Paul Pierce: The Most Important Piece To The Puzzle
Since the beginning of the era of the new “Big Three” there has been debate going on throughout Celtics nation about which player on our team is most important. Which player could we really not afford to lose? Well the answer in all reality is none of them. Every single guy on the team, one through ten, has a huge impact on the success of the team. But if there was one player we really couldn’t afford to lose who would it be?
Well today I did something out of nature. I got out my TI-83 calculator that has been sitting in my desk since the completion of my freshmen statistics class. So what did I do with this calculator? I used some basic statistical analysis to try to find out which Boston Celtic has the biggest statistical impact on the success of the team. Now before I start going off with all these numbers I came up with I want to let it be known that there are some things players do that can not be measured by any type of statistic.
Alright now to the fun part. As you can see the above chart displays each players impact in each statistical category mentioned on the chart. You can roll over each players total statistics to see what kind of impact they had percentage wise. So lets cut to the chase. To try to make my study more reasonable I cut out the Personal Foul category, and the Turnover category to limit confusion. After I did that I took my old friend, TI-83, and added up each players impact for each category, then divided by nine (the number of categories), in hopes of figuring out each players impact (percentage wise) on the team.
So without further ado here are the numbers that I came up with:
- Paul Pierce – 15.91%
- Rajon Rondo – 14.06%
- Kendrick Perkins – 13.32%
- Kevin Garnett – 13.06%
- Ray Allen – 12.64%
- Rasheed Wallace – 11.10%
- Eddie House – 6.39%
- Shelden Williams – 6.13%
- Marquis Daniels – 4.23%
- Brian Scalabrine – 1.27%
- Tony Allen – 0.92%
- Lester Hudson – 0.76%
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?