Two game swing?

[David]

Tonight's game against the Kings offers the two game swing that has been talked about on another thread.

The Mavs are 5 games back of the Kings.

After the game, the Mavs will EITHER be 4 games back of the Kings, OR 6 games back of the Kings.

The STARTING POINT is 5. If the Mavs win they add ONE. If they lose, they subtract ONE. The movement is from 5 games back. True there is a TWO game difference between 4 back and 6 back but at no time at the start of the game are the Mavs anything but 5 back.

It is EITHER 1 up OR 1 down, not BOTH.

Thank you for your indulgence.

[Drbio]

At this point David, you are just showing your ass. It truly is old. His point was that the end result was a two game swing which it is...4 games back or six. The difference is 2. Your point was that it is a one game swing from the current standing, i.e. 5 games plus or minus 1. Everyone on this board has read yours and murphs argument. It infects every damn thread. Please let it go. You piss off everyone with this constant drivel. The replies are stale as well. Please, just stop.

[David]

If you don't care anything about it, why did you reply?

[Drbio]

One of you has to be the first to stop. Why not let it be you so we can go back to our chats without the same argument popping up in every damn thread?

[grbh]

David, I think Murphy's point about a 2 game spread is that it is a guaranteed game. In other words if you win the other team is guaranteed to lose. When you are one of the better teams in the league it is difficult to gain a game, because most nights when the Mavs win, the Spurs win, and vice versa. It also helps with tie breakers.

Now do you really gain 2 games no, but it is largely an expression. I believe that is what Murphy meant.

[nekked]

david, david, david...

picture the scene in a few good men when demi moore "strenuously objects" to the military doctor during the trial.

now take the scene and replace the actors:

i guess i'm weinburg

you would be demi moore - by the way, i loved you in "striptease",

murph would be the goofy looking doctor on the stand (nothing personal),

and the rest of us would be the judge (...and you can refer to me as general or your honor, i'm quite sure i've earned it).

you've taken a point that some of us actually agreed with and beat it into the ground where now people are backing murph just to end the arguement.

i'll paraphrase - "first you object so that the jury hears you say he's not a criminologist, but hell, now you've got the judge saying he's an expert. now it looks like we're scared of the doctor."

we got the point, some of us agreed (about the original nickie v in the sa game arguement), some of us didn't. as with most things that can't be proven, noone will "win" this arguement. let's just let it go.

[seelenjaeger]

whats the difference between

behind 4 and behind 6 after 80 games?

boooooooooring

[TheKid]

You cannot be serious with this post!

[Dooby]

What is the movie where the guy uses the power drill and drills holes in his skull to releave a headache?

Because that feels a lot like this thread.

Seriously, if anybody knows that movie, please give me the title.

[StrangeBrew13]

Pi

[Murphy3]

a message for david (joe joe)
4-2=2

[nekked]

hold on, murph...


before you drag me into this (or did i jump in myself)...

i have not previously agreed nor disagreed with the one or two game shift theory.

my post went back to the original "did we lose the sa game because nellie is an idiot" thread, since that's where this all started from. it has grown into this, and will probably continue to grow into God knows what else.

i actually agree with your "division / conference games count more than some spare game against the heat" theory.

read carefully before driving the bus over me. if i didn't make my previous point clearly, then i apologize.

[Murphy3]

nekked, this is a completely different argument.
yes, i was a bit pissed at a couple of nellie's decisions that game.. as were most people..and i apologized about that.
however, i still disagree with some of his decisions.. and that is not going to change

however, you did kinda throw me under the bus a bit with your previous post..
but, i will remove you from the comment.


this is a separate argument..
this is that losing a game against SA is actually a 2 game swing..

yes, it might have stemmed from something else..but this has become a separate argument....

