Doc's Aversion to Playing Young Players: Fact or Fiction?

Worcester,

D'accord.

Sam

Beat,

There was one season (I'd have to do some research to determine which one) when Wilt averaged slightly more than 48 MPG due to overtimes.

Actually, at 47 and 46 (plus change) MPG in the 1969 playoffs, Russ and John did play nearly 40% of the Celtics' minutes.

Sam

I did a quick check on a couple years. Came up with the following.
1965-66 Wilt & Greer-36.7% of teams minutes
1964-65 Russ & Sam-32.9% " "
2005-06 Arenas % Jamison-34.4% " "

Many more years to check before the highest percent for the regular season can be determined.

Swish

worcester wrote:Sam or anyone else - can you name any one team in the current NBA where two players make up 40% of the minutes like Russ and Hondo did back in the day? I'd be surprised if there were even one.

Worcester,

Some of that depends on how you define "current NBA" and "40% of the minutes." And of course the minutes allocated to starters and subs has changed over the years as the roles have changed. It used to be that starters were the best players and played more minutes than today, and subs were the guys who weren't good enough to start and played fewer minutes than today. In the current NBA, starters as a whole are obviously better than subs, but many teams have at least one sub who is better than most starters (Lamar Odom and Jason Terry, for example). You can't say that for the Celtics of recent years, but you can say that starters get fewer minutes and subs more minutes than during the Russell era.

Having said all that, I did some research using the Player Season Finder on basketball-reference.com and came up with some interesting results.

The duo with the most playoff minutes per game (MPG) is Paul Seymour and Red Rocha MPG of the Syracuse Nationals, who had an astounding 56.0 and 53.5 MPG in 1953. One eensy-weensy qualifier is that Syracuse had only two playoff games. They lost to the Celtics that year, with the second game going four overtimes.

Although Havlicek and Russell in 1969 are paragons of ironman duos at 47.2 MPG and 46.1 MPG (93.3 MPG total), there were other examples from that era:

1965 Cincinnati Royals - Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas both 48.8 MPG (97.6 MPG total), only four games
1967 76ers - Wilt 47.9 MPG, Hal Greer 45.9 MPG (93.8 MPG total)
1970 Lakers - Wilt 47.3 MPG, Jerry West 46.1 MPG (93.4 MPG total)
1968 76ers - Wilt 48.5 MPG, Hal Greer 42.5 (91.0 MPG total)
1974 Bucks - Kareem 47.4 MPG, Oscar Robertson 43.1 MPG (90.5 MPG total), also Bob Dandridge at 40.5 MPG

I also found a few teams that hardly used subs at all:

1961 Philadelphia Warriors - subs accounted for only 31.0 MPG (93 minutes in only three games)
1972 Lakers - subs accounted for only 35.9 MPG (538 minutes in 15 games)
1952 Minneapolis Lakers - subs accounted for only 48.1 MPG (625 minutes in 13 games)

For "recent" years, here's some notable totals I found for duos:

2003 Suns - Shawn Marion 47.2 MPG, Stephon Marbury 45.2 MPG (91.2 MPG total), only six games
2006 Wizards - Gilbert Arenas 47.3 MPG, Caron Butler 43.7 MPG (91.0 MPG total) only six games, also Antawn Jamison 42.2 MPG
2005 Nets - Jason Kidd 45.5 MPG, Vince Carter 44.8 MPG (90.3 MPG total), only four games
2006 Lakers - Kobe and Lamar Odom, both at 44.9 MPG (89.8 MPG total), only seven games
2001 76ers - Allen Iverson 46.2 MPG, Dikembe Mutumbo 42.7 (88.9 MPG total)
2003 Celtics - Pierce 44.5 MPG, Antoine Walker 44.0 MPG (88.5 MPG total)

There seem to be numerous others with similar totals. Here's the highest I found from last season:

2011 Heat - LeBron 43.9 MPG, Bosh 39.7 MPG, (83.6 total), also Wade 39.4 MPG
2011 Bulls - Luol Deng 42.9 MPG, Derrick Rose 40.6 MPG (83.5 MPG)

There may be others from recent years that are similar, but the Player Season Finder only locates individual seasons, not two-player combos, so I may have missed some. But I think it's fair to say that some current duos (defining "current" as since 2000), while not playing quite as much as Havlicek and Russell in the 1969 playoffs, are in the ballpark, especially when you consider how the minutes allocated to starters and subs have changed since then.

