Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
I went to it, but didn't respond.

really not the best way to figure who should have gone where, because like in the case of Woods, he rarely if ever played.

But good work. I don't have the patience to do that sorta stuff anymore. Either that of my attention span is too


hey, does anyone think that we should trade for a lottery ticket is mine I'm going to win the thing about society is that we are all under a microscope.
 

·
Jib and thrust
Joined
·
7,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
I went to it, but didn't respond.

really not the best way to figure who should have gone where, because like in the case of Woods, he rarely if ever played.

But good work. I don't have the patience to do that sorta stuff anymore. Either that of my attention span is too


hey, does anyone think that we should trade for a lottery ticket is mine I'm going to win the thing about society is that we are all under a microscope.

OK, before I get the "not good indicator" replies from here........let me say this loud and clear.


THIS WAS JUST BASED OFF OF EFFICIENCY RATINGS............I REALIZE PT, POTENTIAL, AND DEPTH OF TEAM ALL HAVE AN EFFECT.........THIS WAS MADE JUST TO SEE SOME SURPRISING ROOKIE RESULTS
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!



OK, before I get the "not good indicator" replies from here........let me say this loud and clear.


THIS WAS JUST BASED OFF OF EFFICIENCY RATINGS............I REALIZE PT, POTENTIAL, AND DEPTH OF TEAM ALL HAVE AN EFFECT.........THIS WAS MADE JUST TO SEE SOME SURPRISING ROOKIE RESULTS
I know, thats why I said "good work".
 

·
Jib and thrust
Joined
·
7,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!


I know, thats why I said "good work".

I know you understood it.....but even in the thread I created it, I said so a few times, and yet some still didn't get the whole point. I just wanted to make it loud and clear here, in case some missed it, what my intentions were.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!



I know you understood it.....but even in the thread I created it, I said so a few times, and yet some still didn't get the whole point. I just wanted to make it loud and clear here, in case some missed it, what my intentions were.
ok, I knew. just making sure you knew I knew, and now that I know you knew I knew, well, you know i know you knew that I knew, therefore, you now know that I know that you knew I knew that you didn't suggest that it was a 100% clear cut case that the rankings were because you knew thats how they were, but that you knew based on their efficiency ratings.

Know what I mean?
 

·
Jib and thrust
Joined
·
7,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!


ok, I knew. just making sure you knew I knew, and now that I know you knew I knew, well, you know i know you knew that I knew, therefore, you now know that I know that you knew I knew that you didn't suggest that it was a 100% clear cut case that the rankings were because you knew thats how they were, but that you knew based on their efficiency ratings.

Know what I mean?
I know you know that I know that you know that I know this........:yes:
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
I don't think that's the best way to judge which draftees will have the best careers, man.

Did you consider issues like playing time, who they had to play behind and potential?

:devil:
 

·
Jib and thrust
Joined
·
7,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
I don't think that's the best way to judge which draftees will have the best careers, man.

Did you consider issues like playing time, who they had to play behind and potential?

:devil:

Either you are joking, and if you are, I apologize in advance.


BUT YOU CANNOT BE THIS THICKHEADED. HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DO I NEED TO GET. I SAID THIS WAS AN ORDER OF EFFICIENCY. THEN IN REPLYING TO HAP, I MADE IT VERY LARGE, LOUD, AND CLEAR THAT ITS NOT SAYING/PREDICTING WHO WILL HAVE A BETTER CAREER OR TAKING INTO EFFECT WHAT THE SITUATION FOR EACH PLAYER WAS!!!!!!!!!!

THIS WAS JUST BASED OFF OF EFFICIENCY RATINGS............I REALIZE PT, POTENTIAL, AND DEPTH OF TEAM ALL HAVE AN EFFECT.........THIS WAS MADE JUST TO SEE SOME SURPRISING ROOKIE RESULTS
And once again, if you were just joking I apologize. Ive had to answer to this at least half a dozen times already. I tried everything, yet some people just don't get it. Bold, BIG FONT SIZE, everything.......it just pisses me off......
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,117 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!

BUT YOU CANNOT BE THIS THICKHEADED. HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DO I NEED TO GET.......
Trust me, you don't want to get Min hot at you. You may as well be relegated to solitary in the bbb cyber-hell. I feel for ya, dude, I really do.

Saaay, how 'bout dem Bulls? :D
 

·
Jib and thrust
Joined
·
7,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!


Trust me, you don't want to get Min hot at you. You may as well be relegated to solitary in the bbb cyber-hell. I feel for ya, dude, I really do.

Saaay, how 'bout dem Bulls? :D

Like I said, to Minstrel, if he was joking, I am sorry.


BUT WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET MY POINT ACROSS THAT ITS JUST TO SHOW SOME SURPRISING RESULTS FROM SOME SURPRISING ROOKIES!!!!!


I bolded it, I enlarged it, yet NO ONE(minus Hap) has gotten the point. :upset: :upset: :upset: :upset:
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!

Either you are joking, and if you are, I apologize in advance.
Apologize for what?

BUT YOU CANNOT BE THIS THICKHEADED. HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DO I NEED TO GET.
Oh no you di'in't! Tell me you did not just do that!

I SAID THIS WAS AN ORDER OF EFFICIENCY. THEN IN REPLYING TO HAP, I MADE IT VERY LARGE, LOUD, AND CLEAR THAT ITS NOT SAYING/PREDICTING WHO WILL HAVE A BETTER CAREER OR TAKING INTO EFFECT WHAT THE SITUATION FOR EACH PLAYER WAS!!!!!!!!!!
I know. I saw that. All I'm saying is, you need to take into account things like rookie playing time and, most importantly, potential. Some of them will improve more than others, you know! :yes:

And once again, if you were just joking I apologize. Ive had to answer to this at least half a dozen times already. I tried everything, yet some people just don't get it. Bold, BIG FONT SIZE, everything.......it just pisses me off......
I forgive you, my son. Because I am enlightened, and I have only love in my heart for my fellow man. Bask in my warmth, and you shall be...uh...warmed.

;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,117 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
...BUT WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET MY POINT ACROSS THAT ITS JUST TO SHOW SOME SURPRISING RESULTS FROM SOME SURPRISING ROOKIES!!!!!
OK, I'll bite.

Actually, it's not all that surprising - all things considered, that is. Shoot, happens every year. For various reasons (individual team needs, lack of talent, weak competition in particular division, etc. etc.), some rooks get many more opportunities than others - regardless of where they were drafted.

For example, if Q-Woods had fallen to the Spurs - and they drafted him - I'm guessing that he would have had a better rating on that little efficiency chart of yours.......
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top