didn't grow up in the most intellectually 
stimulating environment. But the question is, does it matter that much, 
in the basketball sense, that he probably can't hold up his end of the 
conversation about Heidegger's vs. Kierkegaard's existentialism, or 
instantly tell you the cubic  root of 729? Bobby Fisher was a high 
school dropout who couldn't even follow the conversation at dinner with 
the typically erudite Soviet grandmasters. But that didn't prevent him 
from humiliating them on the chessboard.

My point is that it doesn't matter that Kedrick's no Rhodes scholar as 
long as he can play intelligently on the basketball court. And, at least

lately, he doesn't seem to be doing dumb things on the court. He makes 
fairly intelligent passes, plays good D, and gets tough rebounds. What 
he doesn't do often enough is take the shot when it's there. He's just 
awfully timid. Obie doesn't tolerate people who refuse to take the open 
shot, and rightly so, because defenses start cheating on you. I wish 
Ainge invested less money in testing Kedrick, and more in counselling 
him. That might actually be productive.
Kestas