Outside

Outside

nice job checking things but your stats seem to differ from what I find.

2 of your examples ( I only checked 2 of your most recent ones)

I looked at some of the stats you posted like the 2006 Wizards
I see Arenas at 42.3 and Butler at 36.1

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/WAS/2006.html

Also the 2006 Lakers show Kobe at 41 and Odum at 40.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2006.html

Also when you say 2006 I am assuming you mean the 2005-2006 season.

As for the 40% again that is 40% of whatever the game was be it 48 minutes or OT's 20% of whatever is 1/5th and with 5 players that means if a player played 20% of the teams minutes he'd never come out regardless of how long the game is.

Also does this take into account games played?

beat

T0 get a totaly accurate percentage you have to devide the total minutes that the player played and divide by the totals minutes of the team. This then will include overtime minutes.
swish

swish wrote:I did a quick check on a couple years. Came up with the following.
1965-66 Wilt & Greer-36.7% of teams minutes
1964-65 Russ & Sam-32.9% " "
2005-06 Arenas % Jamison-34.4% " "

Many more years to check before the highest percent for the regular season can be determined.

Swish

Regular season is obviously a different deal. The first place to look is Wilt, since he has the top seven minute-per-game averages of all time (including 48.5 MPG in 1961-62).

1961-62 Philly Warriors - Wilt 48.5, Tom Gola 41.0 (89.5 total)
1962-63 SF Warriors - Wilt 47.6, Guy Rodgers 41.1 (88.7 total)
1965-66 76ers - Wilt 47.3, Hal Greer 41.6 (88.9 total)

In recent years, the highest regular-season MPG levels have declined. While there were 70 instances of players with 40 MPG or more during the regular season since 2000, Monta Ellis is the only one above 40 MPG so far this season, and he was the only one last season. Here's the totals of 40+ MPG players in recent seasons:

2010-11 - 1 (Monta Ellis)
2009-10 - 2 (Monta Ellis and Gerald Wallace)
2008-09 - none
2007-08 - 3
2006-07 - 6
2005-06 - 9
2004-05 - 7
2003-04 - 8
2002-03 - 11
2001-02 - 10
2000-01 - 13

Looking at the seasons since 2005-06, it seems like a trend to me. Just for the heck of it, I looked up the 60's:

1968-69 - 11
1967-68 - 5
1966-67 - 7
1965-66 - 7
1964-65 - 8
1963-64 - 8
1962-63 - 7
1961-62 - 10
1960-61 - 5

That surprised me. I thought there would've been more players playing longer minutes in those days. But their regular season was compressed compared to non-lockout years today. To take the 1966-67 Celtics, for example, I counted:

Two games in two days - 13
Three games in three days - 7
Four games in four days - 3

So considering all those games on consecutive days, playing 40 MPG during the regular season was quite an accomplishment of durability.

Outside

beat wrote:Outside

nice job checking things but your stats seem to differ from what I find.

2 of your examples ( I only checked 2 of your most recent ones)

I looked at some of the stats you posted like the 2006 Wizards
I see Arenas at 42.3 and Butler at 36.1

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/WAS/2006.html

Also the 2006 Lakers show Kobe at 41 and Odum at 40.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2006.html

You're looking at the regular season, but I'm discussing playoffs only. Scroll down the page for those seasons to see the playoff figures.

beat wrote:Also when you say 2006 I am assuming you mean the 2005-2006 season.

I mean the 2006 playoffs, which is at the end of the 2005-06 season.

beat wrote:As for the 40% again that is 40% of whatever the game was be it 48 minutes or OT's 20% of whatever is 1/5th and with 5 players that means if a player played 20% of the teams minutes he'd never come out regardless of how long the game is.

Also does this take into account games played?

I didn't look up to see how many overtime games were involved. It may skew things a bit, but I doubt that it's crucial except in the case of those 1953 Syracuse Nationals.

And to clear up one point of potential confusion, I primarily referred to 40 minutes per game, not 40% of a team's minutes. Both refer to "40," but they are clearly not the same thing.

For all the figures I listed, I noted if the total playoff games played was less than 10. All others had at least 10 games. Obviously, going further in the playoffs means that a higher minutes-per-game average is more significant accomplishment compared to someone like Gilbert Arenas who tended to rack up his stats in one series. Some of the figures I cited were for championship teams or teams that lost in the finals, such as the 2011 Heat, 1974 Bucks, 1972 Lakers, 1970 Lakers, 1969 Celtics, 1967 76ers, and 1952 Lakers.

