re: Games above/below ".500"

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.