<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 09:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand your point here...If a team is 47-35 than they are 12 games over .500...</div> You're wrong. .500 is the medium, think of percentages. When you are 2-3, you have won 2 of your 5 games... which is 20%. That means .200. The Raptors won 12 more games than they lost, but they were only 6 games above .500. Playa's post above REALLY should help you understand this. Total Games Played divided by 2 = .500 82 divided by 2 = 41 41 is half of 82... which means 50%... which means .500 47 is 6 more than 41. PLEASE tell me you understand everything now. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You guys are thinking in a different way than me..</div> The point of this is that you're "way of thinking" is incorrect. We're trying to help you understand it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jul 7 2007, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're wrong. .500 is the medium, think of percentages. When you are 2-3, you have won 2 of your 5 games... which is 20%. That means .200. The Raptors won 12 more games than they lost, but they were only 6 games above .500.Playa's post above REALLY should help you understand this.Total Games Played divided by 2 = .50082 divided by 2 = 4141 is half of 82... which means 50%... which means .50047 is 6 more than 41. PLEASE tell me you understand everything now.</div>Okay...I don't think in that way though...I'm simply saying that we had 12 more wins than losses...so we would need 12 straight losses to get back to .500
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay...I don't think in that way though...I'm simply saying that we had 12 more wins than losses...so we would need 12 straight losses to get back to .500</div>So you would be playing 94 games.You would be right if that were the case.But if you take off wins, you add losses and vice versa.... :no1:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay...I don't think in that way though...I'm simply saying that we had 12 more wins than losses...so we would need 12 straight losses to get back to .500</div> But again, I'm just trying to let you know that your way of thinking about this is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, there is only one correct way to calculate this.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay...I don't think in that way though...I'm simply saying that we had 12 more wins than losses...so we would need 12 straight losses to get back to .500</div>if we lost 12, our record would be 35-47. Cb4, our win percentage is .573, meaning were not that much over .500, meaning the Celtic fans are right.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jul 7 2007, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But again, I'm just trying to let you know that your way of thinking about this is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, there is only one correct way to calculate this.</div>I'm not the one getting techical here...and btw I got a B+ in math.I understand what you guys are saying, but we're talking about two different ways of thinking.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not the one getting techical here...and btw I got a B+ in math. I understand what you guys are saying, but we're talking about two different ways of thinking.</div> And for the 3rd or 4th time, your way of thinking about this is wrong. No way around it. I'm curious though, do you understand it all now?
I still cant believe people are underestimating the Raptors!!! we started off horribly to the season but from the beginning of 2007, correct me if im wrong but the Raptors had the best winning percentage in the East by far. Also I hate when people respond saying we didnt do enough in the offseason to improve...what the hell do you expect? We were a winning ball club last year with a bright future...shouldnt we build upon that and add minor pieces along the way to compliment our franchise players?Oh well ill end my rant....heres how I see the east going down this seasonChicagoTorontoDetriotClevelandOrlandoWashingtonNew JerseyMiami
To add to the debate about wheather the Raps were 6 or 12 games over .500 I just go by what all the sport commentators and broadcasters say and for the majority of the time they would say 12 games over .500.....just like the Celtics were 34 games under .500 not 17, no salami and cheese for you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MosDefinitely @ Jul 8 2007, 03:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To add to the debate about wheather the Raps were 6 or 12 games over .500 I just go by what all the sport commentators and broadcasters say and for the majority of the time they would say 12 games over .500.....just like the Celtics were 34 games under .500 not 17, no salami and cheese for you.</div> That is 100% wrong though. That's the thing. Read playofthegame and my posts above, if you still don't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. The Celtics, at 24-58, were 17 games under .500 The Nets, at 41-41, were .500 The Sixers, at 35-47, were 6 games under .500 The Cavs, at 50-32, were 9 games above .500 The point is that this should NOT be a debate because there is only one correct way to calculate this. You and CB4 are wrong. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MosDefinitely @ Jul 8 2007, 03:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I still cant believe people are underestimating the Raptors!!! we started off horribly to the season but from the beginning of 2007, correct me if im wrong but the Raptors had the best winning percentage in the East by far. Also I hate when people respond saying we didnt do enough in the offseason to improve...what the hell do you expect? We were a winning ball club last year with a bright future...shouldnt we build upon that and add minor pieces along the way to compliment our franchise players? Oh well ill end my rant....heres how I see the east going down this season Chicago Toronto Detriot Cleveland Orlando Washington New Jersey Miami</div> Also, you don't think Boston will be in the playoffs.. in the East.. with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Al Jefferson?