What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:15:41


58% shooting and they still can't win. So this time it's *Kansas* that
has an extraordinary shooting game and yet Iowa State still wins.

I tried to tell you all...I tried to tell you.

5 in a row now...is ISU just flat-out better than Kansas yet? Or did
ISU just win because Kansas happened to commit more turnovers than
usual and darnit if we commit the normal number of turnovers, we win.

Also noticed that KU again didn't defend the 3-point line worth a
damn.

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by tho.. » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:52:16

Quote:
Harrison Bergeron writes:
> 58% shooting and they still can't win.

You failed to mention that not only did Iowa State shoot 53 percent from
three-point range, they were given 16 more trips to the free-throw line
and made 16 more points that way, more than the difference in the final
score.

Quote:
> So this time it's *Kansas* that has an extraordinary shooting game
> and yet Iowa State still wins.

You failed to mention that Iowa State had an extraordinary shooting game
from three-point range.

Quote:
> I tried to tell you all...I tried to tell you.

But we didn't listen, and with good reason, because you don't know what
you're talking about.

Quote:
> 5 in a row now...is ISU just flat-out better than Kansas yet?

How can you make that determination until such time as Gooden and
Axtell are able to play?  Perhaps there will be a rematch in the
Big XII tournament.

Quote:
> Or did ISU just win because Kansas happened to commit more turnovers
> than usual

ISU won because they managed 53 percent from three-point range and 16
more trips to the free-throw line, resulting in 16 more points.

Quote:
> and darnit if we commit the normal number of turnovers, we win.

> Also noticed that KU again didn't defend the 3-point line worth a
> damn.

Incorrect; note that Tinsley was 0 for 4 from three-point range and
1 for 13 overall.  Indeed, one of the CBS announcers commented on more
than one occasion that Boschee was doing a terrific defensive job on
Tinsley.  And to think that you called the Kansas guards "slow and
plodding".  Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, I noticed the insult you stuck in the subject line.  Not
long ago you claimed that you only react that way when personally
attacked, yet in this case, your posting is the first in the thread.
Obviously you were lying again.

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:54:31

Quote:

>Harrison Bergeron writes:

>> 58% shooting and they still can't win.

>You failed to mention that not only did Iowa State shoot 53 percent from
>three-point range,

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.

Quote:
> they were given 16 more trips to the free-throw line
>and made 16 more points that way, more than the difference in the final
>score.

Given? Do you mean to imply they weren't earned?

Quote:
>> So this time it's *Kansas* that has an extraordinary shooting game
>> and yet Iowa State still wins.

>You failed to mention that Iowa State had an extraordinary shooting game
>from three-point range.

How's it extraordinary? It's their second-best performance in two
games against Kansas this year in that regard.

Quote:
>> I tried to tell you all...I tried to tell you.

>But we didn't listen, and with good reason, because you don't know what
>you're talking about.

The facts say I did and do.

Quote:
>> 5 in a row now...is ISU just flat-out better than Kansas yet?

>How can you make that determination until such time as Gooden and
>Axtell are able to play?

If Kansas is better, they should have been able to win at least one. I
see you're still making excuses related to injuries for losses...does
Kansas ever just plain lose for no other reason than they arent' as
good as the other team on that day in that place?

Quote:
>  Perhaps there will be a rematch in the
>Big XII tournament.

Perhaps not...will KU make it to the final? They might run into mighty
Baylor again.

Quote:
>> Or did ISU just win because Kansas happened to commit more turnovers
>> than usual

>ISU won because they managed 53 percent from three-point range and 16
>more trips to the free-throw line, resulting in 16 more points.

Credit to ISU then?

Quote:
>> and darnit if we commit the normal number of turnovers, we win.

>> Also noticed that KU again didn't defend the 3-point line worth a
>> damn.

>Incorrect; note that Tinsley was 0 for 4 from three-point range and
>1 for 13 overall.

