Game 16: @ St Joseph Sunday Jan 10 12pm NBCSN

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 8 years ago

I'm not all that concerned after this game. We had some lapses, but we still showed some of the improvements that we had gained lately.
Jarvis is the MVP. Hass should continue to get better as he gets closer to %100 and dominate.
We are still in prime position to be in the top four of the standings heading into Brooklyn.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

Yes. A decent effort on the road is at least somewhat encouraging.

Win Wednesday, and we will be OK.

Definitely in a better place than a couple of weeks ago.

PlayMikeMotenMore · Unread post by **PlayMikeMotenMore** » 8 years ago

How'd I know I tune into the message board and see people whining about the refs? Gimme a friggin break. The refs were fine. URI opened the game shooting jump shots. You don't draw fouls shooting jumpers. St. Joe's was taking the ball to the basket early and that's how you draw fouls. Enough of the whining about the refs. They did not decide this game nor do they decide most games. There's no conspiracy folks. You wanna complain? Fine...here:

1) Dan must've forgotten what made URI so good offensively the last games. Ball movement and sharing the ball, quick passing and great screening. Today, Dan took the air out of the ball offensively. Made Garrett walk it up, stand with dribble, and then go into the high-screen offense with :10 left on the shot clock. Every stinkin' time in the 2nd half when St. Joe's couldn't buy a bucket. Needed to hit the accelerator there, not shorten the game by allowing for less possessions. Too much standing and dribbling!! (Not Garrett's fault...he's following coach's instructions.)

2) Dan did a poor job managing Iverson's minutes. Yes, he picked up some fouls but he had it going today stretching the defense. Needed to do a better balancing the minutes with fouls.

3) Freshmen on the road looked freshmen on the road. It's completely different than playing at home.

4) Terrell looked out of it. Didn't have the fire.

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

Team played decent, Bembry was the difference today, period.
And, saw some awesome rainbows on the way home - taking that as a good sign.

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 8 years ago

Its so funny how we all watched the same game but saw a different game, in my mind, PlayMMM and others, the refs did play a roll, which caused a game plan change to the plodding slowed offense you are referring to, before the ref's decided to manage the game it looked like Iverson was going to go for about 30, ball movement was fine and we scored from inside and out. Again we lost and a loss is a loss, I get that critical mistakes were made as the game wore on and agree that our freshmen didn't rise to the occasion, but that's part of why it hurts so much when 'starters' get in foul trouble. I also agree that Iverson's minutes could have been managed better, for a moment there I thought that wasn't going to be the case, when he came back in, in the first half, I thought "good, keep him in the flow" but it was a very short cameo and didn't allow him to stay in the zone, (to me) its hard to criticize that though because you really, really want your best on the court in the last minutes of a game you believe will be a close one. I still think if we were as good as we want to be we win this one, but St.Joe's is a very good team and very hard to beat in Philly, not excuse making, its just that I always feel like this game is one of if the the hardest game on our schedule every season. I would also submit that Martelli probably had something to do with Joe's making good adjustments and so forth, but I don't see this one as a game in which we got out-coached.

ElmCityRhody · Unread post by **ElmCityRhody** » 8 years ago

No moral victories

Time to put the big boy pants on and beat the Bonnie's.

Captainron@ · Unread post by **Captainron@** » 8 years ago

steveystuds06 wrote:How the hell are we two games above .500? We are 10-6
trip.

Question: What is a .500 record for 16 games?

Answer: 8 and 8

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

Captainron@ wrote:
steveystuds06 wrote:How the hell are we two games above .500? We are 10-6
trip.
Question: What is a .500 record for 16 games?

Answer: 8 and 8

Must keep this thread going...the semantics to this are critical.
Please...get this worked out.

steveystuds06 · Unread post by **steveystuds06** » 8 years ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
Captainron@ wrote:
steveystuds06 wrote:How the hell are we two games above .500? We are 10-6
trip.
Question: What is a .500 record for 16 games?

