it's a pretty surprising result.  i'll say this though - i see more upsets the first game of the season than any other time of the year in HD, i think i large part because there's not much data to scout tendencies in your opponent (unless you track for more than one year).  i'm not excusing the result (if i were you i'd post it to one of seble's threads, especially whatever seems outlandish to you), i just see this type of thing a lot in the first game of the year.

It's highly unexpected, but I've seen worse.  I'm not justifying the result...it was bad...I've seen worse though.

Wow, thats a huge ath/spd/reb advantage you had there. The -2 shift probably played a huge roll in this game.

These posts get so old. Seriously do you think if these 2 teams played 1000 times on your homecourt you'd win 1000 times? 

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/13/2010 8:44:00 PM (view original):
These posts get so old. Seriously do you think if these 2 teams played 1000 times on your homecourt you'd win 1000 times? 

Dude, stop...come on.  Was the game played 1000 times or wasn't it?  A 14 point home loss in this instance seems to be a bit/a lot off and cburton has every right to post his displeasure here, how can you blame him?

People aren't griping about every loss to every worse team out there...people are griping about 1 loss out of a minimum of probably 100 games or so...so griping at most 1% of the time is unacceptable?  The fact that seble lessened the variance in many categories doesn't lend creedence to cburton's claim/displeasure?

I honestly would like to see more of these posts, because it's the consumer's right to gripe if they're displeased with the results, and we can all be respective JJEs for the proceedings.  I find it both fair and interesting.

That's super brutal.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2010 8:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/13/2010 8:44:00 PM (view original):
These posts get so old. Seriously do you think if these 2 teams played 1000 times on your homecourt you'd win 1000 times? 

Dude, stop...come on.  Was the game played 1000 times or wasn't it?  A 14 point home loss in this instance seems to be a bit/a lot off and cburton has every right to post his displeasure here, how can you blame him?

People aren't griping about every loss to every worse team out there...people are griping about 1 loss out of a minimum of probably 100 games or so...so griping at most 1% of the time is unacceptable?  The fact that seble lessened the variance in many categories doesn't lend creedence to cburton's claim/displeasure?

I honestly would like to see more of these posts, because it's the consumer's right to gripe if they're displeased with the results, and we can all be respective JJEs for the proceedings.  I find it both fair and interesting.

The point is it's a simulation that simulated 1 time. It's not like it's simulated many times and then the average result is the result we see. We see the result of the 1st simulation, and sometimes that 1st simulation will be a very odd result. Whether it's the favorite winning by 40 instead of an expected 10 point win and other times it will be the favorite losing.

For example when the NCAA tourney rolls around ESPN uses a thing called accuscore to predict results. They simulate each 1st round game a million times I think and there has never been a time where any team has won 100% of the simulations. Even the 1 vs. 16 seed games you will see the 1 seed winning between 98 and 99.5% of the games, and sometimes that .5-2% chance the 16 seed has of winning will happen in the 1st simulation. Which brings me back to my original point.

Yep, that's a tough loss to take.  Another thing I noticed that surprised me was that despite a rather large discrepancy in IQ's, he chose to run uptempo.  Probably exactly opposite of what I would have done, but it worked for him (and no doubt would have backfired on me).  Looks like he got a real good roll of the RNG dice and despite his IQ's being bad, got away with running uptempo and the extra possessions.  Personally, I think you caught a really bad break here, but as Mason said, this may have been the one out of a million game that he caught the good breaks and benefited from an odd result (paraphrasing obviously).

Yours isn't really close to being as bad AE...yes you were at home, but you lost by less and your opponent had a better OTR

cburton, erasmo conti should be starting, buzbee is a backup for right now.

question: whats stapleton, berry, and alexis conti's three point frequency set at?

Posted by colonels19 on 8/14/2010 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Yours isn't really close to being as bad AE...yes you were at home, but you lost by less and your opponent had a better OTR

LOL that's why you're such a good coach, because you understand the importance of OTR 

Posted by uglyskunk3 on 8/14/2010 10:29:00 AM (view original):
cburton, erasmo conti should be starting, buzbee is a backup for right now.

question: whats stapleton, berry, and alexis conti's three point frequency set at?

All set at 0.

Why do you think Conti should be starting?