"Muthuball": How To Build an NBA Championship Team
First time accepted submitter Quillem writes "Muthu Alagappan, a 5'9" biomechanical engineering undergraduate at Stanford, made a presentation at this year's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference which might well do to basketball what Moneyball did to baseball. His contribution revolves around a topographical analysis of NBA games which contends that there are really 13 positions in basketball — not just five. Besides a rather patronising — but informative — read in Gentlemen's Quarterly, there are earlier stories over at Wired and NYT blogs. Muthu's talk and slides are also available."
How is the GQ article "patronising" - because the opening summary says, "A Stanford undergrad's new super-nerd study"? That's the only thing I see that could be remotely considered patronizing. And frankly, this *is* a "super-nerd" study - how is a statistical analysis of NBA players NOT super nerdy?
Can we change the Slashdot motto to "butthurt editorializing for nerds," instead of "news for nerds?" The "news" part implies a factual focus, and the summaries are increasingly flamebait of the first order.
I could personally care less about professional sports.
How much less could you care, or do you mean you could not care less?