Answer: 8 and 8

Must keep this thread going...the semantics to this are critical.
Please...get this worked out.[/quote

Someone posted that we are two games over .500 I wasn't ACTUALLY asking how are we two games over .500 .....No shit 8-8 is a .500 record and 10-6 isn't two games over .500 that was my point.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

Thought Rhody played a solid game yesterday, all things considered.
A player like Bembry makes me drool, even though he got blocked by Thompson, he had that one play where it seemed like he was moving in slow motion where he had his guy on skates.
Love guys who can get the ball near the post and not be so robotic, given that most guys only want to work on the perimeter.
At the end of the day, URI was probably going to be the underdog in both road games.
Pick up one, and it's a successful trip, IMHO.
PS - 10-6 is 4 games over 500.
If the Red Sox are 60-58, you don't say they are one game over because 59-59 is .500, they are two games over, because they would have to lose 2 games to be .500 again.

Rhody15 · Unread post by **Rhody15** » 8 years ago

If you told me we'd shoot 46% from the field, 37% from 3 and 80% from the ft line, I would have said we got the W. Just didn't do the little things after we took the lead (5 second call, letting them get O rebounds, not closing out on the 3 pt line).

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:Though Rhody played a solid game yesterday, all things considered.
A player like Bembry makes me drool, even though he got blocked by Thompson, he had that one play where it seemed like he was moving in slow motion where he had his guy on skates.
Love guys who can get the ball near the post and not be so robotic, given that most guys only want to work on the perimeter.
At the end of the day, URI was probably going to be the underdog in both road games.
Pick up one, and it's a successful trip, IMHO.
PS - 10-6 is 4 games over 500.
If the Red Sox are 60-58, you don't say they are one game over because 59-59 is .500, they are two games over, because they would have to lose 2 games to be .500 again.

Yes...keep this going...60-59 is 1 game over .500

Keatgsr07 · Unread post by **Keatgsr07** » 8 years ago

Is there anyone else out there that is just blatantly done with the "we played well despite..." "there are some positive signs..." "if we did this..."

Oh my God enough. This sucks.

This team is slightly above average, stop fooling yourself and patronizing the rest. I don't have the results handy, but I don't think we've won a meaningful or had a "big" win since Nebraska at home last year and they turned out to be terrible. We were luck to get them early in the year while they were coming off of the previous years success and hype.

Everyone on this board knows the story, they watched yesterday and it was the same thing that happens every time we play a team that's better than we are. We play hard, even get a lead into and sometimes after the half... Let's all fill in the blank, what happens next? Around the 10min mark we start to see it, the team get's skittish, rushed, whatever and the momentum swings. Let's countt over the past however many seasons: SJU, Davidson, Dayton, X, VCU, Temple, UMASS, on, and on, and on.

For those that want to post the reply "so what do you suggest, we stop caring?" The answer's no, it's on me, I just need to stop caring so much. And I need to stop reading the "we tried hard and almost got there, positive signs" comments.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

If we can stay out of foul trouble Wednesday night I like our chances.

I guess Dan had to slow it down in the 2nd half yesterday due to the short bench and the freshmen's struggles.

We are a different team when we can move the ball. Everybody can see that now.

We should beat St. Joes here for the same reasons.

The depth we'll have next year, there will be no such problems.

eli#10 · Unread post by **eli#10** » 8 years ago

Slowing the game down had to be done with Akele and Thompson playing so many minutes. I think we had to reduce the number of possessions for St Joes in order to have our best chance for a win. Kuran has to play smarter and not get any fouls away from the ball. He is playing better and we really need him on the court.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

Well, when we slow the game down, we reduce OUR chances to win.

That's just what happens. Especially late.

I realize they have to do that, to keep our players in the game.

Playing at St. Joes, they need to go 10 deep, because they are always in foul trouble due to the great officiating we get there.

I agree, if KI had been able to stay in the game, we would have won, by all accounts that I've read.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

A bit of history.
Under Brendan Malone, the team had losing
seasons playing grind em out half court sets.
Tom Penders came in and saw athletes and let them loose,
to run and gun.
You know the rest.
Kids like that style. Another thing is,t hey play by
instinct and think less.
I think when you slow it down, players begin to press
at game's end, and are playing not to lose,
instead of playing to win.
Funny, when all the slow down weaves and sets vanished
in the desperation of the Brown game, how players
running and gunning won the day.
Let them run. Stop the re-sets and attack.
It makes for a fun game, the players like it,
and winning might be the product it produces.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

I totally agree with that Rod.