Outside

Outside

reread your post and of course MISSED the 2 key words PLAYOFF MINUTES!

OOPS!

Well on my way to keep stats for Marcus's team. They are 6-0 and should win easily tonight as long as they play like they have the last 2 games. Marcus isn't getting much time but we figured it would be this way.

And in case anyone is interested you can find his teams stats on line here.

http://www.statmanallstar.com/findTeams.faces

Just click on the South Jeff Spartans has team and individual stats

beat

Basically, it's mathematically impossible for a duo to play more than two-fifths (or 40%) of the total minutes put in by all the players on the team. I senst that, in the frenzy of posts this topic has prompted, there's some confusion between minutes played per game (which is NOT what the topic is based on) and the proportion of total team minutes played in a season or the playoffs by a given player (which IS what the topic is based on)..

Sam

On this subject I prefer to use the regular season as a more accurate indicator of the generational differences. And here's the reason why.
During the Russell years the playoffs were much shorter.
1956-57- Bye teams 10 games max---non Bye teams 13
1957-61- " 14 " 17
1961-65- " 14 " 19
1965-67- all teams 19
1967-69- " 21

Now its a max of 28 games- twice as many as the players faced up to the 1965-66 season.

Swish

sam wrote:Basically, it's mathematically impossible for a duo to play more than two-fifths (or 40%) of the total minutes put in by all the players on the team. I senst that, in the frenzy of posts this topic has prompted, there's some confusion between minutes played per game (which is NOT what the topic is based on) and the proportion of total team minutes played in a season or the playoffs by a given player (which IS what the topic is based on).

Sam,

Sorry for using minutes per game. I appreciate that you're highly attuned to the difference between the two. I hope you find this more acceptable.

Here are the highest numbers I found for two players.

Team Total = total number of playoff minutes for the team
% Min = percentage of the team's total playoff minutes used by the two players
Pair MPG = total minutes per game for the two players

Team	Games	Player 1	Min	Player 2	Min	Team Total	% Min	Pair MPG
1965 Royals	4	Oscar	195	Lucas	195	985	39.6	97.6
1967 76ers	15	Wilt	718	Greer	688	3,615	38.9	93.8
1969 Celtics	18	Havlicek	850	Russell	829	4,320	38.9	93.3
1970 Lakers	18	Wilt	851	West	830	4,395	38.2	93.4
1953 Syracuse	2	Seymour	112	Rocha	107	580	37.8	109.5
1968 76ers	13	Wilt	631	Greer	553	3,170	37.3	91.0
1974 Bucks	16	Kareem	758	Oscar	689	3,915	37.0	90.5

Here are notable totals from "recent" years (since 2000).

Team	Games	Player 1	Min	Player 2	Min	Team Total	% Min	Pair MPG
2003 Suns	6	Shawn Marion	283	Marbury	271	1,465	37.8	91.2
2006 Wizards	6	Arenas	284	Butler	262	1,490	36.6	91.0
2006 Lakers	7	Kobe	314	Odom	314	1,730	36.3	89.8
2001 76ers	23	Iverson	1,016	Mutumbo	981	5,545	36.0	88.9
2003 Celtics	10	Pierce	445	Walker	440	2,475	35.8	88.5
2005 Nets	4	Kidd	182	Carter	179	1,010	35.7	90.3

Here are numbers for the highest I found in 2011.

Team	Games	Player 1	Min	Player 2	Min	Team Total	% Min	Pair MPG
2011 Heat	21	LeBron	922	Bosh	834	5,090	34.5	83.6
2011 Bulls	16	Deng	687	Rose	649	3,865	34.5	83.5

Outside,

Where do you find time to do all that work? A rather prodigious effort.

What makes the Russell/Havlicek figures so impressive is the number of very good players making up the team. Small wonder that the Russell Celtics were amazingly injury-free for the most part. Aside from Russ and John, who apparently didn't need a lot of rest, the division of minutes among so many good players meant they were seldom pushed beyond their limits.

It also helps to explain why, last time I checked, Heinsohn and Sam Jones ranked 1-2 (separated by something like a tenth of a point) among all Celtics of all-time in points per 36 minutes. They didn't play huge minutes, and they were relatively fresh to utilize their respective talents when they were on the floor.

Sam

Very interesting statistics. Thanks to Outside once again for the effort, especially when he wasn't even interested in this subject (LOL).

