Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nate
While that can be argued, to me, it's not very persuasive argument.
It's a 162-game season. All teams play above, below and at .500 during some stretch.
some truth in what you say but 86 games is a pretty good chunk of this season --- I won't disagree that one can lie with numbers but having watched almost all of their games I feel like I've watched a .500 team except for a hot streak in May against poor teams.
If others are given confidence from this - so be it --- -- and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth ---
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Now the Reds can't even beat bad teams.
Swell.
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Raindog
some truth in what you say but 86 games is a pretty good chunk of this season --- I won't disagree that one can lie with numbers but having watched almost all of their games I feel like I've watched a .500 team except for a hot streak in May against poor teams.
That's a feeling, not the truth. If one lives and dies with every game, then they're probably a .500 team.
The truth, they're one of the best teams in the league. It doesn't matter when you win, just that you win.
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Matt700wlw
Now the Reds can't even beat bad teams.
Swell.
Even though they're 47-24 vs. "bad teams?"
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Are we still debating whether a team that is currently .555 is really a .500 team?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nate
That's a feeling, not the truth. If one lives and dies with every game, then they're probably a .500 team.
The truth, they're one of the best teams in the league. It doesn't matter when you win, just that you win.
The point is valid -- for the last 2/3 of this season they are a .500 team - and yes for the entire season they are better --- I see regression -- you may not.
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Raindog
The point is valid -- for the last 2/3 of this season they are a .500 team - and yes for the entire season they are better --- I see regression -- you may not.
Again, every team is a .500 team for some arbitrary stretch.
Fortunately, they play for the 162-game season, not some arbitrary stretch.
1990 says "hi."
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Raindog
The point is valid -- for the last 2/3 of this season they are a .500 team - and yes for the entire season they are better --- I see regression -- you may not.
Do you think they'll have a .500 record by the end of the season?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NebraskaRed
Do you think they'll have a .500 record by the end of the season?
Now why troll like that?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Raindog
Now why troll like that?
I have no idea how that's trolling. If you say they're a .500 team, wouldn't their record be .500 at the end of the season?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NebraskaRed
I have no idea how that's trolling. If you say they're a .500 team, wouldn't their record be .500 at the end of the season?
but I never said the bold part in the way you imply --- call it what you want.
so why go there?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Raindog
but I never said the bold part in the way you imply --- call it what you want.
so why go there?
You said
Quote:
The point is valid -- for the last 2/3 of this season they are a .500 team - and yes for the entire season they are better --- I see regression -- you may not.
For the last 2/3 of the season they are .500 team and you see regression.
But you're not saying you think they're a .500 team?
Re: Cincinnati-Colorado 9/1/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NebraskaRed
You said
For the last 2/3 of the season they are .500 team and you see regression.
But you're not saying you think they're a .500 team?
sorry -- I don't think I can make you see the light of day