Jump to content

carpandean

Members
  • Content Count

    8,524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

About carpandean

  • Rank
    If it ain't worth making a chart, it ain't worth saying.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rochester, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

9,806 profile views
  1. Two interesting points from the comments: 1) What does the rule define as the "hand" in a hand pass? If it went off of the cuff of his glove (basically, his wrist), is it still a hand pass? 2) If it had been ruled a hand pass, then the Sharks should have been going on the powerplay for a clear trip by Bouwmeester on Meier just prior to the alleged hand pass. That being the case, what was basically a 50/50 game goes to, say, 60/40 Sharks win. Obviously, the Blues would rather have a 40% chance than none, but there would still have been a (roughly) 60% chance that they would skating out with a loss.
  2. That's an interesting theory. It does make sense. Without it, that whole exchange seemed sort of random and unnecessary.
  3. But that wrap around ... soooooo close. Ugh.
  4. Well ... Dany's had better days. 😲
  5. It depends on how you interpret the theory. Is it "a new coach can make a team 20% better or 80% worse than they were" or "a coach, new or not, can make a team 20% better or 80% worse than they are"? In other words, a team can change by +20%/-80% from the previous year with a coaching change -or- a team has some basic ability level and a coach can get them to overperform by 20% or underperform by 80%. If it's the former, then you (MSGA) are correct. If it's a latter, and Housley was making them perform at 80% of their ability level, then we could see up to a 500% (20% to 120%) improvement with a coach that can get them to overperform. Certainly, if you have a coach really bad coach, then you wouldn't expect another bad coach to make them 80% worse off. Also, if you went really good, followed by really bad, followed by really good again, then the first interpretation would mean that the team would play at 24% (1.2*(1-0.8)) of the level of the first really good coach under the second really good coach (at least in the short run.) Under the second theory, they would be back to where they were. Probably would be somewhere in between (again, in the short run.)
  6. Since it now has its own thread, I'll restate my questions here ... Was that Tony Stark hammering his original suit in the dessert at the very end of the credits? If so, was it simply symbolic or will it mean that, somehow, some way, he will be back?
  7. Just saw Endgame. It was good, not great, with highs and lows, but I wasn't unhappy about having seen it.
  8. Well, I got to here ... ... and thought you were going to suggest a trade that sent Pettersson to Buffalo. 🤪 Compared to that, anything would seem reasonable. 😉
  9. Fixed. Not quite as literal, but the idea is the same. I believe that was Missandei, replying to Sansa saying that Tyrion's split loyalties to the Dragon Queen would be why their marriage would never work. It was a very sarcastic quip about how there wouldn't be a problem without the Dragon Queen, because they would already all be dead.
  10. Sadly, now. Wish I could stay up for this (were the Sabres playing, I would), but just too much to do too early tomorrow. Glad Vegas tied it after that BS major. Wish they would have won it in regulation on that last rush. OT is just too much of a crap shoot.
  11. Outside of those 10 games, they both had 56 points.
  12. I, too, think they're 'super' ...
  13. And neither one had anything approaching these:
×
×
  • Create New...