Reply With Quote
Damn, I guess it's time to update the Ducktionary from 1.9 to 2.0.
manu I am sorry
I was eating and typing here at the same tiem plus watching the cafe
Damn, I guess it's time to update the Ducktionary from 1.9 to 2.0.
Does that come in a PC version Ex?
No, it doesn't. Bill Gates.
Let's start Manu and Barry....let BB come in at the 6 min mark. By then you know who might have the hot hand on the opposition. Man wouldn't you love to see Manu and Brent flying down the court ojn a two on one????
Okay, back to the subject at hand. This thread by my husband is total crap. You can't take a two game sample against bad defensive teams and make any conclusions. Fortunately, Manu won't be sitting out much longer, so we won't need to test this bogus theory.
"Figures never lie...but liars figure."
You mean that one?
OWNED!!!
Based on what? I'd like to see those calculations myself...If my calculations are correct, the probability of that happening is less than 3%.
Take it for what it's worth.
This message is hidden because The Princess is on your ignore list.
Wouldn't it say Kori Ellis is on your ignore list? Faker!
"how well or badly the team played after manu went down vs houston....."
The Spurs sucked for all 48 minutes, with or without Manu, but Manu's layups, stealing, rebounds, hustle, closing plays in crunch minutes could have won the game, even with the Spurs missing 3 FTs last coupla minutes.
Damn....ya'll made me spit.
No, the Spurs aren't better w/o Manu.
Wait....is that's Jim's signature on that bill???OWNED!!!
The only positive about not having Manu is, Pop would retain what hair he has left, a bit longer.
Kori slam this mofo once for me (for starting this thread) please!
After a little more research, the Spurs were 4-1 in the five games that Manu missed last year. In those five games, the Spurs held the opponent to 80.6 points per game. So in seven games that he's missed, the Spurs are 6-1 and holding opponents to 79.6 points per game.
Stupid lying numbers.
Right?
I apologize if I don't understand the humor, I am really bad at reading sarcasm and I didn't see any smilies.
If you really want a serious answer, you run something called ANOVA test to verify if the difference in the variable you measured (ppg, point differential, whatever) is significant when he played or didn't play. Most of the time, you need equal sample sizes in both cases, but there are ways to adjust this. The degrees of freedom in the second case with only 2 samples is 1, and the difference in the variable measured should be mastodonic (probably order of magnitude larger) to really make a significant impact. The test would give you sampling error as the main cause of the difference (i.e. not statistically significant).
Anyway, sorry if I ruined your comment made with your tongue firmly in your cheek with my stats babbling.
Games from last year are more properly considered as members of a different population. Yes, yes, I know amateur statisticians do it all the time...but there are three kinds of untruths: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Still waiting on those calculations...*final Jeopardy theme in background*
Okay timvp, now tell us how many games the Spurs won with Manu in the line-up that they would have lost if he had not played. Not as easy, huh?
Well here is a math problem for you and you can give me your answer. You tell a friend that you have two numbers in your head between 1-40. They have four guesses to pick the two numbers. What is the probability that they guess the two numbers?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
