I don't know shit about sports so someone clarify this for me

If you have won 10 games and lost 8 games are you 1 game over 500 or 2 games over 500.

Thanks.

11/6/2007 2:54:11 PM

Quote :

"I don't know shit about math so someone clarify this for me"

11/6/2007 2:56:16 PM

um, 2?

11/6/2007 2:56:24 PM

.500 means you won and lost the same amount of games

So how ever many more wins than losses you have, thats how many games you are over .500

Jr. High stats ftmfw

11/6/2007 2:57:05 PM

.500 for 18 games is 9 so I figured 10 would be 1 game over 500

11/6/2007 2:59:06 PM

thread of the year?

11/6/2007 3:03:35 PM

holy crap

11/6/2007 3:04:28 PM

Quote :

"Jr. High stats ftmfw"

lmao

11/6/2007 3:04:31 PM

Thats understandable and no offense, I just don't see how someone can be college age or older and not understand the basics of league standings, as most people figure it out by looking at the newspaper when they're 8.

11/6/2007 3:04:32 PM

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 3:04:46 PM

11/6/2007 3:05:13 PM

yay fractions

11/6/2007 3:05:57 PM

I posted the rational behind my thinking.

11/6/2007 3:06:28 PM

lol

ok. at 10-8, it would take 2 losses to put you back at .500...

i just think it's funny you took this question to tww, perhaps the most unforgiving place you could have possibly gone. next time use google or something

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 3:08:54 PM

Quote :

".500 for 18 games is 9 so I figured 10 would be 1 game over 500"

I think you thought about this way too hard.

If you go 8-8 then you are at .500.

then you win 2 more games.

how many over .500 games are you?

11/6/2007 3:10:53 PM

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

11/6/2007 3:11:23 PM

^^ .500 would be 9 so you are 1 game over .500

11/6/2007 3:15:02 PM

Quote :

"i just think it's funny you took this question to tww, perhaps the most unforgiving place you could have possibly gone. next time use google or something"

I enjoy the abuse.

11/6/2007 3:15:33 PM

Quote :

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

11/6/2007 3:16:16 PM

Well thats not very intuitive.

11/6/2007 3:17:55 PM

Have you ever heard of anyone being a half game over .500?

Because half games would happen every odd game in your system.

11/6/2007 3:20:03 PM

dude, the way you're looking at it would be statistically irrelevant. who gives a shit what somebody's record would be if you took their earlier games and hypothetically changed the results? at 10-8, those 18 games have been played so nobody with half a brain would say "well hey if they had lost one of those 10 games that they won, then they'd be at .500", which is basically what they would be saying if things went by your definition of "games over .500"

no. instead, they are talking about how many games they would have to win or lose from this point on to reach .500, which is actually relevant.

that's why 10-8 is 2 games over .500. stop thinking so much about it, it's incredibly simple.

11/6/2007 3:23:07 PM

^^ Maybe I'm just used to hockey, where you can be 1.5 games out of first place.

11/6/2007 3:24:07 PM

I wet myself a little when i read this. Thanks.

11/6/2007 3:25:11 PM

^^LMAO

AHAHAHAHAHA

dude that's FUCKING EVERY SPORT

11/6/2007 3:25:48 PM

Sorry. I don't watch any other sports.

11/6/2007 3:27:30 PM

I thought hockey was the one sport you couldn't be x number of games back since they used a point system of instead of direct won-loss records.

11/6/2007 3:27:43 PM

omg, you can be 1.5 game out of first place, because your opponents may have played a different number of games than you at that point.


You can never, ever be 1/2 game above or below .500

11/6/2007 3:28:21 PM

You have to clarify because a team with 20 points that has played 20 games isn't in good of shape as a team with 19 points that has played 15 games.

11/6/2007 3:28:48 PM

Quote :

"^^ Maybe I'm just used to hockey, where you can be 1.5 games out of first place."

That's if you have played a different number of games that another team.

If you are 10-6 and they are 11-6, you are .5 games back.

11/6/2007 3:28:50 PM

I understand the logic, but I still don't think it's very intuitive.

11/6/2007 3:30:00 PM

Hockey doesn't have games back. In the NHL anyways... Just so you know David:

GB= (difference in losses between 2 teams + difference in wins between 2 teams)/2.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : thats how you compute it tho]

11/6/2007 3:31:32 PM

thats way more complicated than the way 10 other people have already explained it

11/6/2007 3:32:18 PM

You're just overthinking this.

and looking at it from the wrong perspective.

It's perfectly intuitive because once you have a given record, you can't change it. You can only add more wins or losses to a given record.

Talking about games ahead over .500 the way you're looking at it is statistically irrelevant because you cannot change the outcome of games that have already been played. What is statistically relevant is how the outcome of future games will affect how many games you are above or below .500.

11/6/2007 3:32:32 PM

yes, it would be much more intuitive to force people to average out numbers all the time, rather than just add or subtract.

the way it is now is easier, less confusing, and tells you just as much.

11/6/2007 3:34:00 PM

But the actual statistic everyone stating isn't literally number of games over 50% win rate. They statistic being stated is number of losses that would put you back at a 50% win rate.

11/6/2007 3:39:22 PM

jesus david

11/6/2007 3:39:32 PM

I can do poker math. Does that count for anything?

11/6/2007 3:40:33 PM

[Number of games won] - [Number of games lost] = [Number of games over .500]

Just accept it and move on. Or are you one of those guys who insists on being correct in math class until the professor has to throw something at you?

11/6/2007 3:42:21 PM

No, I'll accept it. I just wanted to show the reasoning I had for the original question.

11/6/2007 3:46:52 PM

Quote :

"But the actual statistic everyone stating isn't literally number of games over 50% win rate. They statistic being stated is number of losses that would put you back at a 50% win rate."

Is it not?

Say I'm 5-3. I'm two games over .500. Two is also literally the number of games I am over 50% win rate. Two is also the number of consecutive losses I would need to back at .500.


Its all the same shit. Deal with it.

11/6/2007 3:47:00 PM

Quote :

"thread of the year?"

11/6/2007 3:47:11 PM

Quote :

"Say I'm 5-3. I'm two games over .500. "

Not according to my logic. I think 8 games * .500 = 4 games
5 games - 4 games = 1 game

11/6/2007 3:49:50 PM

Well then obviously one of us is wrong.

11/6/2007 3:51:25 PM

11/6/2007 3:52:19 PM

this has to be a troll, no one can be this retarded

but for the sake of argument

3-3 record, you've played 6 games

3/6= .500, you are AT .500

you win another game

4-3

4/7 = .57

you are one game ABOVE .500. you are not AT .500

11/6/2007 3:52:21 PM

11/6/2007 3:53:53 PM

Quote :

"Not according to my logic"

your logic is flawed

11/6/2007 4:04:09 PM

I don't see your point forte. According to my (apparently flawed) logic you were be 1 game over .500 in your scenario.

11/6/2007 4:10:13 PM

can't believe this is about to go to 2

11/6/2007 4:13:33 PM