answer is 2

maybe

11/6/2007 4:15:42 PM

2 hard to believe

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 4:15:47 PM

Beardawg locked my similar yet equally ignorant topic


Yet this continues to thrive...

11/6/2007 4:17:52 PM

thats because yours wasnt funny.

11/6/2007 4:18:22 PM

Why don't you bitch about it.

11/6/2007 4:18:29 PM

attn: users under 1000 posts

11/6/2007 4:18:38 PM

what was your topic

11/6/2007 4:20:43 PM

It wasn't funny and should have been deleted, I'm just frustrated with Beardawg's authoritarian stance on what stays and what goes

11/6/2007 4:21:46 PM

So you admit this thread is funny and yours wasn't and you're upset why?

11/6/2007 4:24:07 PM

wow this thread is unbelievable, especially the premise

11/6/2007 4:24:44 PM

Oh come on. It's not that hard to view it in my light.

11/6/2007 4:25:15 PM

i always thought it was dumb how you say "five hundred". ITS NOT 500 its .500. so say either fifty percent or point five. same with batting averages. you're not batting 265 you're batting .265.

so i mean you can't really knock this guy when the whole system is built on improper math grammar to start with.

11/6/2007 4:26:11 PM

Not upset, just realize this thread was funny despite of the original poster, not because of it.

11/6/2007 4:26:49 PM

Quote :

"what was your topic"

11/6/2007 4:27:18 PM

^^^probably because saying "and Ordonez is batting point three three seven" sounds stupid as hell

11/6/2007 4:28:17 PM

^^^And despite the intent of the poster your shitty knockoff fell flat on its face.

11/6/2007 4:28:37 PM

Wow. I just noticed you guys in sports talk really like putting asterisks around your thread titles. Did I not follow proper procedure?

11/6/2007 4:30:39 PM

somehow the threads with asterisks generally do get more views and replies but i think its mainly cause the intent is "official" threads which basically just means "2007-08 Bobcats Thread" or "2007 NASCAR Thread" or "NCSU v UNC Football Thread" or whatever

11/6/2007 4:31:46 PM

Yeah, don't put asterisks on the titles.. we're phasing that out.

11/6/2007 4:32:38 PM

Sweet. Someone pmed me to say they thought I correct but convention states otherwise.

11/6/2007 4:34:36 PM

Like I said before, it wasn't funny and should have been deleted, I'm just frustrated with Beardawg's authoritarian stance on what stays and what goes. Unfunny people shouldn't judge the humor of others.

11/6/2007 4:35:00 PM

^^^^^well just say ordenez is batting about 34 percent

11/6/2007 4:35:22 PM

how bout just say he's batting "three thirty seven"

just seems like an inconsequential gripe

11/6/2007 4:36:07 PM

the "three thirty seven" way is more exact. it's simple and widely accepted and it gives you more accurate information. why change it? in a sport where 162 games are played in the regular season, and most batters get at least 3-5 at-bats per game, you're talking about a lot of trips to the plate. why sacrifice the added accuracy that allows you to distinguish between a hitter batting .344 and one batting .335?

11/6/2007 4:41:40 PM

i'm not talking about changing the way the stats are kept and displayed. i'm talking about the way they are said. of course on the paper or website its still gonna say .337 but to say 337 is just wrong unless somebody gets 337 hits every time they are at bat. this is why the threadmaker was confused. if instead you said they have a winning percentage of point five or point five zero zero it wouldn't be as confusing for people to hear.

you don't need to say the exact number somebody is batting every time they are up.

11/6/2007 4:47:53 PM

Stop hijacking my thread with your crazy baseball nonsense!

11/6/2007 4:47:59 PM

This is Sports Talk, B... Baseball's a sport.

11/6/2007 4:48:58 PM

ha ha at this thread. Sports talk thread of the decade.

11/6/2007 4:49:22 PM

Quote :

"i always thought it was dumb how you say "five hundred". ITS NOT 500 its .500. so say either fifty percent or point five. same with batting averages. you're not batting 265 you're batting .265."

It's called a colloquialism.

11/6/2007 4:58:22 PM

How about they say he's batting 265 one thousandths? I like the sound of that.

11/6/2007 5:00:09 PM

The thing is, the number of games over .500 isn't a fraction issue. It isn't suppose to be reduced down.

So if you are 20-18, its 2 games over .500. Because it is actual games it would take to get back to .500. You don't reduece that down as a fraction, and say it is the same thing as being 10-9. That is called a winning percentage, and winning percentage and games over .500 aren't the same thing, although the tend to give similar information.

So 20/18 doesn't equal 10/9 when saying games above .500.

I can't believe I just responded to this post with a serious answer...

11/6/2007 5:15:38 PM

posting in an epic thread

11/6/2007 5:19:02 PM

I hope we can beat UNC to get back to .500!

11/6/2007 5:21:23 PM

^lawl
Everyone could then agree that State would be zero games over .500

11/6/2007 5:24:08 PM

This is brilliant trolling. Brilliant I tell ya, brilliant!

11/6/2007 5:39:42 PM

in nascar if you are 2 over 500 that means you are in the lead enough points to only fall behind 2 people in a 500 race such as the daytona 500

11/6/2007 6:00:33 PM

Quote :

"^^^^^well just say ordenez is batting about 34 percent"

i'm sure you talk like that

11/6/2007 6:02:52 PM

damn this thread is fucking hilarious, and Howard is trolling you guys balls off real nice

11/6/2007 6:48:57 PM

Quote :

"I posted the rational behind my thinking."

This guy's got it all!

11/6/2007 6:48:57 PM

yeah. hasn't reached fabalus status yet, but he has potential.

11/6/2007 9:45:45 PM

Quote :

""when you say "games above" .500 you're talking about how many losses would put you back at .500""

this is how everyone, and i mean everyone from rednecks, yankees, soap sucking englishmen, and talibanis, use this particular term.

your 'way' will just make you seem like a retard

11/7/2007 1:39:46 PM

Why did you put the word way inside of ''?

11/7/2007 1:47:39 PM

As ridiculous as this thread is (no matter how funny) the core flaw in David's concept is his perception...

You're using the TOTAL number of games that WILL be played at the end of a season to determine whether a team is above or below or at 500. The correct way to determine "500 status" is to only use the number of games already played.

If you still don't get it, then whatever...

11/8/2007 12:27:30 AM

if a team is .500 they have the same number of wins as losses

if you are 5 games over .500, you have 5 more wins than losses

if you are 5 games under .500, you have 5 more losses than wins

can't think of any better way to explain it

11/8/2007 12:38:42 AM

I'm suprised this made it 2 pages.... What more is there to explain???

11/8/2007 1:06:05 AM

Quote :

"The correct way to determine "500 status" is to only use the number of games already played."

Ok, I'll use the number of games already played. Team A and team B have each already played 10 games.

Team A has won 5 games out of 10 played, so they are at .500

Team B has won 7 games out of 10 played.

Team B has won 2 more games than team A who is at .500 so team B is 2 games over .500

11/8/2007 8:24:49 AM

...... this thread is full of lawlz

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 8:40 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 8:39:16 AM

^^you're either trolling or you're a complete idiot

a team thats 7-3 is not 2 games over .500...they are 4 games over .500...its really fucking simple

11/8/2007 10:39:27 AM

What's so idiotic about my reasoning?

11/8/2007 10:43:02 AM

11/8/2007 3:34:03 PM