If anyone would like to check the above players' stats to see if there was a dropoff in production in the fourth quarter or in the second or third game in as many days, I would advise against it. Spend the time kissing your wife or significant other instead.

It's obvious from these stats that Red played Russ and Havlicek far too many minutes and had an aversion to playing young players. And Russ played himself and Havlicek too many minutes, too! No wonder they lost to Philly in '67. They probly would have lost in '68 too if the FBI hadn't assasinated Martin Luther King, Jr.

Does Doc have an aversion to playing younger players? The acid test comes this year, no question about it. Here's what the team captain had to say the other day about Avery Bradley:

“I think with him it’s all about his confidence,” Paul Pierce said. “I think the more he plays well (sic), and the more he plays well, he believes in himself. He works so hard. You’ve got to understand who he is for us. He’s a guy who can really defend the ball probably as good as anybody in the NBA -- the way he picks up and slides his feet, uses his athleticism. If he can do that and then knock down open shots when he gets them, he can be a helluva player in this league.”

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

Not taking anything away from some thorough research done here; kudos to various posters.

You can interpret the numbers to mean nearly anything.

The fact is over the years, if we're speaking specifically of Doc Rivers, he's played several young players. I think there is probably also enough statistical evidence to say he doesn't play veterans. Look at how many are and have been on the bench.

This year he's playing Stiemsma and Bradley a lot...he plays youngsters!

This year he's sitting Johnson and Moore...he doesn't play youngsters!

Maybe we just need to say which veterans we would like to see him sit and which youngsters we would like to see him play. That should do it!

Ray Allen apparently counts as both a veteran and a youngster.

Regards

(Fair disclosure and personal pledge; next time I say "Play The Kids", I'll specify.)

Sam

I know it's off-topic and will take effort and wish I had time to volunteer but - shouldn't there be a permanent thread in which to store some of these hard-won statistics? I can recall multiple contributions from Bob H. especially that it should be easier to look up on this forum, such as, wouldn't you know, the career minutes issue.

Damn lies or not, it's somehow soothing to the soul to contemplate these kinds of numbers and facts, not to mention how they can enlighten conversations, settle disagreements or point to issues that require further statistics. Why should we hang them in cyberspace for a moment in time then let them drift away, lost, inaccessible, almost forgotten? They should be saved in their own little thread: call it Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

Just a thought. At any rate, there's a difference between a damn lie and a damned lie. Statistics are damn lies but if somebody accuses me of sleeping with his wife, that's a damned lie! Couldn't say which spelling Mark Twain used.

NYCelt wrote:"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

Not taking anything away from some thorough research done here; kudos to various posters.

You can interpret the numbers to mean nearly anything.

The fact is over the years, if we're speaking specifically of Doc Rivers, he's played several young players. I think there is probably also enough statistical evidence to say he doesn't play veterans. Look at how many are and have been on the bench.

This year he's playing Stiemsma and Bradley a lot...he plays youngsters!

This year he's sitting Johnson and Moore...he doesn't play youngsters!

Maybe we just need to say which veterans we would like to see him sit and which youngsters we would like to see him play. That should do it!

Ray Allen apparently counts as both a veteran and a youngster.

Regards

(Fair disclosure and personal pledge; next time I say "Play The Kids", I'll specify.)

NYCelt,

Did you mean "rookies" or "youngsters"?

I do get that Doc plays young players when the need arises. I also get that the young players that get playing time actually deserve it by their actions (unknown to us fans) in practice. I also get that when a team is on a championship run, that is no time to introduce the younger players to the speed and complexity of the NBA game.

But (and that's a pretty big butt!)

For me, IMO, I would rather the Celtics lose from 5 to 10 games more while trying to see if and how any member of the Kiddie Korps (or other non-starting fringe players) could help out our team by the time the playoffs roll around. At the least, the starters will play less minutes. At the most, we find a player that can be added to the rotation now and into the future. Our starting 5 could all use 5 or more minutes less each game. I am sure that KG, for instance, could finish a game stronger if he was playing minutes 27-32 at the end instead of minutes 32-37.

gyso

Thanks to those who imply I spent hours accumulating and preparing those stats, but the truth is that I've become fairly adept at using the Player Season Finder, Player Game Finder, and Team Season Finder on basketball-reference.com. Do a search, refine the search, cull the stats. It's wonderful.

No, wait, I spent all day the past three days working on it. Yeah, that's it.

gyso wrote:

NYCelt wrote:"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

Not taking anything away from some thorough research done here; kudos to various posters.

