Question about a team being "--- games above .500"
SanctionII
Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
It is very common, especially in baseball, to see and hear statements to the effect of a team being a certain number of games above .500. For example, a team with a record of 45 and 35 is said to be 10 games above .500.
I have always found these statements to be incorrect and wonder if I do not know math or if I do. If a team that is 45 and 35 instead had lost 10 additional games, it would be 35 and 45 (and most would say 10 games under .500). Going from 10 games over to 10 games under .500 would, at first glance, require 20 games, correct? In reality however, only ten more games were lost. If the same team had lost only 5 more games, its record would be 40 and 40 and with an equal number of wins and losses, it would truly be a .500 team (half wins and half losses).
I suggest that in truth a team that is 45 and 35 is only 5 games above .500 (which for a team that has played 80 games again would be a 40 and 40 record).
As another example, if a baseball team won all 162 regular season games and had a record of 162 and 0, it could not be 162 games over .500 since an 81 and 81 record after 162 games would be a .500 record.
Thus, if people insist (cuz it makes them feel better about their team) on focusing on the number of wins vs. losses, I suggest that they simply say that their 45 and 35 team has won 10 more games than it has lost.
What do you all say? Am I spreading heresy or do I simply have too much spare time on my hands?
I have always found these statements to be incorrect and wonder if I do not know math or if I do. If a team that is 45 and 35 instead had lost 10 additional games, it would be 35 and 45 (and most would say 10 games under .500). Going from 10 games over to 10 games under .500 would, at first glance, require 20 games, correct? In reality however, only ten more games were lost. If the same team had lost only 5 more games, its record would be 40 and 40 and with an equal number of wins and losses, it would truly be a .500 team (half wins and half losses).
I suggest that in truth a team that is 45 and 35 is only 5 games above .500 (which for a team that has played 80 games again would be a 40 and 40 record).
As another example, if a baseball team won all 162 regular season games and had a record of 162 and 0, it could not be 162 games over .500 since an 81 and 81 record after 162 games would be a .500 record.
Thus, if people insist (cuz it makes them feel better about their team) on focusing on the number of wins vs. losses, I suggest that they simply say that their 45 and 35 team has won 10 more games than it has lost.
What do you all say? Am I spreading heresy or do I simply have too much spare time on my hands?
0
Comments
if a team won all its games there would be no need to say it is x amt of games over 500.
SD
Steve
thus your 1/2 and whole game swing.
I think the confusion stems from the original post claiming that it is based upon 162 games when in fact it is based on 81?
SD
<< <i>I suggest that in truth a team that is 45 and 35 is only 5 games above .500 >>
bad logic. basic math tells you 45-35=10 not 5 . sorry