Sonics worst defense ever?

[Drex]

So now we hate you because mods hates Paul Pierce?

[Its_asdf]

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.

[BIG GREEN]

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.

exactly...i dont think ANYONE here..mod or not hates paul peirce. Atleast nothing close to how people dislike kobe..so your statement is soley based on nothin. I personally do have a little thing against peirce..cause in the past he has proven to be a little brazen in his play and especially personality. However, i don't dislike him.

[J@3]

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.

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.

[Riot]

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.

And prove it.

[Jackal]

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.

The only confrontations you've had are with Jae & ASDF, what are you on about?

[Drex]

Its_asdf is a mod now?

[cklitsie]

I like Paul Pierce.

[Jackal]

Its_asdf is a mod now?

Exactly my point, what's he rambling about the mods not liking Paul Pierce?

As Bailey said, I don't think anyone hates Paul Pierce, you on the other hand, yes, I do hate you. For fuck's sake, you flipped out because some person added two numbers behind his name & you seemed to wet yourself screaming he's copying me, he's copying me.

That's just asking to be hated.

[benji]

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.

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.

No, this has shown to be a more accurate measure than actual wins and losses. Of couse they "beat up on bad teams" good teams should do that. And the effect is smaller than you'd think since everybody plays the same teams.

If a team goes 60-22 but all their wins were by one point, they aren't a better team than one that went 50-32 and won all it's games by seven points.

You'd think after the examples given from the last four years in that playoff thread some Heat fan made, one would understand how much more accurate it is. Why do the standings mirror point differential if it doesn't mean anything? Oh. That's right. Because it does.

[Laxation]

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.

im aware they arent random numbers. what im saying is, if i gave you some random numbers in a formula, would you be able to figure out what the formula is called to look it up?
I dont get off on numbers, there is no reason at all why anyone should know this formula. its up to the inidividual if thats how they want to spend their time, and is isnt how I want to spend mine.

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.

so youre saying a maths formula has more relevance in wins and losses, than actual wins and losses?

[tongefactor40]

yeah their D is terrible, i see moments where it looks like it is coming together, but it takes a lot of hard work to play good defense, something most players really do not like to do. the amount of points other teams score in the paint against them is absolutely ridiculous

o well, they are for sale and probably wont be in seattle much longer