We just need a couple more bodies to make it work.

Foul trouble kept us from doing that yesterday.

At least I hope so.

Yah, every time we slow it down, it's like playing the "prevent" defense in the NFL.

Playing not to lose, instead of to win, means you will lose.

Takes their natural aggressiveness away, and bad things happen, especially with the skill set most of our players have.

Also NFL related, notice how Brady and co. DON'T sit on the ball with a lead, like most other NFL teams do? They keep doing what got them the lead in the first place. What works. For them.

Run up the middle, punt, and lose. The prevents you from winning "offense". The Giants did that several times this season, and it cost them every time.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

Rod, I remember those games under Malone.

Those teams had talent. Penders proved it. He [Tom] really didn't recruit a whole lot his 2nd year to add to it.

He just made the most out of what they had.

The difference was like night and day.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

I always felt Penders knew he was gone after 1988,
so he didn't exactly kill himself recruiting.
GBG always mentions finding an old coach to run
offense.
Penders is right here. Probably would do it voluntarily,
without adding him to staff.
NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO PASS FALSE INFO:
I'm not advocating any of current staff get fired.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

Keatgsr07 wrote:This team is slightly above average, stop fooling yourself and patronizing the rest. I don't have the results handy, but I don't think we've won a meaningful or had a "big" win since Nebraska at home last year and they turned out to be terrible. We were luck to get them early in the year while they were coming off of the previous years success and hype.

Richmond on the road and George Washington at the A10 tournament last season should probably count at the very least.

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 8 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:I always felt Penders knew he was gone after 1988,
so he didn't exactly kill himself recruiting.
GBG always mentions finding an old coach to run
offense.
Penders is right here. Probably would do it voluntarily,
without adding him to staff.
NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO PASS FALSE INFO:
I'm not advocating any of current staff get fired.

Hmmmm, interesting idea.

He's tough tho, gives no quarter, takes no excuses.....

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

The refs were huge in this game. URI shot jumpers? URI also got fouls on setting screens. OR just running through their sets. Offensive foul.
Best guys were all in foul trouble.

Not to forget that Jarvis Garrett and other ball handlers were rode by the defender most of the game until the refs gave jarvis a call in the 2nd half.

Game came down to Thompson not having his hand up to shield Bombay's vision when Bembry tossed those passes/Four should have stepped into position to cover either 3 point shot because Hassan was basically under the basket and his man was at the 3 point line.

OTHER THINGS that hurt at that time was Jarvis not running through the inbounds set and getting a 5 second call. Anybody could have realized the 5 second call was coming but nobody did. That was dumb.

Others? The time Hassan basically through the ball away when he tried to pass it to Four. Then When Jarvis dribbled it down into the corner and we didn't get anything.

That was all at the end.

Losing at St Joes tells me absolutely nothing about our season. How is the whole team saddled with 4 fouls? Insane. Just the foul when Four jumped to rebound on defense and one of their guys jumped into him and they call a foul on Four.

Best thing??? They shut Miles down. Thats worth something.

Keatgsr07 · Unread post by **Keatgsr07** » 8 years ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote:
Keatgsr07 wrote:This team is slightly above average, stop fooling yourself and patronizing the rest. I don't have the results handy, but I don't think we've won a meaningful or had a "big" win since Nebraska at home last year and they turned out to be terrible. We were luck to get them early in the year while they were coming off of the previous years success and hype.
Richmond on the road and George Washington at the A10 tournament last season should probably count at the very least.

You know the point I'm trying to make

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

We'll win at St. Joes, when we win by a LOT.

We get nothing in a close game there.

Like was said, playing 5 on 8 isn't likely to end up a win.

Some have said the refs weren't actually that bad. I think it was a combination of bad calls and our mistakes that did us in.

steviep123 · Unread post by **steviep123** » 8 years ago

The refs were particularly bad or one sided in the first few minutes of the second half as St. Joe's built an 8 point lead. After that stretch we held them scoreless for 7 minutes and got it back to a tie game (I think we had a brief 1 or 2 point lead). You could say the refs screwed us by allowing St. Joe's to build that 8 point lead or you could say we got back in it and couldn't get past it. Personally I'm torn. It's ALWAYS 5 onto 8 at St. Joe's at least for us. There's been too big a history on Hawk Hill. But we were in a tie game with about 10 to go, so I'm not really blaming the refs.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

Agree. I felt like the officials set the pace coming out of the half. Basically gave 4 fouls out to our starters. All of them suddenly couldn't just play the game.

