Re: Ainge, Game 2 and stuff...

[Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
Danny Ainge, besides being one of my favorite players
from my childhood years, is also one of the smartest
minds when it comes to talent evaluation.  I remember
(and it was a long time ago, so details are going to
be sketchy) seeing a behind-the-scenes look at the
scouting operation he had implemented while working
for the Phoenix Suns.  It was built on concepts
concerning specific brain types.  Apparently, from
what I remember, there are 16 specifically different
brain types.  One of these brains types is common to
great players, such as Micheal Jordan, Larry Bird,
etc...  Anyway, using some scientist (again the memory
is hazy), the Phoenix Suns identified this brain type
and for that particular year used their top draft pick
on a player that was determined to have this specific
brain type that fosters success in basketball.  That
player?  Steve Nash.  
--- end of quote ---

That's the first time I've heard of it and it sounds really quacky to me. When
someone starts talking about N brain types, I see "charlatan" written all over
it. As anyone who has studied real brains either anatomically or through the
various imaging techniques knows, brains are incredibly variable in size and
morphology, and there is no relationship (aside from brains with clear
pathology) between these variables and function. It sounds like some mixture of
phrenology and pop psychology. 
If you want to talk about personality variables, sure, people with high scores
on certain measures (say, drive to succeed, or intelligence) will do tend to do
better at some things. If they evaluate players in some personality trait test
and find that it correlates with achievement in the NBA, then fine. But somehow
I doubt these people did scientific testing on lots of  past and present NBA
players, including Jordan and Bird. Most likely, they're just talking through
their hat. That the Suns picked Nash, who later became a successful NBA player,
means nothing. One can pick up decent players by chance (the probability in a
decent draft is not that low, although Wallace managed to elude that with not
one, but 3 fairly high picks).  Or they could pick successfully because of some
other judgment criteria. 
I sometimes wonder what I could sell to an NBA team, if I were a slick-enough
salesman. These people 1) usually know next to nothing about science and
statistics; 2) are desperate to gain an edge on the competition; and 3) have
money to burn. The better GMs probably go by "gut feeling", which is another
way of saying they have no idea why they feel that way about a player or a
deal, but they "know" it's right - and they're right more often than not. The
crappy ones....it's too painful to contemplate. 
Kestas