Sorry, enbehay, your logic is wrong. 110% does not equal 11%, regardless of how baseball states batting averages.
It works out though if you look at it from the point he's gonna give 110% of the effort he put in last season. Which would equal 11% in my opinion
Look at the math. How can you have more than 100 percent of anything? Also, if a player at 1,000 at bats hit a percentage of 1.050, he would have to produce 50 more hits (1,050) than he had at bats (1,000). He would be the highest paid athlete ever! Now, let's look at your salary. It goes up by 150%. Let's say you are making $10,000 per month. You are multiplying by 1.5 to get the result, i.e., $15,000 per month. A percentage of 110% out of 1,000% is the equivalent (factor it down) of 11%.
Actually, a 150% increase on a salary of 10,000 a month (I'll get there someday!) would result of a salary of 25,000 a month. You're getting mixed up by baseball-speak. Baseball offensive numbers are given in thousandths, not percentages. A Two-fifty average is .250, not 250%.
http://insidehoops.com/nbapr.shtml They're not as generous as ESPN was but #15 isn't bad. They have the Hornets and Knicks ranked ahead of us, I disagree with that, and we have a chance of being better than the Suns but they're at #14.
Why do people try to make things more confusing than they really are?! .... besides, its not like Cato is going to give "11%" effort this year so what does it matter?
uh,,,first, I said slugging percentage, not batting average. 1.050 slugging percentage is indeed achievable. hell, the upper limit is 4.000. So, they are misusing the word percentage and Cato is too by your definition. But 1.050 slugging IS NOT equal to .105 slugging. Anyhow, the point is to show how "percentage" is not a word with only one definition. Secondly, your math on my salary is misleading. If 150% is multiplying by 1.5, then Cato's 110% is multiplying by 1.1. So I am more than 1, and so is Cato. Fact is, you can have more that 100% of something in math. You are using "proportion" of a finite set as the math definition. There is another definition which simply means that "percentage" is to divide by 100. give it up, dude. We agree you cannot have more than 100% effort, but calling 110% = 11% effort simply ellicits a "Huh?" and always will.
Hundredths, not thousandths. But then I'm just a lawyer, not a mathematician. per·cent·age (pr-sntj) n. A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98.
I don't get your fuzzy math. 110% of 100 = 110 11% of 100 = 11 Perhaps baseball terminology confuses you. They don't call them batting percentages, they call 'em batting averages. Batting averages, are based on the ratio of hits per at-bats. A batting average of 1.00 would mean that every time you have an at-bat, you get a hit. 1/1 = 1. Which, by the way would mean you get a hit 100% of the times you get an at bat. If you have 500 at bats in a season, and get 500 hits, 500/500 = 1. You'd have a batting average of 1.00. Average hits per at bats. If you have 500 at bats, and get a hit in 250 of them, 250/500 = 0.500. In baseball terminology, they say, "He's hitting 500" ... they don't say 'zero point 500' because that would get old real quick. A batting average of 0.500 means you get a hit in 50% of your at bats. How in the world does this equate to 110% equalling 11%? Unless you mean 110% (of 100) and 11% (of 1000). Then I think they may equal ... but I didn't do the math. You do the math ;-)
I see the Rockets as a 6th seed. I think the Rockets will be a better team then Minnesota and Utah. Utah is old, and depleted. They had to cut Stockton's minutes down big time (29 mpg) to rest him, and now he has only John Crotty backing him up. They lose Starks more likely, there is a strong chance that Polynice isn't coming back, and they lost Danny Manning which was a serious blow. He was versatile and manned all three front court spots and gave them much needed help at the center position when Ostertag and Polynice were stinking it up. I think the Rockets are deeper, more talented, and more athletic and high energy then the Jazz this year. The Jazz are going to continue their slide with a serverely weakened bench. As for the Wolves, the Rockets only finished 2 games behind them. Since then the Rockets have added a veteran scorer and shooter with Rice, a young franchise big man with Griffin, a solid perimeter shooting and extra guard with Jones (assuming he is on the team), and though they lose Hakeem, they add a big man who is projected to give the same offense and rebounding and more energy then Dream. Granted Jackson isn't the shot-blocker and defender that Dream was, but he gives us rebounding and a low post presence, something this team needs. I think they leaped over Minnesota and Utah. Phoenix is a joke. They lose their team first PG, and get a more scoring minded PG in Marbury, lose their main go-to post guy in Cliff Robinson, lose the synergy between PG and SF with Kidd and Marion, and have an all-around different team and the media thinks this team might be better. They'll find out when Phoenix chemistry is screwed up how important Kidd and Robinson were.
SamCassell, this has been fun. You just made my point -- hundredths, not thousandths. Since you cannot exceed 100% (the whole), then 110% must be factored down -- to 11%. Ta-da!
uh, enbehay. If 99% is equal to .99, and 100% is equal to 1, then 110% is 1.1 If 110% is .11(0) (which it's not), then 100% is .1 (which it's not). Are you saying 100% is equal to 10%? 11% as a decimal is written .11. Of course you can't exceed 100! Can you give more than 100%? Thus, it's written 110/100, wich is equal to 1.1. It's your average sports cliche. As for the Power Rankings, Rice adds a veteran VOICE to the locker room, something we haven't had in ages. If Mo can come back at the All Star Break, and Jackson arrives, we should have a solid frontcourt to go with our dynamite backcourt.
Huh? Sam's definition doesn't say you can't exceed 100%. It just said the denominator is understood as 100. For example, 150(the numerator)/100(denominator) is 150%. The only way a 110% increase is equal to 11% is if Cato was playing only at 10% last year (quite possible, but probably an overestimate ). In that case 110/100 x 10/100 = 1100/10000 = .11 = 11%. This has been a public service announcement on fractions, percentages, and the general suckiness of Kelvin Cato. Thank you, LP
The sad thing is, I think he thinks he's right. This thread is a tragedy. Foreign readers please turn away... we're really smarter than this!
