Sample size

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Sample size

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyceltic. Show kyceltic's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

      Yeah, but you're a writer, what do you know!!  Sarcasm off.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from cavaliersfan. Show cavaliersfan's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    This year and other past years the Celtics were "hiding in the weeds".  The older stars are interested in getting regular season games out of the way so they can get to the Playoffs.  The other players follow suit, Rajon Rondo included.  Remember stretches last year where the C's looked pitiful but made it to the EC Finals anyway.  When Rondo exited with the injury, a sense of urgency was created and we got to see the real Celtics.  Hence, the long winning streak.  Believe me the Celtics are better with Rondo, even though he has some defficiencies mixed in with his outstanding qualities.


     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.



    I think you may be right.  I do think this team if in the playoffs with another big man would be dangerous.  I now think we may not find out. Danny is choking on his horrific misguided signing  of Bass.  Bass for those who want to believe in fantasy was not that good. He was limited and now is catatonic.  A bench player for almost seven million.  He is untradeable.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: Sample size

    While I liked our chances with Rondo, I don't think we get out of the first round without him.  Mind you, if we play the Heat, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.....but I think WITH Rondo, we get higher than the 8 seed.

    "You are what your record says you are" - Bill Parcells

    And we are a .500 team that can win or lose on any given night!

     

    Can we blow it up now??

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Sample size

    If we are a 500 team with RR and a 500 team without,  sounds like someone we wouldn't miss.  Would we still be a 500 team without KG or without PP.  Doubtful.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from cavaliersfan. Show cavaliersfan's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

     

    If we are a 500 team with RR and a 500 team without,  sounds like someone we wouldn't miss.  Would we still be a 500 team without KG or without PP.  Doubtful.

     

    I agree 100% with your last point.  Let's hope they stay healthy.  But C's are "hiding in the weeds". They are still better than .500  .


     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jtkl. Show jtkl's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for .727winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to play about .277 for the rest of the season (5-13) to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm never on.  

     



    Yeah, so? They improved the second half of the season last year as well. Maybe this is just when the old team makes its run. Correlation does not equal causation.

    Doesn't matter anyway though. Rondo looks like he is staying. So those of us who enjoy him will continue to watch him perform. While those who dislike him will just have to gnash their teeth and watch him perform. 

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for .727winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to play about .277 for the rest of the season (5-13) to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm never on.  

     

     



     

    Yeah, so? They improved the second half of the season last year as well. Maybe this is just when the old team makes its run. Correlation does not equal causation.

    Doesn't matter anyway though. Rondo looks like he is staying. So those of us who enjoy him will continue to watch him perform. While those who dislike him will just have to gnash their teeth and watch him perform. 

     

    Because I evalute that the C's play better without Rondo, as the numbers above prove out, doesn't mean that I don't like him. It just means I don't lie to myself about what I see with my own eyes. He doesn't make his teammates better. He limits their contributions/stats while padding his own.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Sample size

    We will struggle mightily without a big man coming in. Maybe Darko is coming back?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to concord27's comment:

    We will struggle mightily without a big man coming in. Maybe Darko is coming back?


    Regardless of whether or not Rondo plays for the C's again, IF WE DON"T get that BIG MAN, we will not be a factor.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eldunker. Show Eldunker's posts

    Re: Sample size

    Rondo shmondo.

    Danny FAILED to get a big.

    with Garnett trying to hold up the center position and Bass at PF, we are not going anywhere in the playoffs.

    So Danny wrote off this year and apparently has other longer term plans to improve the team.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to kyceltic's comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

      Yeah, but you're a writer, what do you know!!  Sarcasm off.


     



    Great post.

    I can't even tell if that was supposed to be an insult.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    If we are a 500 team with RR and a 500 team without,  sounds like someone we wouldn't miss.  Would we still be a 500 team without KG or without PP.  Doubtful.



    My point is that this team is a 500 team.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     


    Your post doesn't say that at all. It implies that the team is no better with or without Rondo. To the contrary, the numbers prove out that we would have been much better off if RR went down much sooner. Looks like you confused yourself. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     

     


    Your post doesn't say that at all. It implies that the team is no better with or without Rondo. To the contrary, the numbers prove out that we would have been much better off if RR went down much sooner. Looks like you confused yourself. 

     



    No. my point is that I think the Celtics are going to play very poorly the rest of the year. Which is why I keep talking about sample size.  The Celtics are a horrible road team and they only have 12 left at home all year.

    Thats why I am talking about sample size.  I think they will be under 500 the rest of the year.

    Should have blown it up.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     

     


    Your post doesn't say that at all. It implies that the team is no better with or without Rondo. To the contrary, the numbers prove out that we would have been much better off if RR went down much sooner. Looks like you confused yourself. 

