Kayte C. on triple-doubles

[VF21]

This article by Kayte C. on the relative importance of Reke's near-miss triple-doubles is, I think, worth repeating. (from Full Court Press newsletter)

Kayte Discusses the Triple-Double Debate

Posted: 17 Mar 2010 03:13 PM PDT

It’s funny to me how important stats are to some sports fans.

It’s almost like some fans don’t know what they think of the game or how a player performed until they get their hands on a final box score.

Why is that?

Why have we, in the sports world, become so obsessed with quantifying things? When stat fanatics take it a step further, and begin to talk about records, oh my goodness, the conversation gets exhausting.

We saw Tyreke Evans tally his first-career triple-double on March 10, when the Kings beat Toronto 113-90 on ‘Rally for RekeROY Night.’ You couldn’t have written it better if it was a Hollywood movie script.

Then, just four nights later when the Kings pummeled the Timberwolves, Tyreke ended with 29 points, nine rebounds and 11 assists. During the postgame radio show, many fans were upset Coach Westphal didn’t leave him in long enough to get another triple-double. I hate to break it to those fans, but he had already left him on the court six minutes longer than he wanted to so Evans could get that last rebound. Tyreke is averaging over 37 minutes a game. He’s a 20-year-old rookie. He has to be tired, and rightfully so. Not to mention, Sacramento was beating Minnesota by 34 points at one point. Why would we want Coach to leave a player in to get a triple-double, just so we can all say, ‘Look how talented this guy is?’

News flash, most people don’t need to look at a stat sheet or the tally of triple-doubles to see Tyreke Evans is a special talent and should run away with the Rookie of the Year award, because he’s maintained this high level of play ALL season. Plus, do Kings fans really want to risk an injury to a player that could have season-ending or career-lasting effects, just for a single rebound?

Take the possibility of injury out of the picture for just a moment. When a team is embarrassing an opponent to the tune of a 34-point defect, is a triple-double as meaningful as it would be if it came in a game where the team needed its best player in to win?

Take Tuesday night’s game against the hated Lakers, where Tyreke finished with 25 points, 11 rebounds and nine assists, against a team that hasn’t seen a single player earn a triple-double against them all season. He was in the game because the Kings NEEDED him to be in there, not because they were hoping he’d get that 10th assist.

I know it’s hard for some fans to let go of the stat sheet and look at the larger picture, but let’s put it this way… Tyreke is a 20-year-old freakish talent who is going to be around for years to come. He’ll have plenty more triple-doubles.

 

[Prince_XY]

He’s a 20-year-old rookie. He has to be tired, and rightfully so. Not to mention, Sacramento was beating Minnesota by 34 points at one point. Why would we want Coach to leave a player in to get a triple-double, just so we can all say, ‘Look how talented this guy is?’

This is Evans rookie year. Triple-doubles means more if it happens during your rookie year. Besides, Evans worked hard in that game to get us as far ahead as we can. Why deprived our kid with some icing on his cake?

Why would we want Coach to leave a player in to get a triple-double, just so we can all say, ‘Look how talented this guy is?’

News flash, most people don’t need to look at a stat sheet or the tally of triple-doubles to see Tyreke Evans is a special talent and should run away with the Rookie of the Year award, because he’s maintained this high level of play ALL season. Plus, do Kings fans really want to risk an injury to a player that could have season-ending or career-lasting effects, just for a single rebound?

You can get those injuries wherever, however, and whenever, but you can only get those triple-doubles inside playing on the court. You cannot live too overly cautious in this world and in the process deprive yourself of the opportunity to become great.

Also, just a single rebound? Cate is totally lost here. That single rebound might very well mean the whole story of Evans' rookie year. It may mean ROY award, or it may mean a great triple-double record for a rookie player. I bet you can count on your fingers how many players have gotten multiple triple-doubles in their rookie year. And just one rebound to and we still deprived our beloved franchise savior to have it.

Take the possibility of injury out of the picture for just a moment. When a team is embarrassing an opponent to the tune of a 34-point defect, is a triple-double as meaningful as it would be if it came in a game where the team needed its best player in to win?

After ten years or more, not that many will remember how a particular triple-double was achieved, but the stat will always stand-out to be a testament of Evans' greatness in his rookie year. Also, it wouldn't be as if Evans wasn't responsible for the lopsided win, would it?

I know it’s hard for some fans to let go of the stat sheet and look at the larger picture, but let’s put it this way… Tyreke is a 20-year-old freakish talent who is going to be around for years to come. He’ll have plenty more triple-doubles.

The larger picture would be that after Evans' rookie year, those triple-doubles won't mean as much as it mean now. And if Stephen Curry or Brandon Jennings happens to miraculously win the rookie of the year, we will all be scratching our head in despair and look back if those triple-doubles we deprived Evans could have had made a big difference.