[nekked]

i wasn't intending to back over you, you're part in the whole scenario just happened to be the stressed out, defensive doc. hell, i'm freakin' lt. wienburg for gosh sakes.

all this has gone from nellie costs us the game because of forcing the ball to nickie v, to the game only cost us one loss, to the game was more important than one loss, etc. i guess i just lumped all of them together under the same dead horse - we've just moved from the head to the body and now we're hovering somewhere around the ass.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

i would love to move on.. if david would simply admit that losing the SA game was a 2 game swing from where the mavs could have been..

easy enough.
just admit that he's wrong

[Murphy3]

you can either gain a game or lose a game.

if you lose the game when you were two games up..

you drop to 1 game up

if you win the game when you are two games up

you move to 3 games up

yes, it is ONE game

however, there is a two game swing from where you are if you lose to where you would have been if you won.

not that difficult

[David]

That is exactly what I said. Where we differ is the appearance of the two game swing. It is EITHER/OR, not BOTH. 1 up OR 1 down. It APPEARS to be worse when you subtract 1 possibility from the other possibility. It will be one OR the other. Only IF you subtract one possible scenario from the other, do you get the appearance of a two game swing.

[Murphy3]

david,..there's no reason to argue your point anymore.. i won't argue mine.

people are tired of it..most of all, me

[David]

<< david, david, david...

picture the scene in a few good men when demi moore &quot;strenuously objects&quot; to the military doctor during the trial.

now take the scene and replace the actors:

i guess i'm weinburg

you would be demi moore - by the way, i loved you in &quot;striptease&quot;,

murph would be the goofy looking doctor on the stand (nothing personal),

and the rest of us would be the judge (...and you can refer to me as general or your honor, i'm quite sure i've earned it).

you've taken a point that some of us actually agreed with and beat it into the ground where now people are backing murph just to end the arguement.

i'll paraphrase - &quot;first you object so that the jury hears you say he's not a criminologist, but hell, now you've got the judge saying he's an expert. now it looks like we're scared of the doctor.&quot;

we got the point, some of us agreed (about the original nickie v in the sa game arguement), some of us didn't. as with most things that can't be proven, noone will &quot;win&quot; this arguement. let's just let it go. >>



That's the movie where Jack Nicholson's character says, &quot;The truth? You can't handle the truth&quot;.

That's the way I have been feeling about this issue. I've tried to explain how the two game swing is not really a two game swing but some people can't handle something that goes against their preconceived ideas.

[Murphy3]

david, drop it
damn, when things have died down, why try and start something up again?

[Dooby]

This thread is still going on???

Die thread, die.

[Big Boy Laroux]

wait, guys... i'm confused... can someone give me the definition of a two game swing?













[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

bbl, do you really want one?
well, i'm sure you know what it is..so i won't tell you

[Drbio]

BBL- lol...it's easy. If you have 197 games on your schedule and you lose 196 of them against your closest conference foe...then your team sucks ass. Did I get it right?

[Big Boy Laroux]

i understand completely! thanks, doc! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Dooby]

Was last night's game a 2-game swing?

[Chiwas]

Hard to say, one of the panelists is gone.

[Big Boy Laroux]

man, almost a year later and i'm still confused... [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

My cats breath smells like cat food.

[OutletPass]

Thanks, Dooby, for posting that old "legendary" debate. I missed it by a few months, but was a party to the followups, and just the memory sends me out to howl at the moon.

A timeless classic !

[Fidel]

Hahaha, the two game swing.

Where´s David by the way?

Maybe he´s still trying to figure it out.

[TheBaron]

not all old men are stupid!

I understood what the previous game meant and I didn't make a thread about it.

[LRB]

This thread is a classic.

[SeriousSummer]

We clinched the tie-breaker against the Spurs as well.

Doesn't that make last night the more than legendary 2 and 1/2 game swing?

[OutletPass]

OMG, Serious Summer has upped the ante...!!!

Proof that greatness can be added to classic !!!

[Drbio]

Just not the same without David......

[WayOutWest]

Why am I not surprised the T-Wolves are getting ignored in this thread!

LMAO@ the idea of a 2 game swing!

[LRB]

LMAO@ the idea of a 2 game swing!

That's 2.5 game swing, thank you very much. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Chiwas]

ONE AND A QUARTER!

[Rhylan]

classic, classic stuff