Started By
Message
re: Games above/below ".500"
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:50 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:50 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
If you’re “one game under .500” and then win a game, you should be now be “at .500.” If you disagree with that, you’re just retarded.
But according to your definition, when you’re “one game under .500” at 0-2 and then you win one game, you’re now 0.5 games under .500.
But I like the troll.
But according to your definition, when you’re “one game under .500” at 0-2 and then you win one game, you’re now 0.5 games under .500.
But I like the troll.
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:52 pm to PerrillouxToTexas
quote:
But according to your definition, when you’re “one game under .500” at 0-2 and then you win one game, you’re now 0.5 games under .500
Half games are exactly how teams are calculated to be games back of the division leader. This is the same concept. You are just comparing against a hypothetical .500 team.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:59 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:03 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Absolutely can’t go for a kill shot and misuse “your”. Come on man.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:05 pm to KAHog
quote:
You are 0-2 in this thread. So I'm one game under .500? Please tell me you’re not this dumb.
At this point, this almost has to be a troll…otherwise, it is actually sad in ways I can’t express.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:03 pm to bigDgator
quote:
You are really starting from 10-10 and adding 10 wins. Or you could start from 20-0 and add 10 losses.
I tried explaining it that way, to no response - but I was less articulate.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:27 pm to AGGIES
How was your explanation any different than anyone else's?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:30 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Even if “.500” were a team that you were ahead of, you still don’t know their record. There is no scenario where your correct on this.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:46 pm to Dallaswho
You don't know how to divide a number of games by 2? That's all you do to find the record of a .500 team. Not that hard. Your not trying hard enough
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:52 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
This is a semantics problem. 20-10 team is 5 games ahead of any team that is sitting at 0.500 regardless if they are 1-1, 15-15, or 30-30.
But when you say over .500, .500 is not a team that will accumulate wins and losses. It is just a milestone that you are holding that singular team against. They are therefore 10 games ahead because they have accumulated a 10 game lead against that milestone.
But when you say over .500, .500 is not a team that will accumulate wins and losses. It is just a milestone that you are holding that singular team against. They are therefore 10 games ahead because they have accumulated a 10 game lead against that milestone.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:40 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Alabama leads the series in football against Arkansas 24-8. How many games in a row does Arkansas need to win to even the series at 24-24? The math equation is actually in the very first sentence. That is the answer to “how many games over .500 is Alabama against Arkansas?”.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:19 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
quote:
Half games are exactly how teams are calculated to be games back of the division leader. This is the same concept. You are just comparing against a hypothetical .500 team.
Half games only come into play when teams haven't played the same number of games. Your hypothetical .500 team has played the same number of games as you.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:21 pm to PerrillouxToTexas
It’s looking like a fascinating topic to troll with
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:23 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
TIL OP doesn't understand baseball standings
Posted on 4/30/24 at 3:41 am to captdalton
quote:
For a 16-0 team to be at .500, you would have to go back 16 games to when they were 0-0.
0/0=0.5
Got it
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:42 am to Mason Dixon Swine
Probably a better way to say it would be at 20-10 you're 133% above .500, but that just sound too clunky.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 8:43 am
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:26 am to ukraine_rebel
What many in this thread seem to not get is I understand what people are saying when they say 20-10 is 10 games over .500. I just think my approach makes more sense and is the better approach.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:19 am to Mason Dixon Swine
quote:
I just think my approach makes more sense
Your approach makes a lot of sense if words don't matter.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:26 am to Mason Dixon Swine
So you want to junk a super simple method that even drunks can see on the screen and know exactly what it means when they hear 5 or 10 or 15 games over .500....
...or so some method that creates a constantly moving target with fractions every other game.
Brilliant.
...or so some method that creates a constantly moving target with fractions every other game.
Brilliant.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:37 am to PeleofAnalytics
Sounds like you want to cater to the lowest common denominator. It's okay to use a formula that makes sense but requires a little more brain power.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News