They also gave Joes a travel. Joes got that confidence boost while our team kind of took a punch in the mouth from the refs.

That stuff matters when its two teams that are average to good type teams. Obviously Bembry is great.

Obadiah · Unread post by **Obadiah** » 8 years ago

No excuses - we just need to win road games if we have any hopes at becoming relevant. 17 years and counting.

ElmCityRhody · Unread post by **ElmCityRhody** » 8 years ago

Like I said.. Time to put the big boy pants on

If we can't beat the Bonnie's then wow have we digressed

Still targeting 6-3 (minimum) heading into Dayton.

Nothing has changed in my earlier evaluation.

Roz · Unread post by **Roz** » 8 years ago

A loss is a loss, but I feel much better about this team than I did 3 wks ago. Even within the game we were down by 8 or so and still came back to make it a game. I am confident we will be in the top 4 of the league. Can not lose any home games. I would bet my house that we beat St. Joes at home.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

A win Wednesday night, and I would agree.

A loss, and I seriously doubt it.

At some point, we have to win a road game against a good team.

That point is now.

If not, we will keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting...........

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

Keatgsr07 wrote:Is there anyone else out there that is just blatantly done with the "we played well despite..." "there are some positive signs..." "if we did this..."

Oh my God enough. This sucks.

This team is slightly above average, stop fooling yourself and patronizing the rest. I don't have the results handy, but I don't think we've won a meaningful or had a "big" win since Nebraska at home last year and they turned out to be terrible. We were luck to get them early in the year while they were coming off of the previous years success and hype.

Everyone on this board knows the story, they watched yesterday and it was the same thing that happens every time we play a team that's better than we are. We play hard, even get a lead into and sometimes after the half... Let's all fill in the blank, what happens next? Around the 10min mark we start to see it, the team get's skittish, rushed, whatever and the momentum swings. Let's countt over the past however many seasons: SJU, Davidson, Dayton, X, VCU, Temple, UMASS, on, and on, and on.

For those that want to post the reply "so what do you suggest, we stop caring?" The answer's no, it's on me, I just need to stop caring so much. And I need to stop reading the "we tried hard and almost got there, positive signs" comments.

I 'think' they did try hard, they did almost get there...and there were some positive signs. Just because you are sick of hearing it, doesn't mean it isn't true, does it?

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

rambone 78 wrote:If we can stay out of foul trouble Wednesday night I like our chances.

I guess Dan had to slow it down in the 2nd half yesterday due to the short bench and the freshmen's struggles.

We are a different team when we can move the ball. Everybody can see that now.

We should beat St. Joes here for the same reasons.

The depth we'll have next year, there will be no such problems.

I think...if the freshman had shot the ball with any confidence at all, the ball movement would have looked much better.

Still don't understand though how, 'next year's depth' is any more of a guarantee than 'this year's depth' was at this time last year. Every year is a new year....college titles are 'won', not 'defended.' JMHO

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

208, I'm making a logical assumption that we will have a larger number of capable players in uniform and eligible to play for us.

Yes, things can happen, but as of right now, that's what it looks like.

So, without any unforeseen issues, we will have much more depth than this year.

We will finally be able to play more uptempo for 40 minutes if need be. Foul trouble won't hurt us as much.

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

rambone 78 wrote:I totally agree with that Rod.

We just need a couple more bodies to make it work.

Foul trouble kept us from doing that yesterday.

At least I hope so.

Yah, every time we slow it down, it's like playing the "prevent" defense in the NFL.

Playing not to lose, instead of to win, means you will lose.

Takes their natural aggressiveness away, and bad things happen, especially with the skill set most of our players have.

Also NFL related, notice how Brady and co. DON'T sit on the ball with a lead, like most other NFL teams do? They keep doing what got them the lead in the first place. What works. For them.

Run up the middle, punt, and lose. The prevents you from winning "offense". The Giants did that several times this season, and it cost them every time.

