What do Charles Barkley, Mikhail Prokhorov, and Phil Jackson have in common? “Wait,” you say. “Charles is a #1 FEAR, while Prokhorov and Jackson are #16 BCILs. What could they possibly have in common?”  Admittedly, not much, though what all three of these men do have in common is that they are not big fans of basketball analytics, the systematic computational analysis of data or statistics “I think analytics are becoming more and more refined throughout the league,” said Prokhorov recently during a question and answer session. “But I am not convinced you can calculate your way to victory. I do believe there are intangibles that no stat sheet will show you.”

Barkley, Prokhorov’s opposite Type, hasn’t taken as friendly an approach, stating that “analytics is crap” and that proponents of analytics are “a bunch of guys who ain’t never played the game [and] they never got the girls in high school… Analytics don’t work at all. It’s just some crap that people who were really smart made up to try to get in the game because they had no talent.”

Yes, Mikhail and Charles, there are intangibles that no stat sheet will show you. When it comes to success in any sport, Brain Type is the number 1 factor to consider, then physicality (athleticism), and then, perhaps, analytics. No one could have predicted the downfall of Ryan Leaf (#7 FEIL) before he came into the NFL. Based on his stats, he should have at least made for an above-average quarterback. However, with the knowledge of Brain Type, anyone (not just Jon Niednagel) could have accurately predicted he would never attain Joe Montana (#5 FEIRstardom (let alone total failure).

Yes, this is exactly what Brain Typing thrives on … finding the “diamond in the rough” athlete who has yet to prove himself and, with proper training and coaching, making them into a star (or valuable player), and thus turning their respective team into a serious contender. As one author puts it, “The most important factor in making the NBA Finals over the past four years was the very advanced and wholly replicable skill called ‘having LeBron James on your team.’

Would Coach Pop Herring have advanced Michael Jordan (#6 BEIR) to the high school varsity team in 1978 had he known MJ’s inborn #6 design? Odds are he would have.

How about an example closer to home? Seeing no chance for undeveloped Toby Bailey to even play his frosh year at UCLA, Coach Jim Harrick (#7 FEIL) finally consented in midseason (after weekly encouragements from Brain Types discoverer, Jon Niednagel). What happened? Against all odds, #6 Bailey went on to not only work his way into the starting lineup but he led the Bruins to the 95 NCAA National Championship title, even making the All-Tournament first team.

Why has analytics, sabermetrics, etc., become such a big deal in recent years? Many plausible explanations could be offered, but certainly one of the most plausible pertains to Brain Types. Yes, Brain Types. Which of the 16 inborn designs has the greatest difficulty analyzing objective reality, including pragmatic numbers? Thanks to the technology of modern neuroscience, we’ve been able to decipher that the #9 FCAR’s cerebral circuitry is least adept in this realm. Yet #9s rarely run major sports organizations, so what other BT, especially the dominating one that oversees the sports world, would be in great need for scrutinizing assistance regarding the Inanimate nuances of what is.

If you guessed the #13 FCIR, you are correct. Though they have precocious minds, often expanding the universe, their innate cerebral design is inept at Q4 activities. FCIRs are great with synthesis, not analysis (especially males). Linking everything known to man is their shtick, but putting it all into proper context and to pragmatic use, is not. So by crunching the numbers via analytics, all Right brainers, especially Conceptual Q1s, have a much better chance of grasping the world of Empirical minutia. Yet, most of these folks relying on the various forms of analytics place too much confidence in them, often to their own demise.

In conclusion, if any Brain Type were to be “big” on analytics, it would definitely be the #16 BCIL, who enjoys dissecting and categorizing complicated, competent information for the purpose of efficiency. Prokhorov has yet to be convinced, and while analytics may be of some help for teams searching for success, nothing comes close to the 21st century analytics of Brain Typing.

Written by: Staff
(click for source)