Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:23 am
Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:38 am
That's because like 2 people started to hate me because they didn't like Paul Pierce, and since they were mods, people were like "Oh, well, they're mods, I don't wanna argue with them" so they decided to join the rant and now more and more people are, when really, there's no point what so ever.
BTW, back it all up, please.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:35 am
Its_asdf wrote:That's because like 2 people started to hate me because they didn't like Paul Pierce, and since they were mods, people were like "Oh, well, they're mods, I don't wanna argue with them" so they decided to join the rant and now more and more people are, when really, there's no point what so ever.
BTW, back it all up, please.
Actually, it was because of your overly biased attitude toward the Celtics. Its one thing to be proud of your hometeam, but its another to make up completely ignorant statements.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:39 am
DaTruth36 wrote:That's because like 2 people started to hate me because they didn't like Paul Pierce, and since they were mods, people were like "Oh, well, they're mods, I don't wanna argue with them" so they decided to join the rant and now more and more people are, when really, there's no point what so ever.
BTW, back it all up, please.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:30 am
Jae wrote:I have absolutely nothing against Paul Pierce, I just think you're an idiot. I've stated this many times, yet you continue to ignore it.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:30 am
That's because like 2 people started to hate me because they didn't like Paul Pierce, and since they were mods, people were like "Oh, well, they're mods, I don't wanna argue with them" so they decided to join the rant and now more and more people are, when really, there's no point what so ever.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:09 am
Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:38 am
Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:14 am
Its_asdf is a mod now?
Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:22 pm
Laxation wrote:so if i gave you some random numbers, you would be able to figure out what the formula is called to look it up?
I cant see this being an accurate interpretation of the 'expected' wins of a team either, since they will score more on bad teams than on good ones. At the moment, the best way to determine how many games a team has won, is to look at their schedule and count the games where they scored more than the opponent.
It might be a few more years before a better method is found out.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:34 pm
benji wrote:Laxation wrote:so if i gave you some random numbers, you would be able to figure out what the formula is called to look it up?
Well, you should've recognized the formula as the pythag theorem...and they aren't random numbers. They're the points for and against the Knicks.
the best way to determine how many games a team has won, is to look at their schedule and count the games where they scored more than the opponent.
No, this has shown to be a more accurate measure than actual wins and losses.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:47 pm