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MosDefinitely @ Jul 8 2007, 03:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I still cant believe people are underestimating the Raptors!!! we started off horribly to the season but from the beginning of 2007, correct me if im wrong but the Raptors had the best winning percentage in the East by far. Also I hate when people respond saying we didnt do enough in the offseason to improve...what the hell do you expect? We were a winning ball club last year with a bright future...shouldnt we build upon that and add minor pieces along the way to compliment our franchise players?Oh well ill end my rant....heres how I see the east going down this seasonChicagoTorontoDetriotClevelandOrlandoWashingtonNew JerseyMiami</div>The Raptors weren't even close to the best winning percentage in the East.Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago all had better winning percentages. The Raptors are a good team but aren't you guys getting a little cocky now? It wasn't too long ago you guys year after year had one of the worst records in basketball.And for christ's sake they were 6 games over .500 not 12. Why is it so hard to comprehend? 41-41 is .500 and they won 47 games. That's 41 + 6
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 7 2007, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not the one getting techical here...and btw I got a B+ in math.I understand what you guys are saying, but we're talking about two different ways of thinking.</div>lol .500 means the wins and losses are the same, when u say _ games over .500 it means that its 1 win more, 1 loss less for example if it was 1 game over .500 it would be41(+1)-41(-1)42-40 anyways..celtics fans, how do you guys know your team isnt gonna get injured again this year? I think its very likely that your key players will get injured, ray allen is commin off an injury, paul pierce is pretty rusty when he first came off the injury, and he only got to play a bit before the season ended, tony allen is commin off an injury and u only got a few other young guys, so even if your roster seems good, thats only when its fully healthy. maybe you guys will pull off a golden state and have all your guys come back from injury when theres 10-15 games left in the season and qualify for the 8th seed on the last day.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>celtics fans, how do you guys know your team isnt gonna get injured again this year? I think its very likely that your key players will get injured, ray allen is commin off an injury, paul pierce is pretty rusty when he first came off the injury, and he only got to play a bit before the season ended, tony allen is commin off an injury and u only got a few other young guys, so even if your roster seems good, thats only when its fully healthy. maybe you guys will pull off a golden state and have all your guys come back from injury when theres 10-15 games left in the season and qualify for the 8th seed on the last day.</div> OK, let's play devlil's advocate - how do you know that this team will be injury plagued again? You don't know, exactly. I could walk around saying "Well, if Chris Bosh breaks his tail bone and TJ Ford hurts his back again, they might have a bad year!" It's not even like all these guys are injury prone either.<ul>[*]Ray Allen had bone spurs removed, which is a minor surgery that Al Jefferson even had last summer (he was fine wasn't he?), and I believe Ray had his best statistical season last year. If Seattle was a playoff team, he would have played more.[*]When you look at his player file, it tells you that Paul Pierce played 46 or 47 games. When you look at reality, you know that he was fine, but sat out more than he needed to because we sucked and were basically tanking. If we were relevant, Pierce would have played 60+. Also note that this is the FIRST real injury Pierce has had in his entire career.[/list]Also, we've only got a few other guys guys? Just a few? Adding to TA, who you already mentioned: Al Jefferson, Rajon Rondo, Ryan Gomes, Kendrick Perkins, Gerald Green, Glen Davis, Leon Powe, Gabe Pruitt, Sebastian Telfair, Allan Ray. Yup, just a <u>few</u> young guys. You're looking at everything so wrong. You're seeing "24 wins last year, no way this team comes back with a 20 game turnaround." That's not the right way to look at this, because we certainly wouldn't have only won 24 games if guys were healthy... and again, guys sat out longer than they needed to because we sucked and it didn't matter. We were around .500 when healthy and before Pierce went down we even went on a 5-game winning streak last year. Now we're healthy and added a 7-time All-Star to the mix.
I like how you're bragging about your young guys, when what I meant was the young guys were the reason why your team didn't get far last season... So just in case ray or pierce goes down, do you still expect them to fully contribute and play as a real contender?at least toronto has depth, notice how last season when bosh was injured we went 6-6.Pierce gets injured and your team was screwed
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I like how you're bragging about your young guys, when what I meant was the young guys were the reason why your team didn't get far last season... So just in case ray or pierce goes down, do you still expect them to fully contribute and play as a real contender? at least toronto has depth, notice how last season when bosh was injured we went 6-6. Pierce gets injured and your team was screwed</div> You said we have "few young guys," so I listed them. What if Pierce goes down? Yeah... what if Bosh goes down for half the season next year? EDIT: Also, we don't have any depth? We certainly do on the wing with Pierce, Allen, Allen, and Green. Up front, we need an extra big, but Jefferson, Gomes, and Perkins certainly isn't terrible with Powe/Davis as the clean-up men. We need a better backup point guard and an extra big, but we certainly aren't a team that only has 6-7 quality players.
