Sullinger vs PJ3 -- the truth about that decision

[EDWARDO]

I think they were willing to take the chance on either Sullinger or PJ3, but not necessarily both. So they had to choose between the two. But how did they come to that decision?

OK, I'm glad you asked, because its very important issue, but easily explained given the right tools. The Celtics are on the leading edge of sports franchises using sabermetrics and other quantitative analysis tools to help the evaluate players and predict future performance. Below is the simple cleaned up version of the so called Ainge Equation, which has led them to unearth Rondo, Tony Allen, Avery Bradley and other late 1st round gems*:

Xρs∑k+0∞Yk(k−1)akρk−2m+2z^12(s+1)ρs−1∑k-N*0∞kakρk−1*h−9ρs∑k+0∞kakρk−1+(η−1−s)ρs−1∑k/0∞akρk+[s(s+1)−l(l+1)]ρs−2∑k, f(x)0∞akρk=?

I won't bore you with all the details, but just for an idea to get a quick handle on the above:

x= wingspan expressed in centimeters
y = age in months
m = vertical leap
f = conference strength
h = a score based on a proprietary exam called "Hoopsaptitude" developed for the Celtics at MIT

We could go on here, but suffice to say that Sullinger and PJ3 scored EXTREMELY close to one another on the Ainge equation, and in fact, PJ3 was ajudged slightly better on this score. HOWEVER, in cases where two scores fall within a margin of error, Ainge and his team have other, more simplistic tools at their disposal. They found some game tape and used the following formula to AUGMENT the Ainge Equation:

Having watched the game, the player:

Was very good in the game ---> +1 pt
Kinda sucked in the game ------> 0 pts

It was not until this FINAL AND DECISIVE piece of data was conjured that they were able to separate the two players.






* Note that the Ainge Equation was altered slightly after the choice of JR Giddens.

[RyNye]

Source?

[EDWARDO]

Source?

Excellent. TP.

[Roy H.]

Source?

You missed his point.

In short:  Sullinger should have been picked over Jones because, for all the measurables, etc., Sullinger actually performed well last year, while Jones was mediocre.

[thirstyboots18]

TP.  I'll buy it, but then, I'll buy anything...

[Neurotic Guy]

I think they were willing to take the chance on either Sullinger or PJ3, but not necessarily both. So they had to choose between the two. But how did they come to that decision?

OK, I'm glad you asked, because its very important issue, but easily explained given the right tools. The Celtics are on the leading edge of sports franchises using sabermetrics and other quantitative analysis tools to help the evaluate players and predict future performance. Below is the simple cleaned up version of the so called Ainge Equation, which has led them to unearth Rondo, Tony Allen, Avery Bradley and other late 1st round gems*:

Xρs∑k+0∞Yk(k−1)akρk−2m+2z^12(s+1)ρs−1∑k-N*0∞kakρk−1*h−9ρs∑k+0∞kakρk−1+(η−1−s)ρs−1∑k/0∞akρk+[s(s+1)−l(l+1)]ρs−2∑k, f(x)0∞akρk=?

I won't bore you with all the details, but just for an idea to get a quick handle on the above:

x= wingspan expressed in centimeters
y = age in months
m = vertical leap
f = conference strength
h = a score based on a proprietary exam called "Hoopsaptitude" developed for the Celtics at MIT

We could go on here, but suffice to say that Sullinger and PJ3 scored EXTREMELY close to one another on the Ainge equation, and in fact, PJ3 was ajudged slightly better on this score. HOWEVER, in cases where two scores fall within a margin of error, Ainge and his team have other, more simplistic tools at their disposal. They found some game tape and used the following formula to AUGMENT the Ainge Equation:

Having watched the game, the player:

Was very good in the game ---> +1 pt
Kinda sucked in the game ------> 0 pts

It was not until this FINAL AND DECISIVE piece of data was conjured that they were able to separate the two players.


* Note that the Ainge Equation was altered slightly after the choice of JR Giddens.

