Fun Facts

[exodus]

"Your ad hominem posts are pretty lame. If you are going to go that route, rather than make a coherent argument, you need to at least do a better job. That post was just childish."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No Exodus. Your are being played for a fool and you do't realize it.

I knew, from my very post on this topic, that there was no possible way for you (or anyone else) to make any conclusive argument to refute the "commonly held opinion " that I originally cast doubt upon.

Please grasp the following:

My original post had to do with the *playoff* performance of the Hawks. And only the *playoff* performance of the Hawks team as a whole. It did not, in any way, constitute any claim about regular season performance --team wise or individually for Smoove. In fact, I did not even express an opinion other than the subject --- other than--- that I did not care to be on the same side of the boat with "forum heavyweights".

At that point, both you and AHF decided to "feed on this newcomer".

Understand..... My sample size was 7 games.

Understand ... That your ONLY AVAILABLE sample size to attempt to dispute this claim (that I never made in the first place) was 11 games.

Understand.... That I have always UNDERSTOOD that both of the above sample sizes were statistically insignificant. This is where I had you!

Understand... That in order to refute or cast doubt on a claim, you must use some body of evidence that is *directly* related to the claim that you are attempting to refute. You can't simply substitute unrelated evidence at your convenience. Talk about Strawman !

Understand ... that although you believe your opinion to be correct, there is no body of evidence that conclusively supports your opinion, because of many factors, including the fact that there is no available sample-size large enough to be statistically relevant to support EITHER side.

CS

So your sample size is 7 games? The blowout losses in Boston certainly can't be used to argue the Hawks were better in the playoffs that year. Obviously math isn't your strong suit.

I never even mentioned non-Celtic playoff games let alone claimed they had any statistical significance. All i had to do was point out your 3 game sample size (and even those three games were dubious) was insignificant. Your contention that you are somehow playing me for a fool is nothing but a pathetic delusion.

Edited November 19, 2010 by exodus

[AHF]

No Exodus. Your are being played for a fool and you do't realize it.

Understand.... That I have always UNDERSTOOD that both of the above sample sizes were statistically insignificant. This is where I had you!

Wow.

Edited November 19, 2010 by AHF