Thread: Post-Game Talk: It doesn't matter how hard you try.. Oilers lose 4-1. (Avatar Help) View Single Post
05-11-2013, 04:45 PM
#409
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
Magician

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 61,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lawgirl For an avatar bet, pro bono . I quite enjoy the crazy stuff you guys come up with.
LOL! Sounds good!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by misfit I don't know. Both nhl.com and the Oilers' website list Eberle's SH% at 12.0%. Sure, if you go to a 4th decimal point, you get a number that's greater than 12%, but nobody, anywhere, uses that many decimal places. Just to give a little context to what you guys are arguing about, a guy would have to take FIVE THOUSAND shots before .02% would equate to a goal. Jaromir Jagr and Teemu Selanne (the league's two longest serving active players) have both been goal scorers in the NHL since the early 90's and neither of them have taken 5,000 shots in their CAREERS. I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't really care who wins, but if I were judge and jury on this, I'd be ruling in favour of the guy who said Eberle didn't surpass 12% this year.
It was stated as 12% not 0.12% so the extra decimal places are 2 not 4 in this context. How often do you see shooting %'s as 0.12? If you do you must be running in different circles than I do.

12.03 > 12.029 > 12.028 etc. In Hawaii our excise tax is 4.166% not sure how GST is up there but here it is 0.04166 which is one more decimal place than is being referenced here. Also why use 0.0002 when the difference is 0.0003? 3250 shots at 0.0003 would equal a little over a goal. Jagr has 4,881 career regular season shots and Selanne has 4,429. Not sure why you would mention 0.0002 when trying to make a point here if you indeed have no horse in this race? Why not do the real math instead of rounding down to try and prove a faulty point?

As to the bottom bolded, I'm gad that you're not a judge because you would be wrong and would likely be sued and cost taxpayers money.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by misfit If he had 11.99, my point would be the same. Mathematically, 11.99 < 12.00 > 12.03, but they're all 12.0% for the purpose of the bet, which is NHL shooting percentage. And NHL shooting percentage is never listed anywhere in thousandths. Don't worry, I didn't expect my comment to end the discussion. I fully expect this to go on for days (at least).
12.00 > 12.03? Where can I learn this new form of math?

The bet was over 12% there were no stipulations saying how much over 12%, no matter how much you try to portray it differently, try to change the outcome due to a technicality, etc. 0.0003 > 0.0000 unless you can prove otherwise. I guess the biggest difference here is that had it been 11.9999999999 I would've conceded defeat and taken my avatar with a small slice of humble pie.

__________________

Last edited by Bryanbryoil: 05-11-2013 at 04:58 PM.