Elektrik
Starter
Now that he’s not playing in the shadow of his big brother I’m hoping Keegan steps up his game so that he doesn’t have to defer to Fox all the time.
[Game] 49/82: Kings @ Timberwolves 03 FEB 2025, 5pm PT/8pm ET
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
- Status
Elektrik
Starter
Doubt it. San Antonio’s front office is too astute. Ours on the other hand….Im not so sure.
Teams can literally cut him if he brings nothing to the table at next to zero penalty except missing out on another buy out guy.
The list of takers will be long.
Umm, not sure whether that's a rounding error or what, but you cannot by definition have a negative net rating and win the game.
It seems impossible but I googled this and the stupid gemini answer claimed it was. I don't know how because it doesn't track with me.
TaxMan
Starter
If this is true I've lost all faith and confidence in NBA statistics
NetRtg is defined as point differential per 100 possessions. Our point differential was +2. Divide that by a positive number of possessions, any positive number, and you get a positive number.
(One more reason to severely distrust all LLMs - they don't actually *know* anything.)
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Perhaps the KINGS will get the opportunity to face the T-Pups in the postseason and change the existing pattern (in our favor, of course).
I understand all of that which is why it made no sense to me I suspect they just sum totalled all of the individual players and maybe that is possible?
Or is it also possible that we just wound up with one or two extra possessions?
captain bill
All-Star
https://www.reddit.com/r/kings/s/r9OjojVNdW
incredibly dirty and unnecessary play from gobert. That’s at least two last night including going at Malik’s ribs
incredibly dirty and unnecessary play from gobert. That’s at least two last night including going at Malik’s ribs
Doesn't matter the number of possessions, since it would be positive. Whether it was 100 possessions or 102 or 98, doesn't change the sign of the NetRtg. My guess is that it's a rounding error, that they summed up the individual players' rounded NetRtgs and came up with a nonsense answer because garbage in garbage out.
If you have 102 offense possessions and defend 98 opponent possessions and won 100 to 98, would you not have a negative NetRtg?
Hmm. If you calculate NetRtg as (ORtg - DRtg) you would get (0.98 - 1) and get a negative rating. So...I guess if that's how they do it...
I did assume that NetRtg was calculated exactly as a straight O - D.
And while this didn't happen last night, if a team had the last possession of every quarter because their coach was obsessed with 2 for 1s (lol) it's not even inconceivable without having weird flagrants or situations that would give a team consecutive possessions to end up +4 in the O possession column with nothing to show for it.
Well, that would only add two possessions because the other team gets the ball first in two of the four quarters by definition.
This has me questioning if I'm just a self aware LLM. . .
TaxMan
Starter
.....its all a simulation...
Derp! I knew that and accounted for it and yet still just invented an extra possession.
No, you mean Gobert fouls...not according to the refs, he got his first foul called on him in the 4th quarter I believe, way after Domas spent almost the whole 3rd quarter sitting with 4
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