I agree with Rod, too. The big problem yesterday was that there was no way to stop Bembry without fouls because he's the college king of the arm bar (other than that, the officiating didn't suck worse any one way or the other). The depth was tested by the fouls needed to combat that...and if the freshman had had their shooting shoes on, mighta been ok. But, they didn't...so it wasn't...

Next opponent!

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

rambone 78 wrote:208, I'm making a logical assumption that we will have a larger number of capable players in uniform and eligible to play for us.

Yes, things can happen, but as of right now, that's what it looks like.

So, without any unforeseen issues, we will have much more depth than this year.

We will finally be able to play more uptempo for 40 minutes if need be. Foul trouble won't hurt us as much.

Unless...someone decides not to play and/or someone gets hurt or decides to transfer...but then...what are the chances of that? Oh wait, exactly the same every year?

Last year's team had issues with foul trouble...and I'm sure there were some that thought that wouldn't be a problem 'this year'...and yet...here we are...

"Next year's depth" just seems like a shaky bet at best.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
rjsuperfly66 wrote:Though Rhody played a solid game yesterday, all things considered.
A player like Bembry makes me drool, even though he got blocked by Thompson, he had that one play where it seemed like he was moving in slow motion where he had his guy on skates.
Love guys who can get the ball near the post and not be so robotic, given that most guys only want to work on the perimeter.
At the end of the day, URI was probably going to be the underdog in both road games.
Pick up one, and it's a successful trip, IMHO.
PS - 10-6 is 4 games over 500.
If the Red Sox are 60-58, you don't say they are one game over because 59-59 is .500, they are two games over, because they would have to lose 2 games to be .500 again.

Yes...keep this going...60-59 is 1 game over .500

So team 1 is 15-15 at .500, team 2 is 17-13 and 4 games over .500. But team 2 is only 2 games ahead of team 1? yeah, makes sense to me.

URI2006_Andy · Unread post by **URI2006_Andy** » 8 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:A bit of history.
Under Brendan Malone, the team had losing
seasons playing grind em out half court sets.
Tom Penders came in and saw athletes and let them loose,
to run and gun.
You know the rest.
Kids like that style. Another thing is,t hey play by
instinct and think less.
I think when you slow it down, players begin to press
at game's end, and are playing not to lose,
instead of playing to win.
Funny, when all the slow down weaves and sets vanished
in the desperation of the Brown game, how players
running and gunning won the day.
Let them run. Stop the re-sets and attack.
It makes for a fun game, the players like it,
and winning might be the product it produces.

I agree with less thinking and more run and gun (although I'm too young to remember Penders at URI). Thought we started to implement a version of this strategy against Stl and Richmond when we used our athleticism to create 3 point opportunities and everyone shot the 3s with no hesitation. Not sure if St Joes just did a great job stopping this or if we changed our approach. Hopefully the former and we get creative (possibly transition 3s) to adjust.

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

theblueram wrote:
NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
rjsuperfly66 wrote:Though Rhody played a solid game yesterday, all things considered.
A player like Bembry makes me drool, even though he got blocked by Thompson, he had that one play where it seemed like he was moving in slow motion where he had his guy on skates.
Love guys who can get the ball near the post and not be so robotic, given that most guys only want to work on the perimeter.
At the end of the day, URI was probably going to be the underdog in both road games.
Pick up one, and it's a successful trip, IMHO.
PS - 10-6 is 4 games over 500.
If the Red Sox are 60-58, you don't say they are one game over because 59-59 is .500, they are two games over, because they would have to lose 2 games to be .500 again.

Yes...keep this going...60-59 is 1 game over .500
So team 1 is 15-15 at .500, team 2 is 17-13 and 4 games over .500. But team 2 is only 2 games ahead of team 1? yeah, makes sense to me.

So...60-59 is...1/2 game over .500?

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

But wait, if you go undefeated, are you 100% over 50%? So you finished the season with a 150% winning record?

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

theblueram wrote:But wait, if you go undefeated, are you 100% over 50%? So you finished the season with a 150% winning record?

No...if you go undefeated, that means you won 100% of your games, not 50%.
100% is both of the 50 percents. Yahoo answers has:

If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)?

