Started By
Message
re: Games above/below ".500"
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:47 am to Mason Dixon Swine
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:47 am to Mason Dixon Swine
0
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:52 am to Mason Dixon Swine
quote:
Do you have evidence my maths is wrong?
The problem is more fundamental to the modern understanding of mathematics. Namely, the concept of "infinity" and the paradoxical nature of its use in comprehending sets of numbers.
Imagine a rubber band.
But not just any rubber band – and extraordinary one. In front of it, there is a sign which says, “You can stretch this rubber band infinitely.”
We can interpret this sentence two ways. One is coherent; one is incoherent.
The coherent interpretation is to say, “There is no inherent limitation to the stretching of this rubber band. It will stretch as far as you stretch it.”
The incoherent interpretation is to say, “The rubber band can be stretched ‘until it reaches an infinite size.’” That, at some point, you’ll have completely arrived at an “actually-infinitely stretched rubber band.”
This irrational interpretation is how mathematicians conceive of infinite sets. Instead of thinking, “There is no inherent limitation to the size of set I can create”, they think, “There is such a thing as ‘an actually-infinitely-sized’ set”.
The implication here is that the last century of mathematics has been built on illogical foundations. And so, Mason Dixon Swine, it's not that you're erring in your calculation, it's that the entire premise of the math you're using is flawed.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:35 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
This is really funny, I was having this same discussion last night and found this thread. Made an account to defend OP since I saw how recent the thread is.
Let me start by saying I know 90+% of the baseball world agrees with y'all and not me and OP on this.
But I am of the belief that when discussing a team's record relative to .500, it should only consider the number of games the team has played and how many more wins that team has compared to a hypothetical team with the same number of games played and a .500 record. I think it should look at what you've done so far relative to .500, not what you need to do going forward to be .500 at some arbitrary point in the future. Citing the 16-0 team, a .500 team through 16 games is 8-8. Thus I would say the 16-0 has done better than the 8-8 team by 8 games that they won and the 8-8 team lost. So I'd say they are 8 games over .500. Again, I know that's not how it's defined, but I'd argue mine and OP's way of thinking is more intuitive and reflective of how the team has performed season-to-date.
OP makes a good point about "games back" in this message I'm replying to. If Arkansas is 5-5 and Florida is 4-6, Florida is one full game back of Arkansas. Yet most would say Florida is two games below .500. .500 is just a record. Florida is 1.0 GB of a [team with a] .500 record.
If Florida was 4-5, they'd be a half game back of a [team with a] .500 record. I don't understand why games back and games under .500 don't follow the same methodology.
That's just how I think about it, and I don't really see a logical hole in either thought process. Having to win X games in a row to reach .500 does make sense and is meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than my way. This way just makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with the games back lexicon.
Let me start by saying I know 90+% of the baseball world agrees with y'all and not me and OP on this.
But I am of the belief that when discussing a team's record relative to .500, it should only consider the number of games the team has played and how many more wins that team has compared to a hypothetical team with the same number of games played and a .500 record. I think it should look at what you've done so far relative to .500, not what you need to do going forward to be .500 at some arbitrary point in the future. Citing the 16-0 team, a .500 team through 16 games is 8-8. Thus I would say the 16-0 has done better than the 8-8 team by 8 games that they won and the 8-8 team lost. So I'd say they are 8 games over .500. Again, I know that's not how it's defined, but I'd argue mine and OP's way of thinking is more intuitive and reflective of how the team has performed season-to-date.
OP makes a good point about "games back" in this message I'm replying to. If Arkansas is 5-5 and Florida is 4-6, Florida is one full game back of Arkansas. Yet most would say Florida is two games below .500. .500 is just a record. Florida is 1.0 GB of a [team with a] .500 record.
If Florida was 4-5, they'd be a half game back of a [team with a] .500 record. I don't understand why games back and games under .500 don't follow the same methodology.
That's just how I think about it, and I don't really see a logical hole in either thought process. Having to win X games in a row to reach .500 does make sense and is meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than my way. This way just makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with the games back lexicon.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:26 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
*you're
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:58 pm to UndercoverBuckeye
There is still hope left in the world. Thank you taking the time to contribute. 
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:16 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
This is still going on?
Say you’re 20-10 and 5 games ahead of the 15-15 team. This is correct because they could win 5 games while you lose 5 games and then you’re tied. However, that team is not 0.500 anymore. They are 20-15 just like you.
Because 0.500 is always 0.500 and not another team with varying results, it would take a minimum of 10 games for your 20-10 team to reach 0.500. That is why you’re 10 games over 0.500.
Say you’re 20-10 and 5 games ahead of the 15-15 team. This is correct because they could win 5 games while you lose 5 games and then you’re tied. However, that team is not 0.500 anymore. They are 20-15 just like you.
Because 0.500 is always 0.500 and not another team with varying results, it would take a minimum of 10 games for your 20-10 team to reach 0.500. That is why you’re 10 games over 0.500.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News