All Wins over All Losses Revisited Topic

zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/03/2010Zachary, I find the posts you choose to respond to funny, because you probably didn't notice that the very next post after jetwildcat said that I said that I would never ever be hired as a web designer, and if anyone thought that I was heading in this route, then they didn't understand the topic to begin with...but that's what you choose to respond to and run with...wow..
I respond to posts as I read them there is no need to read every single psot then go back and quote them.
3/3/2010 10:03 AM
wisefella99
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 16
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 10:21 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 10:25 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 3/03/2010

I ask one question and you make a HUGE leap to the conclusion that I am a prototypical guy that does not understand your premise?
Considering the very topic you brought up was addressed in the very first post of this thread, which was to show that I had a 13 win team ranked 30 some spots ahead of a 26 win team...yes you are the prototypical guy that missed the boat. You inherently think/thought that my rankings ordered teams by win percentage when the VERY FIRST POST here clearly showed that they do not. Furthermore, I answered your question in the process as well.
3/3/2010 11:21 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/03/2010He thinks you are stupid and don't understand his genius thinking. Just like he views the rest of us..
And please disregard this commentary as it is inherently false.
3/3/2010 11:29 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/03/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/03/2010
He thinks you are stupid and don't understand his genius thinking. Just like he views the rest of us...
And please disregard this commentary as it is inherently false
Just like your 'older then US States' comment on your site. ? No, actually my comment is much more accurate then yours.
3/3/2010 1:49 PM
wisefella99
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 16
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 1:52 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
227 75 121
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 3/02/2010e plebnitsa
He's so right.
3/3/2010 1:55 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/03/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/03/2010
He thinks you are stupid and don't understand his genius thinking. Just like he views the rest of us...
And please disregard this commentary as it is inherently false.
Just like your 'older then US States' comment on your site. ? No, actually my comment is much more accurate then yours
The bolded parts are priceless and a regular zhawks miscue. My "Older Than 13 United States" comment (wanted to repost for accuracy reasons) has a degree of truth to it and on top of that its clever, catchy, cheeky, and fun, while your rebuttals are annoying and redundant.

I'd rather cheekily tell a half-truth on my website than to put words in the mouths of people that never said or suggested such words.
3/3/2010 1:56 PM
wisefella99
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 16
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 1:56 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 3/03/2010I asked a simple yes/no question. You provided the personal insult that followed and you continue to do it here and you make many false assumptions that are false about my motives. I guess it came off this way because your question was answered before you even asked it on page 1, post 1. The way you worded the question too, suggests that there was more to it than merely asking an unbiased question. I will clarify if necessary.

Instead of having a civil discussion, why are you resorting to personal attacks? What have I done to harm you that you feel that you must insult me when all I did was ask a simple question? I said you're the prototypical guy that presumes my rankings are based on win% and that couldn't be further from the truth, so where am I wrong? Its an odd question to ask if you're in favor of what I do...it seemed like a setup to get me caught saying something I didn't say, and rightly or wrongly, I took it as such.

And yes, you did answer my question. It was the exact answer that I expected. Then why ask it when it was explained prior? Believe it or not, i have some more follow up questions as I have an open mind about your ranking system and hoped to learn more. In the process, I had hoped to give another voice to some of your theories as I think you do have some nice ideas, but you clearly need to work on your interpersonal and communication skills. My questions were going to be conducive to you to give you some much needed help in delivering your message. I'd still love to hear them, I'll respond to anything, but the choice is yours.

Instead of reacting like everyone is attacking you and responding like a dick, maybe you should keep an open mind next time. There is history with some guys here that you're not aware of. A lot of guys went ape over this premise in December/January, and that was the reason for this thread too, so there's really more than meets the eye here.
3/3/2010 2:04 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
If you presumed my answer to your question to be what you expected, then why didn't you say something like...

"I'm just trying to clarify here, so if a team went 26-1 against all top 10 competition, they'd be rated higher than a 27-0 team that faced all cupcakes, right?"

And I would have told you that you were spot on and thanked you for grasping the concept when a lot of others didn't/don't. I also would have told you that the descrepancy between the 2 teams would be rather vast too, if only I was given the chance.

The way you worded your question contributed largely to how I responded to it. In your question, you were presuming that the 26-1 would be rated behind the 27-0....again your words not mine.
3/3/2010 2:13 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 6:37 PM
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 7:07 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/3/2010 7:29 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...14 Next ▸
All Wins over All Losses Revisited Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.