Surprising no? Tinsley is a scandalously inconsistent shooter. What
about Sullivan? Power? They shot only 13-for-17, 8-for-10 from 3. ISU
was 10-for-19 as a team from beyond the arc.

Quote:
>  Indeed, one of the CBS announcers commented on more
>than one occasion that Boschee was doing a terrific defensive job on
>Tinsley.

And just *which* CBS announcers would this have been (not that it
matter, I can't recall a CBS guy that knows what they're talking
about)?

Quote:
> And to think that you called the Kansas guards "slow and
>plodding".

They are. So are most of the forwards, really.

Quote:
>Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

I know enough to know that Iowa State is just plain better than
Kansas.

Quote:
>By the way, I noticed the insult you stuck in the subject line.

Who did I personally insult?

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Scott D McClu » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:59:22


: 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....

This was a new game, different things happened.

Congrats to ISU for a good game.  They adjusted nicely when Horton and
Tinsley weren't scoring.

: >You failed to mention that Iowa State had an extraordinary shooting game
: >from three-point range.

: How's it extraordinary? It's their second-best performance in two
: games against Kansas this year in that regard.

Its also far better than their season average.  Something more than
ordinary.

scott
--
+----------------------------------+
|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  |
+----------------------------------+                            PUBLIUS

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:55:28


Quote:



>: 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.

Quote:
>This was a new game, different things happened.

Yeah Kansas shot 58 percent and still couldn't win.

Quote:
>Congrats to ISU for a good game.  They adjusted nicely when Horton and
>Tinsley weren't scoring.

Is Iowa State better than Kansas?

Quote:
>: >You failed to mention that Iowa State had an extraordinary shooting game
>: >from three-point range.

>: How's it extraordinary? It's their second-best performance in two
>: games against Kansas this year in that regard.

>Its also far better than their season average.  Something more than
>ordinary.

Ordinary against Kansas. Maybe it's something about Kansas' defense
that enables them to get good 3-point shots with their best shooters?

53 is hardly extraordinary considering they've already shot over 60
percent from the same range against the same team. Not to mention that
the difference between 11-for-17 and 10-for-19 in real terms is not
much.

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Scott D McClu » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:15:31





: >
: >
: >: 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.

Your credibility sinks to a new low.

: >This was a new game, different things happened.

: Yeah Kansas shot 58 percent and still couldn't win.

Not "couldn't", "didn't."  We also turned the ball over 22 times.

: 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.  Once again, you are simply wrong about the
facts.  But I suppose I just took this out of context.  LOL.

: 53 is hardly extraordinary considering they've already shot over 60
: percent from the same range against the same team. Not to mention that
: the difference between 11-for-17 and 10-for-19 in real terms is not
: much.

Whatever.  53-percent is extraordinary by any reasonable standard --
ISU's season percent, KU's defense percent for the season.

scott
--
+----------------------------------+
|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  |
+----------------------------------+                            PUBLIUS

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:52:18


Quote:






>: >
>: >
>: >: 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!! You said if Iowa State just shoots 50 percent from 3,
Kansas wins! Are you kidding me! You didn't refute the SAME point
above just four posts ago! Jesus ***ing Christ how can you be such a
hypocrite and live with yourself! COME ON!

Quote:
>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.

Quote:
>: >This was a new game, different things happened.

>: Yeah Kansas shot 58 percent and still couldn't win.

>Not "couldn't", "didn't."  We also turned the ball over 22 times.

Semantics. In past tense, they have essentially the same connotation.

Quote:
>: 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. That's what the "them" refers to in the above
citation, in case you got confused.

Quote:
>.  Once again, you are simply wrong about the
>facts.

>  But I suppose I just took this out of context.  LOL.

No, you distorted them.

Quote:
>: 53 is hardly extraordinary considering they've already shot over 60
>: percent from the same range against the same team. Not to mention that
>: the difference between 11-for-17 and 10-for-19 in real terms is not
>: much.