You can interpret the numbers to mean nearly anything.

The fact is over the years, if we're speaking specifically of Doc Rivers, he's played several young players. I think there is probably also enough statistical evidence to say he doesn't play veterans. Look at how many are and have been on the bench.

This year he's playing Stiemsma and Bradley a lot...he plays youngsters!

This year he's sitting Johnson and Moore...he doesn't play youngsters!

Maybe we just need to say which veterans we would like to see him sit and which youngsters we would like to see him play. That should do it!

Ray Allen apparently counts as both a veteran and a youngster.

Regards

(Fair disclosure and personal pledge; next time I say "Play The Kids", I'll specify.)

NYCelt,

Did you mean "rookies" or "youngsters"?

I do get that Doc plays young players when the need arises. I also get that the young players that get playing time actually deserve it by their actions (unknown to us fans) in practice. I also get that when a team is on a championship run, that is no time to introduce the younger players to the speed and complexity of the NBA game.

But (and that's a pretty big butt!)

For me, IMO, I would rather the Celtics lose from 5 to 10 games more while trying to see if and how any member of the Kiddie Korps (or other non-starting fringe players) could help out our team by the time the playoffs roll around. At the least, the starters will play less minutes. At the most, we find a player that can be added to the rotation now and into the future. Our starting 5 could all use 5 or more minutes less each game. I am sure that KG, for instance, could finish a game stronger if he was playing minutes 27-32 at the end instead of minutes 32-37.

gyso

gyso,

I was lumping rookies in with young veteran players and referring to the mix as "young players" because of the way the question was put. I suppose I could have said first and second year players or something to that effect.

As for your opinion in bold blue above; I completely agree. Somewhere on another thread I had been debating that a few days back. I doubt the cost of doing so would be significant, but the potential benefit exceeds the risk in my view as well.

Regards

To a bunch of people,

I frequently see posts in which the poster would be willing to see the Celtics lost five or ten games more while doing some kind of experiment. Sometimes it involves giving young players more time. Sometimes it involves experiments with the defense or other aspects of the system.

I'm personally gratified to know so many people who can predetermine the downsides of experimentation. Sometimes I want to ask whether the penalty precisely five games or precisely ten games. In the current 66 game season I bet a five game variation could mean as two or three places in the final playoff seedings. It could even spell the difference between making and missing the playoffs. Would those same people who are willing to sacrifice losses for experimentation be willing to sign promises that they wouldn't complain about barely missing the playoffs?

As for statistics, I've generally found that people who are adept at using basketball statistics with a reasonably high degree of validity usually make it a point to know where to locate the stats. As a learning experience for those who are less familiar with stats, it's nice if those who do quote them can refer to the sources of the stats.

I tend to use BasketballReference.com for most stats on teams and individual players. If you simply Google Boston Centics Reference, you'll be directed to a menu of stats listing every Celtics season and every Celtics player from each season. If you poke around and click on a lot of stuff in that site, you'll even find box scores of many games. Same for every other team that's ever been in the league.

If you go to 82games.com, you find a lot of more esoteric stats on teams and five-player combinations, including the (in)famous +/- stat.

If anyone else wants to cite particular statistical references, (s)he is welcome to do so.

When in doubt in the quest for basketball stats, just Google whatever you want. As often as not, you'll be directed to several possible sites on which you can poke around for what you want. In other words, when one is looking for NBA stats, a little elbow grease (or maybe it's finger grease) and perseverance can go a long way.

Just a word of caution. Just because statistics exist and seem authoritative doesn't has little bearing on whether they're correctly used. My own assessment is that the great majority of basketball stats that are quoted can be challenged for validity. Very often, the issue lies in lack of proper context in the way they're being used. A really good statistician would never use a statistic without giving a lot of thought to whether the statistic is truly measuring what is intended or whether there could be other variables that also influence the stat.

One of myriad possible cases in point involves assists. They seem pretty straightforward. An assist is a pass that leads directly to a basket. Simple, right? Wrong!

For example, to what extent do assists really indicate how good a player really is as a floor general? Do they tell 100% of the story? How about 50%? How about 10%? And who and what decide what the "percentage of correctness" is?

A few examples of other variables that could intervene on the validity of assists as an indicator of how good a floor general a player is:

• Does it take into account the pass before the pass? How about passes that lead to free throws instead of field goals?

