There are many message boards that use Infopop's UBB (formerly "Ultimate Bulletin Board") software. And those that don't have been emulating it fairly closely.

You can tell if it's the same software if this is on the bottom (version number may be different, of course):

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

UBB boards don't have to look the same, though. Almost everything can be customizable, and I've chosen to keep things fairly tidy/clean/boring (and therefore easier) so it's close to the default...

I see nothing has changed your whole life.


Some men have so much trouble getting a women to spend some time with them.

Please get up and clean the dirty off you knees!

Well, FS, now you know what you have to look forward to in your old age:

--Loss of hair
--Late night bathroom breaks
--Desperation

ESPN site is down, BTW. Everyone has zero for yesterday.

I guess I sorta knew that. I've seen other BBs with different formats, and none of them were as good as yours.

It was just weird to click on this one, and see a BB pop up that's exactly like yours.

Haiku:

ESPN sucks
The site is down all morning
How much is my lead?

I think we need to write a letter to someone. This is totally uncalled for. I say we all should quit playing.

NO, NO please tell me it isn't so. Now you know why Peter Pan never wanted to grow up.

Finally fixed...

Friday

PL 8375 103.8 098 (-05.8) 8473 114.5
DB 8297 102.2 082 (-20.2) 8379 118.5
CC 8091 097.9 069 (-28.9) 8160 119.2
JG 8036 105.4 096 (-09.4) 8132 117.1
SP 7737 105.4 084 (-21.4) 7821 114.6
PP 2998 098.2 079 (-19.2) 3077 109.9
LE 2026 103.2 094 (-09.2) 2120 119.6

It's so. Just ask pop. I bet he suffers from at least two out of three.

This Haiku's for you, FS:

Get old, lose your hair
Late night bathroom breaks as well
And you want young girls

Here's a Friday challenge for everyone...

Based on our ESPN style scoring, who had the greatest stat line ever, for each position (PG through Center), for a single NBA game?

Ever, or this season?

Ever... It will probably be close to impossible to find the definitive single greatest collection of players, but we should probably get close.

It's so. Just ask pop. I bet he suffes from at least two out of three. [/b][/quote]Yes, I guess you may be right. I know about the hair loss and maybe even the pee breaks because of his sugar, but I know he isn't begging for women. In fact Mom is always kidding that he has three or four wifes around.The women seem to love the old mans humor and the good times he brings. I guess no one can stop that old clock from ticking by.

The challenge is a bit harder than I thought it would be... I haven't found a good reference yet...

Here's something to make it a bit easier... just name the greatest stat line you can find, no matter what position. More power to you if you can make a team of it!

By the way, find the greatest stat line, other than Wilt's 100 point game!

So I guess you're a real chip off the old block then, huh?
:rolleyes:

Wilt's 100 point game is approximately 96 by ESPN scoring. I say approximately because the boxscore I saw didn't keep track of steals, blocks, and turnovers (I don't even though if they kept track of those back then).

He had 25 rebounds that game and 2 assists (2 makes sense since he never passed! ) He was 36 for 63 on field goals and 28 for 32 for FTs.

That game he didn't do much passing. But if my memory serves me, after he went to the Lakers and played with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, there was actually a year in which he led the NBA in assists.

I'm pretty sure they didn't keep track of steals, turnovers and blocks back then, either.

And speaking of Baylor, there was a game when he scored 71 points. If we give him, let's say, 28-45 shooting, 15-18 free throws, and his career average of about 13 rebounds and 5 assists, that would be about a 70 point fantasy game.

Couldn't find a box score, though.

I looked it up....

Playing for the 76ers in 1968, Wilt led the league with 702 assists, or 8.6 per game.

Back then, unlike today, the assist leader was based on number of assists, rather than average per game, so I'm not sure that someone else didn't play fewer games with a higher average.

Still....

In looking for an answer to DB's challenge, I did find this which I thought was interesting:

"Steals, Blocks and Turnovers were not recorded in the NBA until 1973"

"Efficiency is a new stat the NBA developed in 2002. It is calculated using the following formula:
(pts + rebs + stls + assts + blks) - ((fga - fgm) + (fta - ftm) + to))/g
Since Efficiency is calculated on a per game basis, it is good at seeing how well a particular player has performed, regardless of the number of games that the player has played during that season."

