Tuesday

DB 1233 108.6 102 (-06.6) 1335 123.4
PL 1227 113.1 079 (-34.1) 1306 130.9
CC 1130 104.1 118 (+13.9) 1248 111.4
BT 1124 100.2 110 (+09.8) 1234 107.2
SP 1124 094.1 084 (-10.1) 1208 109.7
JG 1122 118.3 077 (-41.3) 1199 126.7
OA 1061 110.1 091 (-19.1) 1152 115.1
TM 1018 109.7 083 (-26.7) 1101 097.9

Here's a question...

Obviously, if a guy is averaging 30 PPG, it's a lot more likely for him to have a night when he scores 10 than it is for him to have a night when he scores 50.

Since I've kept track of the +/- V. AVGs, we've had only 32 "trials" (4 days X 8 players) so the sample size may not be large enough.

But I'm wondering...Why have we had 24 instances where we scored lower than our V. Avg, and only 7 cases of scoring higher (one tie)?

That the cases in which we scored lower have much larger point swings is explained, I think, in the first paragraph above, but why so few cases of doing better than average, even if only by a little bit?

Even if you throw out the days when someone scored well below their V. Avg. because someone didn't play, I think after 32 trials we'd be much closer to 16-16 (even with wider downside swings, which I understand the reason for).

DB? Anyone?


"Difficult....not impossible"