     

     



    No. my point is that I think the Celtics are going to play very poorly the rest of the year. Which is why I keep talking about sample size.  The Celtics are a horrible road team and they only have 12 left at home all year.

     

    Thats why I am talking about sample size.  I think they will be under 500 the rest of the year.

    Should have blown it up.

     


    With 28-games left, yes, it could fall that way, BUT our present 8-3 sample is still encouraging enough to keep some hope that they will compete. No miracles here, I agree, but they still have a chance to be a major factor in these playoffs. No BIG, no real chance......unfortunately.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     

     


    Your post doesn't say that at all. It implies that the team is no better with or without Rondo. To the contrary, the numbers prove out that we would have been much better off if RR went down much sooner. Looks like you confused yourself. 

     

     



    No. my point is that I think the Celtics are going to play very poorly the rest of the year. Which is why I keep talking about sample size.  The Celtics are a horrible road team and they only have 12 left at home all year.

     

    Thats why I am talking about sample size.  I think they will be under 500 the rest of the year.

    Should have blown it up.

     


    With 18-games left, yes, it could fall that way, BUT our present 8-3 sample is still encouraging enough to keep some hope that they will compete. No miracles here, I agree, but they still have a chance to be a major factor in these playoffs. No BIG, no real chance......unfortunately.

     



    See man I think this is a very average team and if they didn't have that little win streak they might have blown it up.

    Worst thing that could have happened. they will wind up at 41 and 41 and go out in the first round.

    Bums me out.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Sample size

    Looking at the rest of the schedule, it looks like they may finish 2-4 games above .500.  They got a gunner SG and lost (laughably) a big that could at least give them minutes in Collins.  The equivalent of Ryan Hollins when the buyouts come isn't gonna do much for this team.  I realise Danny can't just make trades for the sake of making trades, but this team as consituted isn't scaring anyone and I can't see them doing much in the playoffs.   They are just good enough to tread water, and I guess that's all we could hope for with injuries and lack of able bodied replacements. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Sample size

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Somehow I don't think the Celtics are going to continue to play well over the rest of the year.

    Who knew? I mean I thought when Rondo went down everything was fixed and they were going to contend for a championship.

    Do you think it's possible that this 500 team with Rondo is a 500 team without Rondo?

    I would be blown away if that turned out to be true.

     

    Sarcasm off.

     

    Snake,

    So, to answer your question it first has to based in fact, which is the C's pre-Rondo ACL were 20-23 for .465 winning percentage, and not a .500 Team. Also, the C's since Rondo went down for the year are 8-3 for a .727 winning percentage. So, the C's would have to go 6-12 (.333PCT) in their last 18 to bring their "without Rondo" record down to your .500 mark, and they'd have to go about .277 (5-13) the rest of the season to drop to the "Before Rondo went down" .465. Based on these facts, NO, I do not believe the C's are merely a .500 Team without Rondo.  As a matter of fact, if the C's only go .500 over the last 18-games, they will still have played at a .586 pct. since RR went down during a "sample size" of 39-games! That's .475 PCT of entire season. That a big enough sample size for ya? Sarcasm was never on.  

     

     



    As always you aren't gettting my point.  This years team is mediocre either way.  

     

     


    Your post doesn't say that at all. It implies that the team is no better with or without Rondo. To the contrary, the numbers prove out that we would have been much better off if RR went down much sooner. Looks like you confused yourself. 

     

     



    No. my point is that I think the Celtics are going to play very poorly the rest of the year. Which is why I keep talking about sample size.  The Celtics are a horrible road team and they only have 12 left at home all year.

     

    Thats why I am talking about sample size.  I think they will be under 500 the rest of the year.

    Should have blown it up.

     


    With 18-games left, yes, it could fall that way, BUT our present 8-3 sample is still encouraging enough to keep some hope that they will compete. No miracles here, I agree, but they still have a chance to be a major factor in these playoffs. No BIG, no real chance......unfortunately.

     

     



    See man I think this is a very average team and if they didn't have that little win streak they might have blown it up.

     

    Worst thing that could have happened. they will wind up at 41 and 41 and go out in the first round.

    Bums me out.

     


    I feel ya. I just believe that we will still play better than .500 moving forward AND RR going down has forced DOC to play the others and really see what they have to offer. JG may never have been on his way the way he is today hadn't this happened. With PP showing a sharp decline is a comin', that is so important. AB, C-Lee, JT getting real time is valuable as we move forward. Over all, a tough year, yes. But in the end, it will prove invaluable in so many ways moving forward.

     

     

Share