Hmmm. I didn't realize that the way our league does the scoring is an official NBA statistic.

Here's some other possible high efficiency games...

- MJ's 69 point game against the Cavs
- Wilt's 55 rebound game against Boston
- Players who had a quadruple-double

Can't seem to find any old box scores on line anywhere .

But what would be a "great" game today?

It would have to be by someone who does everything positive; points, assists, rebounds, and steals. Like Garnett or Duncan. It's no accident that they have the highest "V.Avg" in our game.

Lets say a 45 point scoring night on 17-25 field goals, and 11-11 from the line. Throw in 16 rebounds, 8 assists, 4 steals, and no turnovers.

65 fantasy points.

I chose my line-up last night thinking, Pierce or McGrady? After hard thinking, I went with T-Mac. It turned out to be the right thing to do. I know some of you went with Pierce. What were you thinking? :p -Pat

Saturday

PL 8473 114.5 145 (+30.5) 8618 116.2
DB 8379 118.5 130 (+11.5) 8509 116.6
CC 8160 119.2 113 (-06.2) 8273 111.5
JG 8132 117.1 121 (+03.9) 8253 110.8
SP 7821 114.6 103 (-11.6) 7924 117.6
PP 3077 109.9 134 (+24.1) 3211 107.5
LE 2120 119.6 142 (+22.4) 2262 118.6

Another Ex-lax day tomorrow... :rolleyes:

You know, DB, I've been giving some more thought to the question of Buffy and I meeting in Vegas, and came up with yet another answer....

My first day there can be the first, second, or third day of one of her three visits, so there are 9 chances that she will be there the first day that I am.

But my second day there can only be the first day of one of her three visits. If it was the second or third day of one of her three visits, then we would have met on the first day.

Likewise, the third day of my visit.

So we have 15 opportunities to meet out of 365 days.

15/365, odds of about 23-1.

Which, I have a feeling, is also wrong.

Let's try it this way:

Yesterday, when you pointed out that a 1/40 chance occuring 40 times makes it a certainty, which is obviously impossible, you were correct.

If you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of getting heads or tails. But on two flips, you can't add the 50% chances together and say there's a 100% chance of getting heads. You have to look at all the possible options

HH
HT
TH
TT

So there is a 75% chance of getting heads.

On three flips,

HHH
HTH
HHT
HTT
TTT
THT
TTH
THH

There's a 7/8 of a chance of getting heads.

The more times you flip, the closer it comes to being a 100% certainty, but it never gets there.

If Buffy was in Vegas 9 days a year, for me to be 100% certain of meeting her, I'd have to be there 357 days.

But if I'm only there four days, are the odds 4/357, or 89-1?

Help!

Talk about flipping, I think you done flipped your lid. You need help. I don't think it's the kind DB can offer you though. After all this stuff here I think Buffy will never make a trip to Vegas again just to avoid running into you. :p

Wha'???

First off, a disclaimer: While I did study statistics in college, Probability always (and still) confused the hell out of me. BUT...

There's always a 50% chance of flipping heads. Always, on every individual flip. However, if your goal is to flip heads twice in a row, I believe the odds go down. I *think* to 25%? If you asked "what are the odds I'd flip this coin 10 times and always get heads" it'd be nearly zero. Not nearly 100%.

If Buffy was in Vegas 9 consecutive days/year, sure, you'd definitely run into her if you were there 357 days/year. But if she was there 9 times for one day each time, I don't think it'd be "guaranteed" any more -- though very close.

Help!

Quite, Crabby. I have a bug up my ass, and I won't rest until I remove it.

OK, DB, here's another theory:

If she's there 9 days out of 365, then I have to be there 357 days to be 100% sure of meeting her, right?

So if I'm there 356 days, I have a 99.7198 chance
If I'm there 355 days, I have a 99.4397 chance
If I'm there 354 days, I have a 99.1596 chance

Each day less than 357 that I'm not there reduces my chances of meeting her by .2801

So, 353 (x).2801 equals 98.875, which is the chance of not meeting her if I'm only there four days.

100.0 (-) 98.875 (=) 1.125, or 89-1 odds is the chance of meeting her.

We have a lot of different answers here....