Jump to content


Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


463 Excellent

About VolenteHawk

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Except he's not. He gets 1% more rebounds than Agbaji while playing more 4, and that's not for their size that's a raw rate. So there's two more spots to spread out...I'm just not sure it's possible. They weren't very good on the defensive glass last year, and it worked out fine...but they could be TERRIBLE at it this year. Alas, it's not a Kansas board, and I wouldn't have brought it up at all except Texas is in a similar situation so I thought the similarities were interesting.
  2. Both Agbaji and Braun rebounded well for their size. McCullar probably covers for one of those but the other is a pretty big question mark. Adams also won't rebound as well as McCormack did. In 2022, I don't think you actually need a true center, an undersized athlete that can screen/roll/crash provides some advantage in keeping the middle of the floor clear for dribble penetration...which is crucial if you're a suspect shooting team. The question about being undersized there is can you rebound it enough. This whole paragraph applies quite similarly to Kansas and Texas. They'll both be really good, it's just a matter of playing to a draw on the defensive glass and winning in other ways, I think.
  3. There won't be an NCAA hammer. Louisville's "penalties" came out today... A $5k fine (not a typo), some mild recruiting restrictions, and 2 years probation. As a reminder, a Louisville assistant coach provided a literal envelope of cash, they falsified information to the NCAA, and they were already on probation for stripper-gate while they did that. If KU had waited two days they could have downgraded their self sanction to a demand of a public apology from the NCAA.
  4. I haven't been to the Moody Center for basketball yet, but it's in line with that.
  5. My first watch worth north of a few hundred bucks was a Calibre 5. I may buy another version of it just to have at some point.
  6. Strictly "what would it be", the Astros being -190 implies 65% win probability, so the fair buyout number would be a shade less than your $50M estimate on $75M.
  7. That's really more of a risk management question, and he didn't get all that down in the same place so it will vary by book. If a book could attract enough bets on other teams, they'd theoretically have the ability to offset Astros exposure but I have no idea how big the handle is for MLB futures overall...like how easy is it for the market to kill $75M in risk. As it relates to baseball, if the market as a whole couldn't offset Astros futures then -190 is probably a little bit inflated to attract Phillies money, which would imply some value on the Phillies. I don't know that that's true or not, but baseball is so random that you're almost obligated to take +175 or better. Similar to how Super Bowl odds get out of what. That attracts so much money, and it's heavily skewed to the point spread favorite and money line dog...pushing you to almost always like the price of the money line favorite.
  8. I just grabbed a little Cleveland at +310 on the series price. Pretty much requires that they win today, but if they do I'll love that number.
  9. Good news, but truth be told I've been distracted by my college football team winning road games.
  10. But it's SOOOOO much better than wins.
  • Create New...