: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: Yeah so? Why should I be surprised? They shot better than that the
: >: >: first time against Kansas...McClurg said if ISU just shoots 50
: >: >: percent, KU wins...they can't even hold them to that.
: >: >
: >: >In *that* game, Harrison. If they shot 50-percent in that game....
: >: Waffle.
: >Now you're just being stupid. I'm sorry, but we were talking about
: >two games in that thread -- KU-Baylor, MU-OSU. For someone who
: >cries about being taken out of context so regularly, you feel just
: >fine doing it when talking about someone else.
: Bullshit! Total bullshit! You were talking about KU-Iowa State and no
: one else!!
Go read the original post. It was about two games, hence the title
"Big 12 Musings" rather than "Kansas Musings" or something else.
: You said if Iowa State just shoots 50 percent from 3,
: Kansas wins!
I still believe that is true for the first game, the only game where
I made such a point.
I never said, "We could beat ISU all the time if they just shot 50%
from the 3-point arc." The closest thing I said to a more general
claim about when Kansas would beat ISU is if it became a game waged
purely on the inside. To pretend that I said anything else is
simply wrong and it comes because you've taken the whole thing out
: >Your credibility sinks to a new low.
: I'm not sure whether to thing this ironic, sad, funny or maddening. I
: cannot believe what I just read from you above. I just can't.
Because you're deluded -- your credibility isn't nearly as high as
you think it is. OTOH, I have a long record of being taken seriously
on this board. Why? Because I have credibility. I'm not completely
unbiased, but I admit when someone proves me wrong and I don't generally
jump all over people (my earlier bouts with Judden being the primary
exception until now).
: >: Ordinary against Kansas. Maybe it's something about Kansas' defense
: >: that enables them to get good 3-point shots with their best shooters?
: >Well, go check our season statistics. It will show that 50% is hardly
: >ordinary against Kansas
: It is for Iowa State.
The *real* facts:
3-point FG% (for the entire season) -- 44% (160-363)
3-point FG% (for the conf. season) -- 46% ( 89-193)
3-point FG% against (entire season) -- 34%
3-point FG% against (conf. season) -- 38%
50% is much better than average; 57% is *way* better than average.
Slice it, dice it, chop it up -- these numbers are irrefutable evidence
that the claim of "ordinary" is simply wrong.
: That's what the "them" refers to in the above
: citation, in case you got confused.
Those were the facts, just in case you got confused.
: >. Once again, you are simply wrong about the
: > But I suppose I just took this out of context. LOL.
: No, you distorted them.
Which fact did I distort exactly? The fact that ISU had extraordinary
shooting nights agaist Kansas?
: But not ISU's previous performance against Kansas. There are only two
: samples of this, and the lowest is 53 percent. So how can 53 percent
: be extraordinary when it is in fact the lesser of the two data
You can't judge a number by comparing it to itself. That simply facllacious
: What's more indicative? ISU's performance against everyone else, KU
: against everyone else. Or is it KU against ISU?
Well, when you want to talk about "ordinary" versus "extraordinary", you
compare the event you're interested in to the "ordinary." If its way
different, then its extraordinary. You can't compare a number to itself.
|Scott D. McClurg, PhD | "It is in vain to say that
|Visiting Lecturer | enlightened statesmen will be able
|Department of Political Science | to adjust...clashing interests and
|Washington University, St. Louis | render them all subservient to the
|Phone: (314) 831-3006 | public good. Enlightened statesmen
|WWW: artsci.wustl.edu/~sdmcclur |