Toggle sidebar

Congratulations Coach Stansbury...

O

Ol Blue.sixpack

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
1,681
0
0
I saw every game of the SEC tourney, and nobody coached their team better - or harder - than you.

Yesterday, every time-out you used resulted in good looks and - I believe - a score. I was impressed with your half court sets and the number of good shots they generated against one of the most athletic and best defensive teams in the country.

I was most impressed with the way you game-planned Wall.He wasn't able to attack the rim the way he likes.The best look he had all day was on the steal he made towards the end of regulation - which happens to be one of the few coaching moves you made that I disagreed with. Why put Benock in there then?

At any rate, you coached your *** off and your players played their asses off.

You got screwed in the end by Florida. But congratulations are still in order.
 
O

Ol Blue.sixpack

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
1,681
0
0
I saw every game of the SEC tourney, and nobody coached their team better - or harder - than you.

Yesterday, every time-out you used resulted in good looks and - I believe - a score. I was impressed with your half court sets and the number of good shots they generated against one of the most athletic and best defensive teams in the country.

I was most impressed with the way you game-planned Wall.He wasn't able to attack the rim the way he likes.The best look he had all day was on the steal he made towards the end of regulation - which happens to be one of the few coaching moves you made that I disagreed with. Why put Benock in there then?

At any rate, you coached your *** off and your players played their asses off.

You got screwed in the end by Florida. But congratulations are still in order.
 
S

SLUdog

Redshirt
May 28, 2007
2,149
9
38
I just wish Coach Stans could have finished better than 1 game above .500 in the SEC during the regular season or maybe have had his team ready to play Rider at home in the first game. <div>
</div><div>The Benock play does boggle the mind. That was huge. </div>
 
D

Dawgbreeze

Redshirt
Jun 11, 2007
1,655
0
0
I guess it is easy when your beloved Cats get the title and should have lost again. As far as the guy who said MSU was one game above .500 in the league, I think we finished 9-7 but what else could be expected from this board.
 
D

DawgMedic

Redshirt
Jan 1, 2008
249
0
0
We finished one game above .500 by winning the last game. Had we lost that game we'd be 8-8. Comprende, amigo?Or am I speaking a different language?</p>
 
dawgstudent

dawgstudent

Heisman
Apr 15, 2003
39,203
18,275
113
I think the vote was 50/50 on in the situation provided, are you 1 or 2 games above .500. I can't remember why we thought it was 2 games above .500 but that's the way I have always understood it.
 
M

MSUCostanza

Redshirt
Jan 10, 2007
5,706
0
0
because if you are 8-7, what are you? 1/2 a game above .500? That sounds stupid.

9-7 is 2 games above .500, because if you lost your next 2 games, you'd be at .500 (9-9).
 
O

Optimus Prime 4

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
8,560
0
0
half game over .500? Does it sound stupid to say the Cubs are 5.5 games behind St. Louis?

.500 in conference play is 8-8. That's fixed, it can't be changed.
 
S

SLUdog

Redshirt
May 28, 2007
2,149
9
38
another game we are 8-8...winning one more game made us 9-7. The fact is we are a miracle shot at LSU away from 8-8 in SEC play. I'm glad we made it, but in the end it meant nothing because we obviously needed at least 10-6 and a 2nd place finish in the SECT to make the NCAAT. <div>
</div><div>Edited to add: Forget that I phrased it that way because it doesn't matter. IF anyone here thinks finishing 9-7 when we played in the SECW this year was good enough THIS YEAR at MSU then he has too low of expectations for this team and its coach. It is not thinking much of Rick Stansbury to believe that 9-7 was a good conference record for this team. We couldn't get the big win at home vs. UK or UT. We couldn't take care business on the road against ****** teams (Ark & Aub, barely escaped LSU)....oh well...we did beat UM on the road (a pretty good team)....and believe me I love Rick's record against the Rebels.</div><div>
</div><div>I like Rick Stansbury and think he should still be our coach, however, the facts are facts. It's disappointing and if he isn't disappointed by this team's year then he needs to get another job. I suspect he is. </div>
 
dawgstudent

dawgstudent

Heisman
Apr 15, 2003
39,203
18,275
113
I don't get where you think I wasn't.

I just remember someone having a reason why it was 1 game above.
 
L

lawdawg02

Redshirt
Jan 23, 2007
4,120
0
0
9-7 is one game over .500. When talking about records, 1 win or loss counts as a half game in above/below speak. When one team is 9-7 and another is 8-7, they are a half game back, not 1 game, even though if they win the next 1 game, they'll be tied.
 
vhdawg

vhdawg

All-Conference
Sep 29, 2004
4,380
1,801
113
If Team A is leading and Team B is trailing, Games Back is determined as follows:

GB = [(WinsA - Wins B)+(Losses B - LossesA)] / 2

Or, to put it in words a different way, you average the absolute values of the difference between wins, and the difference between losses.

Example 1:

Team A is 10-7, Team B is 9-7.

W: 10-9 = 1; L: 7-7=0

Add 'em and divide by two:

(1+0)/2 = 1/2, or a half game back.


Example 2:

In 2009, St. Louis finished at 91-71, the Cubs at 83-78:

GB = [(91 - 83) + (78 - 71)] / 2

= [8 + 7] / 2

= 7 1/2, which is exactly what you'd see here.
 
vhdawg

vhdawg

All-Conference
Sep 29, 2004
4,380
1,801
113
You're right that 9-7 is one game above 8-8, but 9-7 is TWO games above .500.

The difference is that the first is referencing two teams' records against one another; the second is referencing one team's record versus itself. It's asking how many games has this team (effectively) won since it was at .500, or alternately, how many games would it need to lose to be at .500, with two being the answer to both.

One team:

W-L = # games above/below .500

Two teams:

GB=[(WinsA-WinsB) + (LossesB-LossesA)] / 2, how many games back Team B is of Team A.
 
vhdawg

vhdawg

All-Conference
Sep 29, 2004
4,380
1,801
113
But 9-7 is two games above .500 because if YOU are 9-7, then YOU could not have been 8-8. The only .500 YOU could have been is 7-7. So YOU are two games above .500, while at the same time being ONE game above some fictional team that's 8-8.

Three true statements:

1. Ole Miss and State are 9-7, which is two games above .500.

2. Arkansas is 7-9, which is two games below .500.

3. Ole Miss and State are two games ahead of Arkansas.

[Edit: Arkasnas spelling FAIL]
 
A

anon1751035439

Redshirt
Mar 16, 2009
974
0
0
When a team is 9-7, how many consecutive loses does it take to reach .500? Two. Therefore, at 9-7 you are two games above .500. QED.
 
P

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
55,755
24,642
113
Games back in baseball and games over (or under) .500. They are not the same. An 8-8 team is 1 game back of a 9-7 team, but the 9-7 team is 2 games above .500.
 
P

paindonthurt_

All-Conference
Jun 27, 2009
9,528
2,045
113
I too thought we played well in the tournament. I too thought we were coached well in the tournament.

The fact remains we didn't make it to the big dance and we should have been guaranteed a spot before the SECT started.

We underachieved.
 
T

Tds &amp; Beer

Redshirt
Jan 26, 2010
1,082
0
0
of 9-7 is one game ahead of a team that is 8-8, because if they had lost their last game they would also be 8-8. However when talking about being .500, 9-7 is two games above .500 even though it is one game away from 8-8. </p>
 
O

Optimus Prime 4

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
8,560
0
0
the season, yes I would agree with you. But to end the season, 8-8 is the only possible .500 record. And what is one game over that?

It's all semantics, and I really don't care that much. Mostly just being devil's advocate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom