Meaningless Things That Must Change Now

[MHSL82]

It’s 100%, not 99.9%. You can’t convince any reasonable person otherwise besides forfeit. So there’s no sense in not saying 100%.

Where to draw the line? 5 points with 0.3 seconds (start of play), 9 points with 0.6, and 1 point every 0.3 beyond that. So down 10 points with 0.9 seconds. 14 with 2.1 seconds. 18 with 3.2 seconds.

 

[nuraman00]

If this was simulated 53,002 times, then Indiana would probably win one of those times.

 

[MHSL82]

If this was simulated 53,002 times, then Indiana would probably win one of those times.

Nope. Prove it. Just kidding. In three seconds, no one can come back from 20 points without someone forfeiting. Plus, Milwaukee had the ball. It could be life and death for all players and they couldn‘t accomplish it together without forfeit or unprecedented removal/disqualification of points/players.

 

[nuraman00]

Nope. Prove it. Just kidding. In three seconds, no one can come back from 20 points without someone forfeiting. Plus, Milwaukee had the ball. It could be life and death for all players and they couldn‘t accomplish it together without forfeit or unprecedented removal/disqualification of points/players.

You just answered your own question. So it is possible.

With 3 seconds left, a fight breaks out and 8 players from Milwaukee are ejected. Milwaukee has to forfeit.

 

[MHSL82]

You just answered your own question. So it is possible.

With 3 seconds left, a fight breaks out and 8 players from Milwaukee are ejected. Milwaukee has to forfeit.

Nope. Mark it 100%. I will take it back if it ever happened and post how I’m the biggest idiot in the world. Not possible. It won’t.

 

[nuraman00]

Nope. Mark it 100%. I will take it back if it ever happened and post how I’m the biggest idiot in the world. Not possible. It won’t.

Actually I think you're right, but not in the way you're thinking of.

If a fight breaks out with 3 seconds left, and 8 players from Milwaukee are ejected, then I think they prematurely end the game. I don't think Milwaukee would forfeit.

Wait, there's an even more interesting example.


What would happen was that eligible players (that hadn't fought) would be allowed to come back in. But the other team gets a technical foul every time one of those players that are brought back in, commit a foul.

 

[nuraman00]

This was a question asked by the radio a few days ago, but I'll ask you too.

Let's say there was a rule where if there were too many in-game ejections, then the coaches could call a fan from the stand for one play.

Which of these do you think you could do?

* Make a FT in a NBA game.

* Play QB for one snap, and hand the ball off, with defenders coming at you. Also be able to catch the ball from the center. Make sure you turn the correct direction to hand the ball off. Also call out any calls or opposing defensive coverages that you see.

 

[MHSL82]

Actually I think you're right, but not in the way you're thinking of.

If a fight breaks out with 3 seconds left, and 8 players from Milwaukee are ejected, then I think they prematurely end the game. I don't think Milwaukee would forfeit.

Wait, there's an even more interesting example.


What would happen was that eligible players (that hadn't fought) would be allowed to come back in. But the other team gets a technical foul every time one of those players that are brought back in, commit a foul.

Yes, I was looking for that example. I was going to tell you that they would just play 5 on 4 or substitute somehow. Or end the game. But I thought maybe you had a rule that meant automatic forfeit. And I also think that the case where they have more than three people eject is extremely rare and I think that the referees would probably decide not to do so if they knew that it resulted in a forfeit. They huddle for a reason.

I mean, Shaquille O’Neal had a game where they incorrectly disqualified him or something for the last few seconds of a game and they redid it the next time those teams played. And I believe he wasn’t even available or on the team (trade?) the second time they played. So I feel that if they disqualify the team because of something, they were just pause the game and resume at some other time, even though the example is only one time and it was based upon an NBA mistake not a fight.

NBA grants Heat 51.9 second do-over vs. Hawks

The Atlanta Hawks and Miami Heat must replay the final 51.9 seconds of their game last month. This will be the first time since 1982 the league has sent teams back on the court for a replay.

www.espn.com

 

[MHSL82]

This was a question asked by the radio a few days ago, but I'll ask you too.

Let's say there was a rule where if there were too many in-game ejections, then the coaches could call a fan from the stand for one play.

Which of these do you think you could do?

* Make a FT in a NBA game.

* Play QB for one snap, and hand the ball off, with defenders coming at you. Also be able to catch the ball from the center. Make sure you turn the correct direction to hand the ball off. Also call out any calls or opposing defensive coverages that you see.

Make a free-throw an NBA game is the clear answer, even though I believe that most would miss. But if it were simply being able to catch a long snap and hand off and the teams knew it, I think you could do either. Now that play would likely be not very successful, but it could be done.

I‘ve seen several touchdowns where the quarterback catches a one or 2 yard snap and just a mini-pop it up in the air chest high and the runningback who is running across the field between the line and the quarterback catches it and runs it in. That quarterback gets credit for a touchdown pass and if the running back does not catch the ball, it is not a fumble but rather incomplete, so there’s almost no risk besides failing to convert (where a handoff would’ve worked) or the running back popping it high in the air over the line for an interception, which is not worse than a fumble besides stats, unless the defense gets it cleanly for a return.

Incidentally, Andy Reid said that was Alex Smith’s idea and Mahomes got two or three of those in his rookie year’s first four games.

 

[MHSL82]

Wonder what happened in that O’Neal game? Hawks won both. And Shaq had been traded to Phoenix by then.

Heat 94-97 Hawks (Mar 8, 2008) Final Score - ESPN

Game summary of the Miami Heat vs. Atlanta Hawks NBA game, final score 94-97, from March 8, 2008 on ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[nuraman00]

If there's a chance of Rudy Gobert beating John Stockton in a free throw shooting contest, then there's a chance of Indiana winning when down 20 with 3.3 seconds left.

 

[MHSL82]

If there's a chance of Rudy Gobert beating John Stockton in a free throw shooting contest, then there's a chance of Indiana winning when down 20 with 3.3 seconds left.

But there isn’t. Unless it is to one free throw. I could see Stockton missing the first and Gobert hitting one. If you think we can change the scenario to one free throw shot, then we could change the 20 points up to 45 or the seconds from 3.3 to 0.1.

 

[nuraman00]

But there isn’t. Unless it is to one free throw. I could see Stockton missing the first and Gobert hitting one. If you think we can change the scenario to one free throw shot, then we could change the 20 points up to 45 or the seconds from 3.3 to 0.1.

I think if there was a 7 shots each free throw shooting contest, Gobert would beat Stockton at least once in 50,003 occurrences.

 

[nuraman00]

What are the most FT misses Stockton has had in a game?

What's the best Rudy 100% FT game (most makes)?

If we take those, and say that Stockton and Rudy did them in a real NBA game, then we have our answer. Rudy can beat Stockton at free throws.

Just like Stockton can beat Rudy at rebounds, thunderous dunks, and blocked shots.

 

[nuraman00]

If there's a chance of Rudy Gobert beating John Stockton in a free throw shooting contest, then there's a chance of Indiana winning when down 20 with 3.3 seconds left.

But there isn’t. Unless it is to one free throw. I could see Stockton missing the first and Gobert hitting one. If you think we can change the scenario to one free throw shot, then we could change the 20 points up to 45 or the seconds from 3.3 to 0.1.

Maybe I should have asked the question, from the other direction.

Do you think there's a chance of Stockton beating Gobert at a rebounding contest? First until 11 rebounds.

And if they played this contest 50,003 times.

 

[MHSL82]

Maybe I should have asked the question, from the other direction.

Do you think there's a chance of Stockton beating Gobert at a rebounding contest? First until 11 rebounds.

And if they played this contest 50,003 times.

Does Stockton know about this competition? Because a a normal game you could be fouled a certain number of times and make them all where the other person misses. But to get 11 rebounds, Stockton would have to change his game. He’s gotten 10 rebounds in a game before, but I wouldn’t think that would mean that he would be Gobert in that instance. The time where he gets many rebounds is likely when other teammates didn’t or that there were so many misses and both got it. The first one to get to it isn’t really a competition though.

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

It’s 100%, not 99.9%. You can’t convince any reasonable person otherwise besides forfeit. So there’s no sense in not saying 100%.

Where to draw the line? 5 points with 0.3 seconds (start of play), 9 points with 0.6, and 1 point every 0.3 beyond that. So down 10 points with 0.9 seconds. 14 with 2.1 seconds. 18 with 3.2 seconds.

View attachment 264271

The winning team might forfeit, get into a brawl and and have a majority of their players get ejected. Hell, the arena could explode. I mean, from a statistical possibility the chance of them winning is 99.999999999% but never 100 percent until official.

 

[MHSL82]

The winning team might forfeit, get into a brawl and and have a majority of their players get ejected. Hell, the arena could explode. I mean, from a statistical possibility the chance of them winning is 99.999999999% but never 100 percent until official.

These models that determine percentage of chance is based upon thousands of games, data driven, and I don’t think that’s ever happened before. I don’t think the models are made after what could possibly happen.

At the minimum, there should obviously be some leeway to things that are unprecedented. For example, when Tracy McGrady made all those threes at the end of a game that one time, before that, it may never of happened. But obviously it wasn’t 0% chance. But there should be a cut off. How about 36 points with less than a second to go? The forfeits of the world be damned.

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

These models that determine percentage of chance is based upon thousands of games, data driven, and I don’t think that’s ever happened before. I don’t think the models are made after what could possibly happen.

A model then would be unable to make a 100 percent judgement until officially over. If it did, it would be an inaccurate model.

 

[MHSL82]

A model then would be unable to make a 100 percent judgement until officially over. If it did, it would be an inaccurate model.

You‘re right. I’m not 100% serious. I was wondering you or @nuraman00 would point that out. I still think it’s silly. Do you have any sports pet peeves (or similar)?

My mind is different than others. For example, when people say that you have to make him beat you going to his left, I sometimes think, “no, you must make him lose by forcing him left. Hou never make someone beat you.” Yes, I know what they mean.