I’ve argued for a relaxation of the gimme rule, too.

This is a tough game to play.  Even when you pick the
favorites, they don’t always run to form.

"The race is not always to the swift nor battle to
the strong–but that’s the way to bet."  ;o)

                                Marty

> 1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not
> to occur.

Not to get into the issue of Tom’s picks, but "because they are more
likely than not to occur" isn’t a very good definition for a gimme.
There’s nothing wrong (IMHO) with making a pick that’s got a 60% or
70% likelyhood of occuring (e.g. "Gordon will get a top 10").  Gimmies
are the picks that are almost certain to be true.

John

>1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to
>occur.  2 is questionable, I’ll leave it to peer review.

2 is a gimme, too.  Carl Edwards should beat the Cheerios Dodge
handily.

>Your bonus is not
>approprirate, it’s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in
>fact I’d call it a gimmie prediction.

No doubt about it.

BUT–Tom is playing "Fantasy RPG."  It’s a new game.  He’s just
imagining what it would be like to negatize all of Mr. Random’s
predictions.

Tom knew the gimme police would be after him.  ;o)

                                        Marty

news:000001c558a4$62ac7f80$6700a8c0@thomasrzr6s4la…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Since I’m just a ‘Field Filler’ (but NOT a Whacker!) during this First
Segment, I
> thought I’d try sumpin’!

> Decided to try being the "Mr. Reverse Random" using Marty’s Fearless
Forecast!

> I suspect some of these will fall dangerously close to the edge of the
Gimme
> Gulch…but it’s all just for giggles, anyhoo!

> ;->

> <edits are enclosed in pair of asterisks>

> 1. GB #16 will finish 31st or *higher*.

> 2. CE #99 finish *ahead of* JGreen in the #43 Cheerios Dodge.

> 3. ES #38 will *not* finish 7th or higher.

> 4. JS #09 will *not* finish between 30th to 38th.

> 5. TR #192 will finish *behind* the #12 car.

> Bonus: there will *not* be zero Fords in the top 10.

> Tom in Bristol

1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to
occur.  2 is questionable, I’ll leave it to peer review.  Your bonus is not
approprirate, it’s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in
fact I’d call it a gimmie prediction.

-Russ.

No problem.

I’m planning to give Mr. Random a severe lecture about his
prognostications ennaways.

[By the way, are things working OK for you?  Did your
ISP get his system set up right?  Any tips to add to
the "Missing Posts Page"?]

                                Marty

>>4. Only one or two of the "official" rookies stay on the lead lap or one
>>lap down

> Kyle Busch remained on the lead lap, and was the only rookie to do so.
> +1

Actually – you said "lead lap or one lap down".  Kvapil was one lap
down.  However, you’d also said "one or two rookies", so the result
doesn’t change.

As a side note, apparenly we only have 2 official rookies now, since
Stanton Barrett doesn’t seem to be in the #92 anymore.

John

>1. Dale Jr beats Mikey Waltrip

No, Dale dropped off the lead lap, before getting back onto it, but he
couldn’t get back to Mikey -1

>2. Jeff Gordon beats Jimmie Johnson

A wreck sorted this one out +1

>3. Kasey Kahne is in the highest finishing Dodge

And the highest finisher of the night. Congratulations to him +1

>4. Only one or two of the "official" rookies stay on the lead lap or one
>lap down

Kyle Busch remained on the lead lap, and was the only rookie to do so.
+1

>5. DEI have a relatively good day with both in the top 20. Compound this
>with Both cars finish on the lead lap.

I thought this would not be the case with 60 to go, but Dale got back
onto the lead lap, +1

Total Score: 3

Cheers,
—
Alex Holden
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.

> http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%...

Interesting article.  I can’t say I agree with them totally, but it WAS
very interesting.

As for penalizing drivers for hitting crew members, I don’t think they
should unless it was intentional.  I can only imagine how incredibly
difficult it must be to do a pit.  Imagine driving down the freeway at
55 mph and coming to a complete stop in a tiny little box between two
other cars all while a bunch of pedestrians are running around
everywhere.  Accidents are going to happen.

Now, if the driver is being reckless, does it intentionally, or is not
following the rules (i.e. speeding on pit road), then that’s another
story entirely…

And I’m sure the crew members themselves are sometimes to blame.  I’m
not saying they deliberately put themselves in harm’s way, but they can
be just as careless as drivers and may wander into the path of the cars.
  I’ve seen lots of them working outside the pit box.  I’ve seen them
running down pit road chasing tires.  I’ve seen them flat out get in the
way.  So maybe there should be some rules about WHERE the pit crew can
go and where they can’t.

I happen to agree with the comments about widening the pit boxes.  If
you’ve ever seen one up close and personal, you’ll have to agree they’re
not very big.  It’s incredibly miraculous to me that the drivers manage
to park in it at all.  I mean, we’re talking not much larger than a
regular parking space, and they are parallel parking in it without ever
backing up!  There’s not much room left over for the crews, and they are
often outside of the pit box while working.

>>>       … "With all the weather that we had at Darlington, the
>>>       schedule was shortened,"
>>>      Jeff Gordon said. "With all the changes that we had to make in
>>>      practice,
>> I’m not sure what kind of problem he means.
>Probably that the change in the weather meant they had to change
>a bunch of stuff (springs, shocks, etc) on the car, more so than
>usual, and that delayed them.  I think he’s asking for a little
>slack to be given, on those occasions when teams might be expected
>to have more than the usual amount of work to do.

You may deliver me a dope slap upside the head the next
time you see me.

Of course that’s what he meant!

My bad.  :o(

"I can see clearly now, the clouds have gone.
I can see all obstacles in my way."

                                Marty

> On 14 May 2005 18:30:16 GMT, "Crusader" <cr…@comcast.net> wrote:

>>I don’t think i’ve ever heard of this NA$CAR penalty before, u?

>>   …   Late arrivals lose practice time

> Nope.  It’s new to me.  (Of course, that doesn’t mean much.  I
> can be monstrously inattentive when I wanna be.)

New to me, too.  I’ve heard of them holding a team out from practice
at a race for various indiscretions at _that race_, but not to carry
it onward to the next race.

>>       … "With all the weather that we had at Darlington, the
>>       schedule was shortened,"
>>      Jeff Gordon said. "With all the changes that we had to make in
>>      practice,

<snip>

> I’m not sure what kind of problem he means.

Probably that the change in the weather meant they had to change
a bunch of stuff (springs, shocks, etc) on the car, more so than
usual, and that delayed them.  I think he’s asking for a little
slack to be given, on those occasions when teams might be expected
to have more than the usual amount of work to do.

John