Four is the customary answer.
With the New Math, either answer is close enough for a B-, I think

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
theblueram wrote:But wait, if you go undefeated, are you 100% over 50%? So you finished the season with a 150% winning record?
No...if you go undefeated, that means you won 100% of your games, not 50%.
100% is both of the 50 percents. Yahoo answers has:

If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)?

Four is the customary answer.
With the New Math, either answer is close enough for a B-, I think

If a team wins 100 and loses none, how many games over .500 are they and what is the number of games that makes up said .500. 0?

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

theblueram wrote:
NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
theblueram wrote:But wait, if you go undefeated, are you 100% over 50%? So you finished the season with a 150% winning record?
No...if you go undefeated, that means you won 100% of your games, not 50%.
100% is both of the 50 percents. Yahoo answers has:

If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)?

Four is the customary answer.
With the New Math, either answer is close enough for a B-, I think
If a team wins 100 and loses none, how many games over .500 are they and what is the number of games that makes up said .500. 0?

I've run out of ways to continue the ridiculousness and need someone else to pitch in here

Little help?? Anyone?

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

208, this is beer math to better help the, let's say less than mathematically inclined sports fans. In a 100 hundred game season, a record of 50-50 is .500. A record of 75 - 25 is .750. The difference between .500 and .750 is .250. .250 times 100 equals how many games? you can say it, go ahead. 25.

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

theblueram wrote:208, this is beer math to better help the, let's say less than mathematically inclined sports fans. In a 100 hundred game season, a record of 50-50 is .500. A record of 75 - 25 is .750. The difference between .500 and .750 is .250. .250 times 100 equals how many games? you can say it, go ahead. 25.

OK..."give". I would bet though, if you asked 100 people how many games over .500 75-25 is, 95 of that 100 will say "50".

LOL, and, I guess...that 95 of 100 would be....45 above .500?

Cheers!

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
theblueram wrote:208, this is beer math to better help the, let's say less than mathematically inclined sports fans. In a 100 hundred game season, a record of 50-50 is .500. A record of 75 - 25 is .750. The difference between .500 and .750 is .250. .250 times 100 equals how many games? you can say it, go ahead. 25.
OK..."give". I would bet though, if you asked 100 people how many games over .500 75-25 is, 95 of that 100 will say "50".

LOL, and, I guess...that 95 of 100 would be....45 above .500?

Cheers!

Cheers to you!!! It's just dumb sports math because it's easy for the vast majority to understand that 80-2 is 78 games above .500. I don't buy it, but only because I love math.

rhodyrudder · Unread post by **rhodyrudder** » 8 years ago

Like it or not, 75-25 is 50 games above .500.
Not 22.5.
A win (or loss) late in a pennant race against a rival
is a 2-game swing in the standings, but it is still just
one game on your record, and will count as either one
more (or less) game above (or below) .500 than the
day before.
It's 1 game on your schedule.
Subtract losses from wins to get games above .500.
If you want to change that fact, you'll need to start
someplace bigger than this forum.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 8 years ago

That sound you hear are people's heads exploding.........

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

theblueram wrote:
NYGFan_Section208 wrote:
theblueram wrote:208, this is beer math to better help the, let's say less than mathematically inclined sports fans. In a 100 hundred game season, a record of 50-50 is .500. A record of 75 - 25 is .750. The difference between .500 and .750 is .250. .250 times 100 equals how many games? you can say it, go ahead. 25.
OK..."give". I would bet though, if you asked 100 people how many games over .500 75-25 is, 95 of that 100 will say "50".

LOL, and, I guess...that 95 of 100 would be....45 above .500?

Cheers!
Cheers to you!!! It's just dumb sports math because it's easy for the vast majority to understand that 80-2 is 78 games above .500. I don't buy it, but only because I love math.

Ahh...ok, I see the issue now....'sports math' only allows for one function per conversation. 80-2 is 78 games above .500, because it's 80 minus 2. It can't be 80 minus 2 divided by 2, because that's too many functions (two) for a sports conversation. And there ya have it...

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 8 years ago

Well the argument is always it takes xxx number of games to get to .500 from where you are. But when the carousel stops and the season ends, that math no longer makes sense. Because there is no way to get to .500. You are where you are.