exactly, u need a better pointguard and an extra big. so you're still lacking depth.what's it matter if you have 4 wing players, two of your best players are wing players so its not like the rest are gonna get playing time. plus you guys will be depending on allen and pierce to score, so like I said if one of them goes down you guys wont be so tough, jefferson cant score 30 a game neither can pierce or allen.tony allen or gerald are decent, but they wont be able to replace the scoring of allen or pierce.besides, I dont consider having 10 young guys and like 2 veterans "depth"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>exactly, u need a better pointguard and an extra big. so you're still lacking depth. what's it matter if you have 4 wing players, two of your best players are wing players so its not like the rest are gonna get playing time. plus you guys will be depending on allen and pierce to score, so like I said if one of them goes down you guys wont be so tough, jefferson cant score 30 a game neither can pierce or allen. tony allen or gerald are decent, but they wont be able to replace the scoring of allen or pierce. besides, I dont consider having 10 young guys and like 2 veterans "depth"</div> But our bench has 3-4, possible 5, contributors. We aren't incredibly deep, but again, it's not like we only have 2 guys off the bench and have a 7 man rotation. Secondly, what does an individual scoring 30 a game have to do with ANYTHING? Also, you must be underrating Al Jefferson, like almost everybody, because you also haven't seen him play much. He is a legit post option. We have two stars on the perimeter (Pierce being the slasher, 1-on-1 guy, posting up... Allen being the shooter, moving without the ball, taking the load off Pierce when he's tired) and then a legit post option that we can count on for a double-double every single night in Al Jefferson. Rajon Rondo is a nice young point guard, he plays defense, and I'm perfectly comfortable with him running this team. Perk always working hard, playing solid defense, grabbing boards, and starting breaks with his great outlet passing. Ryan Gomes is consistently giving us what we need off the bench, Gerald Green will be a bit streaky as always but he can be the #1 scorer off the bench, TA giving us the energy/defense when he comes back, Powe/Big Baby as the garbage men. Scal for veteran leadership/experience. I'm not claiming to take over the East here, nor do I think this will be our final roster going into preseason. I'd even put money on it. But to say that this team won't make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference is a joke.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (junot111 @ Jul 8 2007, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>exactly, u need a better pointguard and an extra big. so you're still lacking depth.what's it matter if you have 4 wing players, two of your best players are wing players so its not like the rest are gonna get playing time. plus you guys will be depending on allen and pierce to score, so like I said if one of them goes down you guys wont be so tough, jefferson cant score 30 a game neither can pierce or allen.tony allen or gerald are decent, but they wont be able to replace the scoring of allen or pierce.besides, I dont consider having 10 young guys and like 2 veterans "depth"</div>You clearly know nothing about the team.Pierce in 05/06 had like 10 straight games scoring 30+ so how can he not not handle the scoring load when Allen is out? When he has carried the Celtics for years?Your whole argument is based on "What if 1 of the stars goes down with an injury" when any injuries to them have been minor. If we were a playoff team and didn't lose 18 games in a row while Pierce was out then Pierce would have played around 60-70 games through the pain. Same with Ray Allen and the Sonics.Well we have 2 others to cover for them if say Ray Allen goes down with an injury.Jefferson is certainly capable of 20 points/10 rebounds and maybe a block night in and night out if need be. I'm sure Jefferson could go 25 points a night every now and then if Pierce and Allen both went down but the team would probably still struggle because of lack of veteran leadership but in the end it is such bullsh**, I guarantee it doesn't happen once unless they're resting up for the playoffs.Come on, if Bosh went down for 40 games the Raptors would be trash too. You could say that about any team. Stop being so stubborn and cocky. The Raptors aren't exactly contenders yet. New Jersey and Boston will give you trouble next year, just face it.Would you really rank Bosh/Ford/Bargnani over Pierce/Allen/Jefferson?I don't get how you can say we have no depth just because we're missing 1 or 2 pieces. The Raptors aren't exactly deep outside of their starting 5, and jose calderon.I respect the Raptors as a team but you really need to get over yourself. The Raptors and Chris Bosh aren't end all.You can say what if all you want but in the end we're gonna compete for the division title along with the Raptors, the Nets and the Knicks.
Playa, Al for 25 a night. Come on, bro. EDIT: Also playa, the Raptors are a little better than you're giving them credit for. They are certainly deeper than the starting 5 + Calderon.