I think the coaching staff and everyone who deprived Evans of that particular triple-double had been a little bit selfish in this case. I wouldn't be surprized if this happens regularly, someday Evans will walk out of this team.

 

[Rookie]

Nice to have but not warranted.... Agreed with Kayte.

Icing on the cake is a nice to have but let's not risk the chance of having the cake smashed. Just because car accident could happen anywhere but rarely doesn't mean you don't put on your sit belt.

Also don't expect teammate to move over and ignore what they should do so that individual can get that stat. They need to play their game as well and think about the team not the individual stat.

I disagree with your assessment Prince. I hope Tyreke doesn't think like that, I be disappointed.

His 20/5/5 is bigger than ROY IMO. ROY happens every year, but 20/5/5 rookie doesn't pop up often.

 

[mac]

Don Nelson disagrees...the more minutes, the better! STATPAD STEPH CURRY, STATPAD!!!

Anyway I think there's also a positive side to Tyreke's near triple doubles (other than the amazing-ness of the near triple double itself). I think him almost getting it but not getting it will just spur him on to work harder, and not settle. Tyreke's mostly a humble guy, but as a 20 year old rookie getting 3 triple doubles in 4 games will definitely blow up your ego to a certain extent

 

[kupman]

I could personally care less aboutthe triple doubles. I could also really care less who wins the ROY. I look back on the past few drafts and we have the guy I would most want on this team. I really don't care what voters think. All I really care about is that Reke helps led us to Wins.

 

[Superman]

I don't understand being upset that Westphal pulled him, but I do understand wanting to see him get back to back triple doubles. And if he had done it three games in a row, that would pretty much cinch the ROY award, regardless of how well Stephen Curry is playing right now. It's more than just a stat, but it's not such a big deal that you call the radio and complain about the coach getting the best player out of the game in a blowout.

 

[VF21]

This is Evans rookie year. Triple-doubles means more if it happens during your rookie year. Besides, Evans worked hard in that game to get us as far ahead as we can. Why deprived our kid with some icing on his cake?



You can get those injuries wherever, however, and whenever, but you can only get those triple-doubles inside playing on the court. You cannot live too overly cautious in this world and in the process deprive yourself of the opportunity to become great.

Also, just a single rebound? Cate is totally lost here. That single rebound might very well mean the whole story of Evans' rookie year. It may mean ROY award, or it may mean a great triple-double record for a rookie player. I bet you can count on your fingers how many players have gotten multiple triple-doubles in their rookie year. And just one rebound to and we still deprived our beloved franchise savior to have it.



After ten years or more, not that many will remember how a particular triple-double was achieved, but the stat will always stand-out to be a testament of Evans' greatness in his rookie year. Also, it wouldn't be as if Evans wasn't responsible for the lopsided win, would it?



The larger picture would be that after Evans' rookie year, those triple-doubles won't mean as much as it mean now. And if Stephen Curry or Brandon Jennings happens to miraculously win the rookie of the year, we will all be scratching our head in despair and look back if those triple-doubles we deprived Evans could have had made a big difference.

I think the coaching staff and everyone who deprived Evans of that particular triple-double had been a little bit selfish in this case. I wouldn't be surprized if this happens regularly, someday Evans will walk out of this team.

And yours is the typical fanboy attitude I think Kayte (Her name is Kayte, BTW, and not Cate) Christensen, whose background you should probably look up, is talking about.

If a sports writer downgrades Evans because he missed a triple-double by one assist against a Laker team that hasn't allowed ANYONE to complete the feat this season, then said sports writer needs to be downgraded to Jason Jones' assistant.

The Rookie of the Year award is voted on by people who KNOW the game. They watch the rookies carefully and they vote on the complete package, not just the stats in the box score.

As far as the coaches and the team being selfish in denying Evans a triple-double, excuse my language but what the hell are you talking about? That's among the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a very long time.

You just don't get it.

 

[sidney]

The Rookie of the Year award is voted on by people who KNOW the game. They watch the rookies carefully and they vote on the complete package, not just the stats in the box score.

Not sure if that's true. This IS the sports media we are talking about.

 

[Section 101]

Not sure if that's true. This IS the sports media we are talking about.

Same ones that voted Nash MVP 2x and never has made Sloan coach of the year.

 

[est.1999]

Supe, it wouldn't have been 3 in a row. He had the off game against the blazers in between. But still had a 'double' double

 

[Prince_XY]

And yours is the typical fanboy attitude I think Kayte (Her name is Kayte, BTW, and not Cate) Christensen, whose background you should probably look up, is talking about.

If a sports writer downgrades Evans because he missed a triple-double by one assist against a Laker team that hasn't allowed ANYONE to complete the feat this season, then said sports writer needs to be downgraded to Jason Jones' assistant.

The Rookie of the Year award is voted on by people who KNOW the game. They watch the rookies carefully and they vote on the complete package, not just the stats in the box score.

As far as the coaches and the team being selfish in denying Evans a triple-double, excuse my language but what the hell are you talking about? That's among the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a very long time.

