tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20559458.post850372981845906466..comments2023-12-28T17:21:26.528-05:00Comments on The Joe Cribbs Car Wash: Round the FirstJerry Hinnenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15097537044668238939noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20559458.post-27276246331426106682008-03-23T22:13:00.001-04:002008-03-23T22:13:00.001-04:00Oops -- last comment was mine.-- PhilipVU94Oops -- last comment was mine.<BR/><BR/>-- PhilipVU94Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20559458.post-40052153740190878142008-03-23T22:13:00.000-04:002008-03-23T22:13:00.000-04:00Thanks for the link. You were right about Vanderb...Thanks for the link. You were right about Vanderbilt-Siena of course. And I remember that 1999 Auburn team well -- thanks for reminding me. Actually I was pulling hard for your team for largely the reason you cited, because I knew that SEC teams don't just end up with regular season 3-loss records on a fluke. So yes, you do know more than most how I feel. Certainly you, Drake fans, and Clemson fans can understand more than say UConn fans. :)<BR/><BR/>When I have a clearer head about all this I'd like to ask your opinion on luck metrics. I've been aware that all season, for the second straight season, VU shows up as a very lucky team on KP's metrics. I've also taken an immense amount of flak on VandySports.com for suggesting that outscoring your SEC r/s opponents by 8 points TOTAL and finishing 10-6 is not sustainable. I don't care that Stallings is a good tactical coach, I don't care if our team is mentally tough, that's just not sustainable. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, I've come to see that KP's "luck" really is an unfortunate term. For example, I'm pretty sure FT% really will correlate highly with luck, because teams that win close games at the line are considered "lucky". (If that's not true, please educate me.) So I'm never sure whether I'm throwing out baby or bathwater.That guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09538943769759852913noreply@blogger.com