If you made this up, you deserve a TP -- well done.   If not, still very interesting.

[Chris]

Source?

You missed his point.

In short:  Sullinger should have been picked over Jones because, for all the measurables, etc., Sullinger actually performed well last year, while Jones was mediocre.

Not just last year, for his entire career.

Or put another way, for all his faults (and he certainly has some), Sullinger has "it"...and PJIII has nothing.

The "it" factor, which comes down to a combination of competitiveness, love of the game, basketball intelligence, and drive to get better and prove everyone wrong, has always been able to lift less talented players near the top, and super talented players to greatness.

When you are drafting in the 20's, and you can get a guy as big as Sullinger who has "it"...its hard to pass up.

[EDWARDO]

Source?

You missed his point.

In short:  Sullinger should have been picked over Jones because, for all the measurables, etc., Sullinger actually performed well last year, while Jones was mediocre.

I assumed he was making a very excellent joke, because its obviously made up. If not... well, i don't know what to say...

[CoachBo]

I'm fine with choosing Sullinger.

Choosing Melo over Jones is the decision I object to. Violently.

[Cman]

Eduardo: Best thing I've read on celticsblog this week.
Nicely done.

[FrDrake]

Very nice post from the OP.  I think the infinity symbols (∞) are kind of a give away that he's not exactly giving away company secrets here  but the spirit of the post on how the Cs select talent is likely dead on.  TP

[Snakehead]

Dat equation 

TP

[JOMVP]

Danny Ainge knew his calculus, and when he called Jared Sullinger he said: U + ME = US.

[EDWARDO]

On a more serious note, Jay Bilas mentioned how the Celtics are heavy users of psychological testing when it comes to players. My guess (hope) is that they tested Melo quite high in that respect and that he'll be a guy who will work hard and continue to evolve as a player. His potential is very evident, but the improvement from freshman to sophomore year was profound. If he's got the makeup to continue to work hard on his game and commit to his craft, he can no doubt become a really good player. The sky would be the limit. Perkins with a lot more skill and mobility... I don't love the pick, so that is my hope.

[BballTim]

I think they were willing to take the chance on either Sullinger or PJ3, but not necessarily both. So they had to choose between the two. But how did they come to that decision?

OK, I'm glad you asked, because its very important issue, but easily explained given the right tools. The Celtics are on the leading edge of sports franchises using sabermetrics and other quantitative analysis tools to help the evaluate players and predict future performance. Below is the simple cleaned up version of the so called Ainge Equation, which has led them to unearth Rondo, Tony Allen, Avery Bradley and other late 1st round gems*:

Xρs∑k+0∞Yk(k−1)akρk−2m+2z^12(s+1)ρs−1∑k-N*0∞kakρk−1*h−9ρs∑k+0∞kakρk−1+(η−1−s)ρs−1∑k/0∞akρk+[s(s+1)−l(l+1)]ρs−2∑k, f(x)0∞akρk=?

I won't bore you with all the details, but just for an idea to get a quick handle on the above:

x= wingspan expressed in centimeters
y = age in months
m = vertical leap
f = conference strength
h = a score based on a proprietary exam called "Hoopsaptitude" developed for the Celtics at MIT

We could go on here, but suffice to say that Sullinger and PJ3 scored EXTREMELY close to one another on the Ainge equation, and in fact, PJ3 was ajudged slightly better on this score. HOWEVER, in cases where two scores fall within a margin of error, Ainge and his team have other, more simplistic tools at their disposal. They found some game tape and used the following formula to AUGMENT the Ainge Equation:

Having watched the game, the player:

Was very good in the game ---> +1 pt
Kinda sucked in the game ------> 0 pts

It was not until this FINAL AND DECISIVE piece of data was conjured that they were able to separate the two players.






* Note that the Ainge Equation was altered slightly after the choice of JR Giddens.

  I'm pretty sure you were supposed to square s+1, and then take the square root of the result.