You just don't get it.

On this last point here has to now be a slight concern. If his season ends now 20-5-5 is wrapped up, but I do wonder what would happen if Curry gets to showcase for a full month while Reke is down with a broken jaw.

Let's just hope it doesn't come down to that.

Let us all hope it doesn't really come down to what Mr. Bricky had wondered about. IMO, we don't even have to think about it if only Evans was given that opportunity to get that "one rebound" for the triple-double. Two to three triple-doubles could have cemented that ROY award for Evans.

Maybe some of the all-knowing and smart people will get what I mean now.

Oh well, who cares whether or not Evans loses that ROY award anyways?

We are playing to win because we are going to the playoffs, so forget about Evans getting that one rebound to cement his case for the ROY!

And again:

You can get those injuries wherever, however, and whenever, but you can only get those triple-doubles inside playing on the court. You cannot live too overly cautious in this world and in the process deprive yourself of the opportunity to become great. The coaching staff could have given more minutes for that single rebound that Evans needs to get that triple double. Wasted opportunity now.

 

[VF21]

A triple-double is no more than a statistical accomplishment. If you have to look at whether or not a person got into double digits in three categoires to decide whether or not he has played a good game, fine. You keep saying things like "You cannot live too overly cautious...deprive yourself of the opportunity...blah, blah, blah."

Basketball is a TEAM sport. As Evans said after the first double-double-nine, "It would have been nice but it's about the team winning not some numbers on a stat sheet." (Or words to that effect.)

TEAM basketball, dude. Thing about it. Evans has and thank God he's got the right perspective.

 

[Sparky6string]

I feel like the near miss triple-doubles are kinda cool. IMO him walking away from the games with one rebound or assist shy of the mark means he's too cool for stats. I get the attention paid to the holy trip dub and all but that's my take on it.

I have to agree about the apparent hypocrisy regarding the word "fanboy". I was just chatting with Warhawk by PM about this kind of thing. Eventually it'll be too much for fans of the Kings to take.

 

[pshn80]

This is Evans rookie year. Triple-doubles means more if it happens during your rookie year. Besides, Evans worked hard in that game to get us as far ahead as we can. Why deprived our kid with some icing on his cake?



You can get those injuries wherever, however, and whenever, but you can only get those triple-doubles inside playing on the court. You cannot live too overly cautious in this world and in the process deprive yourself of the opportunity to become great.

Also, just a single rebound? Cate is totally lost here. That single rebound might very well mean the whole story of Evans' rookie year. It may mean ROY award, or it may mean a great triple-double record for a rookie player. I bet you can count on your fingers how many players have gotten multiple triple-doubles in their rookie year. And just one rebound to and we still deprived our beloved franchise savior to have it.



After ten years or more, not that many will remember how a particular triple-double was achieved, but the stat will always stand-out to be a testament of Evans' greatness in his rookie year. Also, it wouldn't be as if Evans wasn't responsible for the lopsided win, would it?



The larger picture would be that after Evans' rookie year, those triple-doubles won't mean as much as it mean now. And if Stephen Curry or Brandon Jennings happens to miraculously win the rookie of the year, we will all be scratching our head in despair and look back if those triple-doubles we deprived Evans could have had made a big difference.

I think the coaching staff and everyone who deprived Evans of that particular triple-double had been a little bit selfish in this case. I wouldn't be surprized if this happens regularly, someday Evans will walk out of this team.

Sorry, but I completely agree with Kayte and V21 on this.

 

[fiction916]

And yours is the typical fanboy attitude

hard to disagree with the rest of the argument, but this is in poor taste, methinks.

 

[VF21]

hard to disagree with the rest of the argument, but this is in poor taste, methinks.

Please look at the entire sentence. I'm saying that his comments reflect the attitude Kayte is talking about. I was not calling him a fanboy per se, although I can see how people may have thought so. Again, read the entire sentence without taking it out of context.

 

[Sparky6string]

Please look at the entire sentence. I'm saying that his comments reflect the attitude Kayte is talking about. I was not calling him a fanboy per se, although I can see how people may have thought so. Again, read the entire sentence without taking it out of context.

Now I'm really confused. Is this an addendum to the original rule or was there always this much complexity to it? This is most likely going to be difficult to follow since I don't really understand when I can use the word and when I can't.

 

[Superman]

Now I'm really confused. Is this an addendum to the original rule or was there always this much complexity to it? This is most likely going to be difficult to follow since I don't really understand when I can use the word and when I can't.

Official Mod Notice:

There is not and never was a rule against using the word fanboy. 21 described the attitude that the writer was talking about as a "fanboy attitude," and said that another poster was demonstrating same said attitude. It's really not that difficult to understand the difference between the two.

At this point, we are moving on and I'm closing this thread that had been dead for a week before today. If you want to discuss board policy, do it via PM. Otherwise, leave it alone.