Who Needs A 20 Game Rule?
by Jeff Clark on Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM EST
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
PrintFor years I've been a proponent of this thing called the 20 Game Rule. I didn't make it up, I just liked it enough to support it. For those unfamiliar, it is essentially the concept of not judging your team until you've had a good sample size (ie. 20 games) to pull from.
Here's the thing though, last year I ditched the rule after just a few games because the team just stunk out loud from the get go. This year we have a special team that has clicked from that first news conference, bonded in Italy, and kept on rolling into the season. 20 games? I needed about 20 minutes in that very first preseason game against Toronto to know this team was special. So what gives?
The concept seemed sound. The season is long and lots of things take time to play out. Look at the Warriors who started off 0-6 and now stand at 12-10. There are countless examples of teams that started out strong only to flame out later.
Clearly you can't account for injuries or other odd turns of events (like the Palace Brawl). Also, once the playoffs start, all bets are off (ask Dirk Nowitzki).
On the other hand most of the time you can look at a team and get a pretty good feeling of how they'll be that year. You can predict that they will fall into one of three major categories. Lottery, borderline playoffs, and the elite.
When the Heat won the title and was poised to repeat, they came out and laid an egg early in the season. You could just tell that team didn't have "it." A few years ago before they broke out, Bill Simmons told us in the preseason to watch out for the Suns essentially based on observing how much fun they were having and how good they looked at first glance.
Sometimes, you just know. Sometimes your first impression is the best one. Sometimes what your gut is telling you is the same conclusion you'll come to after a lot of research. So what's that all about?
As it happens, a friend of mine gave me a book that has one answer. In his book "Blink," Malcom Gladwell describes this phenomenon thusly:
This new notion of the adaptive unconscious is thought of, instead, as a kind of giant computer that quickly and quietly processes a lot of the data we need in order to keep functioning as human beings.
I think we are innately suspicious of this kind of rapid cognition. We live in a world that assumes that the quality of a decision is directly related to the time and effort that went into making it.
Maybe that is it, maybe not. But it is a fascinating concept. There's a lot more to the theory and I've only really read the intro, so I can't really vouch for it, but it makes some sense intuitively (which is exactly what he's talking about).
So sometimes you can look at a team and just tell that they will be terrible (like last year's team) or sometimes you can just tell that they'll be something special (like this year's team). And maybe 20 games is just another mile marker on the road to the playoffs. A time to take stock and understand why you know what you know.
So until I change my mind, I'm dropping the 20 Game Rule. From now on, I'm going with my gut.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"’What the eye sees disappears with a blink or a wandering puff of breath. Where there was light the eye, denied, sees nothing. What the soul sees cannot be denied.’
My soul says 18-2 is good for the soul with or without an appendix. That’s not rapid cognition that’s 21 years of pain finally being relieved.
I don’t think you should be abandoning the 20 game rule just yet. I think if anything, this Celtics team (and the ‘03-’04 Lakers that started 18-3 with Payton and Malone, or ‘04-’05 Suns with the addition of Nash) are the exceptions that prove the rule. A collection of that much talent on one team at a time is a very rare thing.
Look at the ‘03-’04 Wolves when Cassell and Spree were added. That team took a while to gel. They started 9-8 (almost 20 games) and finished the year tops in the West at 58-24. Several other teams are starting to round more into shape… the Warriors, the Magic now, the Rockets have had an up and down first 20 games, Lakers have been up and down… lots of teams still finding themselves.
Jeff, you sound like any number of other people who have picked up ‘Blink’ and suddenly consider the world in a whole new light. Read the whole thing, you’re gauranteed to enjoy it. In other Gladwellian lit, I think ‘The Tipping Point’ is pretty relevant to the C’s and specifically to the Garnett aquisition (you wouldn’t really have to read the book to make that connection, but I recommend it as well)
by AllstonCeltics on Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM EST reply actions
“One day at a time…”
This little adage, taken from another context still rules.
With the twinkling of an eye, the passage overhead of the “Phoenix,” or……., the known can become unknown and even the 1969 Mets can find their glory.
Welcome back Jeff.
by JB_Celticsstuff on Dec 13, 2007 8:29 PM EST reply actions
I to say read the whole book. I enjoyed it very much. I am a big reader of books on human nature, the mind and stuff like that. Also as said above “the tipping point” is a good read to. I would add “more sex is safer sex or freakonomics” to read if you want to see the world in a new light. (both take many topics and show diffrent ways to look at them.) As for the 20 game rule. I still say it has some use just not a set in stone type thing.
Not that I think an arbitrary number like 20 games has any real meaning (does game #20 tell us more than the first 19, and if not shouldn’t it be called the 19 game rule i.e.), but trendy books aside how many terrible decisions have been made in life the minute someone decided to go with their gut over spending time assessing a subject. Not to get political here but I could name a bunch of times I’ve heard that reasoning from politicians on decisions that have gone drastically wrong.
A twenty-game column disavowing the twenty-game rule! Veerrry Intellesting. I suspect there are two or three women out there that will agree with your intuition theory.
On a slightly more serious note, the little grey cells process thousands (probably millions) of factors beyond the most complicated decision models yet created. True the weighting and validity checking are all filtered through each individual’s own experience and background—with all the inherent bias thereof. Still, all in all, go with those gut feelings.
I hope to heck we don’t plan on winning 90% of our games. Except in VERY rare circumstances (95-96 Bulls), that would just be overkill. Look at the Mavericks last season and the Spurs this season. You think the Spurs are freaking out about their loss column? You think the Mavs took much solace in their regular season record or their regular season MVP?
I’m just saying, let’s pace ourselves and if we lose a few games as a result, that’s okay. The intensity early on was pretty amazing, and you already see it easing up a bit.
The real story is told when the season ends!
If you like Blink may I suggest you read Michael Polanyi. Most of Gladwell’s concepts will be found in the pages of his work on tacit knowledge written about 60 years ago. Without ever referring to Polanyi, Gladwell. basically confirms most of the basic principles of Polanyi’s epistemology. It has always bothered me that he never referenced Polanyi once but basically highjacked his work. So it goes…
The wins will probably slow down, but it’s nothing to be worried about. As a coach, you can only dream about a first-year group fitting together like this, not to mention the almost immediate defensive chemistry that developed.
A word of caution, though: The playoffs are a different animal. I don’t think you can look at this regular season success and automatically project it into the playoffs. All the signs are good, but …
by CoachA on Dec 14, 2007 7:46 AM EST reply actions
To me the biggest thing about the first 20 games is how dominant the Celtics have been at home. They haven’t even had a close game. I don’t care if they win 70 or not, but I really want them to get home court advantage throughout the playoffs. If they do that, they are going to be very tough for anyone to beat and that includes the Spurs and the Suns.
by JohnCK on Dec 14, 2007 9:33 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
