Started By
Message

re: Moneyball and the New York Knicks

Posted on 2/20/12 at 8:48 pm to
Posted by CP3LSU25
Louisiana
Member since Feb 2009
51150 posts
Posted on 2/20/12 at 8:48 pm to
quote:

Yeah the Moneyball reference isn't relative.



Yes it is. With Oakland losing all the star players he realized he didn't need star players but players to get on base and win the game. Example Carmelo and Amare always needing the ball and changing the team. I agree it's just one game.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 2/20/12 at 8:49 pm to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423378 posts
Posted on 2/20/12 at 8:50 pm to
quote:

Yes it is. With Oakland losing all the star players he realized he didn't need star players but players to get on base and win the game.

oh my dear lord

quote:

Example Carmelo and Amare always needing the ball

amare doesn't always need the ball. he's done work in this system for years and years. it's not like he all of a sudden can't play in it
Posted by lsu31always
Team 31™
Member since Jan 2008
107746 posts
Posted on 2/20/12 at 8:51 pm to
You have no idea about money ball
Posted by OneMoreTime
Florida Gulf Coast Fan
Member since Dec 2008
61837 posts
Posted on 2/20/12 at 9:09 pm to
quote:

Yes it is. With Oakland losing all the star players he realized he didn't need star players but players to get on base and win the game. Example Carmelo and Amare always needing the ball and changing the team. I agree it's just one game.


Mother of God.
Posted by MetArl15
Washington, DC
Member since Apr 2007
9488 posts
Posted on 2/21/12 at 12:13 am to
quote:

CP3LSU25
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram