ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome to .500

G

Gospiders06

Team Manager
Jan 25, 2018
1,822
954
113
Got the weekly bash Mooney thread out of the way early this week!
 
125/122. That's way over .500. I did the math. It's .506.
But it's not that so much as it is my concern about the way things have been trending.
 
Your numbers are way off. Why did you give him so many extra losses? You started after the 29 win season, and added 14 extra losses. Yep, that really seems fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
This is not factually correct.

Mooney since last making the tournament is 125-108.

This is why fact checking is so important.
 
VT4700 said:
Your numbers are way off. Why did you give him so many extra losses? You started after the 29 win season, and added 14 extra losses. Yep, that really seems fair.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that nothing before 2011-2012 matters. Things are only relevant the past 7 years. Everyone knows once you get to 8 years back or 9 years back you are talking ancient history, but 7 years back is all current and good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
It is awfully convenient to start after the 29 win season. Well, what if we looked at it the other way and included that year and left out the past season? The numbers would be 142- 96. Either way, the thread title seems inaccurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
Yeah, not sure where this is going. He's 17 games over .500 under the contract. Plenty of arguments to be made without making stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
VT and Ply ... Let's clarify that Mooney's career record is 0.544. His record at Richmond is 0.549 and his record since his new contract was signed (past 7 years) is 0.536. Even his conference record is 0.548. We know what Mooney brings to the table -- a few highs, a few lows and a ton of mediocrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iSpider, Not-A-Homer and spider23
Dre4three said:
VT and Ply ... Let's clarify that Mooney's career record is 0.544. His record at Richmond is 0.549 and his record since his new contract was signed (past 7 years) is 0.536. Even his conference record is 0.548. We know what Mooney brings to the table -- a few highs, a few lows and a ton of mediocrity.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that the poster presented fake facts. Mooney isn't above criticism and he deserves plenty of criticism. But like Broccoli said above, there are plenty of arguments to make without making stuff up.
 
The #1 thing I want to see as a fan is competing for a conference title. To me, that makes for a fun season - being in a "pennant race" if you will, until the last game. Here are the real stats over the last 13 seasons, showing how often a team finished 1st or 2nd in the regular season, or the tourney.

VCU 8.67
Xavier 7
Temple 7
URI 5
Dayton 4.67
St. Louis 4
St. Joes 4
St. Bonaventure 2.67
GW 2
Davidson 2
Richmond 2
UMass 1
Charlotte 1
Duquesne 1

It's interesting that St. Joe's success has, like ours, all been in the tourney.
It's appalling how much VCU has achieved being in the conference less than half the time.
(VCU/Dayton/StB finished in a 3-way tie for first one season, so they each got 2/3 "share")
 
ChoppinBroccoli said:
The #1 thing I want to see as a fan is competing for a conference title. To me, that makes for a fun season - being in a "pennant race" if you will, until the last game. Here are the real stats over the last 13 seasons, showing how often a team finished 1st or 2nd in the regular season, or the tourney.

VCU 8.67
Xavier 7
Temple 7
URI 5
Dayton 4.67
St. Louis 4
St. Joes 4
St. Bonaventure 2.67
GW 2
Davidson 2
Richmond 2
UMass 1
Charlotte 1
Duquesne 1

It's interesting that St. Joe's success has, like ours, all been in the tourney.
It's appalling how much VCU has achieved being in the conference less than half the time.
(VCU/Dayton/StB finished in a 3-way tie for first one season, so they each got 2/3 "share")
Click to expand...
The good teams, Xavier, Temple and Butler left when VCU came in, leaving a huge vacuum in the A-10.
 
I would not limit this to the last game and having to finish 1st or 2nd, especially in a 14 team league, and I would certainly call finishing 13-5 in the A-10 and losing in OT in the semis of the conference tourney competing for the conference title. But, that is just my opinion. I can accept yours here.
 
SpiderK said:
The good teams, Xavier, Temple and Butler left when VCU came in, leaving a huge vacuum in the A-10.
Click to expand...

Very true, which makes our inability to capitalize during those years very frustrating...especially coming off our back to back tournament years in 2010 and 2011.
 
ChoppinBroccoli said:
The #1 thing I want to see as a fan is competing for a conference title. To me, that makes for a fun season - being in a "pennant race" if you will, until the last game. Here are the real stats over the last 13 seasons, showing how often a team finished 1st or 2nd in the regular season, or the tourney.

VCU 8.67
Xavier 7
Temple 7
URI 5
Dayton 4.67
St. Louis 4
St. Joes 4
St. Bonaventure 2.67
GW 2
Davidson 2
Richmond 2
UMass 1
Charlotte 1
Duquesne 1

It's interesting that St. Joe's success has, like ours, all been in the tourney.
It's appalling how much VCU has achieved being in the conference less than half the time.
(VCU/Dayton/StB finished in a 3-way tie for first one season, so they each got 2/3 "share")
Click to expand...

That seems to add to 50. If the Tourney winner is not 1 or 2 then that would be 3 teams times 13 years or 39 teams. What am I missing?
 
His numbers actually add up to 52, which is the highest it could possibly be and could only happen if we had four different teams finish first and second in the regular season and the tournament each year for 13 straight years. We know that hasn't happened, so his numbers are wrong.
 
VT4700 said:
His numbers actually add up to 52, which is the highest it could possibly be and could only happen if we had four different teams finish first and second in the regular season and the tournament each year for 13 straight years. We know that hasn't happened, so his numbers are wrong.
Click to expand...
No, he's saying in 13 years, there were 52 slots for first and second in the regular season and first and second in the tournament (26 apiece). Someone finished first and second every year, so the number should equal 52 and it does. It doesn't need to be different teams every year.
 
Eight Legger said:
No, he's saying in 13 years, there were 52 slots for first and second in the regular season and first and second in the tournament (26 apiece). Someone finished first and second every year, so the number should equal 52 and it does. It doesn't need to be different teams every year.
Click to expand...
I guess he was giving a team 2 times if they were top 2 in reg season and tourney the same year, so that would make his number correct.

I was reading it differently because he said regular season "or" tourney, so I thought that meant he would only give a team 1 if they did both.

Anyway, I think we finished 3rd a couple of years at 13-3 when 2 teams tied for first at 14-2. Seems strange to use these numbers and say we did not compete for the regular season title those years.
 
VT4700 said:
I guess he was giving a team 2 times if they were top 2 in reg season and tourney the same year, so that would make his number correct.

I was reading it differently because he said regular season "or" tourney, so I thought that meant he would only give a team 1 if they did both.

Anyway, I think we finished 3rd a couple of years at 13-3 when 2 teams tied for first at 14-2. Seems strange to use these numbers and say we did not compete for the regular season title those years.
Click to expand...
Its a little bit arbitrary but certainly serves a point. I expect you could go rerun the data for first through fourth and get a similar distribution.
 
Eight Legger said:
No, he's saying in 13 years, there were 52 slots for first and second in the regular season and first and second in the tournament (26 apiece). Someone finished first and second every year, so the number should equal 52 and it does. It doesn't need to be different teams every year.
Click to expand...
I originally read it as 1st or 2nd regular season or tourney champ (not tourney final). So saw it as 39 not 52.

As for my 50...I’m going to claim it as reading while trying to work.

Actually that excuse works for both errors. :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back