>Whatever.  53-percent is extraordinary by any reasonable standard --
>ISU's season percent, KU's defense percent for the season.

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
points!?

What's more indicative? ISU's performance against everyone else, KU
against everyone else. Or is it KU against ISU?

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by tho.. » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:16

Quote:
Harrison Bergeron writes:
> Yeah Kansas shot 58 percent and still couldn't win.

Which I already explained.  Too bad your reading comprehension isn't
good enough.

Quote:
> Is Iowa State better than Kansas?

Another question I already answered.

Quote:
> Maybe it's something about Kansas' defense that enables them to
> get good 3-point shots with their best shooters?

Tinsley is among their best shooters, and he was 0 for 4 from
three-point range.  Of course, I said that already as well.
 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by tho.. » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:39:06

Quote:
Harrison Bergeron writes:
> Jesus ***ing Christ

Just how foul can you mouth get, Harrison?

Quote:
> how can you be such a hypocrite and live with yourself!

How ironic.
 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Scott D McClu » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:48:57






: >


: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: 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!!

*snip*

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
of context.

: >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:

ISU STATISTICS
---------------
3-point FG% (for the entire season) -- 44% (160-363)
3-point FG% (for the conf. season)  -- 46% ( 89-193)

KANSAS STATISTICS
-----------------
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
: >facts.
: >
: >  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
: points!?

You can't judge a number by comparing it to itself.  That simply facllacious
reasoning.

: 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
--
+----------------------------------+
|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  |
+----------------------------------+                            PUBLIUS

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Scott D McClu » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:52:03

: Tinsley is among their best shooters, and he was 0 for 4 from
: three-point range.  Of course, I said that already as well.

I wanted to clarify one part of this.  Tinsley is actually *not* that
great of a shooter.  His season stats:

FG%   -- 39%
3 FG% -- 38%
FT%   -- 71%

These numbers are low relative to many of the other players on his
team.  

That said, Tinsley is capable of huge nights shooting the ball.  He
strikes me as being very streaky.

--
+----------------------------------+
|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  |
+----------------------------------+                            PUBLIUS

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:58:16


Quote:







>: >


>: >: >
>: >: >
>: >: >: 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!!

>*snip*

>Go read the original post.  It was about two games, hence the title
>"Big 12 Musings" rather than "Kansas Musings" or something else.

But you were talking about the Iowa State game when you made the
comment. I don't care what the rest of the posts were about.

Quote:
>: 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
>of context.

Whatever. Keep dancing.

Quote:
>: >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.

*** you.

Quote:
>  OTOH, I have a long record of being taken seriously
>on this board.  Why?  Because I have credibility.

Good for you. I don't care. Why is this relevant to your complete lack
of honesty on the above point?

Quote:
>: >: 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:

>ISU STATISTICS
>---------------
>3-point FG% (for the entire season) -- 44% (160-363)
>3-point FG% (for the conf. season)  -- 46% ( 89-193)

53% is not at all an outlier here.

Quote:
>KANSAS STATISTICS
>-----------------
>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.

NO, they are not. You have comparing them to Kansas' games against
everyone (Washburn, North Dakota, etc etc etc). I am comparing only
Iowa State/Kansas games.

11-for-17 and 10-for-19. That's what ISU has shot against Kansas this
year. How can you say the LOWER percentage is extraordinary when it is
the worse of the two performances against Kansas?

Quote:
>: 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.

Irrelevant facts, but facts.

Quote:
>: >.  Once again, you are simply wrong about the
>: >facts.
>: >
>: >  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?

Yep. They didn't. You might be able to argue one, but not the most
recent one.

Quote:
>: 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
>: points!?

>You can't judge a number by comparing it to itself.  That simply facllacious
>reasoning.

I'm not. I'm comparing it to the other percentage they shot against
Kansas, which was higher.

Quote:
>: 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.

