plawless, yes it's a small sample size. but you were essentially even on the boards in that game, which makes no sense given your relative ATH/REB ratings. none.

has to be worse than a 1/100 game on the boards for andrew, and anytime you lose one of those, it sucks. not that i can read his stats and make any sense of them...

wrono [nc24... (in case you aren't aware we're the same)]

and yeah, andrew mixed up King and Mitchell.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Only 2 players in the conference at 600+. I like the reduced ratings of the potential era, but its hard to get a sense for how good your team is. I do, however, like to see a 14-2 prediction for Hood.

http://www.behindtheclipboard.com/CAC39.ppt

Summaries done. GL to all in conference play.

Link isn't working for me

EDIT: I got it to work by manually fixing the link in my browser. Maybe just an issue with me.

OH MY GOD SWEET GOLDEN GIRLS REFERENCE

so, my only real question is: how do you come up with Rue McClanahan, but miss the Jack Parr reference in the very next sentence? Don't give me any BS about being to young to know the reference, either...

but thanks, as usual. go marymount.

Thanks, Andrew. Rehnberg will be very interesting. I'm actually pretty high on him, assuming I can get him enough minutes to grow. Low WE, but green in REB, D, SB, and ST and no red. Johnson and Barrow are both experiments. Barrow is green for just ATH and ST, but no red. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with him yet. Johnson is green for ATH and SPD - and they've been rising at a fast enough rate to make me think he has a chance to reach the 90s in either - along with ST, but he is red for REB, LP, and PE. We'll see, but I've been impressed by what I've seen ridiculously high SPD or ATH players do lately. Smith is green for D, PE, BH, and ST, just average for SPD and ATH, but should be a nice shooter/defender to mix the other pure athletes on the squad.

Quote: Originally Posted By wronoj on 9/01/2009
so, my only real question is: how do you come up with Rue McClanahan, but miss the Jack Parr reference in the very next sentence? Don't give me any BS about being to young to know the reference, either...

Well I want to leave something for the others to find.

i was talking to andrew, actually-- he missed the opportunity to throw it in there, despite talking about Parr in the next sentence.

Quote: Originally Posted By wronoj on 9/01/2009
so, my only real question is: how do you come up with Rue McClanahan, but miss the Jack Parr reference in the very next sentence? Don't give me any BS about being to young to know the reference, either...

Let the record show (http://www.behindtheclipboard.com/CAC38.ppt) that I made the Parr reference last year. I've been criticized in some quarters for repeating references (ie using Whoa! for both Lawrences who went through Salisbury a few seasons back).

Your formula predicted 2 wins for me last year, I got 7. 5 wins this year... does that really mean 15? ;-)

Wins Actual = wins predicted * 2 + 3. 13 wins this year.