• How about the ability of a good playmaker to think three passes ahead? What stat measures that asset?

• How about leadership qualities?

• What stat of a given player's playmaking ability incorporates a measurement of his teammates' ability to be in the right places at the right times?

• How about the ability of a given playmaker to see the whole floor? How about a given playmaker's ability to spread the floor with his shooting prowess? Or to drive and dish, opening up opportunities for others? Or to orchestrate the pick-and-roll as an offensive weapon? Are those reflected in some stat?

• How about the tendency of a floor generals to be a coach on the floor? Is that worth more, the same, or less than (just as an example) his free throw percentage?

• If you're comparing eras (always a hornets' nest), what differences may there be in the definitions or rules for recording an assist?

Some people like to say, "Well, stats aren't perfect, but they're often the best thing we've got to make a given point." Will someone please tell me what percentage of truth there is in that statement? And can the percentage of truth differ from stat to stat?

In short, there can be tremendous complexity associated with basketball statistics. Not as much in terms of how they're calculated as in terms of how correctly they're used. They deserve much more thought than they're given when they're being tossed around in most basketball discussions.

Sam

P.S. Mr. Hollinger, please take note. Maybe "pop stats" can be the topic of another rant some day.

Sam,

Interesting to read a discussion on statistics by someone who made his living using them. I'm certain you've put some dangerously complex reports together for your clientele.

I found one other completely different thing from your post above that I just couldn't move past; 4:33 a.m.

Not sleeping or the ultimate 24 hour fan?

Regards

NYCelt,

Celebrating, actually. This past Thursday (three days ago), Victorinox Swiss Army emailed to alert me to a project they need to have done. It involves conducting a survey of 1,000 people around the U.S. concerning the psychological characteristics, product selection criteria, and brand perceptions of consumers of a certain product category (not their well-knownn knives). The kicker was that the I had to construct the rather intricate questionnaire (which includes product graphics), have the interviewing and tabulation completed, and make sure my final report would be in the client's hands one week from this coming Tuesday, or 12 days after their initial alert.

At first, it seemed completely impossible, and the time constraint was compounded by the fact that—unknown to me—the client hadn't initially fed me all the particulars, so I had to do five drafts of the rather intricate questionnaire. I just finished the fifth draft about 4:30 this morning after having been up well into the wee hours each of the past three nights. Hence the celebration early this morning, when I shipped off that fifth (and I hope last) questionnaire draft to our client.

The 1,000 fairly lengthy interviews will commence tomorrow (all online) and will be completed by Wednesday or Thursday, with the tabulation being finished on Friday. I'll have next weekend to write my report (more late night celebrating after that, I'm sure), and we'll actually have the report in the client's hands a week from tomorrow (or one day early). And yes, it will contain a bunch of charts and statistics as well as extensive written analysis.

In the 43 years of running our research company, I've never had such a tight deadline. And the fact that we no longer have a staff means that everything falls on my shoulders (although we're farming out the interviewing and tabulation to another firm, which will require a load of coordination and supervision on my part).

Swiss Army has been a good client for years, so it's important to keep them happy. But I have to say that posting on this board is a lot more fun.

Any news on your dad's condition?

Best to the family.

Sam

Sam,

Important client, tight deadlines, I'd be celebrating each step no matter what hour as well!

My dad's surgery got moved; tomorrow morning around 8.

They did further tests upon admitting him and discovered he needs a bypass on one artery which is 95% blocked as well as the valve repair which could end up being a valve replacement. The first 24 hours post-op will be on a ventilator in cardio-pulmonary ICU, and then they'll hopefully be able to move him back to the heart specialty wing he's been in since Thursday. 5 days there and then a rehab center for a couple of weeks.

The hospital he's in and his surgeon are connected with the Cleveland clinic, which is the nation's premier heart center.

Thanks for asking and please keep a good thought out there for him. This one isn't going to be easy, but he's a tough old bird; if all goes well he could be driving my mother crazy again in about 8 weeks.

Regards

NYCelt, best of luck with your dad. I'll be thinking of you.

Sam, good luck with the project. I hope you don't run yourself too ragged.

Sam, I read a comic today (Frazz) that made me think of your post about how statistics are used.

NYCelt,

You're absolutely right. He'll be in singularly good hands at Cleveland Clinic. If there's an opportunity, please wish him the very best from both of us. We can definitely empathize as I may be in a somewhat similar position as soon as two weeks from now.

All the best to your entire family.

Sam