I'M NOT! I'm comparing it to the OTHER game ISU played against KU?!
Jesus ***ing Christ you're worse than tholen. At least he tells the
truth in an annoyingly painstaking manner. You just outright lie.
 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Harrison Berger » Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:58:51


Quote:


>: Tinsley is among their best shooters, and he was 0 for 4 from
>: three-point range.  Of course, I said that already as well.

>I wanted to clarify one part of this.  Tinsley is actually *not* that
>great of a shooter.  His season stats:

>FG%   -- 39%
>3 FG% -- 38%
>FT%   -- 71%

>These numbers are low relative to many of the other players on his
>team.  

>That said, Tinsley is capable of huge nights shooting the ball.  He
>strikes me as being very streaky.

What analysis...btw, I already said this.
 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by Scott D McClu » Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:08:51



: But you were talking about the Iowa State game when you made the
: comment. I don't care what the rest of the posts were about.

: >: 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
: >of context.

: Whatever. Keep dancing.

You *just* acknoweldged (in the above sentence) that I was only talking
about a single game at that point.  Seems to me that you can't even
keep your own argument straight.

: >Because you're deluded -- your credibility isn't nearly as high as
: >you think it is.

: *** you.

Oooohhhhh the irony.

: >  OTOH, I have a long record of being taken seriously
: >on this board.  Why?  Because I have credibility.

: Good for you. I don't care. Why is this relevant to your complete lack
: of honesty on the above point?

What lack of honesty?  Precisely?  I was talking about a single game.

: >The *real* facts:
: >
: >ISU STATISTICS
: >---------------
: >3-point FG% (for the entire season) -- 44% (160-363)
: >3-point FG% (for the conf. season)  -- 46% ( 89-193)

: 53% is not at all an outlier here.

7-percentage points over their conference average; 9-percentage
points over their season average.  Outlier.

: >KANSAS STATISTICS
: >-----------------
: >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.

: NO, they are not. You have comparing them to Kansas' games against
: everyone (Washburn, North Dakota, etc etc etc). I am comparing only
: Iowa State/Kansas games.

: 11-for-17 and 10-for-19. That's what ISU has shot against Kansas this
: year. How can you say the LOWER percentage is extraordinary when it is
: the worse of the two performances against Kansas?

You cannot compare one number to itself.

The question -- was ISU's performance against KU typical or atypical
for ISU.

The standard of comparision -- ISU performance against KU versus its
performance as a team.

The answer -- Yes, it was an exceptional shooting performance.

: >Which fact did I distort exactly?  The fact that ISU had extraordinary
: >shooting nights agaist Kansas?

: Yep. They didn't. You might be able to argue one, but not the most
: recent one.

Let's put this to a vote.  Does anyone else agree?

: >You can't judge a number by comparing it to itself.  That simply facllacious
: >reasoning.

: I'm not. I'm comparing it to the other percentage they shot against
: Kansas, which was higher.

Then all you can conclude is whether their shooting performance one night
was better than their performance another night.  OK, sure, but that
highlights my point about the original game.  

Now, were both nights exceptional relative to how ISU normally performs?
Yep.  Any other comparison doesn't make sense.

scott
--
+----------------------------------+
|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  |
+----------------------------------+                            PUBLIUS

 
 
 

What's the Chickens' excuse this time?

Post by tho.. » Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:55:45

Harrison Bergeron writes [to Scott McClurg]:

Quote:
> *** you.

Another classic Harrison argument.

Quote:
> Jesus ***ing Christ

Another classic Harrison argument.

Quote:
> you're worse than tholen.

That's not saying much, given that I'm not bad.

Quote:
> At least he tells the truth

As opposed to what you tell.  For example, you falsely accused me of
starting the point guard thread.

Quote:
> in an annoyingly painstaking manner.

What is allegedly annoying about the truth, Harrison?  Perhaps
annoying to you when you can't support your claims, but hey,
that's just you.

Quote:
> You just outright lie.

Where did Scott allegedly lie, Harrison?